In 2018, Sony took us Into the Spider-Verse, with a film Animated Views called a “game-changer”*. It won the Best Animated Feature Oscar, was the first non-Disney movie selected by our readers as the best of the year, and made a ton of money. So a sequel was a no brainer. But Sony has never been one to shy away from exploiting their Spidey film rights as far as possible, so it wasn’t too much of a surprise when they announced two sequels.

The first, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, picks up about a year and a half after the first film. Miles has grown into the suit, both physically and talent-wise. But being Spider-man takes a toll and he misses the friends he made who went back to their own universes. On her version of Earth, Gwen is struggling alone with her responsibilities and has issues with her father. When they discover a secret society that moves across dimensions to keep things in balance, they both want to join for their own reasons. What happens next? Ummmmm…**

Let’s discuss the first of two elephants in this multiverse. When the film title was originally announced, it was called Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Part One. A few months later, the “Part One” was removed and “Part Two” was officially retitled Beyond the Spider-Verse, with both halves being made simultaneously. So going in, savvy viewers knew we weren’t going to get the complete story this year.

Other made-as-two-part films have threaded this needle in different ways. Back to the Future II and III took two mostly separate stories and weaved them together with a cliffhanger ending sandwiched between. Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame (originally titled Infinity War Parts One and Two) took one epic story, and strategically divided its story elements over two films. These two series of movies worked well because the first part did the job of being both a satisfying and freestanding film that was also able to setup a followup.

Across the Spider-Verse chose a different path. The filmmakers took one long story and just arbitrarily cut it down the middle. Despite its massive runtime, the entire movie is just a big setup for part two. There is almost no plot point resolved in this first half.

That’s not to say the setup isn’t interesting or entertaining. The half of the plot we do get is leading to something good. I was definitely left wanting to know what happens next. But I also felt somewhat cheated due to getting only half of a film. If the credits started rolling on The Little Mermaid right after Ariel makes her deal with Ursula and you were told to come back next year for the rest, you’d wonder why you even bothered to watch this half now rather than wait for the whole thing.

The second issue that can’t be ignored is the length of the film. At two hours and twenty minutes, Across the Spider-Verse is the longest animated film in Hollywood history. Arguably, only two other major studio animated films have ever crossed the two hour threshold***, so not a common event. Even with the amount of animation released seemingly increasing exponentially over the past 30 years, runtime is not something studios have been willing to experiment with. The fact that Sony allowed its filmmakers to not only split this movie into two pieces but also make the first half so long, would hopefully imply they had confidence that the most would be made of all the extra time.

Unfortunately, that faith may have been misplaced. As I’ve already stated, the plot is not uninteresting or unentertaining. Not by a long shot. There is, however, too much filler. It’s like once the animators got the permission to not worry about runtime, they used that leeway to stop editing the story they had, rather than to fill the extended time with more story. Over and over, scenes drag on well past what is needed. The opening scene runs so long that when the title card finally shows up it’s almost a surprise that we’re still so early in. A later scene features a needlessly slow moving device that we watch way too long before a character notes the ridiculous speed in a throwaway joke. An excessively long chase scene seems to be the main plot of a third of the film. There was so much room to tighten up this story, that the runtime feels more like an ostentatious luxury than a necessary requirement.

Looking past all that, most of the other aspects of the film are pretty great.

The brilliant and unique animation style of the first movie is continued here, with mostly similar results. With each different dimension of the Spider-verse getting its own distinctive look, there are plenty of beautiful visuals. But occasionally the effect felt forced or not up to par with the original. The music of the Spider-Verse is fresh and fun. But the audio mix of some of the dialogue really could have been a lot better.

The voice actors were the best parts of the film. The returners (Shameik Moore as Miles Morales, Hailee Steinfeld as Gwen Stacy, Brian Tyree Henry as Jefferson Morales, Luna Lauren Vélez as Rio Morales, and Jake Johnson as Peter B. Parker) step back into their roles without missing a beat from their great performances in the original. And the newcomers (Oscar Isaac as Miguel O’Hara, Jason Schwartzman as The Spot, Issa Rae as Jessica Drew, Karan Soni as Pavitr Prabhakar, and Daniel Kaluuya as Hobie) easily rise to meet their level.

I need to reiterate that the half of this movie we do get is not bad! My complaints are more with the length and pacing, and the choice to not give the audience more of a standalone film. I’m sure when these two parts are watched back to back, the experience will be amazing… and I’ll be the first in line for tickets! But I’m only able to review the half that we were given and not what might be Beyond.

After being betrayed by rogue con artist Forge Fitzwilliam, widowed bard Edgin Darvis and his barbarian companion Holga Kilgore plan to get back at their former associate and reclaim Darvis’ daughter Kira. Fitzwilliam has become Lord of Neverwinter and he’s bringing back a popular, yet controversial event with high-stakes betting that will fill his vaults with riches beyond imagination. The ideal target for a heist. Darvis and Kilgore enlist the aid of half-elven sorcerer Simon Aumar and tiefling druid Doric. But in the background is Sofina, a red wizard setting a nefarious plot into motion that leaves the group having to deal with more than just breaking into a heavily guarded vault.

One of the biggest hurdles in adapting Dungeons & Dragons into a film is that there is no one plot to be based off of. It’s generally up to the players to create their stories and how they would play out. Supplemental material have been released over the years offering pre-made content, from world settings to adventure ideas, for players to use. As such, there’s numerous options to choose in developing a film. For Honor Among Thieves, Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley went with telling an original story and based it within a popular setting called The Forgotten Realms. This has helped settle on a nice mixture of options for the presentation.

Most stories within the fantasy genre tend toward an eventual “saving the world” plot. To have Honor Among Thieves be more unique, the filmmakers instead are telling a heist that happens to be set within a fantasy world. This allows for emphasis to be on developing the characters and less on spending time having to flesh out the world when it is unnecessary to do so. If there’s any lore to be told, it’s because it’s something that will benefit the characters. Thus there is a purpose to the group spending time learning about and trying to locate a magical item called the Helmet of Disjunction as it will help Aumar break the powerful enchantments placed upon the vaults.

Another big hurdle has been how to portray the game’s mechanics and spirit. The mechanics is perhaps the hardest at bringing to life as much of how things work are not visual. This led the previous feature film to make spell casting inaccurate to how they’re done in the game so that it could be apparent on screen that such is happening. Honor Among Thieves is interested in the mechanics and figures ways to showcase them with delightful results. Aumar possess a token that brings a dead creature back to life. It is alive only long enough to answer five questions, then it is dead for good. What can be a conundrum is that it answers any five questions spoken aloud.

Honor Among Thieves captures the spirit of the game in realizing its key component: fun. More often than not, films in the fantasy genre tend to play with such seriousness that they run the risk of being droll and stiff. The other direction is to spoof the genre, lampooning the troupes to a corny degree. Goldstein and Daley instead looked to find a middle ground in which things are not taken with great seriousness, but it’s not a mockery. This is exemplified with Xenk Yendar, a human paladin the group seek the aid of to find the Helmet of Disjunction. But though they are in awe of his stoic prowess as a true heroic figure, his mannerisms get on their nerves very quickly.

Adding to the fun factor is the wonderful performances by the ensemble cast. Chris Pine captures the charm and occasional vulnerability of Darvis. Michelle Rodriguez hits the right beats playing the tough and warm Kilgore. Hugh Grant perfectly personifies the deliciously despicable Fitzwilliam. Justice Smith works quite well as the neurotic Aumar. Sophia Lillis is lovely as the unpredictably endearing Doric. Regé-Jean Page seems to be made to portray the righteous Yendar. And Daisy Head stands out superbly as the devious Sofina. Often in these films an actor’s presence can overtake the character. Here the whole cast embody their characters very nicely.

What’s also fun are the Easter Eggs fans of the game can discover. They’re utilized in such a way that audiences unfamiliar with Dungeons & Dragons don’t need to feel like it’s something very important, which happens to hilariously be spoofed in the film when Sofina explains in few words how it is the vaults are enchanted to a pair of delegates who just take her for her word. There’s quite an Easter Egg late in the film that’s sure to bring a smile to fans, which I won’t reveal even though clips of it have been shown already. And I was howling over a credited cameo appearance and how it’s done both visually and its part in fleshing out the backstory of one of the characters.

It’s almost a given that Honor Among Thieves would be special effects heavy like the first Dungeons & Dragons film. Whereas the previous film relied on the effects to carry the film, this film uses just enough that they do not hinder the storytelling. A lot of the visual effects animation is done for Doric whenever she uses her wild shape ability to transform into a creature. There’s a fantastic escape sequence that evokes being a single take shot in which she’s changing between herself and into various animals while trying to avoid getting captured. It’s impressive by itself, but made more so because it serves the plot in showing how dangerous the heist is going to be.

The visual effects are used quite well in bringing to life the many races and creatures that previous adaptations hardly touched upon. While they don’t play major roles, their presence lends itself to showing that there’s more than just humans, elves, and dwarves. There’s the eagle-like aarakocra and the aptly named dragonborn conversing with the characters. One of the most recognizable creatures within Dungeons & Dragons is the owlbear, brought to life is Doric’s preferred wild shape transformation whenever in combat. There’s even a unique use of a red dragon that’s wonderfully done with great animation making it all the more fresh and fun.

Honor Among Thieves is so much fun that it’s few flaws can be overlooked very easily. It tries not to be a spectacular epic like The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It flirts with going for the scope one would expected from the fantasy genre, but doesn’t quite go all the way. This can be either a good thing or bad depending on one’s interests. Same can be said with keeping the world-building at a minimum. While it would detract the story, digging deep into the history and lore of The Forgotten Realms would be enchanting to those interested. I may have to listen to it a few more times, but I found the score by Lorne Balfe to be merely pleasant and I’m not entirely sure how memorable they are. Again, these are minor criticisms that are forgivable for a film that’s difficult to dislike.

I’m hopeful that Goldstein and Daley have developed a blueprint on how to adapt Dungeons & Dragons into a feature film and make it work. Honor Among Thieves doesn’t take itself too seriously, yet it also avoids being a parody of the genre. The narrative benefits character development over unnecessary world-building, allowing for audiences to enjoy things happening and their servicing the storytelling. The animation is very nice and the overall visual effects do a wonderful job of bringing to life creatures and races from the game that had yet to be showcased on screen before. It is just a fun movie to watch from start to finish, having managed to roll a critical success.

I usually synopsize a movie in the second paragraph of my reviews. But for this movie there has been a question lingering that probably should be answered up front: how does this film connect to the Toy Story canon? That’s answered right at the beginning with text explaining that in 1995, Andy saw a movie featuring the fictional character Buzz Lightyear. He loved it so much he got the action figure for his birthday that year. We’re then told, “This is that movie”.

The story follows Buzz Lightyear and his fellow space rangers as they divert from a mission to explore an uncharted planet. They end up stranded after an attack from the local flora and fauna destroys their hyperdrive. Buzz makes it his single-minded mission to fix what he sees as his mistake. The rest of the crew decides on a different course. So Buzz is forced to rely on a small group of ragtag rookies to try to get everyone home.

The plot is a fairly by-the-numbers and straightforward story. There are no big surprises and the tension is never dialed up very high. Unlike many other Pixar features, there is really no strong emotional through-line driving viewers to feel the highs and lows along with the characters. That means no tears this time out! But it also means we don’t care as much about what our protagonist is going through. On top of all that, it’s also not an extremely funny film. Sure, there are laughs throughout. But it’s more action-adventure oriented than comedy-based, which might be surprising to some fans.

Now you’re probably reading that and thinking, “Predictable, lacks heart, and not funny? So it’s pretty bad, huh?” Well, not really! It’s actually a solid little film. Plotwise, the writers have given the characters realistic motivations and interesting conflicts. So rest assured that this is not a boring story. Emotionally, the characters are moved to make the choices they make for personally important reasons. And those are explored. And we can understand their differing points of view. True, it never rises to the point of making you feel personally invested, but that doesn’t mean the characters themselves aren’t. And a lack of non-stop laugh-out-loud humor doesn’t mean something isn’t fun. The filmmakers have crafted a film that is very different than what you might expect from Pixar. That alone doesn’t make it bad, but adjusting expectations might be a good idea.

Another story-point I want to mention are the references to Buzz Lightyear from the previous films. The writers have done their homework! Catching all the little things that explain or at least call-back to what toy Buzz did or said was a lot of fun. As a bonus, (and without giving much away) after the film be sure to consider the journey Buzz went through in this film; recap it in your mind… (I’ll expand on that in the comments if anyone would like me too!)

I am not saying the animation in Lightyear was bad, because it absolutely was not! But looking back I can’t really recall anything blowing me away or even standing out much. We may just be at a point where their quality is so good so often that we’re used to it, maybe even spoiled.

Michael Giacchino, who is no stranger to animation, sci-fi, or action adventure films, gets to put his considerable talents on display here, and it works well. Themes stand out, but occasionally things do get lost in the background.

One of the biggest fan reactions at the announcement of this film was the replacement of Tim Allen with Chris Evans as the voice of Buzz Lightyear. I thought this was an understandable decision since technically these are two different characters, and was willing to give Pixar the benefit of the doubt. That was the right call. Chris Evans wonderfully channels some of Allen’s vocal mannerisms and inflections while lending the character a lot more gravitas. James Brolin is a nice choice for Zurg. Keke Palmer and Dale Soules are solid sidekicks. Pixar director Peter Sohn is a lot of fun as a robotic cat named Sox. I’m a big fan of Taika Waititi. In movies like Jojo Rabbit, Thor, and Free Guy his eccentricities melded into his character. Here, though, I felt like Buzz Lightyear just had Taika Waititi hanging around with him. Fun maybe, but a bit distracting.

Overall, this was an enjoyable movie. Did it really need to be made? Perhaps not, but it’s here and it’s easily better than some of the other things we’ve had to sit through in recent years. Does it measure up to the rest of the Toy Story legacy films? No, but to be fair, that’s a high bar that hardly any follow-up from any studio for any franchise has ever been able to do. Should you see it? Yes, it’s definitely worth the time. Sure, it’s not the most buzz-worthy film in the Pixar vault. So maybe go in with your expectations lowered to just infinity.

The Bad Guys are one of the most feared and successful criminal enterprises in town. But when a moment of doubt by their leader gets them nabbed, the quick-thinking Mr. Wolf gets them a chance at redemption — if they can pretend to be good while supposedly being reformed.

The story centers around a heist, and the filmmakers have gone out of their way to get the various tropes of the genre right. Adult fans of films like The Usual Suspects or Reservoir Dogs will be smiling at all the nods while they watch with their children. And while the tone is definitely kid-friendly, the plot itself has not been dumbed down for their sakes. Not being able to see where things are going too easily is vital for a film with so many twists and turns, allowing both grown-ups and kids alike to get caught up trying to figure it out before the end.

For an animated film about bad guys becoming good guys, it would’ve been easy to lay on the moral message too thick. Thankfully, the writers don’t fall into the trap. The Bad Guys aren’t that bad when they’re being bad, but they’re also not that good when they’re being good. Their personalities aren’t defined solely by which side they’re on — they’re the same people they always were, just with some different motivations at different times. In other words, (mild spoilers ahead:) they’re still fun and interesting characters by the time we get to the inevitable happy ending.

While a compelling story and interesting characters are vital to good movies, it’s the addition of humor that helps really set apart the most enjoyable animated films. Here, The Bad Guys delivers the goods. A lot of the heavy lifting comes from the way they play with the conventions of the genre. For example, the cliched “hacker” character who is always seen typing away furiously is a tarantula — so when typing away furiously isn’t cutting it, her laptop ridiculously sprouts more keyboards allowing her to use more hands. The stereotypical “master of disguise” character is a giant shark — who no matter the disguise always looks like a giant shark… but still always fools everyone.

The animation is a departure from the DreamWorks norm. Rather than perfect CG models and effects, the film has a more hand drawn feel, like a mix of their usual style with Into the Spider-Verse and Looney Tunes added in. The overall effect is charmingly beautiful, but also gives the entire production a lot of energy and fun it wouldn’t have had with just out-of-the-box, plodding CG. Character animation is stellar across the line-up, with each extremely varied role (wolf, shark, tarantula, shark, piranha, fox, guinea pig and more) all getting distinctive touches that make their persona feel unique and fresh compared to all the others.

The voice crew assembled for this team is what really elevates things past “just a kids movie” into a really good heist film. Sam Rockwell as Mr. Wolf, Marc Maron as Mr. Snake, Anthony Ramos as Mr. Piranha, Craig Robinson as Mr. Shark, Awkwafina as Ms. Tarantula, and Zazie Beetz as Diane Foxington voiced characters that could have fit in with the cast of Ocean’s Eleven without missing a step. As good as all the other components of the movie were, like a good heist, I’m not sure the filmmakers could have pulled it off without this crew.

It’s been a long time since I’ve enjoyed an animated film this much in theaters… and much, much longer still since that film was from DreamWorks! Like their title characters, it’s great to see them leaving their bad days behind and moving on to do good.

In a world of fantasy, technology has taken hold, making what was once an enchanting land a lot more ordinary. Ian is a teenaged elf trying to figure out who he is. His older brother Barley is a role-playing game enthusiast who forgets to leave the role-playing part at the table. On Ian’s 16th birthday he is given a gift left for him by his father, who died before he was born — a magic staff that will allow him to come back for one day to see who his sons have grown up to be. However, with magic so rare in the world, the boys must go on an epic quest in order to complete the spell.

The buddies-on-a-journey plot line seems to have become the go-to for way too many animated screenwriters these days. While there’s no question it’s overused, it can still work. The trick is fourfold: first, make sure the audience likes, cares about, or relates to the characters; second, set the journey somewhere unique or interesting; third, have a good reason for the characters to need to reach their destination; and lastly, make sure the journey actually matters and isn’t just a plot device to get from A to B. How does Onward fare on each criterion?

While story is king at Pixar, it’s the strength of the characters that is going to drive it forward. If they’re not likable or relatable, the audience is not going to get invested. The brothers at the heart of this film absolutely fit that bill, and are easily the equals of other great Pixar duos like Woody and Buzz, Mike and Sully, and Marlin and Dory. In fact, outside the parent willing to do anything for their child dynamic in Finding Nemo, Ian and Barley may be two of the most easy characters to empathize with on that list.

Pixar has always had a knack for world building. And the mashed up fantasy realm/modern world setting may be not only one of their funnest, but the one with the most potential. Because it’s so new and fresh, almost anything can happen and the audience doesn’t know what to expect next. Toys, race cars, and fish have some built in limitations to what you can do with them. Superheroes are overdone. Old men in flying houses, rats cooking in kitchens, and kids visiting the land of the dead are great one-off ideas, but their worlds are inextricably tied to their specific plots. The monster world may be the next most open, but taking those characters away from their jobs would make for a contrived storyline. But the world of Onward, much like the Dungeons and Dragons inspired game it revolves around, is an unlimited canvas where there are so many possible stories waiting to play out. And unlike the monsters world, these characters are free to move about it wherever the writers might want to take them.

Every quest has an end, and in a Pixar film that usually means tears are involved, even for those with the hardiest constitutions! In Onward, the worthwhile goal the boys are trying to reach is getting the chance to see their father one more time. So, yes, teary eyes will be the norm here once again! But let’s understand that it’s never because the writers are manipulating emotions in order to get that reaction. It’s because they have sent their characters (whom they got us to care about) on a journey to a place (that was worth the effort), and when they succeed in reaching their goal (especially when it happens in a way they and we weren’t expecting), we’re genuinely happy for them.

Of the four saving throws required to not fall into the usual buddies-on-a-journey movie traps, the most important may be ensuring the journey actually mattered. The goal is going to be a very small part of the film, after all. The majority of the running time is actually getting there. But having an interesting journey isn’t enough. The trek has to have significance. That can mean the characters grow along the way and maybe that changes their perspective. Or maybe they learn something that helps them achieve their objective. Without the trip itself being of some consequence, the whole plot will seem lightweight and trivial. Without wanting to spoil anything, let’s just say Onward crit hits this objective!

There are of course other things that make Onward work where others have not. A common issue the film avoids is the road trip never feels episodic. The boys’ journey is occasionally broken up with a separate plot line involving their mother looking for them. And the biggest thing that helps: it’s just a very funny movie! Comedy can sometimes be used to cover lingering issues. But when you’re doing so much right already, humor can really level-up a film.

One of my favorite things about Pixar movies is their occasional subversive wisdom. I don’t mean anything dark or dangerous — just outside the norm of what Hollywood usually considers for a children’s movie. Sometimes that’s the messaging: “If everyone is special, no one is” from The Incredibles, or “Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere” from Ratatouille. Sometimes it’s an unexpected resolution, like Mike and Sully saving the day at the end of Monsters University but still being expelled because they broke the rules. Onward doesn’t go as far as those films, but still manages to surprise viewers.

The animation is outstanding in this movie, helped immensely by the fantasy genre. Character designs are varied and detailed, and dexterously merge the mythological with the mundane in a way that feels organic. Mountains, caves, and meadows are suitably stunning, while more pedestrian sets like schools, restaurants, and suburban sprawl are plussed up with thematically appropriate playful touches. The only negative I could add is that they might have done too good a job. By making it all look so effortless, some might not appreciate all the work that went into the designs.

The voice acting in Onward is solid — no surprise when you see the cast list! Chris Pratt gives an amazing performance as the good-natured but somewhat goofy Barley. Don’t be fooled. At first you may feel it’s just Pratt playing his usual role. But watch closely and you’ll see that he actually has the most work of any character in the film, in regards to the range of emotions he has to convey. Tom Holland is good as the intelligent but insecure Ian, but can’t help but pale in comparison to Pratt since most of his screen time is alongside him. I love Julia Louis-Dreyfus, but while she does a fine enough job I felt her performance didn’t always come across well (but some of that, as usual, could be down to writing). And Octavia Spencer is mostly fun as a manticore/business woman.

The only somewhat major complaint I could make of the film, if I have to, is with the music by (appropriately enough, brothers) Mychael and Jeff Danna. In dramatic or exciting scenes it came through strong and stirring! But it was otherwise just there in the background. Of course, that’s where background music is supposed to be! But I did say I was only making this criticism if I had to.

The wizards of Emeryville have made every ability check: Onward is great storytelling combined with charismatic leads in a unique world wrapped up in beautiful animation. Definitely take the initiative to see this one because it is a campaign worth playing.

Super spy Lance Sterling retrieves a new type of weapons drone from a black market arms dealer. On his return from the field he fires Walter, a scientist with some weird ideas who altered one of his gadgets to make it less lethal. When Sterling is later framed for stealing the drone and has the agency he worked for coming after him, he turns to Walter to help him disappear. (I assume everyone has seen the posters and trailers and knows this is done by turning him into a pigeon!)

For the most part this is a fun, light story that can be enjoyed without any demands being made of the viewer. You’ll get a few laughs, but won’t be birdened by having to think too hard or worry about being reduced to tears by some emotional gut punch. And I say all of that as a good thing! Sometimes you just want to enjoy yourself with an interesting-enough story and have some fun. If only more animated movies could achieve that goal, amirite?

Where Spies in Disguise falls short is that they take the motivations for Walter’s character farther than required for the story. He’s a kinda weird guy who makes glitter guns and inflatable hugs. Fun! Perfect! Kids will eat it up and it will even make adults laugh. But, no. Instead Walter has to have a method behind the madness: he believes there are no good guys and no bad guys, and implies that somehow the good guys are actually responsible for the actions of the bad guys if they are too violent. The main villain in the film actually states this as his motive. In a previous mission where he and his men were about to harm lots of innocent civilians, the agency saved the day by killing most of the bad guys. When Sterling tells him “we were protecting people”, the villain actually responds, “but what about my people?” And (for some reason) this hits Sterling hard, as if he really is responsible for the villain’s current actions. If that weren’t ridiculous enough, Walter doesn’t expect he will rid the world of bad guys but will get them to start using his methods too! So, what, a serial killer is going to start using an inflatable hug with his victims I guess? It’s all very naive and without any hint of nuance. Which makes me think this wasn’t meant to be any kind of message movie. I believe the writer’s were just trying to give the film a little more weight than it needed by giving Walter a meatier reason for being kind of weird. Luckily all this will fly right over the heads of the kids in the audience, not because it is complex but because it is a very child-like view of the world. And while adults may roll their eyes at the immaturity of it, since it’s done more clumsily rather than preachy, it’s almost completely ignorable. (More clues that this wasn’t done to make a point.) OK, rant over! Back to the story!

As I mentioned earlier, the basic plot idea is a lot of fun. The idea of a super spy having to learn to operate a a bird is full of comedy potential. And they have definitely mined the idea to good effect. But I wished they had taken it to zanier heights. Soon after Sterling is turned into a pigeon, Walter explains many cool facts about them. For example, they can fly 90 miles per hour, they can see the world in slow motion, and infrared light is not invisible to them. With Chekhov’s gun in mind, I assumed we’d see those abilities coming in handy during the film. Nope. Sill a lot of fun to be had, but humor possibilities were left on the table.

One very minor quibble I almost hate to bring up, but I did find odd and a little distracting: isn’t there already an animated character named Sterling who is the world’s greatest spy?

The animation in Spies in Disguise is pretty good. The sets and locations are all top notch. The bright and colorful palette contributes to the overall fun vibe. The bird characters are all great. And Sterling himself is well done. But I wasn’t a fan of the rest of the character designs. They all felt either overly generic or too cartoon-y.

The score wasn’t memorable at all — mainly because pop songs litter the entire film. There is a lot of good music. But there is just way too much of it. All the song cues were way more than necessary and it actually started getting a little annoying!

The voice cast is filled with stars, but were they really needed? Will Smith is outstanding as a suave sophisticated secret agent. Tom Holland is mostly great as a nerdy research scientist, though occasionally his performance felt a little phoned in. Ben Mendelsohn is perfect as the villainous bad guy (if you believe there are actually bad guys). The rest of the cast featured Rashida Jones, Karen Gillan, Reba McEntire, and DJ Khaled. All were fine in their roles, but the small parts felt very over-cast for stars of their calibre.

Sure a few things about Spies in Disguise ruffled my feathers, but in reality the entire thing together is good enough, especially for kids. If only the filmmakers had just embraced what they had though (a fun and unique story with a great lead actor), it could’ve flown much higher.

If you’re wondering where Finding Santa: A Christmas Adventure exactly came from, it’s an animated movie released in Denmark way back in 2016 which has only very recently been given an English dub. From what I’ve been able to gather, it’s gone by a number of alternate titles over the years–including Get Santa and, yes, even A Christmas Story–before making it’s way over to the states. Of course, right now, there’s the much flashier Klaus on Netflix wowing virtually everyone for its hand-drawn animation and clever take on the Santa Claus mythology. Is there space for a more obscure Santa-themed film this December as well?

For better or for worse, the answer is probably going to be no, as Finding Santa simply isn’t that accessible of a film, at least as far as western audiences are concerned. This isn’t to say that it’s not without its own fair share of appeal, as there are occasional bursts of charm and even beauty spread throughout its fairly brief 80 minute running time. But it’s also something of an oddity, telling a fairly standard “believe in Santa Claus” story while also throwing in various aspects that play off as flat-out bizarre, including bullies who on more than one occasion appear to be trying to kill a child because…well, they’re bullies (okay, to the film’s credit, it does try to give them a motivation, but their behavior still comes across as ludicrously excessive).

Then there’s the film’s take on Krampus, who looks and sounds a lot like Jeremy Hillary Boob from Yellow Submarine for some reason. There’s a backstory in which the character used to abduct naughty children for Santa Claus and send them to his coal mines for the rest of their lives, something which would normally at least be acknowledged to be demented and terrible, but here is largely brushed aside as a means for him to want revenge on his former boss.

In other words, I’m pretty sure the target audience for Finding Santa is intended to be small children, but search me if they are going to enjoy this or not. There are whimsical aspects here and there which stand out as genuinely amusing–I myself was won over by a pair of rams who bicker like an old couple–but too often the narrative feels like it’s struggling to come up with where it wants to go, which is a shame because the animation is sometimes quite nice to look at, with landscapes which look as though they came from a toy village in a Hallmark store. On the flip side of that, the characters themselves are something of a mixed bag, looking as though they are dolls made out of clay. That’s a concept which from a visual standpoint sounds good on paper, but the problem is they aren’t terribly expressive, resulting in the heads bucking back and fourth in a way which may be off-putting to many viewers.

Granted, for people like me–as well as probably many readers of this website–watching a foreign movie of this sort can carry a certain level of fascination, as it’s always interesting to look at what other countries are producing in terms of animation, not only when it comes to their potential artistic value, but also in how they represent the cultures in which they come from. It’s also an experience that can be quite rewarding, leading to the personal discovery of largely unseen international gems like Mary & Max and Jack & the Cuckoo-Clock Heart which are worthy of eager recommendation to family and friends. The “issue”–if we can call it that–with Finding Santa is it doesn’t make much effort to be anything more than a typical Christmas outing, and even with the questionably grim aspects the story sometimes ventures into (usually in a seemingly clueless nature), it still feels a little too simplistic as it makes its way to its yuletide ending (which, as a sucker for these sorts of things, I will say is nice).

Ultimately, Finding Santa is perfectly harmless for what it is. It is a bit of a bummer, though, that the film doesn’t always do more with what it has to offer (Krampus, for instance, is never even remotely threatening as a bad guy). For those curious in checking out a piece of foreign animation for the holidays, it might be worth a look, yet recommending this as a blind buy for anyone might be a bit of stretch. It’s not quite worthy of making the top of Santa’s nice list, but it’s far from earning a lump of coal in its stocking.

(Finding Santa: A Christmas Adventure is available on DVD and is also available for streaming on Amazon, iTunes, DirecTV, and Google Play)

The film was announced five years ago as an obvious attempt to cash in on the surprisingly wonderful The Lego Movie, with producers announcing their version within months. It went through several studios, a bankruptcy, and two years of release date changes before finally reaching an audience in the United States.

With all that going against it, Playmobil: The Movie is a lot better than it has any right to be! Sadly, with several huge titles being released over the next few weeks, theatres are probably going to push this one out quickly to make their auditoriums more profitable. But here’s a mini-review to hopefully convince you to give it a chance, either very soon or later on home video.

The film surprises right out of the gate with a live-action opening sequence with an unexpected dark turn, giving things a lot more weight than you probably thought you were in for. The setup of moving the live-action characters to an animated world is done with out trying to explain anything — a somewhat refreshing choice to avoid unnecessary plot and just keep things moving. While that plot is a relatively by-the-numbers affair (Character A goes on a journey to rescue Character B), it is done well and never feels episodic. While it never gets close to the hilarity of The Lego Movie, the film does have a wonderful, if more muted, sense of humor.

Despite what you might think about a movie based on Playmobil toys, I thought the animation was really well done. At a reported cost of $75 million, this is not the typical low budget you would expect for a film like this. And while it will cost the producers dearly based on box office projections, at least the final product up on the screen (animation-wise) shows where the money went.

The voice acting was pretty good too — with one major exception. Anya Taylor-Joy is fantastic as adventure-loving but put-upon Marla. Gabriel Bateman gives an authentic performance as Charlie, Marla’s young brother who misses his sister. Daniel Radcliffe steals the show as James Bond-esque spy Rex Dasher. And Adam Lambert is a lot of fun as the evil emperor with the voice of an angel. Unfortunately, Jim Gaffigan as Del, the friend for hire who helps Marla on her journey, was not a good fit. His vocal choices were very grating to me.

OK, let’s be honest. This is not going to win any Academy Awards. But if given the chance to watch, kids will probably love it. Even I had a smile on my face most of the running time. It’s not hysterical, but it is fun. It’s not fine art, but it is well made. It’s not deep, but it is sincere. And it’s not Lego, but despite what everyone assumed, Playmobil isn’t trying to be.

Anna, Olaf, Kristof, and Elsa are all pondering what it means to mature and whether things have to change as we age, when… things start to change and they have to all grow up a little more to face it! A magical voice calls to Elsa, though she wants to ignore its song. Her no-longer-gloved hand is forced when a mysterious power drives her people out of Arendelle. She and the others head north to uncover secrets hidden in the past, the repercussions of which are endangering their present, and may change the course of their futures.

Frozen II is not Frozen I. That statement could be both good or bad. Unfortunately, Frozen II is more of the latter. You want your sequels to be fresh and not just rehash what came before. What you don’t want is a sequel that doesn’t feel connected to the original. In fact, this almost doesn’t feel like a Frozen film at all. The whole thing seemed like some other story with the characters from Frozen shoehorned in. Where the first movie kept things mostly light with some well-earned poignancy thrown in, here solemnity is the norm with some slightly-jarring humor added occasionally. Frozen was fun, this was more of a chore.

Just as bad for a sequel, several plot points don’t mesh well with the first movie. For example (and without giving too much away) characters act contrary to the way they did in the first, and characters that we learn had specific knowledge in this movie could have used that information in the last film.

Even allowing this outing to stand on its own without comparing it with its better predecessor, it doesn’t fare well. The beginning of the movie is filled with way too much exposition. Characters go on and on telling us backstory rather than letting it be revealed in a more organic way. While I say that as a knock, thank goodness it was there because the entire story is extremely convoluted and confusing. I can see why the writers included so much explicit exposition early — because they had to get it all out quickly to make way for their ponderous plot. I readily admit that I could not explain to you, even if I wanted to spoil the movie, exactly what happened. Part of that is due to the overly complex story; part is due to poor explanatory writing; but a big portion of it is it just doesn’t make a lot of sense to begin with. I really don’t think most kids are going to know what’s going on.

There were several new characters joining our main cast: a group of Arendelle soldiers led by Lieutenant Mattias; Yelana, the leader of a tribe to the north; and tribe-members Honeymaren and Ryder. But this is Elsa and Anna’s film and just about every other character could have been removed without much trouble. Kristof and Olaf are relegated to lightening the mood when needed, but could have stayed home with the people of Arendelle. Mattias and Yelana are semi-important to the plot, but are rarely utilized and could have been replaced with even more exposition! Honeymaren and Ryder could have been completely cut from the movie without a single change required. Now, is it a bad thing that Elsa and Anna are the sole driver’s of the narrative? Not at all. But it might have made for a more interesting story if they were forced to interact in a meaningful way with the characters around them. How do you do that without lengthening an already too long film? Kill two birds with one stone: simplify the plot.

Music was such an important part of the original Frozen. In that review I wrote, “not only are [the songs] fun, they’re well-written — catchy music, clever lyrics, intricate harmonies and counterpoints, with both plot-advancers and showstoppers. This could be most ambitious Disney song score since The Hunchback of Notre Dame“. Unfortunately, the only word I would use from that review when talking about the songs in Frozen II would be “ambitious” — but without the same connotation. I was a music major in college. So I find some of the songs here intriguing in that they are unconventional — uncommon intervals, unusual rhythms, unexpected dissonance. Academically interesting? Sure. But easily singable — especially by the target audience — they ain’t! Part of what made the first movie so ubiquitous was you couldn’t go anywhere without hearing the songs, either on the radio, on random phones, or someone actually just singing it out in public. I don’t know that we’ll see that for this soundtrack.

However, the filmmakers are extremely lucky in that they have such an amazing cast singing these songs. I wasn’t sold on Jonathan Groff the first time out, but that may have been because he wasn’t given much. But the man can sing! Josh Gad is such an unexpected talent — thank goodness to whoever took a chance on him when he first started out! Kristen Bell is Anna. The character would have to be rewritten without her. And Idina Menzel. There are just no words good enough to praise her ability. There would be no Frozen at all without her. (That said — and this is something you won’t hear often — Brendon Urie of Panic at the Disco out-sang Menzel on the end credits version of Into the Unknown!)

There is one aspect of the film that you can’t complain about and that is Disney’s bread and butter — animation. The sets (like the enchanted forest) are stunning. The effects (like Elsa attempting to cross the sea) are incredible. And, like the original, who knew costume design in a cartoon could be so beautiful and interesting.

I’ve been hard on Frozen II, I know. But the first became such an important and iconic film in our collective culture. Trying to follow-up on that would be as impossible as finding two identical snowflakes. Of all the studios in Hollywood, Disney knows that maybe best as evidenced by their prudence when it comes to sequels. That self-restraint has been admirable, and one would hope that when the company decides to move forward with a “part two”, they will only do so if they can make a worthy and worthwhile successor. And if that’s not the goal, what should you do with your sequel plan? Let it go.

Teenager Yi is struggling to cope with the loss of her father to the point of isolating herself from family and friends. One evening, she happens upon a Yeti hiding on the rooftop of her apartment building in Shanghai and bonds with it. When an elderly entrepreneur becomes intent on capturing the creature, Yi determines to help her new friend return to its home on Mount Everest after she and neighbors Jin and Peng inadvertently tag along for the ride. Venturing out of the city and across the landscapes of mainland China, they try to stay one step ahead of their pursuers while discovering the magical capabilities of the Yeti, who the teens refer to as Everest.

The narrative is fairly basic. It’s almost detrimental how basic it is. The film utilizes familiar plot devices, holds back a lot on character development, and keeps conflicts to a minimum. Hardly at any point in the film do Yi and Everest have any sense of friction with one another. Most of the bickering is from Jin, but even then there’s not much animosity and he begins to roll along sooner than later. It does feel like more could have been added to the film to expand on the characters, but were prevented from doing so in order to keep the film around 90 minutes. And while there are a couple of moments where the antagonists get closer to capturing Everest, the situations are not really all that dire. It leads up to a showdown that is very anti-climatic after all is said and done.

While the storytelling is rather safe, it’s not too terrible. It’s fairly well told all things considered. I think part of that has to do with the pacing of the film, with the key plot elements spread out evenly and in a manner that makes it all easy to follow without being overwhelming. It manages to time when to go from dramatic sequence to character moment so that they flow swimmingly. And there are elements that are nicely presented that they manage to compensate for the overall narrative not being greater than it could be. As much as there was a lot of depth to Yi that isn’t presented, such as an understanding to how important her father was to her that she would have difficulty moving on from his passing, scenes showing how the journey has been helping her heal emotionally are pleasantly realized.

Another aspect to why I think the film is at least good is how likable the protagonists are. Everest is an adorable creature whose childish charm is displayed in a cute and natural manner, resulting in smiles throughout. Yi makes for a fine heroine and her appeal is in how she strives to overcome her internal adversity as she becomes closer to Everest. Jin has his moments of being shallow and self-indulgent, but he does have a caring side that allows for him to become a better person. Peng is whole optimistic that it can sometimes be a flaw, but it works quite well when paired with the impressionable Yeti that he ends up enjoyable. By the time the film ends, the quartet become an adorable bunch that it’s heartwarming.

The film assembles a nice cast to provide voices for the characters. Chloe Bennet does a fine job portraying Yi as capable with hints of vulnerability. Tenzing Norgay Trainor gives Jin a fun voice that’s entertaining. Albert Tsai finds the right childish appeal in Peng. Eddie Izzard is very good in providing a unique voice to Burnish the entrepreneur. Sarah Paulson works well with zoologist Dr. Zara. It’s Joseph Izzo who gives a great voice to Everest, creating creature sounds and noises that are natural and fun. Admittedly, the cast only do enough to make the characters pleasing and, aside from Izzo’s contributions to Everest, don’t really elevate them to being all that memorable. Bennet and Izzard clearly try, but some of the character development being held back does hamper the performances a bit.

If anything, the best thing about Abominable is the animation. The collaboration between DreamWorks Animation and Pearl Studios has resulted in a beautiful looking film. It may not be the best animation produced, certainly not on the level of say this year’s other DreamWorks feature How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World. Nevertheless, the visuals on display are breathtaking to behold, realizing key locations of China in a such a way that it beckons viewers to go out see it for themselves in person. The character designs are simple, but no less appealing as they bring out their personalities quite well. This is certainly so with how Everest is visualized and animated, adding to the character’s charm that’s lovable.

Adding to the film’s beauty are the effects for when magic is presented. Again, it would seem simple to visualize blueberries growing and then overgrowing to the point of creating miniature meteorites that pummel the characters from behind. But there’s a nice little quality to it that makes the scene fun to watch. More impressive is later on when it applies to Yi’s emotional healing. Even though it’s almost given away in full in the trailer, I won’t say much more to what extent this occurs. It is nonetheless realized in a heartwarming way that it adds to the appeal to the character and how she becomes connected to Everest.

An aspect that is shown in the trailer is the violin playing a central part in the narrative. And as you would expect, it plays a big role in the film’s score. But composer Rupert Gregson-Williams makes a wise choice in letting the violin solos really sing only in the key scenes where it is vital. This makes its presence really shine against the rest of the music played through the film. Gregson-Williams himself even contributes to Everest, providing him musical hums that is present when magic is performed. The music overall does an effective job in enhancing the scenes when played to bring out their emotional impact. It’s nothing groundbreaking and Gregson-Williams has composed better scores, but it’s no less enjoyable to listen to.

Abominable is a delightful film. The very basic narrative prevents it from being better than it had the potential of becoming, almost to the point of being dangerously detrimental. What’s more, some character development seems to be held back and ends up denying us what would surely be some wonderful moments. Regardless, it’s charming and appealing enough to be rather enjoyable. With animation that’s simple yet beautiful, a nice music score that plays a big part in the storytelling, and a fine cast of likable characters, it’s a lovely film that will surely attract families looking for a nice film to watch. Just don’t go in expecting it to reach the highest peak of the creative mountain.