Finding Dory

A question that was being asked around the internet was: Will the summer of Hollywood’s sequel and prequel box-office dissatisfaction do well with the release of “Finding Dory,” Pixar and Disney’s follow-up surprise (released back in June) in the same animated ocean of underwater fishes that made 2003’s masterpiece that was “Finding Nemo?”

Thankfully, I can assure everyone that the sequel has so many emotional moments, some great lines and is not a bad one, even though it follows the same plot threads as before except to the Pacific Coast of California instead of the Great Barrier Reef of Australia. Susan Wloszczyna said it best in her review, “If “Finding Nemo” felt like a blissful day at the beach, then “Finding Dory” is an eventful afternoon at an aquatic park—or, in this case, the Marine Life Institute that, as the omniscient recorded voice of Sigourney Weaver re-assures any PC-oriented visitors to the facility, is dedicated not to human amusement but to “Rescue, Rehabilitation and Release.”” The film might be less satisfying this time, but “Finding Dory” is definitely worth the time.

Wloszczyna stated:

Wisely, the film takes full advantage of what was “Finding Nemo’s” greatest asset besides its lushly multi-hued underwater inhabitants and plant life: Ellen DeGeneres’ buoyant spirit and child-like glee as she vocally gave life to Dory, the forgetful yet fearless blue tang whose struggles with short-term memory loss proved to be a crucial plus whenever the going got tough as stressed-out daddy clownfish Marlin searched for headstrong young son Nemo. After all, nothing is more freeing than barely being able to summon your past, which is why the impulsive Dory is so good at acting in the moment.

It can be a risky choice to make a comic-relief side character into a protagonist. However, similarly to how the late Robin Williams, who so memorably improvised up quite a lot as the Genie in “Aladdin,” Ellen DeGeneres and her sometimes silly, sometimes lightheaded character continues to be a perfect fit for the role that gave the inspirational salt-water heart of “Finding Nemo” and basically does the same here as Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolence) swim next to her on a new journey a year after the first movie.

The story is not as new as you expect as the original, even if the script is again by Andrew Stanton (along with co-writer Victoria Stouse), who once more directs with the help from Angus MacLane. Wloszczyna said, “Ultimately, there is too much reliance on logic-defying Saturday-morning TV cartoon action as the main characters swim about by scooting through pipes and flopping from one liquid vessel to another at the institute.” It was sort of believable when the captive fish led by Willem Dafoe’s melancholic Gil planned a great escape from the tank at the dentist’s office in “Finding Nemo.” However, the sequel goes beyond sincerity when new character octopus Hank (an impatient twist of tentacles with chameleonic powers voiced by Ed O’Neill, who you might remember as Al Bundy from “Married…with Children” and currently as Jay Pritchett on “Modern Family”) is somehow able to drive a runaway truck on a congested highway when he can’t reach the accelerator/brake or see over the dashboard.

Wloszczyna pointed out, “What your brain might not accept, however, your heart just might.” “Finding Nemo” was driven by its sensitive portrayal of a single parent’s irresistible need to protect their child, especially one with an undersized fin, instead of letting him figure things out for himself and get a feel of independence. Here, Stanton creates some sort of original character when we first meet Dory as an innocent, big-eyed, little fish (Sloane Murray) whose worried parents Charlie (Eugene Levy) and Jenny (Diane Keaton) explain how she must always tell whoever she meets, “I have short-term memory loss.” Or, as she says it in a child’s way, “short-term remember-y loss.” Wloszczyna mentioned, “Instead of her daffy-go-lucky grown-up self, Dory is a helpless tyke whose recall vaporizes almost instantly because of her learning disability and she inevitably wanders off into the undertow, leaving her despairing mom and dad behind to devastating effect.”

The movie completely starts when the adult Dory suddenly has a flashback to her childhood and, with that brief moment, remembers her parents (she briefly talks about it in “Finding Nemo” when she tells Marlin that short-term memory loss runs in her family). Now she is off, with the uptight Marlin and supportive Nemo following behind her, to find her parents. Wloszczyna said, “She might be looking for her parents, but Dory is really unearthing her own identity and manages to stir up other defining memories along the way, no matter how fleetingly.” These include how she got the inspirational song, “Just keep swimming,” and how she was able to learn “whale.”

Some previous characters from “Finding Nemo” return including the East Australian Current (E.A.C.) turtles Crush (Andrew Stanton) and son Squirt (Nicholas Bird in the first and Bennett Dammann in here), stingray teacher Mr. Ray (Bob Peterson) and the “Mine! Mine! Mine!” – shouting seagulls (Stanton). However, a few of the new characters, including a concussed beluga whale (Ty Burrell, best known as Phil Dunphy in “Modern Family”) and a near-sighted whale shark (Kaitlin Olson), make their marks in here along with a pair of lazy Cockney sea lions (Idris Elba and Dominic West) rehabbing at the aquarium who only get irritated when their quiet crazy-eyed friend Gerald (Torbin Xan Bullock) tries to get on their rock.

Except for Marlin, who learns a respected lesson on sympathy after throwing an insulting comment at Dory when she accidentally put Nemo in danger, Wloszczyna noted, “almost every creature encountered from a bird-brained loon to an immense chatty clam that recalls Audrey II in “Little Shop of Horrors” gladly helps out our heroine with her mission.” You can guess whether that’s successful or not, but let’s just say there is a happy ending where you need the Kleenex next to you. Actually, there are two or three happy endings since the filmmakers don’t know when to stop. That includes a finale that needs walking through a series of end credits that however is worth the wait. Spoilers: the Tank Gang from the first film (Willem Dafoe, Brad Garrett, Allison Janney, Austin Pendelton, Stephen Root, Vicki Lewis and Jerome Ranft), still stuck inside their (now algae-covered) plastic bags, reach California one year after floating across the Pacific Ocean. They are quickly saved by the staff members from before, with Bloat asking for a second time, “Now what?”

In the end, this movie is tied with “Finding Nemo” as the best Pixar movie. I would say it’s on par since they both had the same message that both delivered beautifully in their own way. As you probably have guessed, this is another one of my favorite Pixar movies, and it was one of the best animated movies that was released this year. I saw it in the theaters and I was not disappointed. Because my siblings didn't make a plan and I saw this by myself, I rented it from the library for them to see. If you didn’t get a chance to see this in theaters when it was released, rent it on DVD. You will love it, I promise you because it’s definitely worth the watch. Especially if you have little kids that you showed “Finding Nemo” to, they will want to watch and will love “Finding Dory.” For a movie that didn’t need a sequel, this was a surprise for everyone and it was amazingly good. There is a possibility for another sequel, which might focus on the Tank Gang.

Alright everyone, thank you for joining in on “Disney’s Pixar Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed it, because I know I did. That’s all the reviews for this year, which was actually easier for me compared to last year, which was crazy. Have a good New Year’s Eve everyone. Let’s all keep our fingers cross that next year will be better. I will see all of you next month when I start back up on my Friday reviews on another franchise. Take care.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

There are whispers around the galaxy of a new Imperial super-weapon, powerful enough to destroy the Rebellion. Will a rundown team led by careless ex-con Jyn Erso, the daughter of the technological fear’s creator (Mads Mikkelsen), be able to find its plans and save every life?

It takes a pair of Death Star thinking heads to put out a “Star Wars” prequel right now. As George Lucas found out in 1999, targeting fans’ nostalgia heads will only get you so far: you also have to give an experience that feels new. (Seeing how there’s no Gungans will please you.) Gareth Edwards’ “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” which came out a couple of weeks ago, has this at their end with very little mistakes. There are so many series callbacks to satisfy diehard fans, but also a handful of offbeat new characters, amazing visuals and a completely gutsy third act.

James Dyer stated in his review, “The pitch, courtesy of VFX legend John Knoll, ILM’s very own Obi-Wan, is beautifully simple: a World War II men-on-a-mission movie, rejigged for the Star Wars universe. Instead of the guns of Navarone or V-1 rockets, the target is that mother of all giant orbicular firearms, the Death Star. And instead of a pack of army grunts, the heroes that comprise this scraggly suicide squad are a bunch of assorted underdogs from throughout the galaxy.” Upcoming “Star Wars” anthologies, such as the planned Han Solo spinoff, will undeniably be lighter than the main trilogies, but director Gareth Edwards here ups the antics. There aren’t any of the series’ trademark screen wipes and other old editing tools. There is a hilarious robot, one-line spewing K-2S0, played by Alan Tudyk, but his comedy is serious, filled by skeptical sarcasm, rather than slapstick. “Rouge One” is dark and serious: for the first time in the series, it feels like any person, and any droid, is superfluous.

At times the sadness feels like it will take away the fun. Like Luke Skywalker and Rey, heroine Jyn Erso, played by Felicity Jones, has a tragic backstory, meaning she had to grow up alone. Dyer said, “But unlike them she’s a fairly dour screen presence, already battle-hardened when we meet her.” Jones brings remarkable strength, as does Diego Luna as a Rebel intelligence officer with a secret mission, but it’s hard not to compare his character to Solo, or even Dameron. Dyer stated, “In this critical phase of the conflict, quips are in as short supply as kyber crystals.” One of the good things, for the first time in the “Star Wars” franchise a movie strengthens its Eastern roots. The original was influenced by the Kurosawa classic “The Hidden Fortress,” and here Donnie Yen and Jiang Wen play phrases on the same Fortress characters that inspired R2-D2 and C-3P0 in the original (they have a small cameo in here). Yen particularly is completely awesome as the blind Chirrut Imwe, as Dyer stated, “A kind of space-Zatoichi who employs what can only be described as ‘Force-fu’.” It’s a new direction for the series. It’ll be interesting to see if it’s one that gets more attention in upcoming movies.

What “Star Wars” fans love the most, however, is the villains, and this film doesn’t disappoint. Ben Mendelsohn is, as Dyer stated, “gloriously hissable as white-caped, permanently furious Imperial slimeball Director Orson Krennic: when someone pleads with him, “You’re confusing peace with terror.” He sneers back, “Well, you have to start somewhere.”” However, talk after seeing the movie will be about the return of two characters: Darth Vader (who gets to finger-point and Force-choke his way through so many moments) (Spencer Wilding and Daniel Naprous replacing David Prowse, but James Earl Jones is back as the voice) and another iconic original-trilogy villain, Tarkin (Grand Moff for the physical form, while CGI of the late Peter Cushing is shown), back again through CGI. Dyer said, “The latter is very close to escaping the Uncanny Valley and shows just how far digital artistry has come in the past decade. The Dark Lord of the Sith’s appearance is the more impactful, though, undoubtedly contributing a couple of entries to future Best Vader Moments lists, and finally answering the question, “Who would choose to live in a fortress with a lava waterfall?””

Dyer noted, “At points Rogue One does resemble Star Wars bingo: here’s a glass of blue milk, there’s a mouse-robot sound effect, there’s that character you like doing that line he’s famous for. Some of it’s clumsy, some of it’s great (watch out for some ingeniously repurposed archive footage from A New Hope).” However, like “The Force Awakens” before this, the movie gets better the more it detracts from past successes. Unlike “The Force Awakens,” which redid every “Star Wars” cliché as it played, this standalone story fights through a little uneven climax but ends on a high, with a successful third act set on the tropical planet of Scarif. Dyer stated, “Taking its cue from Churchill — “We shall fight them on the beaches” — it’s part heist, part battle, a thundering action spectacle with AT-ATs stomping down palm trees, death troopers splashing in azure waters and some truly surprising twists.” It’s here, when “Rogue One” doesn’t follow the formula and goes rogue itself, that it finally succeeds what it meant to do.

This is the ultimate “Star Wars” fan film, it’s short on oddness but when it starts going there’s plenty of risk-taking and show to promise enough for future standalones. Forest Whitaker and Riz Ahmed are also in the film.

In the end, I personally thought this film was better than “The Force Awakens” because it didn’t feel like it was redoing a past “Star Wars” movie. I give this a 10+, seeing how it felt like a “Star Wars” movie but they made it more dark and warlike. There isn’t any lightsaber fights in this movie, but there is some action that is exciting. If you haven’t seen it yet, go see it. This film takes place between Episodes 3 and 4, and it slides into “A New Hope” beautifully. At the end of the movie, the audience gave an uproarious applause, which is to cue you in that it’s definitely worth checking out.

Alright everyone, check in tomorrow for the finale of “Disney’s Pixar Month.”

The Good Dinosaur

Pixar’s second release in 2015 may not be on the same level of “Inside Out” but “The Good Dinosaur” however is still an enjoyable film.

The animation was probably the best at the time and you get emotionally involved, the film has its work cut out for it in a way that it can attract their audiences of every age while maybe retelling more of a classic storytelling way other than anything rebellious or original.

The story tells of a young Apatosaurus named Arlo (Raymond Ochoa), who sadly loses his father (Jeffrey Wright) in a rainstorm and becomes distant from his family in a flood, as he tries to make it home to his mother (Frances McDormand) with an unlikely friend in a scruffy Neanderthal boy named Spot (Jack Bright) for partnership.

The friendship that is made will help both dinosaur and human boy go up against some apparently dangerous tasks, whether it’s dangerous grounds and weather, or the other dinosaurs that walk the earth.

Directed by Peter Sohn, whose directorial debut with the Pixar short “Partly Cloudy,” “The Good Dinosaur” takes a lot from the sad children’s films like “The Lion King,” “Bambi,” “The Land Before Time,” “City Slickers” and even “Dinosaur” and “Finding Nemo” but, thanks to its amazing animation, still manages to keep an identity of its own.

The film is like a painting you want to keep looking at, whether it’s seeing Arlo and his father walk through the fields at night of fireflies or Arlo and Spot running through a stampede of buffalos with three T-Rex in drag.

Rob Carnevale stated in his review, “Hence, no matter how generic certain plot beats become, Sohn always has another arresting image to put on the screen… and it’s undoubtedly here that The Good Dinosaur yields its greatest rewards.”

However, the characterization works as well, with Arlo and Spot becoming friends that looks realistically recommending, whether you laugh with them on their mistakes or feeling just as sad as them with what they have to face. The climactic parts of the film, especially, are honestly emotional.

I agree with Carnevale when he said, “The set pieces, on the other hand, are often thrilling and delivered with an intensity that may leave younger viewers searching for the comforting embrace of their parent. But like Disney classics such as Bambi and The Lion King before it, such emotional highs and lows come with the territory for this kind of tale – and this is a world inhabited by some fierce creatures after all!”

Therefore, though lovers of Pixar’s most creatively admiring films (Inside Out/WALL-E, etc.) may tell a more straightforward story of “The Good Dinosaur,” that still shouldn’t take away from what it succeeds. Sohn made a film that is visually successful that makes you feel good and attracts audiences of all ages.

Like I stated before, I understand the story was not the best ever done by Pixar and it was clichéd, but it still was a good movie to check out. I saw a morning showing of this at the theaters with my mom, siblings, and one of my younger cousins since she was sleeping over that day. From what I can recall, I believe there were parts where a few children were crying, which is the right reaction from kids who watch this. After the movie was over, children were applauding this movie. I stood up, turned around, and the entire theater was filled with children. I tapped my mom’s shoulder and told her to look behind us, and everyone saw how many children had filled the theater that morning. Overall, the animation was the best Pixar ever did, and even though the story is something that is been told in children’s movies time and time again, I still think it was a good movie to check out. I don’t like people hating this when they should look at everything it did so well, so I would definitely say to watch this because it’s still one of the good Pixar movies.

Alright everyone, I will be going to see the new “Star Wars” movie today, which I’m really excited for. Check in later today for a review on that. I especially feel like I need to see this, not only because I’m a diehard “Star Wars” fan, but because I’m also sad over the sudden passing of the great Carrie Fisher. Review to come later today.

Inside Out

Now we have come to one of Pixar’s finest piece of cinematic works ever, “Inside Out,” released in 2015. The basic story is an 11-year-old girl battles with the arguing emotions inside of her. Doesn’t a psychiatrist help out with that? However, Pixar’s 15^th film is another touchdown, a film that needs to be watched because the notch is put at what animation can do and proves that live action can’t touch the paintings it makes in film. Peter Travers said in his review, “Oh, did I say it was funny? It is, uproariously so, when you're not brushing away a tear.”

Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) is unhappy that her dad (Kyle MacLachlan) and mom (Diane Lane) have moved to San Francisco (painted in dull browns) from bright, snowy Minnesota, where she loved playing hockey with her best friends.

It’s a frightening new school and no friends, except for her emotions: Joy, voiced perfectly by Amy Poehler, used to be in charge. Now she’s on a mission with Sadness, voiced by Phyllis Smith channeling all the emotional weight, to retrieve Riley’s happiest memories. This leaves Fear (comedian Bill Hader), Disgust (star of “The Mindy Project,” Mindy Kaling) and Anger (Lewis Black, the right choice) in charge of Riley’s emotions. Now we know why adolescent teens act the way they do.

Travers noted, “The idea has been tried — remember TV's Herman's Head? — but never with the artful brilliance of filmmaker Pete Docter (Up; Monsters, Inc.).” Docter channels our emotions as well as Riley’s. We all hear our thoughts – no, not the kind that you bottle up. As shown by Docter, co-director Ronnie Del Carmen and co-writers Meg LeFauve and Josh Cooley, “Inside Out” isn’t really a story of emotions fighting as it is emotions trying to settle peace, set to Michael Giacchino’s wonderful, mood-jumping music.

Travers advised, “Too sophisticated? Maybe so when the film takes us to the dark subconscious, "where troublemakers go." Kids will probably roll with the abstract punches thrown by this burst of pure imagination. Parents and adults will likely be traumatized. You've been warned.”

We also have Richard Kind, who you might remember from “Spin City” and “Mad About You,” voicing Riley’s old imaginary friend, Bing-Bong (no, I did not make that up).

Much like how I stated yesterday, this movie came the closest to “Finding Nemo” in being the best Pixar movie ever. The reason why is because of how the emotions are shown fighting in here. We have never seen Pixar dab inside a child’s mind before until now, and seeing how they have finally done it, they really nailed it. Especially since we were all 11 at one point, so we know exactly how that age is. As much as we don’t want to remember that age, we do. Riley perfectly embodies how an 11-year-old acts, and it would be really nice if they made a sequel to this. I would like to know if they’re going to since I would be curious that what other emotions would come into Riley and start fighting with her, making it more difficult to get through her teen years, but seeing how she is a strong child, she’ll be able to do it.

Definitely see this film if you haven’t. This is another one of my favorite Pixar films. This belongs in the top 5 best Pixar films list. I cannot do this film justice by reviewing it. You just have to see it to know how amazing it is. Like I stated already, it’s not as good as “Finding Nemo,” but that’s a tough act to beat. However, it came the closest than any other Pixar movie. My siblings and I saw this film after I rented it from the library and we fell in love with the movie. Stop reading this review and go out and see it, I promise you’ll love it.

Check in on Thursday where I review a film that wasn’t as good as expected, but not horrible by any means. The film is still a good film for everyone to see and is a lovable film for children. You might say it will be a defensive review, which it will be in a way, but it will be nice to look at in “Disney’s Pixar Month.”

Planes/Planes: Fire and Rescue

Today I want to look at a non-Pixar movie that spun-off from the “Cars” franchise. A little known film called, “Planes,” released in 2013. This might not be as popular as the Pixar movies, but “Planes” does well as a cheerful addition to “The Cars Universe.”

Dusty Crophopper, voiced by Dane Cook, is, as described by Linda Cook, “a kind of Walter Mitty of the skies.” While completing his crop-dusting job, he’s wanting to do prouder goals. Like Lightning McQueen, he wants to compete in a race against larger planes.

When Dusty arrives on the landing strip to compete, every plane almost laughs at him. He doesn’t pass the preliminary contest and returns home displeased. Later, he is told some good news: Another plane was eliminated, so now he’s enlisted in the race with the professionals in an around-the-world contest.

Just getting into the race isn’t Dusty’s only problem, however. He also is scared of flying too high. He finds out he needs to train not only in improving his skills, but also to overcome his fear, so he asks a retired World War II fighter plane named Skipper, voiced by Stacy Keach, to help him. At first, this grumpy old-timer doesn’t want to get involved with a brave crop duster, but Skipper eventually lets go his solitary habits and roots for the plane.

The planes in the race come from all over the world: Bulldog (John Cleese) is an overconfident twin-engine British model, Ishani (the hot Bollywood actress Priyanka Chopra) is a beautiful Pan-Asian flyer and El Chupacabra (Carlos Alazraqui) is a single-minded plane, complete with a lucha libre mask and cape, who is in love with Rochelle (Julia Louis-Dreyfuss), who rejects him…at least, at first.

Adults will actually enjoy the cameos from Anthony Edwards and Val Kilmer, who are the voices of the military jets Echo and Bravo in a nice reference to “Top Gun.”

My advice: check this movie out and give it a chance. It may not be a good movie for critics, but I actually found myself thoroughly enjoying it. Even my siblings were enjoying themselves, and we thought that it was a good movie. Just don’t listen to critics and other people. See it for yourself and judge it on your own opinion.

Now much to everyone’s surprise, there was a sequel that came out in 2014, “Planes: Fire and Rescue.” Even though this too-soon spin-off looks like it’s simply cashing-in on the Cars/Planes movies, this sequel is actually a lot of fun than you would think. Not only is the animation funny and sometimes even exciting, but there are some nice messages in the story. On the other hand, there’s also the ongoing issue of making movies where the main characters are inanimate objects with nice faces drawn on them. Rich Cline said it best when he said, “But never mind: see the movies, buy the toys, keep the kids happy!”

After the around the world race in “Planes,” the new champion Dusty, reprised by Dane Cook, notices his new celebrity life in problems when he gets an issue in his gearbox. He can still fly, but the torque needed for racing stunts could ruin his engine. He chooses to retrain as a firefighting plane to help his local airfield keep its certification in time for the annual Corn Festival. When he’s training, he is taught by veteran chopper Blade (Ed Harris), partnering up with his huge fan Dipper (the hot Julie Bowen, best known for playing Carol Vessey in “Ed,” Denise Bauer in “Boston Legal,” Sarah Shephard in “Lost” and currently Claire Dunphy in “Modern Family”), the noble Windlifter (Wes Studi), the spirited Dynamite (Regina King) and the smart mechanic Maru (Curtis Armstrong). However, a terrible wildfire is threatening the nearby Fusel Lodge, and the local park superintendent, voiced by John Michael Higgins, doesn’t want to close it with so many celebrities as guests (similar situation in “Jaws”).

The best part here is making Dusty completely full of himself, never listening to any advice before going in unprepared for the next step. It’s anticipated and immature, but it makes this vivacious crop-duster far more interesting, and adds some unexpected changes in a plot that then goes exactly where it needs to go. Cline mentioned, “Meanwhile, the screenwriters pack the dialog with witty puns and some snappy verbal and visual gags that allow the actors to give their vehicles a bit of personality, even if some of this is merely ethnic stereotyping or simplistic hero/villain morality.”

Cline does advise, “But then, these movies aren't known for their complexity, even as the premise is stretched badly by such oddities as cars arriving in a train to attend an opening weekend at a hotel (think about that).” Actually, the hotel is in a beautiful mountain setting, with a lot of green forests just waiting to be set on fire so our protagonists can fly in and put out the flames. Because even if the fire is shown as completely out of control, it’s never a wonder who’s going to succeed. Even though the high animation excites the kids, the adults will certainly have some disturbed fun to laugh at. Plus a flawed hero who refuses to quit.

In the end, this sequel is still a lot of fun. My siblings and I saw both the “Planes” movies in one night, and we loved each one of them. I don’t think we decided which one is better, so I think we liked both of them the same. I know I did, so I definitely say check them both out. If you have kids, they will definitely fall in love with it.

From what I have gathered, there might be a planned third movie, but who knows when that will be released, if they are still planning it. If not, then it’s fine where it is.

Look out tomorrow because I will be looking at a movie that actually came the closest to “Finding Nemo,” in “Disney’s Pixar Month.”

We Wish You a Turtles Christmas

Alright everyone, it’s time to review another holiday stinker that all of you should avoid around the Christmas season. If you guys remember last year when I reviewed “The Star Wars Holiday Special,” I had mentioned the Ninja Turtles special, “We Wish You a Turtles Christmas,” a direct-to-video 1994 special. I just finished watching this 25 minute abomination, so now I will let all the TMNT fans know why you should avoid this one at all costs.

First off, just look at the Turtles. They look horrifying. It looks like the costume designers gave them one of the worst turtle’s costumes ever. The permanent smiles on their faces look scary, the heads keep looking like they’re going to fall off, and even the shells look like they are going to break. Also, the lip-syncing is one of the worst ever. Either the mouths don’t move in-sync with the voice or they keep moving after the lines are done. Even the Brooklyn accents sound over-exaggerated.

The songs they give the turtles are just full of 90s cheese. When they sing Deck the Halls, why is Leonardo, played by Ronn K. Smith, doing a Jamaican accent? Isn’t that offensive? Maybe he just didn’t care. Next, Up From the Sewer is a horrible rip-off of Over the River and Through the Woods, which is a classic Thanksgiving song. IT DOESN’T FIT HERE!!!

Now the story to this is that the Turtles (Smith, Eric Anzalone, Alfredo Miller and Florence Reymond) go out shopping for a gift for Splinter (Jack William Scott). If you grew up watching the TMNT cartoon from the '80s, like I did, you would remember that the Turtles always went out on the streets in a trench coat and fedora. Why are they not wearing that in here!? And how come the kids on the streets are perfectly fine with four turtles just roaming the streets? Are they not the least bit frightened? Because I would be!

When they are singing Gotta Get a Gift for Splinter, how come Leonardo pushes a rollerblading kid, played by Zach Grenier, off screen? That kid’s parents should file a lawsuit for that! And why all of a sudden does Michelangelo decide to sing opera in front of a Christmas tree!? Raphael decides to steal the bell from the poor Santa, played by Ethan Lipkin, for a split second, but I don’t know why. There's even a moment where Donatello and Raphael are going to pick Michelangelo up, but they don't. Probably because they thought either he was too heavy or the costume was going to fall apart. Either one wouldn't surprise me. Donatello looks at his watch as to say, “HURRY UP MIKEY, WE DON’T HAVE MUCH TIME!” Raphael keeps wiping his face with his mask, maybe to wipe away the tears of being in this torture. I do sympathize with Leonardo when he puts his hands over his ears. Also, how come at first Raphael says there are two hours left, but after Michelangelo sings his opera song, there’s only one hour left? Did the singing of Oh Little City of New York take up one whole hour!? Because it clearly was like 3-5 minutes!!

You got to be shocked when they do Wrap Rap, a rap song where they’re wrapping presents. To go from opera to rap is quite a stretch, guys! If you thought Ninja Rap was bad, get a load of this song, which is "far" worse.

Splinter looks like a coughed-up fur ball that was purged out of a cat. The voice sounds like he is wheezing every single time he talks. It’s like he doesn’t like the film, which to his credit, I wouldn’t blame him. He even goes through the entire 12 Days of Christmas song, which is painful. In fact, THIS WHOLE SOUNDTRACK IS PAINFUL!!! The person who came up with this put no effort into it whatsoever!! The songs are just bad that your ears will be bleeding. Finally, when did they decide to let kids into the sewers!? The Turtles never did that!! I thought the whole thing with the Turtles is that they stay hidden in the shadows, like Batman. Even making them sing the We Wish You a Turtles Christmas song is just painful torture for those poor unfortunate kids (Natasha Cresap, Alicia Manta, Anthony Manganiello and Yaniv Segal).

When the credits roll, the Turtles don’t shut up. They talk about some of their favorite songs, which is like, “ENOUGH ALREADY!! HAVEN’T YOU TORTURED US ENOUGH WITH YOUR HOLOCAUST OF A SPECIAL!?!?!?”

If you’re a TMNT fan, like me, do yourself a favor and never look this up and watch it. You will be in pain the whole time you’re watching this. I didn't know anything about the live-action TMNT stuff until my cousin introduced me to the TMNT live-action film trilogy from the 90s. Because before that, I was only familiar with the '80s cartoon and video games. Then James Rolfe did some TMNT live-action leftovers, which I had no idea they existed, and this Christmas Special was one of them. Thank goodness I wasn't "that" hardcore of a TMNT fan that I saw everything that had their names on it. People like to say that “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III” was the worst thing that was TMNT related. I would like to say that if you ever see this, which came after that movie, you will wish that you were watching “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III” instead of this horrible Christmas special. This Christmas special is the worst thing to have the TMNT name on it. With the amount of times it fades to black, it’s like it was made-for-TV instead of direct-to-video. James Rolfe is right when he said this is on par with “The Star Wars Holiday Special.” I don’t agree with the Nostalgia Critic when he said he recommended it for some fun entertainment because I don’t see entertainment in this monstrosity at all.

Oh boy, what a relief. Well, Happy Holidays and Season’s Greetings online readers. Hopefully everyone had a Merry Christmas. Stay tuned tomorrow when I review a spin off on the “Cars” movies that aren’t Pixar related, but I feel I need to talk about.

Monsters University

Now we have come to the only prequel Pixar has done (unless they plan to do more), “Monsters University,” released in 2013.

Matt Zoller Seitz started his review out by saying, “If you were worried that animation giant Pixar was dipping into the same old wells too often ("Toy Story 3," "Cars 2," et al), the announcement of a prequel to their 2001 hit "Monsters, Inc." might have given you pause. Luckily, the result is more than reassuring. "Monsters University", which pictures Billy Crystal's one-eyed goblin Mike and John Goodman's fuzzy blue scare-master Sully as students attending Scare U, is true to the spirit of the original film, "Monsters Inc.", and matches its tone. But it never seems content to turn over old ground.”

The movie starts with a short introduction showing Mike as a young monster. He’s not what you would say is natural. He’s a great student, one of those types that gets good grades but doesn’t have what would showcase the special talents. Sully, who eventually becomes friends with Mike at college, is the opposite. He’s the son of a family praised for having generations of famous scare monsters, breezing through education on his name. However, Sully’s one of those students who only succeeds because everything comes easily for him. When Mike and Sully try to enter the college’s “Scare Program” by winning the annual college scaring competition – to avoid getting put into a “boring” career path, like building scream canisters – their strengths and weaknesses are evident. Mike wants to be the best scarer the same way, as Seitz puts it best, “a tiny, chubby kid wants to be in the NBA.” There’s hope for him, but not in the way he thinks. Sully is Mike’s opposite. He’s lazy and a smarty-pants. He doesn’t have as much of a thought as some of his fellow college students think, and he’s so scared of failing that he’s made underachieving into a type of self-protective performance talent. (The first time Mike meets him, Sully tips into a class that’s already started, without school material.)

Seitz mentioned, “You'll notice that I've already said quite a bit about the two main characters, and I haven't even gotten to a summary of the plot yet. That's because Sully and Mike are such richly-drawn individuals, so fully imagined in terms of psychology, body language and vocal performance, that they feel more "real" than the live-action heroes in almost any current summer blockbuster you can name. This is a specific Pixar talent, and for all the goodwill that the company has generated over the years, they still don't get enough credit for it. Sully's thinner in this film than he was in the first one, and he has the jockish, meathead energy of the young Nick Nolte. Look at how he slouches semi-sideways in classroom desk chairs, or tilts his strong jaw while half-listening, like a man (er, monster) who was told as a child that he had a nice face and never forgot it. Look at Mike's schlumpy posture, his permanent-wedgie walk, and how he shrugs as if warding off blows that it hasn't occurred to anyone to deliver yet. These touches and others are marvelous, and they go a long way toward making the central relationship equal to, yet different from, Mike and Sully's friendship in "Monsters Inc."”

The supporting characters are just as colorful. Seitz said, “Like characters in a classic Preston Sturges or Ernst Lubitsch comedy, they enter the film as caricatures and emerge as fully-formed individuals, the sorts of people (monsters!) that you'd remember fondly if you knew them in life.” The members of Oozma Kappa, the unpopular fraternity on campus – the only one that accepted Mike and Sully – are a shabby group, the classic underdogs of sports movie cliché, but they’re physically strange, a group of effervescent drawings. There’s a superficially permanent student with an upside-down bat wing for a mustache (Joe Murray), an overweight salesman who’s older than some of the teachers (Peter Sohn). There’s a spazzy clown who’s pretty much a pair of legs and a face (he definitely can breakdance, though), voiced by Charlie Day. There’s a two-headed monster whose heads argue with one another (one head wants to be a dance major, the other doesn’t), voiced by Sean Hayes and Dave Foley. There’s an eligible fraternity that tries to recruit Sully, with a self-centered leader whose boastful chest and melon head shrink his stick legs, voiced by Nathan Fillion, and a super-competitive sorority full of laughing monsters who dress in pink and seem vivacious and innocuous until you see their eyes light up with a, according to Seitz, “hellish intensity that would frighten Medusa herself.”

The dean of this college is the dragon-winged, centipede-bodied Dean Hardscrabble, voiced by the great Hellen Mirren in one of the best voiceovers ever. She’s the founder of Monsters University who made the Scare Program and the scaring contest, which takes place over several days in a wide arrange of scary and polychromatic settings. Seitz mentioned, “Hardscrabble seems to have been modeled on John Houseman in "The Paper Chase." She's an imperious, intimidating master instructor who brooks no fools, but she pays such close attention to every student's progress that deep down you know that her withering putdowns are a form of toughlove, a way of testing her charges and making sure they have thick skins, or hides, or scales.”

“Monsters University” is the type of film that’s easy to underrate. It’s not deep, nor is it trying to be, but its aims are frequent and diverse, and it succeeds every one of them with charm. If you’ve ever seen a sports movie, you know how everything unfolds, and the movie does every cliché you’d think. However, it never comes the most obvious way, and it’s so familiar to the way today’s audiences watch genre films that there are moments when it looks to expect out doubts and fool them around so that it can answer them later, to our approval and enjoyment. (When a moment feels a little off, there’s a reason for it being that way.)

The script consists of lines that are quotable not only because they’re funny (many are) but because they’re smart, like when Mike tells Sully, during an inspirational trip to watch the workers at Monsters Incorporated, “The best scarers use their differences to their advantage,” and Mike’s addition, a reaction to watching a legendary and now primitive scaremaster do his work, “He doesn’t have the speed anymore, but his technique is flawless.” Seitz mentioned, “My former colleague Manohla Dargis was right to object to Pixar's decision to tell yet another guy-centric story after releasing the quietly revolutionary "Brave" — but considering the warmth and intelligence radiating from every frame of this film, it's far from a dealbreaker.” There’s a politeness and precision of spirit to “Monsters University” which, at a moment of tiresomely “dark” and “gritty” entertainment, is, as Seitz puts it, “as bracing as a cannonball-dive into a pool on a hot summer's day.”

Never do you get the idea that director Dan Scanlon, his cowriters, his voice cast, or his team of animators are putting our love for the first film in the area of real imagination. Every moment has five or six things worth liking: a great line, a shameless but skillfully timed sight one-liner, a crowd of borderline details, or a masterpiece or camera move that connects the movie with three genres it most often appeals, the coming-of-age story, the campus comedy, and the sports movie. Seitz said, “Randy Newman's drumline-saturated score recalls Elmer Bernstein's classic work on "Animal House" and "Stripes", but so subtly that it takes a moment to register what he's doing. There are times when the film is juggling so many different kinds of pleasure simultaneously that when it adds one more unexpectedly perfect touch, the whole scene seems to erupt like a string of firecrackers. (My favorite occurs during a wild infiltration-and-escape sequence, when a character you'd never expect to say such a thing shrieks, "I can't go back to jail!")”

Seitz mentioned, “That the film may also teach children, and perhaps remind grownups, what it truly means to be honest, honorable, loyal and fair is a bonus, but to my mind a big one.” When the characters cut corners, they’re punished in ways that seem very reasonable, given they get caught. If they don’t get caught, their principles punish them – and the characters that obviously don’t have principles are the ones that the movie treats most severely. Seitz said, “The film's lessons are never self-congratulatory, and they're always backed by real empathy for human — or in this case, monstrous — frailties.”

In its own nicely easy-going way, this is great family entertainment. Pixar may not have what it had before, but its technique is flawless.

There is one flaw of the movie that I have to bring up: in “Monsters, Inc.,” there’s a line in the beginning of the movie where Mike said to Sully, “You’ve been jealous of my good looks since the fourth grade.” If that line established that they were friends since the fourth grade, why in this prequel they are showing them meeting for the first time? That’s something that’s always made me think ever since I saw this film.

Aside from that, this is a good prequel. It’s not as good as “Monsters, Inc.” obviously, but it’s actually a prequel children can watch first before they see the original. Now you might be thinking: shouldn’t they see “Monsters, Inc.” first before popping this in the DVD player? True, but this is actually an acceptable prequel to watch first since it established everything up to where “Monsters, Inc.” started. So if you hadn’t been happy with a couple of the Pixar movies before this, definitely give this one a watch because it’s actually good. Although I do agree there could have been possibilities for a sequel as opposed to a prequel, but who knows if Pixar has that planned yet. I wanted to see this in the theaters, but my siblings never made a plan to go, so I rented it from the library and we all saw it.

Stay tuned on Sunday when I review a Christmas special that I have mentioned before, although I’m sure I’m going to loathe it entirely.

Brave

“Brave” is the 2012 animated film from Pixar, and thus becomes the film every parent will make their kids see. The good news is that children may love it, and the bad news is that parents will be disappointed if they’re expecting another Pixar touchdown. Unlike such colorful original films like “Toy Story,” “Finding Nemo,” “WALL-E” and “Up,” this one is Pixar borrowing a page from the traditional story of Disney, its business partner. We have a spirited princess, her mom who is the queen, her dad who is the impatient king, an old witch who lives in the woods, etc.

The princess is Merida, voiced by Peigi Barker, shown in the action-filled introduction as a red-haired Scottish tomboy whose life is changed by a childhood birthday gift of a bow, which quickly makes her want to become the best archer in the kingdom. Then we cut to when Merida is in you marriageable age (Kelly Macdonald), who is shocked by request from Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) to choose from three possible husbands (Kevin McKidd, Steven Cree and Callum O’Neill) chosen by her kingdom (Robbie Coltrane, Kevin McKidd and Craig Ferguson).

She chooses none of them, especially since all three candidates are idiots. Merida rides off on her horse and rides into the forest, where her friends the will-o-the-wisps lead her to the cottage of a crooked old witch, voiced by Julie Walters. She asks for a magic spell that will change Queen Elinor’s mind, but it changes more than that: It turns Elinor into a bear. I agree with Roger Ebert when he said, “Witches never know how to stop when they're ahead.”

Luckily, the magic spell does have a cure to it. Merida has exactly two days to break the spell. After she and her mother get a grip on what happened, they begin to work together and grow closer than before, and despite that the queen cannot speak. There is one huge problem though. King Fergus, voiced by Billy Connolly, had his leg bitten off by a bear (in the introduction), and has been hateful toward them since then. Unsurprisingly, when he sees his wife as a bear, he doesn’t recognize her.

All the rest goes on. This is a great-looking movie, much brightened by the inspiration of giving Merida three small brothers, little redheaded triplets, voiced by John Hasler. The Scottish Highlands are amazingly painted in surprising detail, and some action with Merida’s archery is more than enough in so many emergencies.

“Brave” has an uplifting message about improving the connection between mothers and daughters, however turning your mom into a bear is completely impossible, unless it’s in animation. Elinor is understandable, under the circumstances. However, Merida is nowhere near being a typical fairy-tale princess. Ebert mentioned, “Having flatly rejected the three suitors proposed by her family, she is apparently prepared to go through life quite happily without a husband, and we can imagine her in later years, a weathered and indomitable Amazon queen, sort of a Boudica for the Scots.” “Brave” looks like it doesn’t deal with her as a girl and makes her into a sort of a token boy.

In the end, people really seemed to have hated this movie, making it feel really underrated. However, when I saw this when it came out in the theaters with my sister, I didn’t hate it at all, and don’t hate it to this day. It’s not one of Pixar’s best, but it’s nowhere being one of the worse, or the absolute worst. I actually think it’s honestly one of the good ones. The reason why is because I understand the story is a typical story that we have seen countless times in other Disney movies, but here there is something bigger than that. It showcases how realistically parents and kids constantly argue over things because they don’t seem to understand one another, but overtime they do come to an understanding. Children will thank their parents after understanding how hard they were on them and parents will realize that there were times that they may had gone too far and will apologize for not understanding what the child was trying to say. This works both ways, if you think about it. Ask any parent and their child this and they’ll tell you that’s exactly what they went through. So I say go out and see this movie and don’t hate on it because it’s actually a good one for the whole family to sit down and watch. Like “Cars 2,” it’s an underrated Pixar movie that was hated, but isn’t as bad as everyone says it is.

Check in tomorrow when we look at the only prequel Pixar ever made (unless they don’t have another prequel decided yet in their plans) in “Disney’s Pixar Month.”

Moana

“Moana,” released last month, would have been hugely entertaining whenever Disney decided to release it, but the time it was released, which was at a certain point this year, gives it an added sense of importance – including inspiration.

The latest animated musical hit from Walt Disney Animation Studios tells about the journey of a young woman who finds her own significance and creates her own identity. She decides to be a responsible chief to her tribe in her own way, rather than a stereotypical princess who is a damsel, where the film jokes about it in a hilarious way. She has both the wisdom to respect her tribe’s traditions and the bravery to go her own way toward the future.

Christy Lemire stated in her review, “Moana is on the verge of becoming the first female chief in the proud history of her Polynesian tribe, shattering the glass ceiling under spectacular blue skies. Imagine that.”

Obviously you can see “Moana” for its stunning visuals, great music, enjoyable performances, smart running jokes and the complete enjoyment. Everything is there, and – despite a few frightening scenes – it’ll impress any child or adult. I agree with Lemire when she said, “But for some of us older folks in the crowd, it’s hard to shake the feeling of wistful possibility in seeing a woman assume the leadership position for which she was destined.”

This is an absolute must for everyone to see. It also has the surprisingly confident, fortunate debut from Auli’I Cravalho, a Hawaiian teenager showing such an amazing talent would take voice actors years to perfect. While voicing the main character, Cravalho showcases style, excellent timing and a catching energy. On top of that, the film has the directing team of Ron Clements and John Musker (“The Little Mermaid,” “Aladdin”) and a small variety of writers to give her so many opportunities to be excellent both individually and as part of such an amazing cast of characters.

You can guess the giant name is former WWE wrestler Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the muscled demigod Maui, who Moana has to team up with to return the heart of the ocean to the island and correct a mistake he made a millennium ago that’s gradually diseasing the Pacific islands since than – including, most recently, her island. Being one of the most appealing actors in the business, Johnson impresses with all the arrogance you’d think, and he also has the ability of playing his tough-guy as we’ve seen since he was a wrestler. (A running joke where Maui’s number of tattoos comes to life to comment on the action – and insult him – gives a constantly hilarious Greek chorus.) However, Johnson doesn’t get enough credit for his ability to channel friendlier, dramatic moments, and “Moana” gives him the chance to showcase that side of his talent, as well.

The two enjoy so many highs and lows as they sail out into the ocean, learning to work together and navigate so many obstacles and outsmart their enemies. (Lemire said, “If you’re thinking about bringing very young children, a giant lava monster might seem frightening to them, but everything else is pretty darn delightful—including a pirate armada of evil coconuts who attack in a hilarious and thrilling sequence that’s straight out of “Mad Max: Fury Road.”)

Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda co-wrote so many of the songs that help advance the action, including Moana’s main theme, How Far I’ll Go, and Maui’s hilarious introduction song, You’re Welcome. Moana’s song talks about her longing to leave the island and journey beyond the island’s reef, something her father (Temuera Morrison) and mother (The lead singer of the Pussycat Dolls, Nicole Scherzinger) have insisted her not to do because of fear of the dangers out there. Lemire noted, “While it (mercifully) lacks the same persistent earworm qualities of the ubiquitous “Let It Go” from “Frozen,” its message of female assertiveness makes it infinitely more worthwhile.” Another great song is “Shiny,” a cheesy little song sung by Jemaine Clement as an evil crab with a fascination for everything shiny and gold. Lemire mentioned, “It’s hard to ignore the modern-day political figure he calls to mind, too.”

Lemire noted, “The details in these production numbers are just decadent; the colors are a million shades of green blue, and the underwater creatures and settings have a wonderfully immersive, tactile quality.” It could be that the movie went the easy, physical jokes way too many times, like when you look at Moana’s animal friend, an absent-minded chicken named Heihei, voiced by Alan Tudyk, who accidentally joins her when she goes to sail across the ocean.

However, Moana – a strong, curvy girl and not your typical, skinny princess – is ready for any challenge that comes her way. Even a crazy sidekick.

In the end, I highly recommend this movie. My whole family went last night to the theaters to see this and all of us absolutely loved it. This easily makes another one of my favorite Disney movies, and you need to go to the theaters to see this. Seeing how Disney has not made a movie set in the Hawaiian islands since “Lilo & Stitch,” it’s nice to see them come back to that again, and making it successful. If only Disney would just continue doing this instead of making live-action remakes to their animated classics, but that’s not something we’ll get to now. That will come at a later time. Thumbs up all around Disney, keep making us love your 3D animated films.

Alright everyone, check in tomorrow for the next installment of “Disney’s Pixar Month,” where I will defend another movie which people called a clichéd Princess Story.

Cars 2

We have now arrived at the wrongfully hated sequel, “Cars 2,” released in 2011. Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “While I was watching "Cars 2," an elusive nostalgia tugged at my mind. No, I wasn't remembering Pixar's original "Cars" from 2006. This was something more deeply buried, and finally, in the middle of one of the movie's sensational grand prix races, it came to me: I was sitting on the floor of my bedroom many years ago, with some toy cars lined up in front of me, while I used my hands to race them around on the floor and in the air, meanwhile making that noise kids make by squooshing spit in their mouths.”

Ebert went on to say, “In this memory, I was completely engrossed with my cars. They were as real as people, and I played favorites and identified one car as my surrogate. Maybe my hands were swooping around with toys, but my imagination was somewhere else, and I performed the dialogue for the cars: Oh, yeah? Take that! We'll see! Eeeeyowww!”

Ebert goes on to say, “This memory was not random. I think it was inspired by the spirit of John Lasseter's movie. I believe in some sense, the great animator was sitting Indian-style on the floor of his Pixar playroom and hurtling his cars through time and space with sublime reckless delight. We learned from "Cars" that Lasseter loves automobiles, and here we learn that they can serve him as avatars in an international racing-and-spying thriller as wacky as a Bond picture crossed with Daffy Duck.”

I think Ebert is right when he said, “I have no idea what kids will make of the movie. At a time when some "grown-up" action films are relentlessly shallow and stupid, here is a movie with such complexity that even the cars sometimes have to pause and explain it to themselves. It mixes concerns about fossil fuels with spycraft and a lot of grand prix racing where more is at stake than who wins.” This time the protagonist has changed: The red NASCAR Lightning McQueen is covered by the rusty, buck-toothed tow truck Mater, who was just a supporting car in the first film.

A plot synopsis would put us into confusions, and the movie isn’t about a plot as much as the action it contains. Shortly, Sir Miles Axelrod, voiced by Eddie Izzard, has created a new fuel that doesn’t drain the planet’s shrinking oil reserves and wants to prove it in a World Grand Prix to be sold in England, Japan and Italy. Ebert said, “This is a masterful way of introducing new backdrops into the races, and the movie is so visually complex that I imagine Lasseter and his colleagues slipped details in just for fun.”

Ebert pointed out, “At one point, in a shot so brief you don't want to blink, we even learn that the Popemobile travels in its own Popemobile. This inspires the theological puzzle of whether the one inside is the pope. One of my fellow viewers said she didn't even see a Popemobile. Maybe I dreamed it. In any event, there are no humans in the movie who could be the pope, although much is made of the dinosaurs who are a source of fossil fuels. Actually, I believe oil originated from ancient plants and microorganisms and not so much from dinosaurs, but in the Lasseter universe, it no doubt comes from gas-guzzling dinosaurs like in those old Rambler ads.”

This is all beside the point though. Lightning McQueen finds himself in a championship race with the Italian driver Francesco Bernoulli, voiced by John Turturro. He and Mater end up being in the middle of a undercover race between the power of fossil and alternative fuels, also having the British secret agents Finn McMissle (Michael Caine) and Holley Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). Ebert joked, “Having recently admired Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon doing dueling Michael Caine imitations in "The Trip," I noted that Michael Caine does a pretty good one himself.”

The first film was a speech to a past when America drove around Route 66 and now-classic cars were the icons in American lives. The cars in “Cars 2” have evolved a wide variety of new upgrades. Ebert noted, “They extrude so many wires, spikes, weapons and gimmicks they must really be shape-shifters, and Mater in particular is expert at disguising himself. This is not surprising, because a lot of the guys you find around tow trucks are pretty good at using paint jobs to dress up beaters.”

However, “Cars 2” is fun. Ebert ended his reason by saying, “Whether that's because John Lasseter is in touch with his inner child or mine, I cannot say. There remains one bone to pick. Although the hero of the 2006 film was a Hudson with the step-down design and there are AMC Gremlins in this film, as nearly as I can tell, Lasseter entirely ignores the greatest independent American automaker of them all, Studebaker. Maybe I missed one. I don't think so. There is a more obvious reason. Introducing a Studebaker Golden Hawk into this film would make all of the other characters look shabby.”

As I have already stated before, this film was wrongfully hated. I understand the complaint that maybe it was violent for children, but I think it upgraded the first one by showing how cars have evolved now and that they are using natural resources like hybrid, electrical and solar power. This is rightfully showing how car manufacturers are trying to use other resources instead of oil because of how deadly that can be. Also, it’s for saving the environment and we all need to think about the Earth. I took a couple of my younger cousins to the theaters to see this and we loved it. Definitely see it and give it a chance because it has been hated a lot and it doesn’t deserve it. Plus, I understand making Mater the central focus was the wrong idea, seeing how people are not fond of Larry the Cable Guy's style of humor, but think of the whole picture instead of nitpicking, which for a kid’s movie like this, it’s wrong.

I’m not surprised to know that they will be coming out with a “Cars 3,” I think next year. Let’s see what they have in store for us in that one because I think it will be good.

Now I’m really excited because tonight I’m going to see the new Disney’s “Moana” movie, but I will probably post a review on that tomorrow. We’ll see so stay tuned for that because I have been hearing a lot of good reviews about it so I can’t wait to see it.