Noah

Random person: "Do you always get teary eyed on Snapes death scene ?"
Me: "Always..."

I hesitate to comment, as the comments of this movie seem to be infested with Q-Anon crazies filling their pants with glee about a known Q-Anon-believer starring in a halfway decent movie. Because yes: This film is somewhat mired in controversy as Caviezel is an admitted Q-Anon-believer. This, however, does not echo in the movie. Unless you think all C.S.A. is a conspiracy, in which case I feel for you deeply.

And yes: Halfway decent, because even though (or because of) the movie is billed as 'low budget', it's still a very decent movie to watch! The theme around kidnapping and exploiting children is approached with some care, but without pulling punches. Not sensationalist, but not shying away from the realities of this "business". So for that bit: More that worth the watch, whatever your stance on the actor is. The last part of the movie is a bit of a let-down though. The film takes a wrong turn somewhere, and turns into an action romp but fails to take in account the earlier tone. So if you want to watch a good-to-great movie: Stop watching the moment he goes into the jungle. If you are in for a fair-but-flawed movie: Watch it all.

All in all worth your time, unless you are hung up on the cuckoo idea's of the main character.

Unlike many, I went into the theater to see this movie with no primer. The only message I got from this movie was "God does not like child sex trafficking and we should do something about it", and I still don't know what this movie was trying to say other than that, because quite frankly, I don't care. I've heard the lead actor Jim Caviezel is connected to the whole QAnon conspiracy craze, and I feel like that's the only reason he felt the need to add the post-credit ticket mutual aid section to the film, because while it's important to understand the importance of issues like child sex trafficking, I do not understand why else the American political right-wing would latch onto this movie other than if there was some hint in the movie they agreed with that just I didn't get that was connected to the right wing media's obsession with covering this movie and supporting it. My father made me go see it before I left home for college. That's the only reason I went to see it. It's an okay movie, but I wouldn't give it a score any higher than a 5/10.

how could a film that bases an entire storyline around a Ratatouille joke not be absolutely fantastic?

I'm sorry but I really didn't enjoy this movie. The acting was alright but not enough to carry the movie by itself. The plot was straightforward and never made me care for any of the characters, it felt like everything was glossed over. Not a single relationship, be it between rivals, couples or family members made me feel anything, to the point that I even forgot that some characters existed in this movie until they were shown for another brief period. The plot shows you events (serial killer for example), but never expands on it, so it feels like it was tacked on and could have been cut to make the movie shorter. Speaking about length, the 3 hours runtime is really too long, and it hampered my enjoyment of this movie even more, because it started feeling like a slog halfway through.

I think that the movie didn't pique my interest with any unique features, the plot, acting and cinematography were all okay, but prolonged over a 3 hour period made me dread the time I spent watching the movie.

Midsommar is a complicated beast. Those going for something as linear as Hereditary will be immediately disappointed by Midsommars somewhat convoluted plot elements and meandering pace. I sat in the cinema as the credits rolled by, deep in thought about what I just watched, and if it was any good. Nothing really sat well with me, and the film didn't really connect upon immediate completion, but I gave it time to digest.
Ari Asters two movies are very much at odds with each other. Hereditary slaps you with it's excellent presentation, pace, sense of dread and quality of acting on display. Then, upon further inspection, it's woven plot elements and symbolism shine through on subsequent viewing.
Midsommar is very much the opposite. The film almost dawdles in it's presentation and doesn't fully attack you with it's acting chops or narrative (although Florence is simply stunning in her portrayal of Dani). Midsommar more presents it's parts in a very matter-of-fact fashion, and then leaves it up to you to connect the dots of both the plot and what's on display. While there is far too much to unpack in this small comment section, I'd just like to detail some of my favourite themes on display in Midsommar, and why it went from a 6/10 during my cinema viewing, to a solid 8 - 8.5/10 upon reflection.

--- LONG DISCUSSION OF SPOILERS BELOW THIS POINT ---

One of Midsommars central parallels is the individualism/selfishness of Western life and it's stark comparison to the commune we are introduced to. Examples of this are: During the intro, Dani is going through the trauma of a suicidal family member and her boyfriend, Christian, is encouraged by his friends to abandon her in her time of need telling her to see her therapist as it's not his problem. Christian echos these sentiments directly to Dani about her sister, telling her to leave her alone as she is just doing this for attention. Upon arriving at the commune in Sweden, Mark is unwilling to wait for Dani to be ready to take shrooms. Josh, knowing of Dani's recent trauma involving death, subjects her to the suicide of the elders for his own thesis and research. Christian uses the situation to further his own academic efforts, much to the annoyance of Josh. Everyone is acting in their own self interest regardless of the emotional toll this takes on their friendships. This is a stark contrast to how we see the commune deal with distress, emotion and personal issues. When Dani sees Christian cheating on her, the female members of the commune bawl, weep, scream and cry along with Dani, literally experiencing her burden with her to lessen the load. As described by Pelle, the commune "hold" you during your distress, helping you cope and living through those emotions with you. This is further cemented by the scene earlier in the movie, shortly after Dani's sister commits suicide. We see Dani hunched over Christian's lap overcome with emotion, screaming out the pain of the loss of her sister. Christian is anything but present however, his eyes vacant as if he weren't there with her at all. This is possibly my favourite theme of the movie, as it really paints how alone we are in modern society regardless of how many people we surround ourselves with. How many people are actually there for us in our time of need? Sure, they might be physically present, but are they actually there, sharing our pain? It's truly terrifying to think about.

My other favourite theme is who is and isn't a bad person. I've seen many people online say they think Christian is a horrible boyfriend for how he treats Dani. While I can understand their position, I struggle to see how Christian is the bad guy for his actions. Christian finds himself in a dying relationship which he is mentally checked out from but decides to stay to help her through the grief of losing her parents and sister. Christian even goes as far as to bring her on vacation with him to help her through her trauma, even though he wants to split up with her. Would the audience have prefered Christian leave Dani right after she lost her family? That would have been MUCH worse. Do these actions warrant what happens to Christian? I don't think so at all. Christian is so misunderstood in this movie, I can't wait to see it again to draw more conclusions on his character. Is Josh a bad person for wanting to fully envelope himself in a foreign culture? Although we know it is largely for academic gain, Josh does seem to love learning about the culture of these people, wanting to see how they operate and know every intricacy of their faith. Does this warrant his murder for trying to document their sacred texts? Should an outsider be murdered for enjoying and absorbing someone elses culture and customs, or should they be thanked for their interest and passion? (Sidenote, I see Josh's character as a direct reflection of the usual racial stereotypes we see in movies of this ilk. Usually we see the white academic researching the savage native/minority tribe, but Josh is the exactly flip of this, which is a nice touch). Were Connie and Simon wrong for coming into another culture and expressing disgust at their customs? Should they have been so outwardly disgusted and vocal about their disapproval while being welcomed in by the commune? Sure it didn't warrant their ultimate fate, but this small subplot asks an interesting question about outsiders attempting to shape and alter other cultures and customs as it doesn't sit with their ideals.

Other small details:
While it's directly conveyed to the viewer that the red haired girl is attempting to cast a love incantation on Christian via pubes in his pie and runes under his bed, very little attention is given to the fact that Christians drink is a slight shade darker than everyone elses. From the tapestry we see at the start of the festival, we know exactly what the red haired girl has slipped into his drink :face_vomiting: Fantastic subtle horror/grossness.

Pelle talks about how his parents died in a fire and the commune helped him through the trauma of that loss. After the ending, it's pretty clear the fire wasn't an accident, and they evidently died for some kind of ritual.

Artwork above Dani's bed at the beginning shows a girl with crown kissing a bear. While direct foreshadowing to latter events, it also asks the question if this was all fate. Dani's sister's final message reads "I see black now" (potentially a reference to The Black One) before killing herself and her parents. Were Dani's parents 72 and this was the end of their cycle? Was Dani's sister already a distant member of the commune?

Runes are scattered all throughout the film to foreshadow certain character arcs or add more meaning. My favourite hidden rune is the doors to the temple, which when open, make the rune for "Opening" or "Portal". Amazing attention to detail.

Yeah, this movie is much MUCH better on reflection and I absolutely cannot wait to see it again. I really hope Ari's 3 hour 40 minute directors cut is released so there is more to dissect. While not as immediately impressive has Hereditary, Midsommar definitely has the layers and complexity to be a slowburn horror classic.

EDIT: I am now 4 days out from my first viewing and I've not stopped thinking about this movie. I've become a frequent visitor of the films subreddit and have even purchased/listened to the films dread-inducing yet somehow joyous soundtrack a number of times throughout the days. I've been reading up on runes and their meanings, reading up set analysis for hidden meanings and any other small details others can find. A movie hasn't vibed with me like this for a long long time so to reflect this, I think it's only right I bump my score from an 8/10 to a 9/10. When I can get my hands on the digital download/Blu-Ray, I'm sure this might even go higher.

Most depressing Zombie-Movie I've ever seen, nonetheless a first-class ride

2 hours in and nobody's been terrorized by a giant insect... Honey... I shrunk the Trakt score

Prometheus was good and curious. Covenant was absurdly stupid. Good mysterious questions built up through decades do not need stupid answers.

When it comes to the Alien franchise you need to do 2 things.

Remember that Alien is a straightforward horror movie and that Aliens is a straight up action movie with horror elements. The two exist in the same franchise universe but as movies are basically separate entities.

There are plenty of stories out there about how Ridley Scott (who created the franchise and original film) disliked the way James Cameron took the whole Alien entity in a different direction. His original vision had nothing to do with a hive like mentality, with a queen alien and so forth. So to enjoy both movies you have to look at them separately within the same universe... Confusing I know, but essential to get the most enjoyment out of both films.

It starts of very nicely, aping the opening feel of the original movie, and the pacing of the first act is slow and methodical. It shows that the 'company' is more concerned about it's profits than it's employees (sound familiar) and is more than willing to scapegoat the only survivor (we find out why shortly after).

Please note that I own and will only watch the directors cut of this movie. I think the extended scenes, added exterior shots and information about how the company sent out some of the settlers to see if Ripley's story was true... Adds a great deal to the viewing enjoyment and I highly recommend that everyone watches it.

By the end of the first act, we have found out that a family was sent out to the crash site from the original movie, and that one of them was attacked by a facehugger... and that contact with the colony on that planet was lost... So a rescue team is on it's way to investigate and they want Ripley along as an advisor/consultant.

The special effects for this movie are pretty damn good considering it's from 1986, James Cameron makes a lot of use of miniature sets with lots of attention paid to details. So the viewer finds it difficult to tell where the miniature set ends and full size begins.

The action and tension begins to get ramped up, there's some great dialogue and friction between members of the Marines and once again female characters are not only present, but there as fully fledged characters, not just some pathetic love interest to fulfill a plot requirement... and of course Sigourney Weaver in the lead role. It's one of the reasons that the Alien franchise has survived 4 films and it's entirely down to her character. The performances of the cast is excellent, the FX are great for the period and the buildup to the final conclusion works really well... and of course has led to the often used quote 'Get away from her you bitch" in many other movies... parody or not. It's become part of pop culture in the same way as Vader telling Luke that he's his father has (albeit to a lesser degree). You mention that line, and people know what/who you are quoting.

I've lost count of the number of times I have watched and purchased these movies over the decades... I owned them on VHS in widescreen directors cuts, then the 20th anniversary 5 disc DVD boxset... then the 25th 9 disc DVD boxset and now I have them on bluray.

I will not however be buying them again in 4K when they inevitably get released again... These movies, the original Star Wars trilogy, Terminator & T2 and The Crow are movies I have spent far too much money on buying again and gain over the years.

My fav movie. "It's game over man, it's game over"

No one listened to the smart woman, everyone dies except the smart woman and her cat. 9 out of 10

It’s often daunting to come to a classic film and try to explain why it works so well. Obvious elements spring to mind - the peerless design work, both of the central creature and the sets themselves; the beautifully haunting score; the creation of one of the greatest female action heroes; the perfect pace of the film (slightly spoilt by the Director’s Cut, but the original edit still shines); the “birth” of the creature that may have lost its ability to surprise over time, but still horrifies largely down to the performances that sell this moment so well; the masterful build-up of tension as each character confronts their fate. But, more importantly, this is simply a story that is well told and a reminder of how powerful an experience film can be when all the elements come together so perfectly. Is it any wonder that Alien has been oft-imitated, parodied and copied, but rarely bettered, if at all?

Damn the preview looks cheesy. Am I the only one that’s ODed on super hero movies?

I think that people are too harsh on this adaptation. I wouldn't say it's perfect, it is definitely not. The adaption itself is the biggest problem in my opinion. But most themes the original musical touches on, are there. They even added a new one (+ a new song) about medication and depression which I thought was also very good. So I think storywise there is almost everything there.

Where it fell short was the directing and in some parts the script I think.
The film feels a little bit loose und somehow unstructured. The musical scenes are sometimes bland and doesn't always fit the music. But I have to admit, that this is also veeeery difficult with these songs.
The songs, while often having an upbeat instrumentation, always have a kind of sadness in them. And I think that "Waving through a window" with a dancing or choreographing Ben Platt would not have been better, at all. At least this way, the overall story and the acting isn't harmed by these musical numbers, because they are so focused on the text and the meaning.
I also didn't have a problem with Ben Platt even though he is a little too old for the role. His performance brought tears to my eyes several times. But that's maybe because I can relate to this real inner self he's hiding because he's afraid that people might not like him a lot.

Also, while Nik Dodani's performance was quite funny, the character lagged the small connection that Conner and he should have had, I think. He really wasn't a friend of Connor here.

Oh and the musical number of "You will be found" could have been the only number with a singing crowd I think. I really wanted to see a choir stepping in and sing this "anthem"! But they instead tried to recreate the way that the musical presented this song. That didn't translate well to the screen.

But overall... In the end, as I said, it brought tears to my eyes. I don't care if it was just the story or the performances and that a lot was bad like most people say. I felt all the things the characters sang about and... that's enough. ;)

Predictable plot, has some nicely done jumpscares. Saw it in the cinema but this would be better at night home alone instead of the snickering fools in the cinemaroom destroying any carefully built tension so my advice is to wait for the Blu-Ray.

Whiplash was so damn intense. The movie sounds fantastic; the music, the sound mixing, it's all really, really well-done. The acting was all really good and J.K. Simmons' performance in particular is insane(ly good), definitely a contender for Best Supporting Actor. Occasionally he reminded me of a conductor at my high school who got pretty mad at times, but fortunately not quite as much. The editing was nicely done as well, some of the cuts were timed with the music being played which worked really well and made musical performances interesting to watch. The plot's pretty simple but the story manages to not be very predictable and it's certainly very energetic. The climax was incredible. Second best movie of the year so far.

Just back from a secret screening of this and it had no business being so good.

Better and more fun than most of the recent Marvel movies!

While I did not enjoy the movie (the song and dance numbers were particularly terrible), I found myself fond of the characters... it's a nice concept, I agree, just not very well executed.

I watched it in the cinema with a reasonable sized audience. Everyone laughed. Everyone cried. It's perfect for achieving exactly what it set out to do. It'd be nice if Tom got awards nods for this, but Mariana Trevino definitely needs nominations.

Legend has it, that the script took forever to finish. Every time they finished a line, it disappeared

While I realize that this film is based upon actual events, it has a pretty hard Christian bent to it, especially for a Disney film, so much so that it actually feels like what would be considered a Christian movie. It's not a bad film by any stretch, but it's quite saccharine in its emotional tone. One thing I didn't particularly care for was how Sammy Brown was presented as an afterthought in regard to her participation in the making, and performance, of the music. Yes, this film was about Zach Sobiech, but he was a performer in a three-person band, and the movie cut one of the performers completely out of the film while relegating the other to backseat status. It just didn't feel right.

It's been exactly 12 years since the Tôhoku earthquake and tsunami and I can hardly imagine how devastating a tragedy that has been. I can also only imagine how it would've been seeing this movie in a Japanese cinema all these years later, maybe even with ppl that were the age of Suzume when all this happened back then...

As someone not from Japan that was not involved in the catastrophe 12 years ago, this is a beautifully moving work that tries to express and process a national trauma in its own way and I think it succeeded at that. One of Shinkai's best work and very well worth a watch.

I really, really wanted this to be good. My last hope for the novel idea of the original SAO series fully realized into an epic saga of years of internal power struggles, the real risk of death and murders, an ever changing Kirito personality, etc. Of course, my hopes were a little high above the skies of Aincrad.

The animation was actually pretty plain in the first bit of the movie. It did get better as it went on and the fighting scenes were impeccably animated as always (nothing can compare to demon slayer animation these days tho). Music was kinda lackluster though. Maybe I was just looking for those nostalgic SAO original themes, but it was pretty normal and ordinary BGM.

Personally, I watched this in theaters with subs. And the subtitles were perhaps some of the worst I've seen in a while. Super bland language in the dialogue and plentiful easy to spot English mistakes. I was kind of expecting better for what I thought was a fairly high budgeted film for theatrical releases.

It was nice to actually get some more original plot and character development, whereas the first SAO progressive movie was just copy paste from the series. However, it was pretty poorly executed. I think there was a decent enough bit of material to work with, its simply that the dialogue failed to make anything where they weren't swinging around sword interesting. And of course, we more or less know, that certain characters can't die which can detract from the tension. I think more time needed to spent on lesser seen characters from the original series, if only to provide more attachment when lives are at stake.

It wasn't what I was hoping for and really hurt my hopes for the franchise improving on subsequent progressive movies. I wouldn't recommend this progressive film for anyone other than diehard fans sadly.

Now that's how you make a fucking Superhero move. No more of this PG shit.

Didn't have high hopes, and thank god. Still sad to see yet another fan favourite video game character be ruined by the adaption to film.

It's bad, and mostly because of the script. The story is awful and is very inconsistent. Sonic can run around loops and jump on missiles in mid-air but can't run up a slightly tilted wall? Also the amount of force-feeding of exposition they give in the first third is so bad. Not to mention the non-original and unneeded "Ya, that's me, how did I get here?" trope at the very beginning. The writers clearly didn't care how their story would be so generic and fall into the background because Sonic would draw people in. Like, in the action scenes, people should be dead. But, when you look around the streets, there's no one there. It honestly feels very empty throughout.

It feels like a rushed and cheap way to give a character that has been prevalent in the gaming community for almost 30 years a film. It really seems like they found someone's fanfiction and made it into a motion picture. Because if the first trailer was anything to go off of, they probably saw Sonic fanart on DeviantArt and thought that's what he looked like.

But speaking of looks, some positives. The colours work well, the art direction is okay and cinematography ain't half bad. The production design is pretty good and we all know Sonic looks much like himself again. As for a score, I don't remember it. Flat sad music is all that comes to mind.

I truly believe hardly anyone cared about this project, and that goes for the actors as well. I was kinda intrigued by how Jim Carrey would play the role here. After his great show Kidding where he used his over the top acting in a profound way. I was hoping to see it continue with this weird eccentric character. But no, it's just the old Jim Carrey again. His ability to move the way he does did seem to fit right in my mind, but when he spoke it just didn't work. Plus, the way he was written is so lazy.

I laughed once, right near the end at that damn Fitbit joke. The tonal shift of that character and her delivery honestly caught me off-guard. The best part of the movie.

Not the worst video game movie, but certainly not improving the general view on them either.

3/10

The amount of bigotry in these comments is disappointing but not all that surprising. I should be used to all these sensitive little bigots running around by now really but I'm not.

With that said the film just ok and a little on the boring side :thumbsup:

Girl is into bestiality and necrophilia part 2 #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly

Just to preface this, I thought A Force Awakens was emotionless trash that undermined the entire purpose of the original three films.

Rogue One was the opposite.

The best thing about this movie was the emotional impact. It underlined the sacrifices made to make the original trilogy possible. Some people have called it long, but that helped build up characters that you actually felt for, and who weren't carbon copy ripoffs (cough cough A Force Awakens). The final scenes as the two main characters face their fate, recognizing that it was worth it, gave such a high emotional payoff. Each major death scene actually made you feel something.

The second best thing was K-2SO. Very funny, and much needed comedic (but not goofy) relief.

The CGI for landscapes and the world creation was outstanding. When I see a movie like Star Wars I want to be amazed and see things that I haven't seen done before. I want to be impressed and drawn into new, beautifully crafted worlds. In this respect, the movie just kept delivering over and over.

The cinematography was great during the action sequences. The sequences looked epic, and the violence and sacrifice felt meaningful. The Vader fight sequence was intense.

It also had interesting ties to current events with its commentary on terrorism/rebellion/weapons of mass destruction. By the way, the science genius character realizing that he isn't priceless in developing some major device is fantastic. All of the movies with "only so-and-so can figure this out" are very disappointing.

The moral message of the movie was also very clear and well delivered.

I really enjoyed the movie overall and thought that it was a big step in the right direction. It was adventurous again, it was sometimes shocking, original, and most of all meaningful. A Force Awakens failed on all of those points. It's good to see a franchise movie that's taking a bit more risk than average. AFA was just like the new Star Trek films, shiny bling low-impact action movies that just happen to be set in space. Rogue One pushes far beyond to show the what drives the Rebellion in a world we know and love.

Despite the fact that I really liked the movie, it had some flaws:
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the acting in the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the cuts were really weird and the pacing felt off for portions of the first half.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Forest Whittaker just deciding to die instead of trying to escape.
- Tarkin face CGI
- A few unbelievable plot lines (thankfully most were minor). Like Cassian being sent to kill Galen for almost no reason, and then deciding not to for no reason, and then Jyn forgiving him surprisingly easily. How did she even know that he was trying to kill her father?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Does every Star Wars movie need to have a father character die? Why didn't Cass follow orders when he heartlessly killed someone else in his first scene?
- Tarkin face CGI
- Heavy handed political messaging.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Said "hope" too many times.
- Tarkin face CGI
- You can just push Star Destroyers that easily?
- Tarkin face CGI
- The word "Stardust"
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too many random worlds introduced that you don't have the time to get invested in.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Too much awkward fan service.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Darth Vader's voice sounded off.
- Tarkin face CGI
- Some of the dialogue was really terrible.
- Tarkin face CGI

[6.1/10] If you pull back from Disney’s Hercules, it’s remarkable how solid the characters’ arcs and motivations are. Hercules wants to become a “true hero” in the hopes that it will help take him to “somewhere he belongs”, i.e. Mount Olympus. Phil wants to train a hero who the world looks up to, who can “go the distance” and earn him some plaudits by association. And Meg wants to be finished with men and the idea that they can be worthy of your self-sacrifice.

At the midway point of the movie, Hercules has performed great feats and become rich and famous, but laments that it hasn’t made him worthy of regaining his godhood and with it the sense of belonging he seeks. Phil storms off thinking that Hercules is just another failed project. And Meg is starting to believe in Hercules right when Hades wants to use her wiles against him.

Then, by the end, Hercules discovers that true heroism means self-sacrifice and strength of the heart (hello Star Trek: Enterprise fans!), rather than the great deeds, fame, and fortune that he associates with heroism. He also realizes that where he belongs is with the person he loves on Earth, not on Mount Olympus. Phil gets to see his champion in the stars, replete with a “Hey, that’s Phil’s boy!” And despite her cynicism, Meg finds someone worthy of risking her life and soul and freedom for.

That’s all solid storytelling and sturdy character work. There’s good (if trite) themes there about what genuinely makes someone a hero and what belonging really means. There’s enough twists in the narrative to make elements of Herc’s story play like a subversion, albeit a pretty basic one. There’s even enough basic but firmly present story beats to transition from one part of the narrative to another.

The problem is that despite those arcs working out on paper, none of them really lands in the movie itself. Hercules just moves too damn fast for anything to impact the audience. While the major points are covered in the film, those transitions happen so quickly, the major developments occurring in rushed montages, that the shift from one important character moment to the next feels almost meaningless.

In short, we don’t get to spend any major amount of time with the characters at any given stage of their journey until they’re off to the next one. That makes each twist in the narrative seem glancing, makes the characters feel thin, and makes the overall journey for everyone play as weightless. The skeleton of this movie’s basic outline is strong, but it blazes through all the major points so swiftly that few moments or personalities in the movie seem truly and committedly developed and thus wash off the viewer like so much Augean stable muck.

The one exception to that is Hades, who’s the most memorable aspect of the film. James Woods brings such a unique approach to the lord of the underworld. His motor-mouthed, upper management sleazeball vibe gives his take on Hades a different flavor that baddies from Disney’s past. Particularly given the way that Hades is a dealmaker and swindler in this one, his snake-oil salesman tone and casual aside manner works to create the best version of the character to oppose simple and sweet Herc and act as a thorn in the side of the far more worldly and skeptical Meg.

The animation of the character dovetails perfectly with Woods’s entertaining patter. The vision of the Underworld king’s head constantly aflame, turning red when he’s angry, and giving the air of casual disdain when in conversation works perfectly with this Wall Street-esque incarnation of the film’s baddie. It’s an excuse for the film’s aniators to deploy some cool flame effects and give the man himself some fluid movements that match with his sarcastic wit.

But that’s nearly where the design and animation achievements in this one end. The character designs admirably veer toward replicating the look of Greek pottery, but they’re not as visually pleasing as the traditional Disney style. Worse yet, it’s a poor meld with the actual animation for most of the movie. Characters are, if anything, over-expressive and -emotive, which leads to an uncanny valley effect for much of their movements and some downright grotesquerie in certain places. And apart from a few brief but inventive interludes with the muses, there’s not really any stand out sequences here.

The one place where the film takes a big swing and fares at least somewhat better is with CGI-assisted images. The clash between 2D and 3D animation is noticeable in places, and the execution is far from perfect, but the Hydra is still impressive as an effect for 1997. Similarly, the titans have a fluidity and distinctiveness to their elemental designs that sets them apart from the rest of the fine but underwhelming animation in the rest of the film.

That same semi-disappointment applies to the film’s usual numbers. Rest assured, none of the tunes in Hercules are outright bad, but few have that transcendent, soaring, catchy quality that’s made so many other Disney soundtracks unforgettable. “I Can Go the Distance” is a solid enough “I want” song, and “I Won’t Say I’m in Love” are nice, standard Disney tunes, but far from stand outs. The gospel tunes fare a little better, but blend together, with lyrics that don’t play as cute or clever as in past Renaissance flicks.

That partly speaks to one of the tough to pinpoint but overarching problem with the film -- it makes a lot of downright puzzling choices. Why are we using a Gospel-inspired soundtrack to tell a story of Greek myth? There’s nothing wrong with it in principle -- lord knows Disney has used traditional American musical styles to represent scads of other cultures -- but it leads to a dissonance between setting and sound that just comes off as odd.

If that were the only strange choice, you could write it off as an admirable but ill-fated big swing. But why is this film so bizarrely horny? Why does every other character make double entendres about Meg? Why does Hades have to try to flatter the Fates by hitting on them? Why is the biggest running joke about Phil that he’s a lech?

It’s strangely miscalibrated for a kids film, which would be fine if any of this stuff were particularly creative or amusing. Instead, the film’s sense of humor largely falls flat, brimming with obnoxious character bits, dumb over the top physical humor, and a lack of tonal consistency which leads to goofy moments being indistignuishable from heartfelt ones.

The one exception is the movie’s gags about Greek mythos and culture. Everything from Hermes delivering flowers, to a pair of kiddos telling Herc to call “IXII”, to Hercules himself watching Oedipus and laughing that “I thought I had problems!” shows how the movie finds neat ways to integrate intersections of modern life with ancient Greece in small but amusing ways.

That’s just not near enough to save this sprint of a film. The powers that be at disney seemed, in their heart of hearts, to want to make a Superman film here, and it moves with a commensurate speed. Far from faithfully adapting the original myths, Hercules instead tells the story of a boy descended from powerful people of another world, who grows up with incredible powers and eventually moves to the big city where he performs heroic acts and has Beatrice/Benedict chemistry with a local firecracker. The parallels go deeper, but it’s noteworthy how much this film plays in the same space as the Man of Steel.

It’s not a bad tack, but the movie just races through all of the plot points that it takes to establish that kind of mythos. Every major moment of growth for Hercules or his pals is covered in montage or otherwise yada yada yada’d over. From his childhood, to his training, to his ascendance as a publicly-adored champion, we get snippets and thumbnail sketches rather than enough time and space to invest in any stage of his growth and development. The film moves from one event to another in such quick succession that no single piece of the story arrives with as much force as its protagonist.

Still, it’s a good story. If Hercules were longer, or better structured, or better paced, it had the potential to be a minor gem, if not the crown jewel of the Disney empire. Instead, it gives the audience a mixed bag of comedy, animation, and music in service of an overly compressed narrative. It’s strange choices, and its disappointments, could be more easily forgiven if the film’s central plot worked as well on film as it did on paper (or pottery). Instead, the film matches its hero for most of the movie -- trying but failing to live up to its incredible legacy and great potential.