Movies & TV series

Top Movies – Superman: The Movie (Review) – Movie Reviews Sites

This 1978 adaptation of the man in blue tights is the film that set the path for today’s modern superhero movies.

Genre: Action/Drama/Fantasy

Directors: Richard Donner

Cast: Christopher Reeve, Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Margot Kidder,
Phyllis Thaxter, Marc McClure, Ned Beatty, Glenn Ford & Susannah York.

Run Time: 143 min.

US Release: 15 December 1978

UK Release: 14 June 1978

German Release: 26 January 1979

Following my analysis of the 1989 Batman, my next post in the series leading up to my Suicide Squad review, will be that of Richard Donner’s 1978 Superman: The Movie. The last son of Krypton is one of the most beloved and famous superheroes in American comic book lore and had seen up to then several adaptations as live action series and a short 58 min. film. This is the first time that a comic book character was portrayed in a serious story on the silver screen and Richard Donner, who up until then just directed one feature film, was the perfect choice as this movie’s regisseur.

— BEWARE OF SPOILERS! —

This adaptation of the graphic novel begins on Krypton, where Jor-El (Brando) is sentencing General Zod and his followers to the Phantom Zone and arguing with the council about the danger that looms over Krypton. After being ignored and threatened by the council, he sends a starship with his son to Earth. There, the baby is found by Jonathan (Ford) and Martha Kent (Thaxter), who take him in as their child and name him Clark. After Pa Kent’s death, a teenaged Clark decides to leave Smallville and travels north, where he finds his fortress of solitude and begins with his training.

Years later, a now grown-up Clark (Reeve) travels to Metropolis and were he obtains a job as a journalist for the Daily Planet. There he meets and falls in love with Lois Lane (Kidder) and also makes the acquaintance of photographer Jimmy Olsen (McClure). During a helicopter accident that puts Lois in peril, Clark reveals his superhero persona Superman and thus gathers the public’s attention. Meanwhile, criminal mastermind Lex Luthor (Hackman) is planning to destroy part of the west coast to sell his land behind the San Andreas Fault.

Superman is the very first movie to take the character of a superhero serious and one of the first full-fledged silver screen flicks to feature a comic book character. While the tone might be slightly campy and light-hearted, the atmosphere suited the story and the character well for the time it was released in. Donner constructed a very good on screen origin story for the character of Kal-El/Clark Kent and captured the essence of the source material. The first forty-five minutes of this motion picture focused on Clark’s birth on Krypton and his upbringing on the Kent Farm. Superman doesn’t make his first real appearance until well past the first hour of the movie, which kept up the mystery of the character.

This adaptation had issues though. For one, the flying scenes with Lois and Superman were extremely cheesy and silly. The voice over by Lois was unnecessary and the whole scene was lacking realism (even for a superhero movie); Lois holds her posture while flying, just by holding Supe’s fingertips but plunges immediately towards earth when she lets his hand go. Then there is the issue of the runtime, which is a little too long. Personally, I also had an issue with the scenes on Krypton because I did not like the depiction of the planet. It looked cold, dead and while I know it was supposed to look sterile and neutral, I preferred the Snyder’s version in Man of Steel.

Christopher Reeve was tremendous as Clark Kent/Superman and got both character traits down right. Reeve understood the character of Kal-el, which helped him to portray both of his personalities as their own characters since Clark is a shy and insecure man and Superman as this impeccable alien. Those differences in character helped to separate Clark Kent from Superman because no one would look back and expect Clark to be the flying Kryptonian. The character himself was portrayed very close to the source material.

Gene Hackman was an entertaining villain and did a good acting job, but he was not a really interesting Lex Luthor to say the truth. The character was given different personality traits compared to his comic counterpart. Instead of being a genius scientist and multi-millionaire with his own company, he lives in an underground layer and is rather interested in creating the perfect crime. Hackman was also very cartoonish, parodying the character of Luthor rather than depicting him as in the graphic novels.

Margot Kidder was a fantastic casting choice for Lois Lane. She is an attractive but not ridiculous pretty woman and Kidder portrait the character as an actual journalist, chasing one story after another. She wasn’t perfect either; part of the jokes in the film concerns the fact that she kept misspelling words, something that humanised her persona. While her crush on Superman was depicted somewhat cheesy, her chemistry with both Superman and his alter ego Clark felt very natural.

Most of the effects in Superman are dated by now, after all it was shot nearly four decades ago, but the fact is that for a movie that came out in 1978 it used groundbreaking effects. Even if viewers nowadays can easily spot the stop motion and green screen effects, it is still a beautiful movie to watch and enjoy. The opening sequence definitely borrowed from Star Wars, which came to cinemas a year prior and had a very space-opera vibe to it. As I stated before, I did not like the design of the sterile Krypton and also though that Kal-El’s spaceship looked a little too silly.

John Williams was hired to compose the music for the film after Jerry Goldsmith needed to drop out, and he created a score that is to date the iconic track that has been accompanying the superhero. Even People who didn’t watch the movie recognise this song as Superman’s soundtrack and neither Shirley Walker’s famous heroic theme for the animated series of the late 90’s, or the opening track for the 90’s live-action series was able to replace Williams’ original score.

Verdict: Superman was one of the most iconic movies of its time and is still a very enjoyable superhero flick to watch nowadays. While the special effects might be dated by today’s standards, the cast’s’ acting job has been more than impressive, especially that of Christopher Reeve who embodied the character of Clark Kent/Superman. I really liked the story told by Donner and still think that this is one of the best origin stories told in a comic book movie, the two big issues this flick has is that: 1. It is a little bit too long, and 2. The character of Lex Luthor was portrayed very weak and uninteresting. Other than that Superman is a film that deserves an 8 out of 10.

Do you agree with me? Leave a comment below and let me know what you thought of this superhero flick. Thank you for reading and if you like this review make sure to share it!

Top Movies – The Jungle Book Movie Review (Spoiler Free) – Movie Reviews Sites

This live-action adaptation of a Disney’s classic might still be far from the original source material, but it is an incredible improvement to the 1967 animated movie.

Genre: Adventure/Drama/Fantasy

Director: Jon Favreau

Cast: Neel Sethi, Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong’o,
Giancarlo Esposito, Scarlett Johansson & Christopher Walken.

Run Time: 106 min.

US Release: 15 April 2016

UK Release: 15 April 2016

German Release: 14 April 2016

If you want to read my review for Disney’s 1967 animated version, click here.

Jon Favreau returns to Hollywood to direct a big studio picture and it really pays off! The Jungle Book is one of many Disney films that are currently being re-adapted into live action movies, and Favreau managed to hit the right cords because this just wasn’t a mere remake but rather an improvement to the classic tale Disney told in the mid 60’s. This motion picture depicts the jungle and it’s animals in such detail, like we have never seen before and expands on what we already know about Mowgli’s adventure.

Mowgli (Sethi), the man-cub, is a young boy raised by a loving wolf mother (Nyong’o) and trained in the ways of a predator by Bagheera (Kingsley) the black panther. When Shere Kahn (Elba), a Bengalese tiger, returns to the jungle fully recuperated from his injuries sustained by men, he promises to kill the man cub once the water truce ends. Mowgli decides to leave the jungle to save his pack and sets out on an adventure that will make him cross paths with Baloo (Murray) the bear, Kaa (Johansson) the snake and Louie (Walken) the giant ape.

Let me start off with what I liked about this live-action remake. As with Cinderella, which came out the previous year, Disney refrained from making too many “big” changes in their original account of Rudyard Kipling’s story but still made enough small ones, giving this film a fresh feeling. I was staring at the screen in awe when I saw how the trees, creepers, and the animal kingdom came to live and I adored how dark the story could get at times (face it, this is a jungle with dangerous animals, not everything will be pink and fluffy!). It made me feel like a child again, while at the same time it felt as if it were an exploration of new accounts, of the tale I saw on VHS as a kid. What I liked most though was the extended playtime that expanded on Mowgli’s story.

The only thing I had a problem with story-wise, is the fact that I couldn’t help but notice that this movie had no soul of its own. It took the spirit of the classic ’67 animation and repackaged it into a prettier vessel. That annoyed me heavily, as it had the potential to stand away from its hand-drawn sibling, but instead, it was chosen to simply “upgrade” the previous version.

One of my biggest issues with Disney’s original animation from the late 60’s, was the character of Mowgli who acted as a spoiled brat. Mowgli disrespected Bagheera, Raksha and other animals of the jungle that tried to help out the boy. This is one of the many little changes Favreau made, by re-examining the character of the man-cub and turning him into a curious child, but one who respects the animals of the jungle, especially those that took him in and offered protection. Neel Sethi was mind blowing as Mowgli, I actually bought this young actor’s rendition of the Jungle’s man-cub and he is my favourite actor right now to take on that role (sorry Jason Scott Lee).

Ben Kingsley does the voice acting for Bagheera and I loved his depiction of the black panther. His voice-over narration gives a quick perspective of how he found Mowgli and I really liked the purpose of the character in this film. Bill Murray was the perfect casting for Baloo the Bear. He was funny had great dialogue lines and paid tribute to Disney’s original depiction of the bear. My only issue was with Scarlett Johansson’s screentime as Kaa, who was wasted in the movie.

Shere Kahn, voiced by Idris Elba, is seriously frightening and feels like an actual threat, compared to the cartoonish depiction of George Sanders that did not feel frightening at all! Shere Kahn actually wants to kill the kid just for sports and is willing to go to great lengths to reach his goal. He even kills other animals and tries to set a trap for the man cub. He is wicked, truly evil and I loved the little spin that Elba gave his character. That said, the darker and scary aspects in this story come from this character and I am not sure if small children will cope with that atmosphere.

This is one of the rare occasions where a movie that uses CGI as its base of storytelling actually worked out, as there is not one single scene that was filmed in the Jungle! As much as I loved the visual effects though, since they look and feel as real as they can possibly get, I was seriously disappointed by the production team, who wasted the potential to film partial scenes in a real woodland environment. Apart from that, Bill Pope’s beautiful cinematography and the incredible visual effects blew me away, including the fantastic CGI animals.

The music composed by John Debney was simply amazing! Granted, it takes a lot from the 1967 animated feature and reuses familiar melodies, including one or two songs, in the movie but Debney gave them an updated beat and it totally worked for this flicks purpose. I especially loved Christopher Walken’s take on “I Wan’na Be Like You”

Verdict: Disney’s newest adaptation of The Jungle Book is truly mind-blowing and gorgeous to look at. It took Disney’s classic animation and re-invented a few things, including an expansion of the story, to make it feel more rounded. While I loved the darker tone and scarier theme, I would not recommend taking smaller children (under the age of eight) to watch this film as they wouldn’t understand the darker parts of the movie. Apart from a few minor problems I had with it, I really enjoyed this remake, which managed to teleport me back to my childhood and I was blasted away by what Favreau created, with a few CGI tricks. I will give The Jungle Book an 8.5 out of 10 and do recommend you go watch it in theatres.

Did you see the movie? Did you like it, or do you still prefer the Disney animation? Let me know and leave a comment. Thank you very much for reading my review and if you found it helpful, please make sure to share it with friends and family.

Top Movies – Trailer Talk: Star Wars – Rogue One – Movie Reviews Sites

**The teaser we’ve all been waiting for, to the movie we are all anticipating, finally landed! Here are my thoughts on the teaser trailer for Star Wars: Rogue One.**

I have been waiting for this one for so long and now it is finally here, the teaser trailer for Rogue One: A Star Wars Story hit the Internet last week Thursday, and boy was it a doozy because we got to see quite a lot! Rogue One is a movie I am anticipating with a little bit of fear, as the last Star Wars spinoff movies we obtained, were An Ewok Adventure and Ewoks: Battle for Endor and we all know how that went. I still have hope though in Gareth Edwards and I need to say, what we were given in the teaser trailer looked fantastic!

The trailer opens with a slow playing piano piece of the original melody and a rebel soldier escorting Felicity Jones character, who’s name is revealed to be Jyn Erso, to Mon Mothma. She informs her that they received information about the Empire about to perform an imminent weapons test of a new weapon, revealed to be the Death Star, and give her the mission to steal the plans to that weapon. We also get several glimpses of Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang and Forest Whitaker in action and the trailer ends with a shot of rebel foot soldiers engaging the battle against imperial AT-AT’s.

I can honestly say that there was nothing I did not like in this trailer! Every scene that was included felt as if I was rewatching deleted scenes from the original trilogy and I was most impressed with Genevieve O”Reilly, who actually looked and sounded like the Mon Mothma from Return of the Jedi, played by Caroline Blakiston. Edwards uses his usual scaling technique to show us the grandness of the Death Star and the AT-AT’s and it simply looks beautiful!

The tone of this teaser trailer suggests that the movie will be much darker in tone, compared to The Force Awakens, and I am completely on board with it as we were promised a war movie in the Star Wars franchise. We get glimpses of the old Storm Troopers, as well as some new uniforms we didn’t see yet. There was a shot in a room that saw a cloaked figure bow down next to two Imperial Guards, which might suggest that it either was Darth Vader or Mads Mikkelsen’s character.

To conclude, I really liked this teaser trailer because it felt like a continuation of the 1970’s Star Wars with a slightly darker tone and we finally got to see a piece of a hardcore battle between the Empire and the Rebellion. I never thought I would say this, but I am really pumped for this movie and can’t wait until December!

Did you like the Rogue One trailer? Leave a comment and let me know what you thought of it. Thank you very much for reading this trailer review and be aware that my next movie review will follow this week and will be for The Jungle Book.

Top Movies – Iron Man 3 Movie Review – Movie Reviews Sites

The third adventure sees Tony Stark dealing with his biggest enemy and a monster he created before his time as Iron Man.

Genre: Action/Fantasy/Sci-Fi

Director: Shane Black

Cast: Robert Downey Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce,
Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Jon Favreau & Paul Bettany.

Run Time: 130 min.

US Release: 03 May 2013

UK Release: 25 April 2013

German Release: 01 May 2013

Awaiting Captain America: Civil War, one of the most anticipated movies of 2016, I decided to continue my Marvel reviews with Iron Man 3, the film that launched Marvel’s Phase II. After the somewhat lukewarm Iron Man 2, Jon Favreau decided to take a break from the superhero business and focus on Disney’s Magic Kingdom. Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), who previously worked with Downey Jr, took over the directorial reigns and co-wrote the script for the third adventure of Tony Stark that saw the titular hero deal with the repercussions of the events that took place in The Avengers.

Following the battle in The Avenger, Tony Stark reclused himself in his mansion and begins building an army of Iron Man armours, as a way to deal with his post-traumatic stress disorder. When a terrorist leader, named the Mandarin, targets Tony Stark and takes away his technology, the brilliant industrialist needs to figure out if it is the man that makes the suit, or if the suit makes the man. In the meantime, Pepper Potts – Stark’s girlfriend and CEO of Star Industries – is facing an old friend, turned enemy, who has devised a sinister plan to get back at Tony and the World.

— Spoiler Warning! —

Iron Man 3 was, in my opinion, a fun experience but also a very flawed movie with storytelling and structural issues. It starts off very strong by giving it a grittier atmosphere, as Tony Stark suffers from PTSD, having nearly died in New York. The movie shows that it really understands the psychological issues and delves deep into the fears and worries of the protagonist, who realises that compared to his superhero buddies he is a mere human in a tin can. It also shows the deteriorating effects that PTSD can have on relationships, as Tony is trying to cope with his anxiety but not letting Pepper (or for that matter anyone else) in. I also liked how the movie slowly built the threatening rise of the Ten Rings and their leader, the Mandarin.

After the first act, though, which ends with Tony’s house and suits being destroyed by the villain, I felt like the path the film opened with was put to the side to tell a more uplifting story, which included a lot of jokes and a ten year old sidekick who helps Tony to deal rapidly with his anxiety attacks. The villain’s true plans are quickly revealed, which consists of taking revenge on Tony for leaving Killian’s ego broken about 13 years ago. But the biggest disappointment was the fact that they took the character of the Mandarin, Iron Man’s arch-nemesis, and turned him into nothing more than a second-hand parody of what he truly is. They tried rectifying that mistake with the Marvel’s one-shot Hail to the King, but it doesn’t help this blockbuster.

Other than that, Iron Man 3 makes a serious shift in tone and atmosphere, which suits the fact that it followed Marvel’s The Avengers, and thus leaves the more grounded aspects of Iron Man and Iron Man 2.

Robert Downey Jr returns as Tony Stark/Iron Man, with the story really being more about Tony Stark than his superhero persona Iron Man. That was the strongest aspect of the film, as it tried to redefine the protagonist, now that super soldiers and godlike aliens have expanded his world immensely. Robert Downey was once again great as Tony Stark and I can’t picture anyone else playing that role because he simply understands the character; a narcissistic billionaire playboy who brushes off his problems with sarcastic remarks.

Ben Kingsley did a fantastic job playing former actor and drug addict Trevor Slattery, who plays the Mandarin for Guy Pearce’s Aldrich Killian (the “real” Mandarin), but I was simply disappointed at the fact that Marvel Studios took one of the most dangerous and infamous villains and humiliated the character in that way. Guy Pearce, on the other hand, played another brilliant philanthropist that opposes Tony. Pearce was really good and convincing, especially when it came to selling his motivation for doing what he is doing. Still, I was really upset that his persona was revealed to be the “actual” Mandarin because it didn’t suit the traits of the comic book villain.

Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts) had a much bigger role in this comic book adaptation, but her persona was not fleshed out as much as it should have been. Rebecca Hall plays Tony’s ex-girlfriend Maya Hansen, a brilliant botanist and the inventor of the “Extremis” strain, but like Pepper’s character, she was poorly used and completely underdeveloped!

Don Cheadle was much better as Colonel James Rhodes/Iron Patriot, compared to his portrayal in Iron Man 2. He seemed more confident and had much more fun playing the character and wasn’t as stiff and serious as in the previous film. His armour is updated and repainted by AIM (Killian’s company) and renamed Iron Patriot, a nod to the suit worn by Norman Osborn in the comics.

The movie includes a lot of CGI, which is no surprise since it is an adaptation of a graphic novel, but it uses it as a gimmick and not as the base of the movie, which is why it worked really well. The many different Iron Man armours look organic and even the Extremis infected villains have a realistic look to them. It also felt different from the previous two Iron Man flicks, as Shane Black has his signature written all over the camera work, but that gives the franchise a refreshing change in looks!

Verdict: So the third instalment of the Iron Man franchise might be way more inferior to the first one, but it was definitely a slight improvement to the second movie. The story has slight flaws and the plot structure was messy, brushing through specific aspects of the film that might have needed more time explaining, but it also was a fantastic portrayal of the character of Tony Stark. Robert Downey Jr was as always brilliant and I liked Ben Kingsley and Guy Pearce but hated how their characters were presented. Iron Man 3 is definitely one of the weaker MCU adaptations, but it was still a fun movie to watch and I will give it a 7 out of 10!

Do you agree with what I said? Leave a comment below and let me know how you felt about this superhero flick. If interested in reading my previous reviews for the first two Iron Man movies, click on the following links: Iron Man Review, Iron Man 2 Review.

Top Movies – Hardcore Henry Movie Review (Spoiler Free) – Movie Reviews Sites

**A hyper-energetic roller coaster ride, Hardcore Henry proves to be a smart new addition to the action genre.**

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Director: Ilya Naishuller

Cast: Sharlto Copley, Haley Bennett, Danila Kozlovsky, Oleg Poddubnyy,
Svetlana Ustinova, Darya Charusha & Tim Roth.

Run Time: 96 min.

US Release: 08 April 2016

UK Release: 08 April 2016

German Release: 14 April 2016

This highly explosive blockbuster is an experimental, low budget, first person action film that happened to be made because of the high demand of fans from the Russian Indie-Rock band Biting Elbows’ FPS music videos The Stampede and Bad Motherf***r. Frontman Naishuller, who also directed the band’s music videos, makes his big cinematic debut with this highly amusing and very violent action sci-fi flick. But is Hardcore Henry worth spending money at the cinema?

If I were to describe this movie I would say it is a cross between Crank and RoboCop, all experienced through the eyes of the protagonist Henry. Sadly the plot is so thin, and at time frustratingly linear, that there is not much I could possibly discuss and that makes it my biggest issue with Hardcore Henry, since it doesn’t explore the story it sets up at the beginning. I never expected this blockbuster to have a profound story with a message, but I was hoping it would resolve some of the questions it raises during the first couple of minutes. That sadly never happens and the audience is left without any feeling of closure, as we are wondering who Henry really is.

Having said that, this is an homage to first person shooter video games and that what it tried to achieve, it accomplishes with flying colours! Like I said, I never expected a groundbreaking story and even though it did not explore its world as much as I wished it would, I still found the account very amusing! Ilya Naishuller is aware of the absurdity of the premise and plot and as a result the complete movie does not take itself serious, which assists the movie in reaching its goal. The structure of the story is basically built like a video game; Henry starts of encountering smaller enemies, which he is able to dispose of easily but the further he progresses the harder the levels get until he reaches the last boss fight and that battle is not only extremely bloody but also very satisfying.

As far as character development goes, most of the personas in the movie are just as thinly penned as the plot of this sci-fi action spectacle and that includes the protagonist Henry. It does not hurt the movie, though, as Henry is supposed to be a relatable character the viewer can identify with. Just like in any FPS, we – the audience- are supposed to experience the events depicted on screen as if it were happening to us and in that term, Hardcore Henry succeeds as I felt in control of the protagonist, from time to time. Still, I wished for just a little bit of information on this guy when the movie concluded.

This was Sharlto Copley’s best role I have seen him in since District 9 because he plays such a versatile character. I won’t give away anything about his character, simply to avoid spoiling the experience, but I can honestly say that I haven’t seen Copley have so much fun acting in a film since District 9. He is not only the comedic relief of this film but manages to prove that he is able to portray a variety of different characters and that made it an incredible joy to see him in this action sci-fi flick.

Danila Kozlovsky portrays the villain in this story named Akan. He is a Russian business mogul with telekinetic powers, who wants Henry’s technology to build an army. More is not known about the character and the movie does not really flesh him out neither, which is a shame because it would have been interesting to have a villain that is not being evil just for evil’s sake. Kozlovsky did a good job with what he was given and I buy into him being a megalomaniac, but there was simply no depth at all to his character.

Haley Bennett plays Henry’s wife Estelle. She gives Henry the motivation to move forward, and at first glance might seem like a damsel in distress, who Henry needs to save over and over again, but we figure out that her character does have a more vital purpose. Having said that, her character is not explored at all, just like Akans.

This movie was shot almost entirely on the GoPro Hero 3 camera and a special build rig with two GoPro’s was used as a mask to emit that first person perspective. It is a very interesting novelty to experience, but be also aware that it might not be for everyone as it is very shaky and some will surely experience motion sickness! Nevertheless, it was very impressive to see the stunt work in that movie from that perspective and reminded me of playing Mirror’s Edge all over again. The special effects were also really well realised; the opening scene that sees Henry being “re-assembled” was jaw dropping.

Darya Charusha, who was also given a small role, composed the music for this FPS film. It also uses famous and popular songs from different bands and musicians such as Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Know”, which is not only used in the trailer but also in the motion picture. There is also some use of cheap sound effects, I guess to intensify the feeling that you are watching an FPS video game movie.

Verdict: Hardcore Henry is generally speaking a very entertaining and intriguing new form of the action genre. That said, I don’t think that there is much need to re-watch it once you have seen it because after having experienced the novelty of the film the audience is left with a weak plot that includes characters with no depth. Still, the film managed to excel at what it was going for and that is paying homage to FPS shooters, such as Call of Duty or Mirror’s Edge and I need to give it big props for that! So, if you know what you are walking into and if you do not suffer from motion sickness I do recommend you go see this in cinemas. I will give Hardcore Henry a 7.5 out of 10.

Thank you very much for reading my review and if you want to discuss this movie, leave a comment below. My next review will follow this Sunday so keep an eye out.

Top Movies – The Huntsman: Winter’s War Movie Review (Spoiler Free) – Movie Reviews Sites

The sequel to the Snow White/Huntsman tale doesn’t really know what it wants to be and proves that a good cast doesn’t make a film automatically good.

Genre: Action/Drama/Fantasy

Director: Cedric Nicolas-Troyan

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Emily Blunt, Jessica Chastain, Sope Dirisu, Nick Frost,
Rob Brydon, Sheridan Smith, Alexandra Roach & Charlize Theron.

Run Time: 114 min.

US Release: 22 April 2016

UK Release: 04 April 2016

German Release: 07 April 2016

The Huntsman: Winter’s War is the official sequel to the mediocre, but nevertheless box office successful, dark fairy-tale Snow White & The Huntsman. While I wasn’t a particular fan of the first movie, I did think it was far superior to the very sappy and gooey Mirror Mirror, but I never hoped for a sequel and therefore didn’t walk into the screening room with high expectations. Walking out of the cinema I couldn’t help notice that I obtained exactly what I expected, a weak story with a good cast and solid visual effects.

This sequel tells the story of Eric, the Huntsman (Hemsworth). After shortly establishing the fact that Ravenna (Theron) also has a sister named Freya (Blunt), who turned into the Ice Queen after losing her and enslaved the northern lands. There she is building an army of Huntsmen, who are supposed to lay waste to Kingdoms and capture children to mould them into soldiers. But Eric and Sara (Chastain) fall in love and thus the Ice Queen banishes Eric.

This is a mediocre film, with just a couple of good parts; everything else in it is rather “Meh”. I’ll begin with what I liked about this fantasy flick. The dark tone used in the previous story is kept for the most part and I appreciated it because it stays true to the original fairy tales written by the brothers Grimm. I also thought that the few action sequences were fun and nice to look at. Ravenna’s short backstory was intriguing and it would have made for a more interesting fantasy-drama if the writers and producers had focused on a prequel about her character, rather than this messy pile of boredom.

My biggest issue with The Huntsman: Winter’s War is that there was no need for this sequel, as it doesn’t add anything of interest to the previous story, and is incredibly dull and boring. It includes a messy plot, since it does not know who it is targeting and thus tries to cover the whole spectrum, with the result that it is too dark for children and at the same time to sappy for adults. The comedy is awkward and does not really work, except when Nick Frost and Sheridan Smith are on screen, and the romance Nicolas-Troyan tried to build is a disgrace! We even obtain a narrator who bluntly tries to explain the obvious and then there is the issue of Snow White, who gets mentioned throughout the movie but is never shown.

I also had the feeling that the writers and directors were unsure of what story they wanted to tell; it begins as a prequel, telling the story of how Ravenna came to possess the mirror and then fast forwards through the story of her sister, who after getting her heart broken moves to the north where she turns the lands into cold wastelands and builds an army to conquer the northern kingdoms. Then it conveniently jumps over the story of the first one and continues right after Snow White beats Ravenna and wins her Kingdom back, turning the film into a sequel. Last, but not least, they should have left Ravenna out of the third act, leaving Freya to be manipulated by the mirror itself.

Chris Hemsworth reprises his role as the Huntsman and is even given a backstory. While the man does have charisma, I would not consider him to be a talented actor. I like him in the Thor films but other than that his performances are usually forgettable and that’s the case with his character in this fairy tale, as he is struggling with creating a convincing Scottish accent for his character. Eric was taken away from his family to serve the Ice Queen as one of her army’s huntsmen, but when he falls in love with his female partner Sara, the Queen banishes him from her lands.

Jessica Chastain is a really talented actress, but disappointed me deeply in this fantasy-drama! Her portrayal of Sara is wooden and cold, which leads to a lack of chemistry between her and co-actor Hemsworth. Chastain had even bigger problems at adopting a Scottish accent, sounding ridiculous and simply unbelievable. I am curious as to why she was given the role when it is obvious that the character envisioned by the writers needs no talent to be portrayed on film.

Emily Blunt played Freya/The Ice Queen and she gave one of the better performances in this weak fairy tale. You truly believed that her soul was turned to ice by the sorrow of her loss and the subsequently broken heart she suffered from it. Sadly those events are skipped over so fast that not even Blunt’s performance is able to make up for the lack of character development. Thus, the audience could not care less what happened to Freya that ultimately turned her into the cold-hearted Ice Queen.

Nick Frost, Rob Brydon & Sheridan Smith were my favourite characters. Sadly their characters are mere sidekicks of the big, dull hero and Frost only appears in the second act. Still, it is them that make this movie, at least, a little bit fun and bearable, with Frost and Roach having better chemistry and a more believable romantic arc then our main characters.

As far as effects go, this fairy tale has some pretty solid and good looking CGI tricks and creatures, such as the golden laced goblins, the Ice Queen’s powers and of course the mirror’s beautiful effect when you call upon it. Frost, Brydon, Smith and Roach’s makeup, which turned the quartet into dwarves, is great and the overall costume design looks fantastic. Nevertheless, there were also effects I didn’t find really convincing; such as Ravenna’s black “tar” powers, once she is released from the mirror.

Verdict: This fairy tale is more than stale; the plot is weak and has nothing new to offer, the performances are mediocre and the title is completely misleading since nothing in this film suggests that there is a waging winter’s war. Director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan has focused on producing a nice looking movie without substance, rather than a quality film with a good story and some character depth. Fans of the previous Snow White/Huntsman tale will probably enjoy this fantasy flick, even if it does ignore some of the facts established in the first movie. Other than that, I cannot really recommend you wasting your money by going to see this pointless sequel in cinemas. I will give The Huntsman: Winter’s War a 5.5 out of 10.

If you did decide to go see this movie, let me know what you thought of it by leaving a comment below. Thank you for reading my review and if you found it helpful, make sure to share it.

Top Movies – The Witch Movie Review (Spoiler Free) – Movie Reviews Sites

A hellish New England folktale that knows how to depict a story, build up tension and terrify its audience. This is a horror movie done right!

Genre: Drama/Horror/Mystery

Director: Robert Eggers

Cast: Anya Taylor-Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw, Lucas Dawson,
Ellie Grainger, Julian Richings, Sarah Stephens & Bathsheba Garnett.

Run Time: 92 min.

US Release: 19 February 2016

UK Release: 11 March 2016

German Release: 19 May 2016

The Witch is Robert Egger’s directorial debut and an amazing as well as a truly disturbing one at that! I am a big horror fan and a real sucker for anything that might be different, such as inducing psychological fear (Kubrick’s The Shining is one of my favourite horror flicks), instead of using simple jump scares and I therefore truly appreciated how unique this terrifying tale was, since the trailer doesn’t do it any justice. The Witch is much more than what the trailer might suggest it is!

The movie revolves around a 17th century family from New England who, after being banished from a colonial settlement for practicing their religion to extremely, move out into the wilderness where they star experiencing unnatural events as their distrust of one another begins to tear them apart.

I need to address this first; if you are expecting a typical horror movie that throws a lot of scare jumps in your face and has a blatantly obvious plot you will be disappointed because this horror tale is more than just a cheap trick to frighten the audience. The Witch makes use of human’s deepest psychological fears and thus succeeds in making the viewer feel uneasy. It might be a slow burner, but it surely has no scene that was dull or boring, as tension is consistently being wound. Director Eggers also plays with the audience, who are repeatedly wondering throughout the first half of the plot which of the characters might be the protagonist, since the focus keeps jumping back and forth between the different family members.

The plot has an intriguing but at the same time disturbing story to tell, and the fact that it feels as if it were something we shouldn’t be seeing makes it that more interesting. In the film, a family that gets banished into the woods has to confront a supernatural entity, but that story aspect is just the beautifully painted facade that covers the real message underneath: the effects that isolation can have on lonely souls and their psyche, and how it can make them turn against each other. It is also an astounding accurate depiction of what life could have been for a devout Christian family from the 1630’s that live in the wilderness of New England and includes the old-fashioned English vocabulary of that era.

The movie focuses on a very small group of actors, whom all did a fantastic job. Especially the child actors who portrayed the twin siblings managed to surprise me with their great performances. Although the movie focuses a little bit more on Thomasin, Caleb and their father, I thought that all characters had a depth to them that made them feel extremely real.

This is Anya Taylor-Joy’s second role in a feature film and she was fantastic as the lead actress. Thomasin is the eldest daughter of the five children and undergoing puberty, her mother is distrustful of her and her growing body is making her oldest brother somewhat uncomfortable, but other than that her family is not really concerned about her. That is until mysterious things start happening and she needs to face the full force of her family’s fears and hatred. Anya Taylor-Joy does a perfect job at showing the audience what it meant to be a young woman in those male-dominated times.

Ralph Ineson plays Thomasin’s father and Katherine’s husband William, who goes through some troubles himself. William is a devout Christian and was banished from a settlement for being too extreme in his beliefs. Since then he started building his own little settlement together with his family, but the crops won’t grow properly and the land seems dead, nevertheless, William won’t confront what is happening right before his eyes, instead praying and trying to convince his wife that it is God who is testing them.

Kate Dickie gave another great performance. Her character Kathryn is William’s wife and the children’s mother, who is stricken with grief once something bad happens to the family. She also seems to be extremely jealous of Thomasin, who is becoming a woman herself. Harvey Scrimshaw plays the oldest son of the family, Caleb, and he was great! Caleb is the exact opposite of Thomasin and gets treated that way as well.

The stunning cinematography includes beautiful looking panoramic scenes and slow panning camera movements that capture every little detail. The use of hyper-mannered cinematography manages to apprehend the audience’s attention and draws them into a fabulous world that looks more like a painting on a canvas than a period piece horror-drama. The colour scheme in this movie is very grey and bleak, which some might think as off-putting, but that colour palette simply reflects the depressive episodes and the psychological torture this family is endearing.

Mark Korven composed this fantastic score and proved that a horror movie’s music is just as important on building tension, as is the story. The soundtrack wasn’t really melodic but sounded rather infernal, which drove the audience that was in the theatre I was in, to the verge of their seats.

Verdict: The Witch is definitely not your typical horror film; it has a well-plotted story that puts a Christian family of the 1630’s living in the middle of no-man’s-land, in an uncomfortable situation. It also makes use of psychological unnerving tactics to create a feeling of unease in the audience, and the cinematography and fantastic acting make it look and sound as if we were actually seeing a family from the 17th century, trying to survive in the wilderness of New England. Eggers’ directorial debut is a brilliantly scripted and shot horror film that keeps winding up the tension until the last scene and comes as close to being perfect as it can get. Therefore, I will give The Witch a 10 out of 10.

Have you seen this horror folktale yet? What did you think of it? Leave a comment below with your opinion. Thank you very much for reading and as always my review, please share it!

Top Movies – Batman 1989 Movie Review – Movie Reviews Sites

**1989 saw Tim Burton take on the character of The Dark Knight to bring him to the silver screen. The result was a dark but entertaining Batman film.**

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger, Robert Wuhl, Tracey Walter, Jerry Hall, Billy Dee Williams, Jack Palance, Pat Hingle & Michael Gough.

Run Time: 126 min.

US Release: 23 June 1989

UK Release: 11 August 1989

German Release: 26 October 1989

If you are interested in my reviews for The Dark Knight trilogy or the Zack Snyder DC movies, click here!

Following my review for Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and with the upcoming Suicide Squad that will feature a small cameo by Batman, I decided to keep going with my string of Batman and Superman reviews. Today I will talk about Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman, one of the first superhero movies that went down a darker path and opened up the gates for the 1992 animated series. Before Burton gave the comic book character a make-over, the Dark Knight was known for Adam West’s campy incarnation and while critics loved the more serious tone they also criticised it for being too violent, a fact that stopped my parents from showing me the movie until I was 10. Still, I was more than pleased when I first watched the movie and it holds a very special place in my heart!

— WARNING! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! —

Shortly before Gotham’s 200th founding year, district attorney Harvey Dent (Williams) is trying to clean up the streets with the help of Commissioner Gordon (Hingle) but the police force is full corrupt officers and the mob is ruling Gotham’s underworld. The people of Gotham are being protected though by a mysterious figure that fights for justice during the night. Reporter Alexander Knox (Wuhl) is trying to unmask the so-called “Batman” which most, including the police, believe to be a hoax and photographer Vicki Vale (Basinger) teams up with him to break the story.

Mob Boss Carl Grissom (Jack Palance), who figured out that his partner Jack Napier is sleeping with his mistress, sets him up and during a struggle with the police and Batman (Keaton) Napier falls into a vat of chemicals that turn him into The Joker. Vale starts dating Bruce Wayne and figures out that he is Batman while The Joker begins taking revenge on the city.

What I liked about Batman was that Burton decided to depict the character faithfully by filming a darker and more violent movie, but due to the time this movie came out it also included cheesy one liners and silly plot lines. Still, for what Warner Bros tried to accomplish this adaptation of the Dark Knight did mostly everything correct. While Burton left the city of Gotham out of his focus, his adaptation centred more on depicting the characters in this story and he did very well at that. That said, this is definitely no film without flaws and it has quite a few ones!

My biggest issue with Batman was the side story about reporter Alexander Knox; I really disliked the character since he acted fake and made too many silly jokes that didn’t suit the overall tone of the movie. I also disliked how Bruce Wayne’s past storyline was handled. First of all, I am pretty sure that the murder of a prominent doctor and his wife would have been something that people would undoubtedly know or, at least, remember when meeting Bruce Wayne and second, Burton’s choice to make The Joker the murderer of the Waynes was a decision I really despised. Finally, my last issue is how Jim Gordon is portrayed in the film because in the comics he is a very important ally of Batman. In this movie, though, he is represented as a complete incompetent police commissioner.

Even though fans of the character reacted negatively when it was announced that Michael Keaton was cast as Bruce Wayne/Batman, they were quickly proven wrong about their doubts. Keaton did a great job portraying the man in the bat-suit and made him sound and feel like a menacing power criminals should learn to fear, but his portrayal of Bruce Wayne was a little bit thin. Not because of Keaton’s acting skill, what I saw I liked, but it was rather the directorial choice to make Wayne a rich billionaire who nobody knows anything about.

Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Jack Napier/The Joker was fantastic! I still prefer Heath Ledger’s take on the iconic villain, but for the type of film this was Nicholson’s dark and spoofier take on the villain was excellent. Jack Napier is already a psychotic killer before he is transformed into Wayne’s arch-nemesis, but completely loses it when he sees what the chemical bath turned him into. I loved Nicholson’s joker laugh and his one-liners used before killing, and I do believe that he was the best casting choice for the character.

I did like Kim Basinger as Vicki Vale, one of the more famous minor characters from the Batman comics, and I do think she did a good job at portraying her persona. She is a photojournalist working together with reporter Knox on the Batman story and through a series of coincidence manages to date Bruce Wayne. Although she played the damsel in distress during most of her scenes, she was still a tough female character.

When it comes to special effects, most of them did not pass the test of time and are outdated by today’s standards. Gotham’s skyline is definitely a background painting and the sky on which the bat-signal is reflected looked like a silk sheet on which the Batman stood in front of. It also included effects that still look good, such as the shields on the batmobile or the scenes in which Batman is flying the batplane.

The epic opening number composed by Danny Elfman is globally most recognised Batman themes and is one of my favourite movie soundtracks composed for a movie, it was also used for the animated series. The film also uses a lot of songs by Prince, which I did not particularly like as it did not suit the overall atmosphere of the adaptation.

Verdict: Burton’s 1989 directed Batman is one of the rare dimes in the sector of comic book adaptations of that era. Most of the films based on graphic novel characters were usually silly and very campy, which made Burton’s take on Gotham’s Dark Knight stand out amongst all other comic book movies. He gave the character the much needed darker tone and violence and proved that a more mature-themed comic book adaptation could also be a success. Keaton, Nicholson and Basinger gave great performances in their respective roles, but it still has flaws in terms of the screenplay and side stories, which gave an incredibly irritating character far too much screen time. I will give Batman and 8 out of 10.

Thank you very much for reading my review for the 1989 Batman and if you are interested, I will review the 1978 Superman film Sunday in two weeks. Please leave a comment to let me know what you thought of Burton’s film and if you liked this review, make sure to share it.

Top Movies – Eddie the Eagle Movie Review (Spoiler Free) – Movie Reviews Sites

Fletcher’s feel-good movie of the year not only captures the hearts of viewers but like Eddie it manages to soar through the skies like an eagle!

Genre: Biography/Comedy/Drama

Director: Dexter Fletcher

Cast: Taron Egerton, Hugh Jackman, Jo Hartley, Keith Allen, Iris Berben,
Rune Temte, Edvin Endre, Jack Costello & Tom Costello.

Run Time: 106 min.

US Release: 26 February 2016

UK Release: 28 March 2016

German Release: 31 March 2016

I am a sucker for feel-good movies and also am a huge fan of the 1993 biographic-comedy Cool Runnings, which saw the tale of the first Jamaican bobsled team told on the silver screen. Eddie the Eagle doesn’t only tell a similar story, that of an underdog ski jumper who took place in the same Winter Olympics as the Jamaican bobsled team, but actually felt like a natural extension of the John Candy movie and I loved every minute of its runtime. While this biographic picture chronicles the tale of Michael “Eddie the Eagle” Edwards’ trip to the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary, only Eddie himself and the incidents that take place during the tournament seem to be a true representation of the actual events. Everything else is made up, but that doesn’t mean Eddie the Eagle is bad; in contrary this film is very inspirational!

Based on true events, the plot revolves around Michael Edwards (Egerton), an amateur British ski jumper who made it to the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. Since his childhood, Eddie trained and tried to find a sport he is good in, to take part in the Olympics. When he finds out he is a natural talented skier, he sets himself the goal to be a part of the downhill ski team for the 1988 Winter Olympics, but due to his simple upbringings, the British committee dismisses him.

At first devastated about their statement, he soon learns that he could make the British Olympic ski-jumping team as the sport had not been practiced in the UK since the 1920’s. He moves to Germany to train and makes the acquaintance of the grumpy and former US Olympic ski jumper Bronson Peary (Jackman).

Most of this biopic is made up, with just about 20% staying true to the facts. The events that see Edwards travel to Garmisch in Germany, to train, is just one example of included fiction. In reality, Eddie travelled to Lake Placid, New York, where he was trained by former professional ski jumpers John Viscome and Chuck Berghorn. It also isn’t true that he started with no experience, as Edwards used to perform stunt jumps over cars and buses. Most of the last third of the movie though was partially accurate.

The fact that it’s mostly fictional doesn’t hurt the film as it still embodies the spirit of what Michael Edwards tried to accomplish, which is to be a part of the Olympics no matter if he wins or loses. That thought and Eddie’s iron will are the core of the plot that makes this comedy so appealing, even if the film is filled with typical clichés that are usually encountered in such type of sports movies. It is the incredibly upbeat atmosphere and inspiring message of the story that makes Eddie the Eagle worth watching in cinemas!

Taron Egerton, who reached international fame with Kingsman: The Secret Service, was cast as Eddie Edwards and he was fantastic in the role. Egerton fully transformed and became Michael “Eddie” Edwards, even mimicking Edwards facial mannerisms perfectly throughout the film. Eddie himself was represented, for the most part, as he really is; a likeable but clumsy underdog. What makes this character so appealing is his spirit to never give up, because even though Eddie had no the physical body to become a ski jumper, he never stopped pursuing his dream to become an Olympian athlete.

Hugh Jackman was, in my opinion, the weakest aspect of the movie. His character of Bronson Peary is not a historic figure but was a fictional creation by the writers, and that might have been the issue. My problem with Jackman’s performance is that he pretty much just plays himself, with a little bit of Wolverine induced into the persona of Peary. That made the character incredibly cartoonish and over the top! I especially disliked the speech he gave Eddie, comparing the sport of ski jumping to sex with Bo Derek. That said I did like the evolution he made throughout the film.

Eddie the Eagle is a lower budget production and, therefore, did not have the big bucks to spend on fancy effects. Director of photography George Richmond still did a fantastic cinematographic job, of which my favourite parts were the facial close-ups when Eddie would ski down the ramp, just before jumping off. Those moments filled the screening room with an electrifying rush of adrenalin, unlike anything I experienced in theatres before! As far as effect wise, CGI was used when depicting some of the crash landings and you could really tell it was computer animated!

Verdict: This biopic might not surpass the funny and enjoyable Cool Runnings, but it did feel like it was an extension of that biographical film and I myself enjoyed Eddie the Eagle just as much. The story does re-use typical formulas of underdog movies, but it also manages to inspire ordinary people to go out and reach for the stars. It has a beautiful message that is brought to the audience by a fantastic performance of Taron Egerton and also managed to teach me something about ski jumping. I will give Eddie the Eagle an 8 out of 10 and do recommend you go see this movie if you are a fan of underdog stories and feel-good films, a-la Cool Runnings!

Did you go see this movie? If you did, let me know what you thought of this fun biopic. Which is your favourite underdog sports movie? Thank you very much for reading my review and if you liked it, make sure to share it with others!

Top Movies – The Jungle Book Review (1967 Disney Animation) – Movie Reviews Sites

**Disney’s 1967 classic animated fairy tale, is a loose adaptation of Kipling’s short story novel The Jungle Book.**

Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy/Drama

Director: Wolfgang Reitherman

Cast: Bruce Reitherman, Phil Harris, Sebastian Cabot, Sterling Holloway, George Sanders, Louis Prima, J. Pat O’Malley, John Abbott, Ben Wright & Darleen Carr.

Run Time: 78 min.

US Release: 18 October 1967

UK Release: 18 November 1968

German Release: 13 December 1968

Welcome to my review for the original 1967 The Jungle Book by Walt Disney Studios. This analysis will lead up to my Disney live-action remake review, with the movie being released in mid-April this year. The 1967 animation is an adaptation from Rudyard Kipling’s short story collection and was developed by Bill Peet, who also created the stories for 101 Dalmatians and The Sword in the Stone. Peet pitched the idea to Walt Disney claiming that the animation department could do more interesting animal films. After the disappointing reviews from critics, concerning The Sword in the Stone, Disney decided to oversee the project himself.

— THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! —

A wolf family in the jungle raised Mowgli the man cub after the black panther Bagheera found him all alone by a river as a baby. Ten years have passed since that day and Mowgli is now a strong, naive and very rude boy, who wants nothing more than to live with his animal friends and family in the dense tropical forest. But Shere Khan the tiger has returned to that part of the jungle and vowed to hunt and kill the man cub. Bagheera, with the help of Baloo the bear, tries to make Mowgli understand that he needs to go back to the men village where he’ll be safe from Shere Khan, but the boy doesn’t want to hear it and flees.

As Mowgli makes the acquaintance of a couple of vultures, Shere Khan enters the scene and is prepared to kill him. Baloo and Bagheera intervene and with their help, Mowgli manages to scare off the tiger. As the trio is on their way home, Mowgli is drawn to a girl’s singing voice and follows her into the village, much to the dismay of Baloo.

The story deals with the moral teachings of anthropomorphic animals, which include rules for the safety of individuals, communities and most important, the family. It also serves as a metaphor for the human society and is a teaching of the rivalry between man and animal. As with many animated movies of those times, Disney kept the dark tone of Kipling’s original work for the most of the runtime, which makes this a movie that can be enjoyed by both adults and children, something I appreciate very much. The Jungle Book contributed to one of my most beloved childhood memories, sitting in front of the TV together with my family, even though it does not account to my favourite Disney films.

The reason why it doesn’t make my list of favourite animations, even though I love re-watching it every now and then, is the fact that the story feels rushed. Kipling’s short stories that centre on Mowgli could easily be fitted into a two-hour plot but instead; a lot of the story was rewritten and shortened to fit it into a film that just surpasses the one-hour mark. Because of those cuts in the story, the animated movie differs vastly from Mowgli’s short stories and although similar in tone, Disney’s version also accounts as being much lighter.

Mowgli, voiced by Bruce Reitherman, was my least favourite persona because of his snootiness and rudeness towards those that are trying to help him. Granted, the animals want to take him back to the village of men, but it is for his own safety and he shows no appreciation for their care. This made it very hard for me to root for the character and at times, I even wished for Shere Kahn to have his way and maul the boy to death. I did like how the movie ended, though, with Mowgli returning to the village because he falls in love with a human girl.

Bagheera & Baloo, portrayed by Cabot and Harris, were my favourite characters in this hand-drawn feature. Both acted as adoptive parents for the young boy, trying to imprint their knowledge on him, but Baloo was far from being the animal represented in the short stories. Nevertheless, both had fantastic chemistry and gave brilliant renditions of their adapted characters, with Harris playing the more laid back Baloo and Cabot the wise black panther.

King Louie was an original character created specifically for this film. He was portrayed by Louis Prima and was next to Harris one of the comedic reliefs in the story. The villain Shere Khan, voiced by Sanders, only made an appearance in the last third of the plot. While he was mentioned in the beginning, his character was very one dimensional and not fleshed out enough, which made him feel less dangerous.

The animation in The Jungle Book consists mostly of hand painted pictures, except for the waterfall that contained footage from Angel Falls. While in later years each animator was given the task to focus on one character, this film had the Disney workers draw complete sequences. The background consisted of more rough drawings while the animals and Mowgli were painted with smoother and rounder edges. It was also decided to give Shere Khan facial features to resemble his voice actor George Sanders. One of my favourite cinematographic moments is at the beginning of the film when the book opens and the story gains live.

This animated feature contains eight original songs, seven that were produced by the Sherman brothers and “The Bare Necessities” written by Terry Gilkyson. The instrumental music was written and composed by George Bruns and Walter Sheets. Both music and musicals have a mysterious tone but were also composed and sung cheerfully to lighten up the darker story.

Verdict: Disney’s 1967 animated feature The Jungle Book surely isn’t my favourite Disney animation, but it has a special place in my heart. While I was, and still am, disappointed about how Kipling’s short stories were chopped and rushed to fit the 78 minutes runtime, I also need to acknowledge that the animation, the musical pieces and voice acting are tremendous. But the biggest problem for me was the fact that I could not sympathise with Mowgli due to the way he behaved. The Jungle Book is one of Disney’s classic, but not one of it’s best and I will, therefore, give it a 7 out of 10.

When did you see The Jungle Book for the first time? Do you agree with my review? Leave a comment underneath to let me know what you thought of this Disney classic. I will go watch Eddie the Eagle tonight, so keep an eye out tomorrow for my review.