Willscrlt Reviews

Lightyear (2022)

Fun fci-fi adventure the whole family can enjoy

[10/10 · 4 August 2022]

If you like family-safe science fiction, then give the negative reviews a pass, and judge this for yourself. A few scenes might be scary for really young viewers, but otherwise, it's just good fun.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable science fiction adventure. Anybody who went expecting it to be Toy Story may be understandably disappointed. This is not a story about toys, but a story about people who work and live in space and defend it. It is about learning to forgive oneself and others for mistakes, and never saying die when things get all fouled up.

As the opening mentions, this is a movie that inspired an action figure that became a toy that Andy played with in Toy Story. For people who think that there's something wrong with that, think about all the "baby Yoda" merchandise that was based off of the Mandalorian TV series.

Unlike star wars, this was truly a science fiction adventure. Straight science fiction, not science fiction fantasy, and not just fantasy. Maybe because of the Pixar name, people expected it to be more of a fantasy. Talking toys, funny little green space aliens, and all the rest are not things that you will find in this movie. What you will find is characters that grow and improve throughout the course of the movie (albeit the growth rate is rather uneven, and some characters "change" more than "grow"). They're also some healthy morals, some good role models, sprinkles of humor, plenty of slapstick, occasional references to video games and other pop culture items, and a great score.

The level of action in the movie is pretty constant, though there are some scientific explanations that do cause it to lag, but that is also necessary since it is pure science fiction and not science fantasy. If the ships just worked without any reasonable explanation, it would be a fantasy. I think they did a good job of making the science relatable to their target age group.

I do not understand all the controversy this movie had love it against it during its pre-publicity. There's nothing overtly offending unless you're offended by human beings living a normal healthy loving life. Even so, it's really not in your face, and many people might even miss it because it is played for zero shock value. It's just a fact of life in this story. The same as it is in any of the modern Star Trek series or in The Orville.

Be sure to watch clear after the castle credits, because there are three mini segments scattered throughout and following the end credits.

Not truly a 10, but probably an 8. The extra two stars are simply to offset all the inexplicable negativity in the other reviews.

A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

Best adaptation yet, amazing visuals, good movie

[9/10 · 19 March 2020]

First and foremost, this is a very good movie. What it is not is a direct retelling of the story. It's a story about family, love, and self empowerment with parts of the original story woven throughout. If you can keep that in mind as you watch this movie, I think you'll enjoy it. I did. It's been a long time since I read the books, but I read all of them (and the related Austins books). As such, I can't remember more than a few scenes from the book, let alone the specific details. But there was enough of the original story "enfolded" within the movie that it feels close enough to be easily recognizable. Is it a "perfect" movie? No. But it's the best adaptation of the books that I've seen yet. Very well done. And the beautiful visuals are stunning. The acting is (generally) good to great (some of the supporting characters are too one dimensional to be really believable, but they are really only there to serve as instantly recognizable stereotypes anyway). But the leads all mail it. The thing you have to understand is that this movie is loosely based on the book, but it's also it's own story, and it does as very good job telling that story. It's a story about how important love is in a world where hatred, picture perfect consumerism, and general nastiness runs rampant. Maybe if we take the movie's lesson to heart, we won't have to travel to the ends of the universe to figure it out. If you're looking for a positive, visually glorious, slightly perilous (it made my youngest grab for my hand in a few places), and thoroughly entertaining escape for 110 minutes, then this might be a good movie for your to watch. But, if all you want to do is compare it to the book or bash on Oprah, then you won't enjoy this and you'll leave toxic reviews like so many other people have done. People who chose to spread darkness instead of celebrating a movie that strives to bring light, good lessons, and fun to the world.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Brilliantly fun, somewhat mad, generally uplifting adventure with Burton's signature touches

[10/10 · 5 March 2010]

This was a fun and exciting movie, and it was excellent in IMAX 3D. If you are expecting the original Disney animated feature, there are a few very well done nods to it, but overall, this is a grown-up adventure fitting a grown-up Alice. There is lots of eye candy (and I mean that in a good way) for both adults and children, but many of the scenes are too intense, disturbing, or scary for younger viewers—especially without adult supervision.

Aside from several "gloomy" sets, and two disturbing ones (involving beheadings and decapitated heads), Tim Burton seems to have finally left behind his juvenile fascination with the grotesque, heavy Gothic influences, and dark humor. Perhaps it was a positive influence from Disney, but the movie had an overall uplifting feel to it, despite many side trips through dark places. I hope that Burton will continue to "lighten up" in his future works, while maintaining his wonderful sense of style, surprise, and hyper-reality.

Mia Wasikowska was a brilliant casting choice. Her character development from a dazed and confused innocent (almost annoyingly so) to her final state of mind was very well performed. She is a beautiful actress, and does a fantastic job—very believable.

Johnny Depp was terrific—as always. His accents and mannerisms were zany, but avoided the creepiness of his Willy Wonka performance. Bear in mind that mercury poisoning was an occupational hazard of hatters in that period, and that tended to drive many of them quite insane. Depp's Hatter shifts between reality and altered reality masterfully, and the character is quite cunning and intelligent despite his madness.

I finally liked Helena Bonham Carter in a role. Often, I feel her performances go over the top (in a bad way), but here she portrayed a different form of madness from the Hatter—a madness any powerful and wealthy person could find themselves in. Surrounded by sycophants and toadies, the Red Queen came across nearly as much of a victim as she did the primary villain. I almost felt sorry for her at the end. Almost.

Anne Hathaway did a wonderful job (as always) in a role that was pretty, yet mildly disturbing. It reminded me a bit of the ugly side of high fashion crossed with the beauty of a dark winter's night. The contrast between light and dark, etherealness, and beauty and blandness were very well captured in both the scenery and costuming, but especially in Hathaway's performance. Her performance was very different from the other characters I've seen her portray, especially Mia in the Princess Diaries.

Crispin Glover was creepy and came off a bit as a fetishist. In other words, his performance was typical of others I've seen him give. In a way, he was a straight man to Carter's outlandishness, or the canvas that gives the painting its form. For that, he did a good job, despite being creepy.

I did not even know that Alan Rickman was cast in the movie, but as soon as the Caterpillar started speaking, I recognized the actor's very distinctive voice. I think Rickman did well in the role, but I kept picturing Professor Snape from Harry Potter talking and sneering. The Caterpillar's final speaking scene in the movie was the best. Rickman stretched his voice in different ways, and I finally heard the Caterpillar as himself.

The Cheshire Cat, voiced by Stephen Fry, was probably my favorite non- human character, but all of the animals and creatures were quite well done. The White Rabbit, voiced by Michael Sheen, was terrific as well.

This was my first time seeing a movie in IMAX 3-D. Frankly, 3-D movies in the past never have impressed me much, and usually gave me headaches. However, I think this movie actually was improved by the 3-D environment. Instead of being strung-together in-my-face effects for the sake of effects, this movie used the environment (including the huge IMAX screen) to fully engulf and involve me in the movie. Things all around the screen moved in very realistic ways. The story really came to life. No headache, either.

In summary, if you are looking for an entertaining movie that the tweens, teens, and adults will enjoy, this is probably it. If you are looking for blood and gore, this really isn't it. If you are enamored with Tim Burton's old, darker stuff, then you might be disappointed, but if you like his newer works, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you will probably like this one even more. If you enjoyed the classic animated film as a kid, you will probably appreciate this movie now as an adult.

The New Adventures of Pippi Longstocking (1988)

First time seeing it -- it was a lot of fun!

[9/10 · 16 October 2002]

Just finished watching Jewel of the Nile and before I could shut off the TV and go to bed at a semi-reasonable hour, Pippi came on. Somehow, I got sucked into the movie and now over here to IMDB. Maybe it was the catchy tunes or wanting to find out if the cute kids in the movie ever went on to star in anything noteworthy (none did, except the head girl who I didn't like).

I'm in my 30s, have no kids, and have never read the books or seen any other Pippi books. Guess what? I enjoyed it a lot! Sure. It's goofy, doesn't always make sense, is anachronistic at times, and is not serious cinematography. But I liked it.

The music was cheerful, the songs were uplifting and arguably one of the best parts of the movie. The kids were great, too. It's sad that the actress playing Pippi didn't go on to do more work (especially if it had been more age-appropriate... hard to imagine she was only 10). She did a really fine job. I also got a kick out of seeing Dick Van Patten in his bit part.

The monkey was probably the worst actor in the film, but since they probably paid him peanuts (and bananas), they probably didn't waste any money.

The flying machine was totally unrealistic, but it IS a kids movie. The cleaning of the floors was probably the best scene in the movie.

It was just good clean fun that I would be happy to let my kids watch (if I had any), and the songs are WAY better than Barney's. :-) People who object to the film have just left their childhood senses of wonder long behind. They don't believe Pippi when she says that you can do just about anything if you believe in it.

On Golden Pond (2001 TV Movie)

A delightful remake that surpasses the original!

[10/10 · 29 April 2001]

I know the years have dimmed my memories of the original movie staring Fonda and Hepburn. However, I feel that this remake surpassed the original in many ways. First, the chemistry between Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer was superb. It was completely believable that these two had been married for years, and yet loved each other very much (in a rather kooky and dysfunctional way). Secondly, Norman's memory problems were present, but were not portrayed in as depressing a manner, and the overall movie was much more light hearted and funny than the original. Finally, the interactions between Norman and Billy were priceless! It was so much fun watching the two of them interact.

Sure, there were a few technical goofs (like the lighting guy that happened to be in the scene for a few moments, the shadows appearing outside the windows, etc.), but this was LIVE theater. Anything and everything can go wrong in that situation, but the show went off with hardly a hitch.

Bravo to the cast and crew. And it was so great to see Andrews and Plummer back together again. I hope we see more!

The Tempest (1998 TV Movie)

I've never read the original, but I really liked this one.

[10/10 · 7 January 1999]

Never having read or seen the Bard's original work, I can't begin to compare this work to his story. So I won't. Instead I will just say that this was a very entertaining story with some very nice special effects (and some that looked a little lower in budget, but still decent enough to enjoy). I thought all the primary actors did a fine job performing. The style of magic seemed more black than white and is almost certain to offend anyone easily upset about that sort of thing, but I thought it was well done.