SOL1DUSFOX

The show wants to cover too much in just eight episodes, but it fails miserably. Too many characters, too many subplots, too many conflicts: Richter's fear, the love between Olrox and the knight, Maria and her father, the fight against the Messiah, Anette and her disconnection from her ancestors and her loss of Edouard. The viewer doesn't have time to focus on anything because they throw everything at the same time.

The only thing I cared about at least a little was Richter's plot and, although it was developed, it was not the best executed. The magic returns to Richter when he realizes that he has many people to protect. That trope is something we are tired of seeing, especially all those who come from consuming anime, consuming shounen to be more specific.

I was not interested in any character and I was even less interested in the antaognists. As usual, I remember that the first part of Castlevania did not shine for its construction of villains either. Who on the team thinks of making the vampires so one-dimensional and giving them so much focus? What is not attractive to the viewer is supposed to be kept on the sidelines.

It makes me laugh how they saved the worst for last: Alucard's appearance. It was not necessary to use the nostalgia card and even less so at a critical moment like that: right at the end when everyone is at their lowest moment and almost about to die. The way they executed those last scenes, Alucard feels like a Deus Ex Machina.

The action scenes were on point. Kudos to the group of animators and directors behind it. Castlevania has always had some of the best choreographed animated battles I've ever seen.

The first part of Castlevania was not something that was very worthwhile, but Castlevania: Nocturne disappoints even by those low standards.

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'!

Quick note: The actual nature of this show is kept a secret within its own marketing. So in order to fully talk about it, I'm gonna have to somewhat break that surprise in this review. (No major story spoilers here, don't worry.) Unless you're hesitant about this mini-series, I highly suggest just going in blind.
Be advised.

"It's never too late to clean up a mess."

I don't know what the hell people call whatever genre of storytelling this is. Alternate timeline remake? Sequel? Commentary? Whatever it is, I fucking love how more recent video games and movies are taking the approach, as it brings new life to an adaptation.

The original Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World film took me by surprise, back when I watched it in theaters in 2010 without any context to the books or the story itself. I fell in love with its world and characters, despite the flaws I've been continuing to find upon my hundreds of rewatches.

Scott Pilgrim Takes Off gave me that same sense of surprise, in addition to my love for the direction it decided to take. This is more than a straight adaptation of the books/game/film, but an ambitious remix that goes after all those flaws. It manages to improve upon its source material by acknowledging it and fixing the broken spots, while simultaneously diverging from the familiar path to deliver a completely new story. In a sense, this IS a sequel, but one that's friendly to newcomers (although I highly recommend watching the film or reading the books beforehand). Some jokes and cameos are new, while others are remixed callbacks to some of the best lines in the 2010 film that just work well in execution.
As it leans more into a slice-of-life narrative with its much longer runtime, it manages to go more in-depth with its characters, big and small, tackling each of their emotions and flaws, which is something the movie didn't really touch on. It acts as both a closer analysis on what came before it, and a satisfying farewell(?) to the characters we've known for more than a decade now. I just wished a few characters got utilized a bit more, such as Knives Chau and Kim Pine.

As for its style, this show nails its format in animation and soundtrack. Everything is drawn similarly to that of the original books, but to a much more noticeable height of quality. Not just in the action shots, but there are several moments where certain objects in the frame will shift and give off a ghosting effect, performing an artificial camera focus for a 2D-animated cartoon. I wouldn't necessarily call it "anime" though, aside from the small Japanese touches.
The soundtrack is a surprising banger, too! Anamanaguchi did an incredible job with original tracks, while the show throws in some surprise licensed songs from artists like Metric and Johnny Cash. It all blends incredibly well with the world and action; I'd say even better than the original film.

I really enjoyed by time with Scott Pilgrim Takes Off. It's a short enough, yet engaging mini-series that respects the audience's time, has great binge potential, and can be watched over and over again like 2010's film. An absolutely stellar companion piece to the series, and probably one of the best animated shows I've seen in a while! I think I'm in lesbians all over again.

This is horrific in its moments of person-on-person brutality. There are some shockingly violent confrontations, which didn't really surprise me coming from del Toro but did when couched in the telling of what is nothing more than a romance-in-an-old-house story. Granted, the house is haunted, but the ghosts are secondary to the whole affair.

I loved the sets and the colors but was disappointed that this was not scary in the least. Jessica Chastain was great and Tom Hiddleston was a near perfect fit.

Thinking about it a bit more, this is probably my least favorite del Toro film (I haven't seen "Cronos" or "Blade II") but it's still good and worth seeing for its amazing art.

From Jim Henson comes the fantasy anthology series The Storytelling. John Hurt stars as the Storyteller, recounting accent folk tales about kings and magic and mythical creatures. Some interesting guest stars appear, including Jonathan Pryce, Joely Richardson, and Sean Bean, and the show uses a unique aesthetic that combines live-action, puppetry, and shadow play. Also, the writers use a variety of different kinds of lore that keeps the show from getting repetitive. Still there are some tonal problems balancing the comedy and the more frightening parts, and some the transitions between filming styles can be a bit jarring. The make-up effects and costumes can be problematic as well. Jim Henson’s The Storyteller is an incredibly ambitious series that unfortunately wasn’t quite able to realize the vision that Henson had for it.