movies: how to train your dragon (2025)

The original How to Train Your Dragon movie is one of those movies that is Very Important To Me. So when they announced a live action remake I was slightly dubious. Given the drivel that the Mouse House pumps out.

But then I discovered that it was being directed by one of the two original directors, Dean DeBlois... and I was basically onboard.

Then the trailer came out and I fucking cried. I was all in.

And, I have to say that How to Train Your Dragon absolutely sits comfortably beside it's animated predecessor as a slightly more mature and complex retelling of the original.

And, oh how I cried. I cried during the closing narration for fuck's sake. The bit that is all happy and joyful. But I knew that crying was absolutely going to happen.

It's one of those interesting things where it's very nearly a completely faithful remake, but there are just, as DeBlois said in an interview, "good, subtle, and significant enhancements" to certain elements.

And in some spots that pulls it above the 2010 version, in other spots, it drops it below slightly, and sometimes it does both in the same scene.

First up though... Mason Thames. This entire movie, no pun intended, rides on his back. If he doesn't work, nothing works. He is, without doubt, exceptional in this. He brings all the personality Jay Baruchel brought to animated Hiccup, and fills him with even more emotion than the animators managed.

This version strengthens the relationship between Hiccup and his father Stoic (and nobody else could have been Stoic, so I'm so glad that Gerard Butler returned... the only returning cast member between the two as far as I'm aware). And they definitely give Stoic some more depth, give him moments to just exist in not understanding his child. Things that 2010 got across, but 2025 leans into.

And I wonder how much of that is a 55 year old DeBlois vs a 40 year old DeBlois. Also understanding exactly who all these characters are after three movies with them and coming back and getting to take a fresh crack at them all. 

The viking kids are good overall. Do they suffer ever so slightly from not being voiced by comedians? Slightly. At the same time the roles get expanded during some of the action scenes and they're all well cast. But, honestly, the supporting cast of Snotlout, Fishlegs, Ruffnut and Tuffnut were never my favourite characters in any of the movies.

Which brings us to Astrid. Played by Nico Parker. Firstly, I like that the movie explicitly created a relationship between Astrid and Stoic, even if it's more of a "tell don't show" relationship beyond a couple of small moments. I just feel like Parker was... a little... flat. I dunno how to describe it really. And maybe that's how the character was written... and maybe America Ferrera pulled off a miracle in 2010 by making Astrid more than the sum of her parts. Like I said, I can't put my finger on it. I'd need to see the movie again I think. She's good, don't get me wrong, there's just something that she didn't quite have that Thames had in spades. Maybe this version of Astrid feels harsher at the beginning, so her change feels too abrupt, I don't know.

On the "some changes are both positive and negative" front... making the tribe of vikings be composed of people from various places around the globe who specifically came to hunt dragons... great. Gives us the opportunity to cast people other than just white folks... completely on board.

But it also changes to vibe of the village a little. Instead of being people who have always lived on this little rock sticking out of the ocean and who are too stubborn to go live anywhere else just because there are dragons, now you have people who, potentially, sought out this place because of the dragons. It doesn't change anything explicitly in the movie, but it changes to feel of the place somewhat when I thought about it afterwards.

That may also be because I feel like we spend too much time with the adult characters at the start of the movie. I kind of don't need Snotlout's dad. I don't really need the woman with one leg who has no other personality traits as far I can see. I'm not sure I need the "blink and you'll miss it" scene that may or may not have been Astrid's parents, because they never have a scene with Astrid, so I'm basing that completely on something I read after the movie. It just pads out the start a little too much.

It's a 125 minute movie compared to 2010's 98 minutes. And a good chunk of that is in the final battle scene, but I also feel like the other half of that time is spend on characters that the movie really isn't about. I get the idea that we're expanding the world, I just wanted to get to the good stuff. And by good stuff, I mean Toothless.

The CGI Toothless is excellent. There are times when I felt like perhaps we get slightly less personality from him... but that might be more a case of the lighting and texture and live action of it all. It's been a minute since I've watched the 2010 version (that's absolutely on the docket for tonight's viewing), but it felt like there were certain scenes in that where his expressions had been easier to read because they weren't hidden by 2025's dust and lighting and fog and just being "real". But again I could be making comparisons between a single movie's worth of character vs three movies worth of character.

Because he looks amazing overall.

Speaking of the CGI... there were moments in the first half of the movie where I just kept thinking that nobody in a particular scene was actually outside in the world. Or they were, but that background was definitely not really there. Not that it doesn't look amazing, but there was just something that just pulled me out of it in certain spots.

I also specifically need to call out Lindsay Pugh, the costume designer. She did amazing work... especially on Hiccup's hoodie. I'm slightly obsessed with that particular garment. But everybody looked amazing. I will extend that kudos out to all the art designers and set decorators.

Likewise John Powell, who was the composer for the original three HTTYD movies and returns for this one. I've been listening to the soundtrack while typing this and absolutely love it. I specifically love the Meeting the Queen track for whatever the hell is going on at the start of it. Powell definitely improves on his original score from 2010.

The story, which I love, doesn't really change... not in any meaningful ways... and didn't need to. I still love that there are consequences in these stories. 

If I had to rank them, based on right now of not having seen 2010 in a hot minute... I think 2010 just edges this out. But we're talking a few degrees of separation. And I absolutely need to see 2025 again.

Which is why this also gets the same rating as 2010.

yani's rating: 5 toothless dragons out of 5 

movies: teen wolf - the movie

Before we talk about Teen Wolf: The Movie, a little background.

I'm a huge, unabashed fan of Teen Wolf (the series). I just am. It's melodramatic and often spottily written. It makes narrative leaps that it doesn't always clue the audience into, it's often a camp-tastic mess. And I love it anyway.

I love it for the shirtless boys and for them always swinging for the fences, no matter how well they actually manage to hit the ball. When it's good, it's outstanding... when it's bad, well, it's still watchable if completely insane.

If I had to rank the individual seasons (or technically half-seasons, because there are a lot of those) from the series, it would be, as I said when I finished the series...

6A, 3B, 5, 6B, 3A... and then 1, 2 and 4 is some random interchangeable order. If I'm counting the two split seasons as a whole, then I think the ranking is 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4 maybe. Again, the last three are a little switchable.

Given that, I feel like Teen Wolf: The Movie possibly sits in that pocket between between what I consider the "good series" (3, 5 and 6) and the ones that can more more of a struggle (1, 2 and 4). Because parts of this are very good, other parts make literally no sense for both internal and external reasons.

Let's start with some of the external reasons first. Also, there will be spoilers.

Firstly, I feel like I was in pretty much the right position to enjoy this movie as much as possible, having just rewatched the whole series. Most of the plot points and characters are fresh in my mind and I've seen all of their shenanigans very recently. If you were coming back to this after not having watched the show for seven years, I don't know how you'd fare.

Also, minor point, but the movie does a weird little time hop thing because the actors were already in their mid to late 20's at the end of the series, playing kids just out of high school. The movie premiered seven years after the final season. In the world of the movie, 15 years have gone past. Meaning, technically, the movie takes place in 2032. Or the final season supposedly took place in 2008 (I disagree with this based on phone technology alone). It feels like maybe the movie makes a subtle reference to it being "the near future" via the character of Lydia, but also, it just does not matter and the movie does not care to expand on it. That will be a recurring theme.

The Teen Wolf wiki seems to indicate that the 2008 timeline theory is the correct one, which seems dumb to me.

Secondly, Dylan O'Brien is not in the movie. Clearly, he's a big movie star now, being among the most successful (and, let's be real, one of the best) actors of the core cast, and he decided he didn't want to do this. Whether he just didn't like the part they'd written for him, whether he just had too many other things on his schedule at the time (he had two movies come out in 2022 when this was filming) or what, he's never said as far as I know.

But Stiles is the beating heart of most of the series. And while his absence is felt it also makes sense within the context of both the movie and the last half-season where O'Brien was also mostly absent due to a serious injury.

Thirdly, the original script for this movie absolutely featured the character of Kira, played by Arden Cho. But when Cho was then offered "half the per-episode salary proposed to her three [female series regular cast members] counterparts", she declined to come back, and somebody clearly did a Copy Paste on the script, replacing Kira's name with "Hikari" (played by Amy Workman). Hikari is barely a character, is namechecked only once and the entire character is so VERY clearly Kira.

I'll also be honest, I don't completely understand why they're paying people for a movie based on a "per-epsiode salary" from the series. Maybe there was a clause in their series contracts about a movie, but that just seems shitty and dumb overall. Either pay the actors properly and consistently, or don't just Copy Paste over a character whose actor refuses to show up.

They also put this character ON THE MOVIE POSTER. What are we even doing here?

Also, this is a 160 minute movie. Compare that to a regular 10-12 episode "season arc" of 410-492 minutes. And then trying to cover a series cast of about 15 characters in that movie time means that there are characters who essentially just don't do anything or have any kind of storyline.

Colton Haynes, as Jackson, is basically turned into a comedy sidekick for Holland Roden's Lydia. I also do wonder if he was originally supposed to be Third Wheel to the more compelling story of Lydia and Stiles before O'Brien backed out of the project. It very much feels like they wrote a script quickly after the movie was greenlit (they announced it in September 2021 and started filming in March 2022) and then when people didn't want to return they did a somewhat hasty rewrite.

Dylan Sprayberry and Khylin Rhambo, whose characters were best friends in the series, don't even talk to each other I don't think. They may not even be in a scene together.

But everybody outside of Scott (Tyler Posey), Allison (Crystal Reed) and Derek (Tyler Hoechlin) are woefully under-served by this movie's plot.

And I get it, you want to serve your main couple and the character with the strongest arc/link to the newest "major" character. The downside being, for me, that I was absolutely never a Scallison fan. I was a Scira man (Scott and Kira... also, these ship names are terrible), or, to be fair, I was absolutely a Scisaac (Scott/Isaac non-canonical ship) man, or, in the actual narrative of the show, I was a Allisaac (Allison/Isaac) man. But Daniel Sharman also doesn't show up as Isaac (he also seems to have been busy doing other things) either.

I also get that having him in the movie does complicate the Scallison storyline. But then Kira would also have done that, and the movie was definitely going to throw that in.

The character with the best arc in the movie is absolutely Derek, mostly because of the relationship with his son, Eli, played by a floppy haired Vincent Mattis. Derek has never really been my favourite character, and the show definitely didn't really know what to do with him at times, but I like what they did with him here.

This is kind of the other point where the absence of O'Brien is felt. Because Eli is 100% Stiles coded from top to toe. Because of course the fandom that was Sterek (Stiles/Derek) would be on board for Derek having to deal with his son acting exactly like his non-canonical boyfriend.

Doubly so because the movie never bothers to even mention a mother. For all intents and purposes Derek gave birth to this child via immaculate conception. Or, as I will maintain in my own headcanon, this is Derek and Stiles' son via magical mumbojumbo. At a bare minimum, given that they've been gone from Beacon Hills for 15 years and this kid is 15 years old, then this child was conceived either during or directly after the final season of the show. By a mother who then handed over the child and vanished.

Movie absolutely does not care about Eli's mother or lack of same.

As far as the actual plot goes, bringing back one of the strongest antagonists from Season 3B was an excellent idea. That does slightly fall apart when you also don't bring back Cho. Because she's literally the other narrative half of that season. Bringing back Allison, sure, I get it, given that she died in that season. That's supposedly your main characters first love, the romantic ideal, etc. Except they were always slightly toxic for each other and were better apart, but sure.

The movie also does a thing that the series did entirely too much and gives us a very incestuous friend-group. At this point, Scott had been in a relationship during the series with three of the four major female characters, and kissed the fourth once. So now Malia (Shelley Hennig), who previously had hooked up with Stiles and Scott is now in a fuckbuddy relationship with Deputy Parrish (Ryan Kelley), who previously had a thing with Lydia who also had a thing with Stiles than never completely got started on-screen and has ended off-screen in the intervening years, who was, as previously mention, in some kind of relationship with Malia.

Find some new people to fuck you guys. Seriously. Or, you know, don't... just keep swapping partners when the music stops. Live your lives.

Speaking of fuck. Because this movie was going out via streaming instead of on cable, the folks from Beacon Hills can now swear. Which basically amount to, as IMDB's Parents Guide kindly reports... a "half dozen uses of 'f**k' and 's**t', as well as some other milder swears". Which, honestly, I might not really have even noticed if I'd been watching it alone.

Also, butts. The show itself had a penchant for showing us handsome young men with their shirts off for large chunks of time, and the movie gives us... two female butts and a male butt. The butts in question being Malia, Parrish and Allison. The first two make sense given that it's right before an off-screen sex scene, Allison's feels a little... unnecessary, honestly. Narratively I get it, but also, why are you making Reed show her ass.

It's also almost comedic how little skin Posey shows. And I know why. He's now COVERED in tattoos and clearly they either didn't want to slather him in makeup or he didn't want to sit in the chair for that long. But even at certain points where he should just be wearing shorts, he has a pair of full length running leggings on under them. And a long-sleeve jacket on for pretty the whole time. There is one tiny scene where he pulls up part of his shirt to show a wound, and that's it.

I will also say that there is the tiniest bit of gay-erasure in the movie. While Jackson shows up, his partner of now 16-17 years in the show's timeline, Ethan (Charlie Carver), does not (although is name-checked). However Mason, who is canonically also queer, gets flattened down to essentially "sheriff's deputy" as his only character trait. And there's no reference to either his previous love interest or a new love interest. Boo I say. I like Mason, he was always a good character. He's massively underused in the movie.

Like much of the series though, the movie has plot holes you could drive a truck through. Why does Character X who was supposed to be dead show up again with no explanation? Why did Character Y have that MacGuffin? Has nothing supernatural been happening in this town the last 15 years? Who the hell is Eli's mother? Who, exactly, made the preserved vegetables that production design added to Derek's basement? Does Derek garden now? Or is this the fictitious wife/mother? Why would you not want your mother to know you're back in town and then meet at her house? Did Scott's mother actually become a doctor?

Just a million tiny questions that the movie never bothers to address directly that could very easily have been covered.

Honestly, this should have been a mini-series. Like 3-4 90 minute episodes. So that the whole thing could just breathe and do the business it needed to do and not rush through the story.

Having said literally ALL of that. I didn't hate it. It was massively flawed, yes. Some of it actively does not work or contradicts bits that do. But the bits of it that I liked, I really liked. 

Most of the stuff with Derek and Eli was great. I loved seeing Aaron Hendry back as the Nogitsune (and I didn't realise that he played that role as well as the homicidal orderly in that season of the show originally), he does fantastic work. Likewise just seeing everybody that did come back, even if they're only back for 10 minutes of actual screen time and have almost no lines.

I just enjoy this world, flawed though it absolutely is, and I very much enjoyed getting to spend just a tiny bit more time there, even if it wasn't perfect.

But sadly, I don't give half-scores in my reviews. It's full numbers or it's nothing... so I'm actually going to round-down because of the behind the scenes fuckery that clearly was going on in the production offices.

yani's rating: 2 '1980 robin's egg blue CJ5 Jeeps' out of 5

movies: the wild robot

There are movies that just make me cry. Like, every time I see them.

And a non-zero number of those movies involve Chris Sanders, who is responsible for my favourite Disney movie, Lilo and Stitch as well as previous Dreamworks movies How to Train Your Dragon and The Croods, the former two alongside Dean DuBlois (who directed the later HTTYD movies).

Sanders is also the director and writer of The Wild Robot, based on the book by Peter Brown. And DuBlois acts as Executive Producer for this movie. Did that fact make me tear up at the end of the movie? Yes, yes it did. But honestly, I was a complete mess at that point.

The Wild Robot is the story of a service robot lost in the wilderness who, through a series of incidents, ends up raising a baby goose.

As far as story tropes go, it's some well worn territory. And it hits most of the required beats for the story that you expect.

However, Sanders has such an ability to drill directly into the heart of a story and hit everything just right. You know those moments when you're crying not really from your eyes, but it's coming from your whole chest/torso and your entire body is vibrating because you have all this crying trapped on the inside that needs to be on the outside...

There are at least three times during this movie I was at that point.

Do I have issues with some parts of the story? Sure. Is the beginning a little too much slapstick and people falling down the sides of mountains? Absolutely. Do I often wish in this kind of movie that they would actually just let the "kid character" actually end up looking like everybody else in his species? I do. I have the same issue with Happy Feet honestly... there's not reason the grown up penguin needs to look like the immature version of the character by the end. I understand the why of it, I just don't think it's particularly necessary all the time. Was I expecting a very different ending? Yes. But, I feel like that's a result of the fact that this is based on a book that is the first in a trilogy, and maybe the book itself is leaving the story more open for what comes next.

Also, did I immediately order in the book from the library, even though I know that they're not going to be the same? Yes.

But the important question is, do I actually care about the majority of those problems. No, no I do not.

It's a story about found family, about parents and children but more specifically about mothers and sons... it's a story about love.

This movie also gets... dark. Like dead creatures dark. There is a shot lasting several seconds, I believe, of the decapitated head of a bird. And another of the wing of a dead goose. Creatures die. It's literally a plot point in the movie. And it's handled appropriately. I also appreciate that the movie flirts very, very briefly with the idea of a "female love interest" for the goose and doesn't do anything with it because it's not the point of the story. In fact she never shows up again.

The voice acting is outstanding. With Lupita Nyong'o as the robot, Pedro Pascal as a fox, Kit Connor as the goose... they're all brilliant. And I enjoyed that I didn't actually recognise any of them instantly, which prevents me from being pulled out of the movie momentarily. Speaking of which, I did recognise Bill Nighy as the leader of the geese and Catherine O'Hara as an opossum mother, but Nighy's performance particularly is one of the points where I sobbed. Honestly both of them are great.

Visually the movie is... unlike anything I've seen. I don't even have a name for the style of the animation... it's kind of watercolour, kind of pastels, kind of digital painting, but everything has a loose, stylised, textured look to it in the world, so when you get up close on things it's soft and blurry, but everything still reads. And the characters keep the texture but less of the softness but still fully integrate into the world.

It is stunning. And I cannot recommend this highly enough.

yani's rating: 5 detachable hands out of 5

movies: wish

I feel like I owe Strange World an apology. Because, in that review, I said that it wasn't a real movie.

That was before I watched Wish.

Wish is not a movie.

Wish is what happens when a multinational conglomerate strip-mines nostalgia in order to make a profit. 

Wish is what happens when you give an AI references to previous Disney movies and ask it to write a script. 

Wish is what happens when you utterly fail at a thing.

Wish is ugly, badly written, lifeless, has instantly forgettable songs, no charm or character and is a ham-fisted collection of references to the 100 years of Disney history.

Let's just back up there a second. Yes, I'm describing a Disney movie as UGLY. Because normally even when a movie is terrible or just, you know... m'eh, I at least can say that it looks lovely. Wish is horrible to look at.

Wish is also trying so fucking hard to steal Sleeping Beauty's lunch money that it's embarrassing. I mean, it's literally stealing from everyone, but, visually, it's stealing so much from Sleeping Beauty and just getting it wrong consistently.

Honestly, I could have gotten behind Wish with all the references and nostalgia if they were well done or if the story and songs had been good. They're not. The references are clunky, stupid and desperately out of place, the story makes no sense, and the songs are... nothing. They're empty air, instantly forgettable and painful to listen to.

Nothing about this movie is good. 

Even the villain is ridiculous and so deeply just an uncanny valley version of Chris Pine that I was instantly repulsed every time he was on screen. 

I could rant about this movie for a long time, but, to be honest, it's not worth my time or yours. It either marks the point at which Disney Animation literally jumped the shark and began it's slow but inevitable decline into pumping out trash or will be quickly swept under the rug and never spoken about again.

Everybody involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves. This is an embarrassment to 100 years of Disney history. Do better.

So yes, this is the second Disney movie in a row to get no score out of 5, because this isn't an actual movie.

yani's rating: [vomit emoji] references to better films out of 5

movies: the boy and the heron

It's been just under a decade since the last Studio Ghibli movie by Hayao Miyazaki came out... The Wind Rises... which I never fully reviewed because I fell asleep part way through (I still maintain that was because I was in the early stages of a massive ear infection). Good times.

But that does bring me around, quite nicely, to the new one... The Boy and the Heron... because, I'll be honest, it's been a little over three hours since I got out of the movie, and the whole thing still feels a little bit like an extended fever dream. Whether that was my fever dream or Miyazaki's I'm not entirely sure.

Which, in this case, isn't a bad thing. It's just a very, very, very strange movie. And not really what I was expecting.

Firstly though, as one would fully expect, it is stunningly beautiful. And there is a lot of animation, especially at the beginning, that feels a little different to previous Ghibli and Miyazaki's movies. It does kind of revert to the animation style we all know and love by the end, which I don't have an issue with, but seeing something new definitely caught my eye.

Completely by accident, we went to see the subtitled version rather than the dubbed version (so none of the names on the poster are remotely relevant), but it's not a dialogue heavy movie anyway, which was good.

It's just so incredibly... strange. The official blurb calls is "semi-autobiographical fantasy", but, honestly, when was a Miyazaki movie not semi-autobiographical in some way. And I can very much see the parts that would fit the bill here. But the rest of it, like I said, feels like some sort of bird related fever dream.

Also, a lot of the character motivations are muddy at best. There are certain things that our lead character of Mahito does that I don't completely understand the reasons for, or, I have theories, but the movie doesn't confirm or deny them. Likewise with his aunt who is also his new stepmother (the internet tells me that that's called levirate marriage, but it also doesn't seem to be something that is widely done in modern Japan). But the issue is that... I didn't like his aunt/stepmother very much, she seemed a little odd/pushy, and I actually thought she might be the villain of the piece. Turns out no. But I also wasn't emotionally invested in her when she became important to the plot.

Honestly though, everybody could have done with having a little more motivation and a little more of their character explored.

Favourite character? Kiriko, absolutely.

Also, without spoiling anything... there's a lot of birds in this movie. Like, a lot. Anyone who has issues with birds should be fully warned.

There are also moments that feel very much like they were drawing inspiration or paying homage to some of Miyazaki's previous movies or Ghibli movies in general. But, again, that might just be because he and the studio have a visual style that they stick to, so things just look like My Neighbour Totoro or The Wind Rises or even Ponyo... but the Ghibliness of things like Arrietty also shine through.

Don't get me wrong though, none of this adds up to a bad movie. An incredibly confusing one at times, yes... bad, no. Did it also make me succumb to "just resting my eyes for a few moments" more than once? Absolutely... but they're very slow and hypnotic movies, so that's just a thing that's going to happen. Did it manage to stick the landing, which other Ghibli movies have sometimes failed to do? Yes, it did.

Do I want to see it again? Absolutely. Possibly the dubbed version, because I just want to see how they're different. And maybe just unpack the movie a little more.

yani's rating: 3 pelicans out of 5

movies: elemental

Well, Elemental is...solidly middle of the road. It's not the worst Pixar movie by any means, but it is both very on the nose at times and conversely it did make me tear up by the end.

I will say, that I went into this movie knowing NOTHING. Beyond the fact that it was called Elemental and it was about elemental people. That's it.

It's essentially the first Pixar "rom-com". And I only put that in quotes because it's not the kind of dumb comedy rom-com that seems to exist currently, it's more of a romance with some comedy but also, you know, drama and stakes.

Weirdly, I would have put money on somebody associated with the writing or directing of this movie being second generation Middle Eastern or something similar, because the flame folks in this movie are SO incredibly Middle-Eastern-immigrant coded (down to the music, and a lot of the design in the fire part of town) that it's ridiculous. But, no, turns out it's at least partially based on director Peter Sohn's life as the son of Korean immigrants.

Interestingly, the water people are definitely Caucasian-coded. And we don't see enough of the air/cloud people or the earth/tree/grass people to draw a parallel.

I will say though, that the overall story isn't the greatest. It feels like it keeps picking new plot cards, playing with them for a short amount of time before throwing them away and picking a completely different card and going in another direction. It also feels like it introduces a main character trait at the mid point of the movie when it's never really been explored (I mean, kind of, but not in the way that makes it clear from the jump). Most of it gets paid off, but it's a little all over the place. Essentially, the script could have definitely done with maybe one more draft with a fresh pair of eyes.

I also maintain one of the same things I said after the abysmal Strange World, Disney, can you maybe pay for some therapy for your creators? They clearly have ongoing parental issues. I mean, I know what this story is going for, a story that while not "universal" is something that a lot of people can understand, but at the same time... issues.

And does this movie somewhat copy Zootopia's homework, less from a plot standpoint, but more from a design aesthetic? Absolutely. But that's going to happen when you set a movie in a fantastical city with design elements that lean into a world with a specific theme.

There are also a lot of design choices here that I love. I love the "formal" clothing for the flame folk that is essentially stained glass. I love that the fire people have legs that come to a point at the bottom, because of course flame spreads out as it rises. I love that there is no one look for the earth people. They're basically "dirt plus plants" in some combination, but they range from people with trees growing out of their heads to covered in grass and everything in between. At the same time, it's hard to do creatures made of air, and their shorthand was "cloud", but that's just water vapour, which essentially just makes them a different race of water folk.

As is expected, the effects of the fire and water and cloud are beautiful, there's a whole underwater section that is stunning, but that's only to be expected from a Pixar movie.

Would I have expected that I would get teary at the end based on even the midway point of the movie? No. But they still got me there, which I count as a success.

yani's rating: 3 sparklers out of 5

movies: spider-man - across the spider-verse

I'm still slightly annoyed that I never got the opportunity to see Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse in cinemas. Because I was blown away when I finally saw it.

So, believe me when I say that Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse knocks that first movie completely on it's ass as far as visuals are concerned.

It is not hyperbole to say that legitimately any single still from this movie is an absolute work of art. You could also play this movie with no sound or no dialogue (well, maybe keep the music) and it would not only work, but it would be beautiful to look at.

Also, something something, there will be spoilers of a mild variety.

I can very much track the moment when I realised "oh, this movie is going to be breathtaking"... and that was when the Da Vinci Vulture showed up in Spider Gwen's universe. It's not a spoiler, it literally happens almost at the start of the movie.

But just looking at every single different art style that is blended and merged and overlaid and still feels like a coherent visual theme but at the same time being legitimately different and unique. They did it with the first movie, but that was other styles stepping into the consistent world of Miles' art style. This is taking Miles and the others into multiple different universes and realising that Spider Gwen's universe is water colours (there is a moment when her backgrounds start to run... that is... breathtaking), whereas Miles lives in a halftone dots universe, but it's also the tiny things like the very specific way that Jessica Drew Spiderwoman's eyebrows are drawn, or basically everything about Spider Punk and the total 90's shit show that is Ben Reilly's Scarlet Spider. And that's just the beginning.

I also love that this story is more centered around at first Spider Gwen, then, when we get to Miles and his universe, it's more about the relationship between him and his mother rather than him and his father like the last movie.

It should also be pointed out that I did not know going in that this was the first part of two part story, hence the movie ends with a "To Be Continued" screen. I was not expecting it and that legitimately made me throw up my arms and say "WHAT?!" somewhat louder than I'd intended. Which did get a laugh from the entire row of preteen boys in the back of the theatre.

But as such, it doesn't feel quite right to judge this movie too harshly on it's story, since it's essentially the first half of longer story. It doesn't wrap the story up, it legitimately stops with plot still in motion, things unresolved, tasks still yet to undertake.

Having said that, compared to what we have right now in Across, the story of Into the Spider-Verse is a tighter, more well crafted one. Not least of all because it takes just under two hours to tell a complete story. Across the Spider-Verse is going to take at least four or five hours to tell it's story, taking into account the probably length of the Beyond the Spider-Verse movie to come. Will they work as well when they're combined? I don't know yet. But I do know that they'll never be as tight and concise as Into, just because they can't be.

Also, once again, from someone who never really notices music in movies... the music in this movie is fantastic. Could I point to an actual song and say "I know what that song is without looking it up"? No, no, I could not. But as with Into, the music in Across definitely fits the vibes of the movie.

Everyone does a great job with the voice acting, from Shameik Moore and Hailee Steinfeld as Miles and Gwen respectively, through to Luna Lauren Velez as Rio, Miles' Mom, Karan Soni as Mumbattan Spider-Man, Daniel Kaluuya as Hobie Brown/Spider Punk and Jason Schwartzman doing his very Schwartzman thing as villain Spot.

Visually, this movie gets 42 out of 5. Because, you know... well, actually, if you know, you know. And the story is good, I just don't think it kicks that element out of the park in the same way as Into. So, while they will get the same score, consider this one below Into on the list. I reserve the right to adjust that opinion after Beyond comes out.

It is though, the most visually stunning Spider-Man movie... or possibly just movie, full stop, period... I've seen in a very, very long time.

yani's rating:5 Spider-Persons out of 5

movies: strange world

Let's start out with a little creative exercise. I want you to furrow your brow... like someone has just told you something that makes no sense, or you're trying to read really small text. Okay, now open your mouth slightly, like you've forgotten to close it for about 20 minutes.

Got it? You there? Great. 

Now you know the expression I had on my face for essentially the entire run time of this movie.

Actually, I'm not even sure this qualifies for any of the technical definition of "a movie".

But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Welcome to Disney's Strange World.

I do not know what this is. It is not, however, an actual movie. Because a movie has a plot. And characters with personality and motivation. An actual movie makes me feel something other than "confused".

What this is, is if an AI was given the scripts for every Disney and Pixar movie ever (most specifically Raya and the Last Dragon, Finding Nemo, Onward, Atlantis and Moana) as well as Journey to the Centre of the Earth (all versions), Fantastic Voyage, Inner Space, Flubber and a description of that one dream you had that time when you had a really bad fever and were slightly delirious. And then it shat out this script.

Also. I have said this many times. And I'm saying it again.

Disney. Stop. Just flat out stop.

Stop mistaking "appearing on screen" for "representation". Making a main character "gay" by giving them a highly stereotyped same sex crush (oh, he's got blonde tips, wears pink and a skirt over his pants... groundbreaking), mentioning it at the start of the movie, once during the movie and again at the end while it having absolutely zero effect on that character, their journey or their personality is NOT having a gay character.

You know how you fix that. You send the crush with them on their adventures and those two characters say more than... I don't know... 9 words to each other. They develop a relationship. You know, like existed in Raya before you look all the lesbian out of it.

Or you just, and I can't emphasis this strongly enough, fucking stop.

While we're on the subject.

Having a character show up on one side of the screen for 11 seconds in a wheelchair is not representing disability. Putting a three legged dog in the same movie is even worse because the dog with a disability is on screen longer than the wheelchair woman.

You do get a very, very, very small amount of points for having the physical ethnicity of the characters in the movie match (or thereabouts) the ethnicity of the voice actors portraying them. And by points, I mean "doing the bare minimum".

Speaking of the cast. They deserved a better movie. Wasting Dennis Quaid, Jake Gyllenhall, Gabrielle Union and Lucy Lui on this piece of trash is insulting to all of them. And me as the audience.

The writer/co-director, Qui Nguyen, and director, Don Hall, wrote/directed Raya and the Last Dragon. So, clearly, those "gay pages" from Raya ended up here. Half the characters look like background extras from Raya anyway.

But it's also incredibly clear that this movie had no actual script or story. It has some words. But it's over 100 minutes long, rushes through any set up for story and character in the first ten minutes and somehow rushes through the next 90 minutes without saying anything that Disney hasn't said before or Pixar hasn't made into a masterpiece. And leaves you at the end going "whut?".

Also, Disney, as a company, can you please ensure that your male Animation Department employees have access to mental health care, because they're all very clearly suffering from some unresolved issues with both their fathers, children or both. And writing it into a movie script for the 10th time isn't the same as actual therapy. Or maybe it's time to let some women write and direct. The men clearly need a nap.

And, if you're paying enough attention, the twist in the movie becomes obvious at a certain point. Or if not "obvious", I found myself thinking "well that looks like [blank]" many, many times, and it turns out that, yes, that's because that's exactly what that was.

As an idea, it's fascinating. But it breaks down in so many different ways if you think about it for more than about 11 seconds. And no, I'm not spoiling it. It's the single thing the movie has going for it.

But the movie does not earn the reveal or have me care about the characters in the movie enough that I'm still interested in the movie by that point.

I continued to watch this movie mostly because by that point I needed to know what they thought the pay off for the movie was supposed to be and what they thought a successful resolution was. It is none of those things.

I honestly need a behind the scenes featurette about this movie. I need to know what they thought they were making. Because they failed.

This is a movie based on listening to too many Twitter threads, Tumblr memes and YouTube hot takes. And then failing, fundamentally, to make an actual movie.

This is that Disney movie that you will 100% forget existed. Or that in future will become the subject of many long video essays on YouTube that include the terms "developmental hell" and "plagued with problems from the start"... or even my absolute favourite "started principal production without a finished script".

It's this generations Meet the Robinsons (also written by Hall), Home on the Range, Dinosaur, Oliver and Company or The Black Cauldron. A movie that in about 5 years, if someone mentions it, you'll say "Oh, I totally don't remember that one... are you sure that was Disney?". Or you'll just shake your head and say "nah, never seen it", even if you did.

It's instantly forgettable.

The usual caveats apply. The imagery of the movie is stunning. As always. It's Disney Animation. Of course it's stunning. But it's candy floss and marshmallow... it's empty calories with no substance. None of it made me go "wow" because it's either weird and off-putting images or else I was staring at the movie with a confused look on my face going "but why?".

So, for the first time ever in the history of the blog, I'm introducing a new rating. Which hopefully I will never have to use again, because hopefully I won't encounter something like this again.

This isn't a real movie. It's an exercise in pretty images with nothing behind it.

yani's rating: Whut? electric brussel sprouts out of 5

movies: guillermo del toro's pinocchio

Many times in recent years, two movies that have basically identical premises are released essentially back to back, and there's always a clear winner. 

Bug's Life vs Antz. Armageddon vs Deep Impact. The Prestige vs The Illusionist. Finding Nemo vs Shark Tale. Happy Feet vs Surf’s Up.

And without me saying it, you already know which movie in each of those pairs is the winner. Because it's obvious.

So I don't even need to SEE the other movie (also, fuck Disney's toxic trend of remaking their animated movies in live action, but worse) to know that Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio is the absolute winner in the 2022 Pinocchio Movie Battle.

And sidebar, I don't normally talk about the movie posters over on the right there, I just normally pick the "primary" poster. But this absolute artwork exists, so, yes, I'm picking that one.

This movie is absolutely the most Guillermo del Toro movie imaginable. It's (from what I understand) the longest ever (thus far) stop motion movie, it's based on a piece of children's literature yet is probably not for children. And it features both fascists, World War II and angel/spirit characters that wouldn't be out of place in Hellboy.

It's also very much part of a trilogy with The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth. A fantastical story set against war and fascism.

And it's very, very cleverly done. While the main character is still a wooden boy brought to life by magic, there's no talking, bipedal fox and cat, no Pleasure Island turning boys into donkeys, and several of the characters who are kind of "blink and you'll miss it" are essentially rolled into one.

Plus it has a cast that includes Ewan McGregor as the Cricket, David Bradley as Geppetto, Tilda Swinton as the angels/wood sprites, Ron Perlman as the head fascist, Christoph Waltz as the human fox/circus owner and Cate Blanchett as Spazzatura the monkey who has maybe three fucking lines and mostly just makes noises. And who is quoted as saying that she would have been happy to "play a pencil" in the movie for del Toro.

I mean, story checks out really. 

Oh, and I do also need to shout out del Toro's co-director, Mark Gustafson, who was clearly all about the animation process.

I also did tear up at the end. Because the end is sweet and sad and lovely and... doesn't go where you expect it to go.

Actually that's kind of the movie as a whole... or at least it doesn't go the WAY you expect it to go, even if it covers the same ground. Because the original stories of Pinocchio do a lot more stuff (and include, it seems, a lot more talking animals), most of the current interpretations cover the same three or four dot points.

Tricked into joining the circus, separated from Geppetto, ends up with a bunch of other boys, seeks out his father at sea, giant whale/sea monster, happy ending.

This movie takes those elements and tweaks a number of them just enough.

Having said that...

Pinocchio, the character, voiced by Gregory Mann, is... kind of obnoxious. And I know that's the point at the start of the movie, but he never quite lost that for me, even at the end. Added to that is the fact that although all of the stop motion puppets are stunning, Pinocchio doesn't look like he's made of wood... he looks more like... wax or, honestly, what he probably is, some kind of resin. Specifically his head, and definitely from the back.

And... it's a musical. And the songs are... mostly terrible/forgettable/could have been cut. I mean, definitely anything that doesn't come from Pinocchio being on stage and performing.

Which would probably bring the running time of the movie down, which is also a little bit of an issue. It was a bit too long.

But it's still lovely.

yani's rating: 4 angelic hourglasses out of 5

movies: lightyear

So, fun fact, Lightyear isn't a kid's movie. It's that movie that seems to be a rare beast these days. A family movie. It's not a little kid's movie, even though it seems like it might be. But, then, honestly, when was the last time that a Pixar movie was "for kids".

You want something that's going to hypnotise small children into an hour and a half of shutting the hell up, go to whatever small, yellow, overall wearing fart joke movie is currently showing.

Honestly, I didn't know what to expect from Lightyear. I knew it was "about Buzz Lightyear" and I knew that Chris Evans was playing the titular Buzz. Which was a good choice. Tim Allen is great in the Toy Story movies, but I'm always here for Evans.

And it kind of makes sense that the action figures for a movie would have a slightly off-brand voice.

Without spoiling it too much, because it's basically the opening of the movie, in the universe of "Toy Story", this movie is the movie that Andy went to see in 1995 (presumably a live action movie) which became his favourite movie and inspired his transition from cowboy stuff to space stuff.

I won't lie, that opening nearly got me. All of the feels. From like a dozen words of text.

Also, writer/director Angus MacLane really dotted his I's and crossed his T's in this movie. There's a whole bunch of references to the toy version of Buzz and things from the movies. Again, without giving too much away (because it's the first two minutes of the movie), Lightyear's first words in this movie are the same as Buzz's first words in the first Toy Story movie.

It's also a beautiful looking movie. They've gone for the "Pixar version" of photo real. I mean, you can see it in the poster. And the cat looks like it looks for specific reasons.

It is definitely a Pixar movie though. And it's a sci-fi/drama... it's not a comedy. Just because it's animated, doesn't mean it has to be a dumb comedy. See also, the entirety of Pixar's back catalogue.

Also, let me have a controversial opinion for a second. I'm very quickly approaching being over Taika Waititi. He's fine as a director. I just maybe don't need to see/hear him as an actor anymore. Because, he's only ever himself. And as soon as I hear his voice, it's just so obviously him. And it throws me out of the movie. Add to that the fact that the character is just supposed to be comic relief, but, you know, isn't actually funny and gets annoying really quickly.

And, since we're talking about a Disney/Pixar movie... let's talk about "Disney/Pixar's Gay Problem".

So... we have a gay character in the movie. Cool. However, if they actually self identify as gay in the movie, they have to be a lesbian. And they can have a partner, but that partner can't be a character, have any lines or be a person. And then you have to kill off your gay character. Or have them leave the movie. For a perfectly understandable reason within the movie. But the end result is the same. Dead gay.

It could not be any more a Bury Your Gay trope if it tried.

Is there a single, chaste lesbian kiss? Alleged. I didn't actually notice. Because it's such a non-moment between one person we've known for about five minutes and one person who isn't actually a character.

Disney/Pixar, please note, you don't get any fucking kudos for this. Because, once again, a gay woman of colour's story is only really important if it impacts the story of your white, straight, male protagonist.

You wanna make an actual lesbian character... cool. Make it woman who is actually in more than three minutes of the movie.

Was it one of the great Pixar movies? No. But it's solidly mid-tier.

yani's rating: 3 zurgs out of 5

movies: the sea beast

So... The Sea Beast. Is a movie.

If this was a live action movie, I would say that the costume and set design departments deserve all of the accolades. So, that, for the people who designed the character's outfits, the boats, and every single asset in this movie that wasn't a human face or the titular beast.

Other than that, this movie is, at best, mostly very pretty looking but a hot fucking mess.

It's also a much, much, much shittier version of How To Train Your Dragon. If you took that movie, misunderstood the assignment and tried to switch lanes in the last ten minutes in the most illogical way.

This movie is, perhaps, an abject lesson in why you don't employ a stage musical lyricist as your co-writer in a movie that doesn't have any songs.

And, that sometimes, there might be a reason why you've never been given the opportunity to direct something on your own.

Sorry, Chris Williams, I've very much enjoyed other projects you've been involved with, but I think perhaps it was in spite of your involvement, not because of it.

Because the things that are wrong with this movie are... as follows: 

• The entire script, especially your understanding of how the world you created actually works and your need to put in a last minute reveal that undercuts the previous 100 minutes of movie.
• The performance of your female lead. 
• The design of your titular beast.

Let's start with the last one and work backwards, shall we.

Maybe making a big, red, mostly smooth, featureless creature that looks, at certain points, either like a thumb or a penis, is perhaps NOT where you want to go with that design in a children's movie. I'm doubly annoyed because the concept art for that creature is gorgeous by comparison. And fixes pretty much all of the problems I have with the beast. 

Maybe also understand how underwater air-breathing creatures and their nostrils work. Just a thought. Because I'm like 80% sure that even a sea monster doesn't work that way.

Also, next time (hahaha, what am I saying, like there will ever be a next time, unless Netflix wants to waste some money), don't take Toothless from HTTYD, paint it red, remove the wings, add flippers and call it job done. Or slam the back of a whale onto the front of a seal and then give it a lizard head.

The problem as well is that the beast that we see at the start of the movie is 1000% better designed than the beast that's our "third lead". In fact, every single other beast in this movie is designed better than Red.

And, it's very weird, the little blue weirdo creature, Blue (yeah, this movie and naming things)... I feel like I've seen almost exactly that character in something before. A slightly chubby, voiceless character who eats random things and is just generally weird. I have such a strong sense memory of having seen it in something, but I can't place where or what right now. Maybe, much like this movie, it's a combination of a bunch of different things, all recycled into something "new".

Next, part of the problem with your female lead is the god-awful script. However, the combination of the dialogue and Zaris-Angel Hator's performance makes the character of Maisie come of as so horrible precocious that I never really liked her at any point in the movie. She just comes off as annoying or dumb for the entire movie and so I didn't care about anything she was doing.

Karl Urban does pretty well as the other lead, Jacob, but I do feel like his accent is slightly all over the place throughout the movie.

My favourite character had to be Sarah Sharp, voiced by the wonderful Marianne Jean-Baptiste (who seems like I've seen her in a million things, but I think I mostly know her from a TV show from 20 years ago). If you want to pay someone good to write the script for a spin off movie starring her, I'd be here for it.

Let's move on to the script.

If you've seen How To Train Your Dragon, you've seen the good version of this story. Because, honestly, this movie is mostly that, but without the finesse and talent required to make the story effective and interesting.

It's also a painfully obvious script right up until the point that the movie totally shoots itself in it's own narrative foot.

And because it's bad and because it doesn't make any sense and because it's just most of the plot of a good movie that is twelve years old at this point, I don't actually care about spoiling it. So here we go.

The movie uses the same plot as HTTYD in that there are sea monsters (dragons), and hunters (vikings), and the hunters hunt and kill the sea monsters because the sea monsters attack their ships every time they go out. And also that it gets them a bunch of money, and, maybe, possibly, makes their kingdom a lot of money (it's unclear honestly).

And, of course, the fight has been going on for generations and generations.

Then annoying girl and white blond protagonist man (who, between them make up about one third of Hiccup), encounter The Worst Monster Of Them All (in this instance, Red... in essence, Toothless) and, what do you know, turns out that it's not bad after all. And it's not a mindless beast. It's... dude... it's fucking Toothless. The Sea Beast is 1000% just a shitter, female, bright red version of Toothless. From looks to demeanour, the whole nine yards.

And it seems like the movie is saying "yeah, both sides did bad things, nobody knows how this fight started, maybe it was the monsters, maybe it was the people, nobody can actually say, war is hell"... which is... How To Train Your Dragon. But, you know, not the world idea.

But then, in the last ten or fifteen minutes of the movie, the story takes a hard left into Crazy Town.

Because suddenly, Maisie makes the leap in logic (and it is a leap and it makes no fucking sense), that because the books that tell stories about the monsters attacking humans has the crest of the empire on them, that somehow the king and queen are... making a big conspiracy. Sorry, what the actual fuck movie.

Maybe the books all have the crest of them because they're PRINTED IN THE FUCKING KINGDOM. And even if the empire is printing those books, that doesn't mean that they know anything about how the war started or what the monsters are like. It just means that, in the way of empires everywhere, they will keep conflict going if it suits them. Although it's never made explicitly clear HOW... unless you're just supposed to assume that because the castle is a gold and pearl encrusted nightmare and the king and queen are likewise wearing All The Gold, that somehow killing the monsters make them rich?

At the end of the day... the problem is that the movie presents a (somewhat weak) "both sides are to blame" argument in relation to the plot, but then, without presenting any actual evidence or information or proof, makes a radical leap in (not) logic and suddenly decides that the empire is to blame.

Yep, sorry guys, no. You just ruined your entire movie. Well done.

So, know that the rating I give this movie is based entirely on how pretty a lot of it looks. And... that's it.

yani's rating: 2 dumb but pretty storybooks out of 5

movies: thor - love and thunder

It's been a hot minute since we last went to the movies, but I absolutely wanted to go and see Thor: Love and Thunder on the big screen. 

And not just because Chris Hemsworth shows his butt in this one. It is a nice butt though.

This movie definitely went places I wasn't expecting. Good places for the most part.

Let me get this out of the way first off, because I talk about all the good things in this movie.

I could absolutely have done with at least 15-20% less of the Taika Waititi-ness in this movie. Especially a lot of the overly cringe humour at the start of the movie. And, sorry, but I needed one to two short cameos from the character of Korg, voiced by Waititi, not to have him be in, essentially, the entire movie. 

He was funny in small doses, but as a constant presence, he's very grating. Keep the narration though, the narration is probably his best dialogue, even though, for the most part, it's fairly unnecessary.

That was part of the problem in general, there were a lot of "Hey, hey, hey, you remember that really smart or funny thing we did in the last movie? Well, what if we did it AGAIN, basically the same, but just added MORE of it? Would that be good, would you like that". And, for the most part, the answer is "No, not really".

Waititi wrote this script with Jennifer Kaytin Robinson, and, I feel like it shows. There are parts of this movie that are 100% Waititi... and then there are parts of this movie that I would have to say, by contrast, are all Robinson. Honestly, I like the Robinson parts much more.

I also, kinda didn't need the Guardians of the Galaxy cameo at the beginning. Partially because it was so full of the cringy humour I previously mentioned. Also, because I'm kind of over Chris Pratt in general. And he looked weird in this movie. Shlubbier. I don't know how else to describe it, other than to say that he looked like he was being played by a Chris Pratt impersonator. And not a great one either.

If they had dumped a lot of the cringy, pointless and, mostly unfunny "comedy" in the first part, then maybe they could have put more energy and attention into the part of the story that was actually important. The relationship between Thor (Hemsworth) and Dr Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). With, you know, 15-20% less of the TV sitcom "my ex and my other ex are now a couple" of it all.

I like Thor being slightly dumb. I don't know that I like Thor being THIS dumb.

It would also have meant we could have had a little more Tessa Thompson. Because she's always amazing, but she kind of got the sidekick who's not the comedic sidekick edit. Which, also, knowing what we know about the character of Valkyrie is very much the Gay Best Friend trope.

Also... didn't they promise... way back when they first announced this movie that they were going to let her gay it up properly in this one? Yeah, that didn't fucking happen either. To the surprising of exactly nobody. 

Moving on to the good things.

Despite my quibbles, I liked a lot of this movie. 

I really liked seeing Portman back. But then, I just generally like Natalie Portman. Seeing her get to kick ass, take names and be a big old superhero this time around was great.

I'm very, very tangentially aware of the plotline from The Mighty Thor comic books, where Jane Foster takes up Mjölnir and becomes a female version of Thor. And, limited spoilers for both the movie and the comic book series, has cancer. But that's literally all I knew.

Honestly, that's pretty much about as far as the movie dives into it. Not quite, but almost.

And she looked great in the outfit. With her... muscle suit? I couldn't tell, but I assume, if they can give Hemsworth a giant gut in the previous Avengers movie, then giving Portman a set of buff arms and shoulders wouldn't be that hard. Or else, you know, they pulled some Reverse Captain America CGI on her.

The one thing I didn't really dig was the helmet. I kinda assume it was a completely CGI helmet, it just sat on her face strangely. And it made her NOT look like Natalie Portman somehow. It was weird.

I will say, that for most of the movie, Thor is possibly the least interesting character. But there are moments when the script actually allows him to take things more seriously that he becomes the character that I love. Hemsworth is good though. And he and Portman have good chemistry.

Let's talk about Christian Bale for a moment. Until last night, because I've stopped watching any trailers for movies I actually care about, I had no idea he was even in this movie. And boy is he IN this movie.

Well, it would be more accurate to say that he's in the part of this movie that Robinson wrote. He also disappears for large chunks of this movie so that it can do bad comedy.

The character he plays, The God Butcher (or Gorr... although honestly, I don't actually know how anybody knew that other name, if the movie mentioned it, I don't remember), has, for most of the movie, the same issue that I've felt with most of the Marvel villains and definitely with the Thor villains, with the possible exception of Hel. Because Hel was great.

He's... mostly ineffectual. He doesn't REALLY feel like a threat.

The design of the character is cool, Bale puts in a great performance, and yes, he kills a bunch of gods... off-screen. And then fails to kill Thor for the remainder of the movie. Also, you know, something something plot... something something manipulating him not killing him. But still.

And I worked out what his arc was probably going to be about a third of the way into the movie. With the exception of one piece of information I didn't have at the time, I was basically right.

What I will say is that the sequence in the Shadow Realm is possibly the best overall sequence in the whole movie. Because, who knew that a modern Marvel movie in black and white was a thing that I wanted/needed. But it absolutely was. And given that Thor movies made by Waititi are made of technicolour psychedelic rainbows (albeit very beautiful ones), it was a nice contrast.

Honestly, for me, the best parts of the movie in general are from the Shadow Realm onwards.

Well, that and the visit to the Omnipotent City. Once I got over the shock of seeing Russell Crowe pretending to be Greek, but not pretending to have gotten old and chonky. 

Of course that scene also contained both Thor's naked ass as well as the two, delightfully named, Zeus Pretty Boys... Josh Heuston and Adam Todd... who are both very much unspeaking background actors but also very pretty. 

The whole scene was the right kind of comedic (for the most part).

Breaking down this plot in my head now... there's actually not very much to it. And once again, that's partly because they waste so much time at the start of the movie just being "funny".

What I didn't expect was that the scene in the movie that I found the most emotionally effecting would include... mild spoilers... Thor marshalling a bunch of kids to fight a bunch of shadow monsters. And, most especially, one small girl and a stuffed rabbit.

As I said at the beginning though, the end of this movie surprised me. Not completely, like I said, I'd mostly worked out where the villain's story was going, but I wasn't expecting the reveal of the true meaning of the title of the movie. And the final, final post credit scene... yeah, that one got me.

If I had to rank the Thor movies, I think this would come in a solid second place. With Ragnarok in first place (or at least, from my memory of it), the original movie in Third and Dark World in a dark and gritty fourth.

All in all though, an enjoyable time, when it got out of it's own way.

yani's rating: 4 thunder bunnies out of 5

movies: everything everywhere all at once

I'm not sure I've ever done this is a review before. And if I have, it wouldn't have been very often.

But, stop reading this. Right now. And instead, go and watch Everything Everywhere All At Once. Find somewhere it's playing in theatres, look it up on stream services. 

Just go and watch it. Immediately. Consider that the short version of my review.

Okay, so now it should just be those of us who have seen the movie left. 

Hi, how you doing? Good? Excellent. Let's get into it, shall we.

First off. Holy fucking shit. This movie is absolutely amazing.

The delightfully named duo of writer/directors, the Daniels (Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert) have absolutely hit it out of the park with this movie.

I love Michelle Yeoh at the best of times, but the role of Evelyn Wang is quite possibly the best performance (performances?) she's ever given in a movie.

In fact, this movie is filled with outstanding performances... Ke Huy Quan (as Waymond Wang), yes, Data from Goonies and Short Round from the second Indiana Jones movies... I did freak out slightly when I realised who he was, who manages to match Yeoh beat for beat throughout the story, Stephanie Hsu (as their daughter Joy) who absolutely crushes everything she's given and Jamie Lee Curtis (as a very dowdy IRS agent) who is chewing ALL of the scenery in the best possible way... not to mention James Hong (as Evelyn's dad) aka Po's Dad from Kung Fu Panda and... basically 450 other projects... who is just a treasure, and still acting in his 90's.

Honestly, though, even the small roles are excellent. And I want to specifically call out Tallie Medel as Becky, Harry Shum Jr as Chad and Jenny Slate as... Dog Mom. Plus a number of the stunt performers from Shang Chi.

The only... microscopically minor complaint I have is that I wish they'd used some of those additional characters in the same way that they used the main cast. Repeated them in different contexts. I get why they didn't... but for me it would have tied things together a little more. But, honestly, it's barely even a complaint, it's more that it would have been an additional bonus.

The place where this movie shines... no, wait... this movie doesn't shine. This movie fucking GLOWS. The place where it glows the brightest is the script. This is a smart movie. This is a layered movie. This is a simple story masquerading as a complex idea. And it's a complex idea presented as a simple story.

It's one of those movies that you watch for the first time and pretty much need to just sit and go... "well... fuck" for about a week and just let it wash over you. And then watch it again. And every time you watch it, you'll pick out some other tiny detail you hadn't noticed before. Or you'll get a reference you didn't get before. Or just soak in the sheer brilliance of this movie.

There are already tiny facts I didn't pick up the first time through that I've seen mentioned in other places. And yes, of course I immediately smacked my forehead and went "of fucking course!".

What's interesting is that this movie is, at it's core, how you do the core story in Turning Red correctly. That movie did not stick the landing at all. It went in entirely the wrong direction, for me at least. This movie is that exact same story (more or less). But done right. Yes, of course, the two audiences are completely different. It's still basically the same kind of story, set within the same cultural framework.

It's just very hard for me not to compare them in my head (even discounting the fact that James Hong is in both movies).

Putting that to one side, one of the things that I love most about this movie is that it makes small references and you chuckle and think "oh that's silly" or "what the fuck is this now?" and then the Daniels bring that small thing back later in a way that's emotionally significant or ties into the core of the movie and it's themes or is the conclusion and expansion of a throwaway joke you never expected them to turn into a full-on part of the movie.

It's also very weird to say that one of the most emotional and impactful parts of character development in this movie occurs between two rocks at the top of the cliff. But it's true.

Also, the other major one involves googly eyes.

That's the thing about this movie, the attention to detail. I specifically want to shout out production designer, Jason Kisvarday, art director, Amelia Brooke, set decorator, Kelsi Ephraim and costume designer, Shirley Kurata. And, honestly, the entire art department and hair, make-up and costume departments. 

Because everything (everywhere, all at once... sorry, I couldn't resist) about this movie is beautiful and specific and everything about the world feels thought out and placed with purpose and intent. And, like the story, things are layered into the background (or, honestly, the foreground) in ways that you don't expect to be relevant later... but holy fuck, they absolutely are.

Also, Kurata... I feel like after this movie, there should be directors breaking down your door (metaphorically speaking) to get you to be the costume designer on their movies. The costumes in this movie... are... art. And they're also completely mundane, when they need to be mundane. And, in one specific case, they're one of the most beautiful champagne coloured gowns (by Elie Saab) I've ever seen, worn by Yeoh.

But there are a set of costumes on one particular character that are just... not only the absolute most and entirely to much, but at the same time are complete and total perfection and help inform the character in such a beautiful and appropriate way.

This movie has a lot of practical effects. Not least of all because there were only seven people, plus the directors, doing the VFX. And none of them were trained in VFX. But they use the effects they do have wonderfully, and do a lot of in-camera effects or prosthetics and save their CG for times when they absolutely need it to be CG.

Coming back around, the thing that makes this movie exception is that it's a beautiful, simple story about a family, told in a meaningful way... against a backdrop that happens to be completely bananas.

And it made me cry. Significantly.

Also, if you haven't seen this movie and you didn't stop reading when I told you to, it's all your own fault (even though, obviously, I don't do spoilers, or at least not major ones)... but absolutely go and watch it now.

yani's rating: 5 googly eyes out of 5

movies: turning red

So... Turning Red is... fine.

The animation is lovely. The big furry red panda is sufficiently floofy, and I did get distracted more than once by close up shots of knitted textures. Because it just looks fucking amazing. As do pretty much all modern Pixar and Disney movies.

And I also need to say that I didn't hate the movie. It didn't infuriate me to the point of apoplexy like, for example, Soul. This won't be a long giant rant. The movie was, overall, fine.

It just isn't for me.

Which is perfectly valid.

I'm also not sure who the intended audience of this movie is. Yes, yes, yes... clearly the intended audience is 11-14 year old girls. 

But to me, this movie feels focused in a way no other Pixar movie has been so narrowly focused. At it's core, I would suggest that this movie is actually for the 13 year old versions of the women who wrote and directed it. Because this movie is the most on-the-nose metaphor for teenage girls and puberty I've ever seen.

I hope it works for the people it's being aimed at. I hope the movie works for people in general. I'm just not one of those people.

It's good to see Pixar not just doing the same old same old... in a world of Disney remakes, sequels nobody wants or asked for, weaponised nostalgia and the like, it's good to see them taking a chance on a different kind of movie, giving different kinds of storytellers the opportunity to flex and tell their stories.

But the downside of that is movies that may not be universal and speak to everyone. I mean, maybe you get lucky and they are that thing. But sometimes you won't. And that's okay too.

My main issue with this movie is that I didn't actually LIKE any of the characters. Except maybe Priya. Because Priya has no fucks to give, and will also very definitely grow up to become a lesbian. But I disliked the main character quite a bit. Which is bad... because she's your main character.

I literally spent the first... twenty minutes of this movie staring at it with a raised eyebrow because the overwhelming emotion being inspired the movie was "WTF is happening and who the fuck are these people". And I realised that I needed to consciously lower my eyebrow before my face seized up.

Storywise it feels like it's pretty well worn territory, and it's a storyline that, personally, infuriates the living fuck out of me. Not because it's a bad storyline, but because it's at the same time both a well worn trope that I'm kind of sick of, but also a shitty real-life scenario that I don't really want to see in my media because it makes me mad.

And that's "immigrant family puts overly harsh expectations on child from that family and cause stress to the child as a result", combined with "if you people just had a real conversation we wouldn't be here". And with a little "repressing young women's sexuality" thrown in as a garnish.

Again, not BAD. Fairly realistic, relatively speaking, it's definitely an experience that people have had, but also not something I'm interested in watching. Because I just want to slap the people involved. Maybe it's also because it's a trope that gets trotted out in a lot of gay media as well... replacing "immigrant" with "straight". So, it's, as the kids say, somewhat triggering. But in a way that just turns me off and distances me from the story.

Also, for me, there's a bunch of ideas here that only get partially explored. I suspect some of that is probably because parts of the story are based on the real life experiences of the women who wrote and directed it, and that's their lived experience. But parts of this story seem... superfluous. Or not well explored. In a way that I'm not used to seeing from a Pixar movie. 

Generally if something is in a Pixar movie, it's there for a clear reason. It has definitive set up and pay off. This movie has that... but things don't get set up and paid off in ways that work for me. Like I said before though, that's potentially the cost of telling different types of stories.

But at the end of the day, I recognise that this movie isn't aimed at me, it's not a story that I have an affinity with and, therefore, it's not FOR me. And that's fine. A movie designed for 13 year old girls doesn't actually need to appeal to a man in his late 40's.

yani's rating: 2 boy bands out of 5

movies: spider-man - no way home

Have I mentioned how much I love Tom Holland? He's a delightful, cinnamon roll of a human... and I adore him. He's a mess and I love him for it. 

So, it's slightly disappointing that Spider-Man: No Way Home is the first of his Spider-Man movies that I've had an opportunity to review anywhere near the time it came out.

I left a very brief review of the first two in my New Years 2021 post, but I'd call that more of a passing mention than an actual review.

Know, though, that my love for Tom Holland and his portrayal of Spider-Man is deep and abiding. See also, my love for his butt in that spider-suit. And a shout-out to however made the decision to put him in his boxer shorts once again in this movie... for an extended period of time.

No Way Home feels like a natural end, as well as a beginning. It sits perfectly as the end of the "Home" trilogy (Homecoming and Far From Home), and by the end, Peter Parker is out of high school and in the world.

And it could equally be the end of Holland's run as our friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man or it could be the start of a new series of movies for him. Both scenarios work equally well. Don't get me wrong, I would very much like for him to continue in the role, but if you were going to stop, this would be the time to do it.

Before we get into too much spoiler territory (although, really, does anyone not know at least the major plot reveal in this movie at this point?), the fact that they were able to get all of the people in this movie IN this movie is testament to both the stupidly deep pockets that Marvel/Disney have and, seemingly, the amount of goodwill they've generated in the MCU in order to entice people back to be in this movie.

Which is impressive.

Also, the second half of this movie is... amazing. It's everything that was good and fun and heartfelt about the entire Spider-Franchise, going all the way back to 2002 and the original Tobey Maguire movie. I'll get into that in a second though.

I just need to say first up that if the second half of the movie wasn't as strong as it is, I could easily throw this whole movie on the "urgh, they fucked it all up" pile... you know, like the third Tobey Maguire movie and the second Andrew Garfield movie.

Because I hate a lot of the first half of this movie. For very specific reasons. I honestly didn't need the very shouty J. Jonah Jameson in this iteration of Spider-Man. I barely cared about him in the Maguire version. And when he popped up at the end of Far From Home, I think I rolled my eyes so hard that I saw my own brain.

Also, how does anyone actually believe anything that Mysterio said in the last movie? Why hasn't he been completely discredited as a former special effects technician who stole Stark technology and wrecked up several European cities pretending to be a hero? Why didn't that happen? SHIELD? I know you were probably busy with, you know, the half of all humanity who got dusted coming back to life and, also, seemingly, things involving aliens, but you couldn't put out a press release or something? Anything?

And why does everyone instantly believe that Spider-Man is a bad guy? He was part of the Avengers, he saved the fucking world, he stood against Thanos when it counted.

Jameson works when Spider-Man exists as the only superhero in his universe. Or comic book title. Or whatever. When Spider-Man is just doing Spider-Man things, Jameson trying to turn New York against him kinda works. It absolutely doesn't work in a world where Spider-Man is part of a wider group of superheroes. Because, sorry, you're cranky about Spider-Man doing a thing when the Avengers (by which I mean mostly Tony Stark) have blown up New York every 18 months or so for the last few years.

Makes no damn sense.

So the starting point already doesn't work for me. But that needs to have happened in order for the inciting incident of the movie to happen... 

And then, Holland's Peter Parker makes... all the wrong decisions. Yes, I realise that if he makes the smart choices then we don't have a movie and we don't necessarily get the second half of this movie... but still, it was infuriating to watch him make the dumb choices. Also, yes, yes, yes... empathy, etc, etc... but a lot of the first half of this movie is just frustrating.

Apologies to Jacob Batalon, but I still need to amount of Ned in these movies to be much closer to 0% than it currently is. Likewise Tony Revolori... his Flash is... essentially pointless, especially in this movie. See also, Jon Favreau and all of the Happy Hogan scenes. In a two and a half hour movie, think about if you REALLY need this scene in the movie.

There are basically a number of scenes in the first half of this movie that could have been left on the cutting room floor, mostly a lot of the cringy school stuff... because, I'm sorry, I don't what kind of shitty teacher you are, I don't think you're allowed to accuse your student of murder without at least a little bit of proof.

And as much as I love that they got five different villains from the Spider-Man franchise in this movie, when two of them are entirely CGI versions of the characters and one of them barely factors into the plot of the movie at all, you have to ask... did you really need them? It's fine, it makes sense, they got major villains from all three Maguire movies and both Garfield movies, so if you were missing one of them it would probably stand out.

Plus, Willem Dafoe only seems to have two speeds, Indy Grumpy or Over The Top Scenery Chewing, and he's definitely doing the latter here. It was a bit much in the original movie, and it feels even more overblown here. It's not bad... it's just... a different level. And, you know, maybe that works with the theme and context of this movie.

But, full spoiler warning here, the point at which this movie really becomes what it is and becomes memorable and manages to make movies that are between 7 and 19 years old so much better, is when the aforementioned two previous instances of Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire show up as the Spider-Man from their part of the multiverse. In the most tonally perfect ways possible.

Because it's clear that the two of them have great affection for the character and for Holland's version and just the time they spent as everyone's favourite wall-crawler. And it comes through on screen. From them referencing moments their characters went through and having this movie pay those moments off in ways that are genuinely moving... to them being involved in shaping the story of what happened to those characters after we no longer were watching them... to some of my favourite moments being improvised by the actors on set.

And they clearly got along and liked each other. That completely shines through the screen.

It must be a weird situation to be in. You were well known at one point in your acting career as this one character, and then at a certain point, a new guy comes along and takes over and they throw your version of the character away and start again. And maybe you left under positive circumstances and maybe you left with bad feelings about the whole experience, but now you get to reprise that character, alongside two other actors who have been through a very similar experience to you... 

It must be weird, but it also much be really lovely, because all three actors seem like they're nice guys.

So, yes, you could get to the second half of this movie in different ways... and you might still get the same feeling... but, as much as I was not feeling the first half of this movie, if I need to sit through he first half in order to get the second half that we got... I can live with that. And, you know, maybe when I rewatch this movie, I'll just start it at the point that it gets good for me.

I don't want to finish this review without mentioning Holland's MJ, Zendaya. Due to the amount of characters in the movie, they don't give her that much to do, although the scene where she and Batalon meet Garfield is a standout... but the chemistry she has with Holland is evident on screen. And yes, part of that is because they were either already a couple or on their way to being a couple in real life. But like with a number of other movies where the two leads were romantically involved, you can feel it on screen.

As I mentioned at the start of this... I also like... well, like is a funny way of phrasing it... but the way that the movie ends is honestly the right way for it to have ended in my opinion. And I'm excited to see what they do next if Holland chooses to stay on for future movies.

Oh, and chef's kiss for the Tom Hardy post credit scene... I had been thinking about him all movie long, and they held off and used him in just the right way.

yani's rating: 3 magic spells out of 5