Reviews by Joshua "LF"

At first glance, Lilo and Stitch seems a lot like E.T. An alien is found and cared for by a small child from a broken home, while the alien learns to adjust to the world. But rather than dismiss Lilo and Stitch as a rip off of the famed film, I suggest seeing the film for yourself (if you haven't already). It's worth seeing.

There are several differences in the story that are enough to make Lilo and Stitch feel like it's own. For one, the location is in Hawaii, which adds a nice atmosphere to Lilo and Stitch. The situation with the family is even more dire; Lilo, a little girl, may be taken away from her older sister who is parenting her due to death of their father.

Stitch, the furry and vicious beast from outer space has escaped execution by crash-landing on Earth. But after being hit by a semi-truck, Stitch is put into a dog pound (though no one's sure quite what he is), and is eventually adopted by Lilo, much to her sister's dismay.

The animation is some of the best I've seen in a 2D animated film. This is most evident in the water scenes, and during a spaceship chase/fight towards the end. A rainbow of colors decorate the animation giving the film a vibrant and upbeat feel, even during some of the more emotionally intense scenes.

Lilo and Stitch manages to be rather funny, though not as much as other Disney efforts. The best lines come from the disgustingly underused alien, Pleakley. Other characters get less amusing jokes (with Stitch carrying most of the extra bulk).

Also, Lilo and Stitch incorporates many lyrical songs in the background (many of them being Elvis oriented). Usually, lyrical songs in the background can be extremely irritating or distracting, but it works for the film's advantage here.

Unfortunately, the title characters can be extremely un-likeable at times, which makes it hard to root for them. Also, as fun as Lilo and Stitch can be, it's also a bit exhausting.

Lilo and Stitch is certainly not at the top of my favorite Disney films, but it's funny enough, beautifully animated, and unique, if a little odd.

I can't exactly call Robin Hood an obscure film. This is Disney after all. But it is one of their lesser known films, which is due to it being a worse film than other Disney films. It's not bad, by any means. It's another solid Disney film, I just can't call it a masterpiece.

This is basically an adaption of Robin Hood, but with animals portraying the characters. Robin Hood steals from the rich, gives to the poor (with the help of not-so Little John), while King John and his henchmen attempt to arrest and execute him.

There are three things that Disney is known for in their animated films: Good songs, memorable characters, and romance. Unfortunately, Robin Hood doesn't completely deliver.

The songs are a major disappointment compared to Disney's previous work. One or two are decent, but most are forgettable, and unoriginal. The songs are partially saved, however, by a fantastic score, courtesy of George Bruns who previously scored The Jungle Book.

The characters are often stereotypes. The King John is cowardly, Robin Hood is cunning and cocky, the sheriff is generically evil, etc. We've seen many of these characters before, and Little John is just WAY too similar to Baloo for comfort (it doesn't help that Phil Harris voices both).

But is there romance? Well, yes, but it's not very good. Like the characters, it's very stereotypical, but it still helps to move the story along.

So, you're probably asking yourself, right about now, what IS good about Robin Hood? Well, I'm glad you asked.

While the characters are stereotypes, the voice acting is superb. Characters are often funny. The action is decent for an animated film. And I already mentioned the fabulous musical score.

Robin Hood manages to entertain from start to finish.

The best part of Robin Hood, though, is the first act. It's not complex; Robin Hood and Little John rob Prince John. That's all there is to it. But it's funny, and extremely entertaining. In the end, nothing else in the film tops the first act.

The animation, is obviously cut-rate. We see repeated character animations, and it's all just very lazy looking. I didn't mind too much, though.

Robin Hood is geared more to kids than other Disney entries, but this is still solid fun. Just don't expect a Beauty and the Beast or an Aladdin.

I've never quite enjoyed Aardman's work as much as critics. At least, not their full-length films. That's not to say I haven't liked them; I've liked them, but I certainly haven't loved them. Pirates: Band Of Misfits is different, though. This movie, I did love.

None of the primary pirates are given names; their descriptions in the credits are "The Pirate With The Scarf," "The Pirate With Gout," etc., which makes this plot description a little difficult to write.

The protagonist, Pirate Captain (no really, that's his name) is determined to win the pirate of the year contest. The problem; he's not a very good pirate. And with his competition being so strong, it appears the odds are against him. At least, that's what he thinks. It turns out, his trusty, rotund parrot is a rare dodo bird, thought to be extinct. There may be some booty in this after all. That is, if Charles Darwin of The Queen doesn't snatch it first.

The Pirates Band Of Misfits is a fun, and often hilarious film. There are so many sight gags that a second or even third viewing may be necessary to catch them all.

This is also, Aardman's most visually stunning work. It's miles ahead of any of their previous films, and there are lots of complex crowd scenes that are truly amazing. In previous films, Aardman purposefully left revealing finger-prints on the characters. Those who found this distracting will be pleased to know that Aardman has avoided doing this here.

Not all characters get as much screen time as they should, but they're an amusing bunch, with (for the most part) well-defined personalities.

As I mentioned earlier, there are lots of sight gags, but dialogue-oriented lines are here too. They're the witty and chuckle-inducing lines that we have come to expect from Aardman, and in much more generous amounts than in previous films.

Unfortunately, Pirates: Band Of Misfits added lots of lyrical songs (playing in the background) that are usually annoying. I would've much preferred that the score continued to play during some of these scenes, because they're really are too many songs in the background.

And speaking of the score, it was a little disappointing. Pirates are good music material, but the score, for the most part, is very mediocre. Then again, Aardman isn't known for their instrumentals.

Flaws aside, The Pirates: Band Of Misfits is funny and witty, with wonderful animation and a cast of amusing characters. This is certainly Aardman's best film, thus far. Hopefully, it will only get better from here.

This is perfection. This is Pooh at his best. His very best. Being both whimsical and generally hilarious, Winnie The Pooh And The Blustery Day is a must see.

The plot is simple enough: It's a blustery day.

The best bits are with Tigger. The strangest bits occur in Pooh's nightmare, which recalls memories from the drunken and trippy dreams of Dumbo the elephant.

Simple and whimsical, Winnie The Pooh And The Blustery Day is the best we've ever seen Pooh.

Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search For Christopher Robin was a film I very much valued as a younger child, as I did with all the Pooh films. So it was a very nostalgic, and wonderful reunion, when I saw the film again, years later. It hasn't held up as well as other Pooh films, but it's a treat to be sure.

Pooh's Grand Adventure is about Pooh, Rabbit, Tigger, Piglet, and Eeyore, and their search for Christopher Robin, whom they believe have gone to "Skull."

I must warn you, the first 15 minutes are considerably better than anything else in the movie. That's not to say the rest is bad, but it's a little under-par for a Pooh film, while the first 15 minutes is arguably, Pooh at his very best. These first 15 minutes balance, humor, emotions, whimsy, and simple, yet elegant imagery. Only Pooh and Christopher Robin appear at first, which adds to the simplicity.

The rest of the film, never tops, or even comes close to these first 15 minutes, but it's still enjoyable.

Pooh's Grand Adventure is much darker than anything Pooh has brought us so far. It's less funny as well. Sure, there's still a lot of gags, most of which will evoke smiles and often laughs, but by comparison, there's much less than in previous (or even future) Pooh outings.

There are songs, all very whimsical. Some are beautiful, others are funny. They all work, and not one should evoke a reach towards the skip button.

There's a lot of emotion here, nearly as much as in The Tigger Movie. Things like fear and being alone come up, and it's surprisingly touching.

The voice cast is wonderful. Voices are captured perfectly. The stand out performances as Christopher Robin, Rabbit, and Tigger are wonderful. Kanga and Roo, one might note, has been completely omitted.

Pooh's Grand Adventure doesn't reach the dramatic heights of Pooh's other endeavors, but this is still whimsical, emotional, and amusing for all.

What a mess! Push is easily one of the worst action films I've ever seen! Between flat and unlikable characters to dull action, Push gets just about everything wrong. It's campy, it's silly, and painfully un-watchable.

Push is much more confusing than it needs to be. In the end, it's just about a group of people trying to get a case before the "bad guys" get it. Put less simply, it's about people with a range of psychic abilities who are in a race against The Division (a powerful government that "rules" these superior beings) to find a case that contains a "billion dollar secret." The plot makes much less sense on film.

In specific, the plot follows a man named Nick (Chris Evans), who is just out of his teen years, and still doesn't really have a good grip on his ability (levitation). He meets a girl named Cassie (Dakota Fanning) who convinces him (sort of) to join her on a quest to find the case. Cassie herself is a "watcher," someone who can see into the future. She draws what she sees, and based on what she sees, Cassie and Nick may not survive this adventure.

As I mentioned previously, the plot is much more complicated on film.

None of the abilities in Push are very cool, and none are very original. We get people who can levitate, people who can see into the future, people who can control your mind, etc. These are all things we've seen before. Been there, done that.

The one new ability that Push has made is....screaming. Yes, believe it or not, Push's only innovative ability is the ability to scream. Granted, it's a scream that can destroy structures, people, etc., but in the end, it's just some creepy Asian guy screaming like a maniac. It's stupid and campy. And as if that wasn't bad enough, there are THREE villains with this ability.

Push also doesn't know what kind of a movie it wants to be. Does it want to be a light, comedic action flick? A hard, heavy, end of the world film? Maybe an intelligent heist film? Push, unsuccessfully, attempts to do all three. As if I have to say it; this really doesn't work.

The acting, though not awful, never gets much better than mediocre. And early on, the acting even seems a little clunky.

As if Push isn't already bad off, it also suffers from an overwhelming number of obvious plot holes. And there is little characters development, if any. Most of the characters don't even have a definitive personality.

The action scenes are usually brief, with no actual fights occurring. Just someone getting beat up, with a victor we can already predict. There are few exceptions. During the end, we get a long, action filled climax, but it's more tedious than exciting.

And beware, the ending is a major cop-out.

The one positive thing I can say about Push (aside from it's vaguely unique premise), is it's skilled editing. It shows snippets of future events than goes back to the past. The editing is just very well done, I'll give it that.

Push is campy, tedious, cheesy, confusing, and stupid. It tries to be three different films at once, and character development is omitted entirely. Plot holes abound, action scenes are dull. Outside of camp value, Push has few redeeming qualities.

Does a film get much worse than this? Yes, but this is still pretty awful. Barbie's Thumbelina represents some of the worst that films have to offer. Nothing works, everything fails, and the result is a hopeless mess that can't be enjoyed in any way. It's not even "so bad it's good," it's just plain bad.

Thumbelina is about a form of fairy called a twillerbee, who lives among the flowers, making things grow and prosper. In other words, they're an obvious rip-off of the fairies in the Tinker Bell films. Thumbelina is mindlessly flying around and breaking rules, when she discovers that married real estate agents plan to destroy the forest where she lives, in order to build a factory. To save her home and her people, Thumbelina has to change the heart of the agent's spoiled brat named Mackena, so she can convince them to stop construction on the factory.

The voice cast is horrific. All the lines sound the same, and they all sound awfully stiff. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that robots or computers actually voiced the characters, as opposed to humans.

The animation is primitive and silly, sometimes even blocky. Ugly colors and the stiff movements don't help, either. Heck, even Star Wars: The Clone Wars had better animation than this.

Most of the characters are whiny, irritating, spoiled brats, and there's very little character development. Mackena is irritating, and her parents act like they're on drugs most of the movie, or else drunk. The twillerbees are all the same (and they sound the same too), and the construction works are all idiots.

Attempts at humor are made, but none of them are successful. No laughs here, just cringes.

The one thing that Barbie's Thumbelina did right, was omit songs entirely.

Somehow, children can be amused by this. It just goes to show how many people there are that care more about the money, than delivering a quality product, and how bad the taste is, of the average child.

To put it simply, Alice In Wonderland is bizzare. To put it less simply, Alice In Wonderland explores the oddities of a child's imagination, and the utter weirdness of a seemingly mad person to such an extent as to create one of the strangest films I have ever seen.

We all know the story. Alice sees a white rabbit exclaiming "I'm late, I'm late!" over and over, and of course, silly Alice, follows the talking rabbit down a rabbit hole and into the land of...well, wonder.

Like all Disney films, memorable characters abound. Yes, Alice is a little thinly drawn (really, all the characters are a bit one dimensional), but in the same way, they're all so distinct, and unlikely to be forgotten. The strong voice cast only supports this.

Alice In Wonderland is far weirder than I expected. At times, it seems to make no sense whatsoever. This is not a bad thing, mind you.

Curiously enough, I laughed very little during this film. I smiled a lot though, and the utter weirdness of it all was so absurd, I could not help but be entertained, though I retained any laughter. The one primary scene that provoked laughter was the "Tea Time" scene with the Mad Hatter. It's even more outrageous on screen than it is in the book.

Alice In Wonderland certainly does not represent the height of Disney films, or even animated films in general. What it does represent, is a solid film with no real flaws, but not exceedingly entertaining. It serves it's purpose as a weird and enjoyable film, but does not extend it's hand any farther.

It is no secret that I am a huge fan of Winnie The Pooh. And if it was, it's not any more. So believe me when I say that the latest adaption is one of the very best.

The newest installment in the beloved series of Winnie The Pooh films is about, both a search for Eeyore's tale, and a plot to trap a creature that has supposedly captured Christopher Robin.

All the charm and fun of the rest of the Winnie The Pooh films are present here. Short songs and nostalgia help as well.

The voice cast performs well, though some of the new voices may bother you at first. Jim Cummings plays Pooh and Tigger, and Bud Luckey (who you'll recognize as Chuckles from Toy Story 3, among other Pixar films) has been cast as the ever depressed Eeyore. The other cast members shine as well, once you get used to them that is.

The animation is simple and beautiful, but during one musical number, where everything appears to be turning to honey, the animation grows much more detailed. CGI and motion capture are great, but nothing beats the traditional stuff.

The music is wonderful as well, and the Winnie The Pooh theme song at the beginning revived many glorious memories.

The characters may not be quite as you remembered them, though. Piglet is a bit more chipper. Owl shows a lot of emotion in his eyes. And Rabbit, while still acting superior to the rest, seems to have lost some of his crankiness. Also, Christopher Robin has changed his wardrobe and his eyes are no longer little specks. This, to me, was the change I liked the least, but I didn't mind. Too much.

The film is also surprisingly funny. This is easily the most humorous of all the Winnie The Pooh adaptions, and it made me laugh much more than other so called "comedies" out there.

My only real complaint about Winnie The Pooh is it's run time: An all too short 63 minutes. I know that kids don't have the longest attention span, but this trip down memory lane felt a little short.

Winnie The Pooh is just as wonderful as ever, and I do hope this film is only the beginning of another league of movies from our friends at the Hundred Acre Wood.

Adolf Hitler committed suicide April 30, 1945. Valkyrie is about a group of men who are plotting to assassinate Hitler. Due to the information I have just given to you, you now know that by the end of the movie, Hitler will still be alive. This is a bit of a problem for Valkyrie, but this film does a relatively good job of making you forget about this conclusion.

The A-list cast does a more-than-excellent job at acting, though the actual character development is extremely minimal for most characters.

Valkyrie does something very smart at the beginning of the movie. We understand that the characters are all speaking German, but they speak English anyway. This eliminates the need for silly German accents, and is much less distracting. There are times when this is contradicted though, such as one scene where there is a woman singing in German, but these are forgivable.

Unfortunately, my compliments must end here.

Valkyrie is not an action movie. It is not placed under the action genre, and there are almost not action scenes in the movie. Valkyrie is a war movie. Does this seem contradictory to you?

I was surprised by the lack of action in Valkyrie, but a lack of action isn't necessarily a bad thing if the movie is entertaining enough. Unfortunately, Valkyrie is mostly just people talking and planning. The reward for waiting through all the talking? One explosion. Really, that's all.

For all the planning and talking and such, I expected a very elaborate plan to take place. The plan, though, is really not much more then setting a bomb next to Hitler during a meeting.

So I ask, how did a film with such a simple plot manage to stretch to a unnecessarily long, 2 hours? It seems that more time was spent thinking of one liners, than developing an interesting plot.

What was most agonizing though, was all the potential Valkyrie. Imagine if we were given flashbacks to Hitler's childhood. And what if there was some more background about the main character's marriage?

More story, a little more action, and some decent character development would've gone a long way for turning this mostly mediocre film into the masterpiece it just missed out on.