So Paperman won an Oscar for best animated short film and it totally deserved it.
The story is about a young man attempts to get the attention of a young woman by throwing paper airplanes by her window.
Paperman is only 6 minutes long and it was the most beautiful, the most adorable, and just spot on perfection, and that's only 6 minutes of film showed. It's amazing how short animated films can tell a better love story than real life.
This was such a good movie that I'll probably watch it again when it gets closer to Christmas. Feels like an instant Christmas classic!
Why dose The Rock look like a PS2 cut scene in this movie?
And who thought it was a great idea to make a spin-off for the worst CGI character in 'The Mummy Returns'. I mean was he the bad guy in that movie?
A good movie. It's not a masterpiece, but still an interesting point of view on classic Treasure Island by Stevenson, sort of space/fantasy style.
And since it was made by Disney before lgbtqntcrap+ feministic agenda time there is no annoying stuff they pull nowadays. Recommended!
This movie will always have a place in my heart.
The Best Movie Ever!!!!❤❤❤❤❤ I want Treasure Planet 2, this movie was present in my entire childhood ❤❤❤❤ and others...
Unequivocally, unmistakably, undeniably Disney's greatest animated film. A masterpiece, as far as I'm concerned. Long read ahead!
Film and reviews are all about opinions, which is only a positive thing. I, for one, though have yet to find a better animation than this. No doubt I'm probably partly clouded by nostalgia, but even a tonne of years later I still remember how blown away I was when I first watched it. Nothing's changed.
Where to start? I love every single detail about this film, for which there are many. Not only does it improve upon the studio's earlier 1950 production about Robert Louis Stevenson's 1883 novel, but it manages to create an incredibly touching, amusing and rather thrilling story for all. They don't rely on the usual, overdone Disney front and center romance to do it either.
It's a story of a young kid coming-of-age into the world. You really go on a journey with Jim Hawkins, who hadn't had the most happiest childhood. We see him grow into a man across just 95 short minutes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt brings Jim to life superbly, no surprise to see he has done other great things in his career.
Gordon-Levitt isn't the only outstanding performer here, with Brian Murray and Emma Thompson showing their talents in the roles of John Silver and Capt. Amelia. I adore the dynamic between Silver and Hawkins, Murray is truly brilliant. Thompson is great in her role, also.
Even below those aforementioned names, you have memorable characters in Delbert (David Hyde Pierce), B.E.N. (Martin Short) and Mr. Arrow (Roscoe Lee Browne). Morph (Dane Davis) is a cracking little sidekick, too.
Away from the cast, you also have the sensational animation. They mix hand-drawn 2D and computer generated 3D, which comes out exquisitely. Sure some of it hasn't aged impeccably compared to now, but it all to this day still looks utterly stunning. I love the attention to detail.
That's not all. How about that music? I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've listened to that soundtrack down the years, it's so beautifully crafted by James Newton Howard and John Rzeznik; the latter's, as part of the Goo Goo Dolls, "I'm Still Here" fits so, so well.
Can you tell how much fondness I hold for this? It's fantastic! Did Disney mishandle it? Sure. Does it deserves more respect? Definitely. However, I'm kinda glad they just let Ron Clements and John Musker do their thing. Heavy Disney interference could've ruined it. The fact this has zero pointless sequels is marvellous, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
There are minor rumours they plan to live-action this. Normally I'd argue against classics being remade, but I think this 2002 production is in a win-win position in that regard. If it's a big success it'll be good for it, if it's terrible then it'll put more eyes on the original.
It's kinda funny, I don't see myself as a Disney fan and yet my two favourites films (this + 'Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl') are from this studio - and both pirate-y, interestingly. Hmm.
Go watch 'Treasure Planet'!
I really feel this is one of Disney's most underrated and forgot movies, along with Atlantis and Goofy Movie. I currently am reading Treasure Island and like the twists that Disney made with the source material.
The voice acting is top notch and the humor is mixed well with the action. I'd highly recommend watching this if you never have or want to relieve a gem from your childhood you may have forgotten.
9/10
I normally don't rate movies a 1* but I wasn't even able to finish this crap
Don’t waste your time with this movie. Knights of the Zodiac is a horrible adaptation of the classic anime, with performances that seem like they’re from a Mexican soap opera. The special effects are ridiculous, the dialogues are clichéd and the story is confusing. The movie does not do justice to the Knights of the Zodiac, who deserved a better version. This movie is an offense to fans and newcomers who want to know the saga.
Dumb movie, full of bad clichés, unfortunately.
I watched Zodiad Knights anime on the 90's and even recently, and this has nothing to do with it. It's a movie to avoid
A very enjoyable nostalgia piece on the making of “We Are The World”. They do a really good job building the tension around corralling the stars and just how impressive it was that it all came together. Well recommended.
The good: great themesong, two iconic scenes (hanging inches from the floor and exploding from a helicopter onto a speeding train), lots of action and spy-stuff.
The bad: terribly annoying plot that only consists of running from one actionscene to the next. Whenever some plotpoint gets stuck it gets solved by the fact that someone was doublecrossed, even if it doesn't make sense.
The ugly: Throughout the movie I kept expecting development in the (cardboard) characters, some overarching storyline or some surprising twists to get me emotionally involved, but this movie consists only of empty thrills. I might as well have only watched the actionsequences and skipped the rest of the 'story'. I get the feeling this movie was only made because Tom Cruise wanted to star in an actionfilm.. There is no tension throughout the film, no excitement, no funny dialogue, no romance, no emotion whatsoever: just actionscene followed by a doublecrossing, actionscene followed by a doublecrossing...
It's a fun, cheesy action spy thriller that created some iconic scenes. Tom Cruise is having a lot of fun and the stunts are cool. The hanging scene really is great. The train scene looks a little dated but still is entertaining.
With Mission: Impossible, De Palma made one of the most recognizable action movies of the 90s, and it has actually aged rather well. Just as fun as I remembered it.
Though...the one thing that STILL rubs me the wrong way is that they made a certain person a bad guy. That does not ring well with a fan of the old tv-series. If you read up on that, you'll know what I mean.
A classic still worth to spend time with!!!
Has nothing to do with the National Treasure Movies.
Is a bad made series for 14 year olds.
If you want to watch a good treasure hunt series, watch "blood & treasure" or "hooten and the lady".
Let's be real here. This isn't a good film. And it's flawed from the get-go.
The casting. Dreadful. Hanks is a creation from Batman Returns. Priscilla has none of her beauty. And the most fundamentally unforgiveable issue - Elvis doesn't look like Elvis. Who signed off on an actor to carry this film where the eyes nose and mouth are absolutely incorrect?
The editing. Horrendous and overdone. There is barely a moments peace from the onslaught. However, for this catastrophe of cinematography to only cost 85 million USD is a triumph.
The pov aspect. Why in the hell would you base this around the ridiculous story of Colonel Tom Parker only to then leave out half of the facts? And it's not short on time at 2hr 30.
And finally, the pacing. When Elvis is washed up prior to the 68 Comeback special we haven't been fed enough of him at his peak for the rise and fall to make sense. When he passes, the bloatedness isn't shown and then arrives unexplained but for a single line of voice over. Periods that needed to be shown are glossed over and periods of relative unnecessity are dragged out.
But the real crime is the music. I counted 2 uninterrupted performances. The rest were manic collages or mixed in with - wait for it - modern hip hop... What egotistical mind decided that was a good idea...?
I watched. Now I'll hope to forget. And for anyone who wants an actual representation of Elvis from an actor who actually looks like him and tells the actual story, look for the Jonathan Rhys Meyers TV miniseries biopic.
To paraphrase a Bill Burr routine... Elvis was the first to be a major superstar. He made all the mistakes because he had nobody who had led the way.
Why is that not spelled out?
The 'theft' of black music. The 'child' marriage... I get that 2022 eyes see the world differently but a film like this shouldn't pander to the modern trend for rewriting history. It should provide perspective.
If Elvis hadn't grown up surrounded by black culture and organically witnessed that music, he'd be Pat Boone. But he wasn't. He was a true child of the musical influences. If he hadn't had his career, then it might have been another 20 years before black music found white ears... And it wouldn't have been a black artist who brought it. That's the sad truth. There needs to be a conduit and Elvis was that.
To labour this point... Tom Hanks being cast as a gay man afflicted with HIV (Philadelphia) opened the door to films of that nature being mainstream. Nowadays a gay man must be cast in that role. But you don't get to where we are without Tom Hanks being the conduit. That seems to be lost on people these days.
Progress is a series of incremental steps.
And look at the Priscilla marriage. The age of consent and the times and the location were all a world away. Don't be outraged at this, be outraged at Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry.
How sad the film was so overwhelmed by its desire to create ridiculous camerawork that it failed to deliver any of the impact of the first major superstar.
5/10
They always say “read the book first” but sometimes it is fascinating watching a film version without any knowledge of the text it is based on. Book fans can get quite agitated at seeing their vision or interpretation of the book trampled on in some way but at the same time if the film doesn’t capture the essence of the book in some way, then what’s the point ? Looking at this purely as a film, it is enjoyable to watch, but what is a little disappointing is Luhrmann seems to be trying to recapture much of what made Moulin Rouge so great and repeating himself, sometimes successfully and sometimes less so. The fast paced editing, visual style, music and direction captures the decadence, glamour and excess of Gatsby’s world in much the same way, though equally this heightened anachronistic interpretation of the 1920s will no doubt delight or irritate in much the same way too. Both DiCaprio and Maguire are excellent as Gatsby and Carroway and the strongest moments of the film are their scenes together. Indeed, the exploration of the character of Gatsby himself, his motivations, hopes and backstory and importantly Carroway’s interpretation of him form much of what works well within the film and it was no surprise to learn that these two were cast well before others. Luhrmann evokes a great sense of mystery and intrigue over Gatsby's character initially, gradually revealing elements over the course of the film and DiCaprio's presence and charisma serve the character well. The overarching narration that served Moulin Rouge so well is also present, however here it feels heavy handed and ultimately unnecessary (despite some clever visual trickery with words from the book), with Luhrmann seemingly unwilling to let the audience take their own interpretation of the story from what is presented. Furthermore, whilst Mulligan is fine as the central female character, it is difficult to care about her other than through Gatsby’s motivation and Edgerton’s performance veers towards pantomime on occasion, another stylistic conceit seemingly lifted from Moulin Rouge. These two characters may well serve to underline one of the film’s themes at the end but it makes it very difficult to accept Gatsby’s motivation other than through DiCaprio’s admittedly great performance. A partial return to form then for Luhrmann after Australia, but not wholly successful either.
This is the greatest movie to watch when you are high or drunk. The whole movie feels like an existential experience. 9/10.
I finished the book recently and when I was watching this movie I thught I was reading the book again. This is one of the best adaption of a book I've ever seen. The acting was great. Leonardo DiCaprio did a marvelous work, as always. I also love Toby McGuire performance. The worst is the music, too modern for that age.
how could someone possibly deny Olivia Wilde
this movie really touched me.
The animation holds up, if you're into that kind of really old cartoon style (which I am), and it's pretty fun. However, I feel like it overstayed its welcome, and probably could have been a couple of minutes shorter... maybe cutting out half of the animal abuse music-making would have worked in its favour.
But hey, the '20s were a different time, so I won't entirely fault Disney for that. When all is said and done, it's a fun short.
Steamboat Willie is a hand-drawn animated short film directed by Walt Disney. This cartoon is considered to be the debut of Mickey and Minnie Mouse, but this is incorrect. Both Minnie and Mickey appeared in Plane Crazy.
Steamboat Willie is especially notable for being the first Disney cartoon with synchronized sound.
My favourite scene was when Mickey gets shot in the face with milk by a Cow..
The music here was great and the way that Mickey turned the other animals into instruments was both traumatising and interesting at the same time.
The historical value of this short is undeniable, but I just didn't enjoy it that much.
Captain Pete, the "bad guy", just wants Mickey to do his job. Meanwhile Minnie is a stowaway, and Mickey abuses every animal on the ship. And I think he might have killed that bird! Different times!
welcome to the public domain. I cant wait to see what people are going to do creatively with mickey.
"...[T]here’s a vanishingly fine line between being masterfully unsatisfying and being straight-up unsatisfying."
-AV Club
That's how this show felt, at times, it was an amazing procedural and amazing narrative about the unfairness of the justice system. At other times, it was the worst. At both. I suppose I should give it a higher rating, it was made to be upsetting, but I feel like it wasn't just the characters who ended up deserving better, it was us too.
The pilot is really amazing and the rest of the series is not on the same level but it's still really, really good, with great characters and a wonderful pair of actors in John Turturro and Riz Ahmed. This is how procedural crime stories should be made.
It’s not the best movie. Yet it’s sadly better than most movies based on a cartoon series. It doesn’t try too hard to be the show, yet it’s still faithful.
