TV Series Review: Merlin (2008)

Title: Merlin (TV Series 2008)

Creators: Julian Jones, Jake Michie, Johnny Capps, Julian Murphy

Original broadcast: 2008-2012
Series length: 5 seasons, comprising 13 x ~45 minute episodes per season

Status: Complete

Classification: PG

Genre: Historical fantasy, Family, Action/Adventure, Comedy

Man. Where do I even begin?

This show. This show. I invested five years of my life in this show and what started out for me as light-hearted squee morphed into some sort of rabid hate-watch towards the end. The finale made me so mad that instead of sleeping I spent a night rolling angrily around in bed. When I finally fell asleep, I woke up the next day, still mad.

So yeah. If you’re looking for a rant, you’ve come to the right place.

(Review behind the cut. Warnings for foul language and major spoilers, including the finale. For those who haven’t seen the show but are thinking about it, they’re the sort of spoilers you’d want to know about before you decide to watch. Trust me.) 

Movie Review: Monsters University

Title: Monsters University
Director: Dan Scalon

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 104 mins

Classification: G

Genre: Animation, Family and kids, Comedy

The most anticipated prequel has hit the screens, Monsters University!

Monsters University is the story of how Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sulley (John Goodman) meet before Monsters Inc. If you don’t know who Mike and Sulley are and have no idea what Monsters Inc. is, then you must go, now, watch Monster Inc. then come back to this review.

If you have seen Monsters Inc. go re-watch it anyway.

But first, Blue Umbrella, the most recent Pixar short played before the movie is brilliant and is completely new to the design of Pixar. If anyone can make people feel for inanimated objects, Pixar can. 

Back to the review.

Monsters University did not leave me disappointed and is exactly what I thought the movie would be. I wouldn’t say it was the best but definitely is on par with Monsters Inc., if not, then a little less only because it uses the same characters in Monsters Inc. so doesn’t feel original – which it shouldn’t feel, since Monsters University is a prequel to Monsters Inc.  

The start of the movie is just too cute. Little Mike is sooo cute to the point I felt disappointed when older Mike gets off the bus in front of the University. This movie is purely about chasing your dream and not giving up. Mike is inspired to be a Scarer and will do what he can to be one. The storyline is very cliched. It has your usual jocks, cheerleaders, punks and losers. Both Mike and Sulley have to prove their worth by joining forces with the members of the Oozma Kappa fraternity (the losers) to win the Scare Games. The only thing not cliched about this movie is there is no love interest which is a plus. There was no room for it.

Monsters University has all the ‘Pixar’ needed to make it a funny family film. If you have seen Monsters Inc. you will love the guest appearances in this movie. As for the new characters, I found Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) terrifying and I use the word terrifying because I don’t like anything that has more than 4 legs. Eeuuggghhh……

The character designs of the Dean and Art (Charlie Day), a member of the Oozma Kappa fraternity was the most interesting. I may not like insects, but for the role of the Dean, an insect was the most appropriate. As for Art, he is just all furry with tree trunk legs and tiny arms. A little bit awkward appearance-wise but the most mysterious and funny of them all. As for the other Oozma Kappas, they were ordinary. I understand that’s the point but their unique abilities were awkward. It made the last competition unconvincing even though Pixar did its best to illustrate Oozma Kappas' weaker potentials. I felt more towards the Oozma Kappas as a group rather than them as individuals.

There is some character development in this movie, mostly focusing on Sulley… and Randall has some screen time. It’s not a very successful development when most people know how Sulley and Randall will be in the future. The focus of this movie is on Mike and I loved it. In Monsters Inc. I favoured Sulley over Mike. I found Mike bossy and a little selfish. In Monsters University, he’s still a little selfish but it was driven by his dream. He might be bossy towards the Oozma Kappas, but he never gave up on them and did his best to help. This is typical of the main character in college films but having believed Mike was bossy and selfish, it was nice to see it wasn't the 'true Mike’.

My favourite part is the end of the film and how they become Scarers. It’s not what one might think it would be, but it proves hard work does pay off. There are funny scenes but I preferred the story itself. The funny bits were a bonus.

I’ll definitely be re-watching Monsters University again and may even follow that with Monsters Inc. True to a Pixar film, I’m sure there are a lot of Easter egg surprises in the film I have missed. I enjoyed Monsters University and recommend everyone to go watch it, just remember: relax and enjoy. Mike and Sulley will always be the lovable monsters they are.

  

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Note: There was one fault I found. I may be wrong but in Monsters Inc. as Mike and Sulley walk to work, I’m quite sure Mike mentions he met Sulley.

Movie Review: Despicable Me 2

Title: Despicable Me 2

Directors: Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 98 minutes

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Kids and Family, Animation, Action/Adventure

(Note: this review contains spoilers for Despicable Me (the prequel))

2010’s Despicable Me stands out as one of the more original kids’ films of the last five years. In that movie, evil genius Gru (Steve Carell) attempts to steal the moon. Because of plot reasons, Gru adopts three little girls. Because it’s a kids’ movie, Gru relinquishes his villainous ways to become a good father. All in all, it’s a pretty cute film, full of laughs and “awww”.

Understandably then, you had to wonder where they’d go with Despicable Me 2. It necessarily lacks the villainous glee of the first movie, which is both good and bad: good, because it means there’s character development; and bad, because it’s not as original. In the sequel, Gru has his hands full being a parent and intends to start a business making jams and jellies. All seems well until he is suddenly kidnapped by Lucy (Kristen Wiig), an agent from the Anti-Villain League. Apparently, someone has created a chemical that turns its victims into mutant purple killing machines. The AVL “recruits” Gru in the hope that his expertise in villainy will enable him to uncover the identity of the villain responsible. Personally, I liked that they made Gru an “ex-villain” rather than a sudden, all-out hero.

Like the first movie, there are plenty of laughs to go around, whatever your age. The humour ranges from slapstick, mostly played out by Gru’s adorable Minions, to send-ups of stereotypes, like the improbably tough Mexican wrestler villain El Macho and the fitness freak blonde girl with whom Gru goes on a date. I actually laughed out loud a lot during this movie, which is more than I can say for most comedies.

From the promotional materials and from the moment she shows up on screen, you know that Lucy is Gru’s designated love interest. Gru’s daughter Margo (Miranda Cosgrove) also gets a love interest in the form of the dashing Antonio (Moisés Arias). Sadly, the romantic plot developments in the film felt exactly like that: they were moments I felt I had to endure in order to get to the rest of the story and were only palatable when intertwined with comedy, like when Gru goes all overprotective dad over Margo’s new boyfriend.

The animation is cute and colourful and I found myself admiring Gru’s home décor more than once. The 3D is used effectively: I liked that I was able to look into the sets, rather than at them, particularly in big, busy locations such as the mall. If you want to get the “most” out of the 3D, then you may want to stay for the credits as you’ll get to see some Minions shoving stuff at you through the screen.

Conceptually, Despicable Me 2 is “less” than its predecessor: the villain protagonist angle is gone, a predictable romance plot has been added and there’s less interaction between Gru and his kids. That said, I think I liked this film more. While Gru’s relationship with his daughters is more static, there are still plenty of heart-warming “family” moments of the kind that made the first movie so memorable. There’s also a greater sense of chaos compared to the very plot-driven prequel and I’m pretty sure it’s funnier as well. The cute little Minions also get to play a bigger part, which, admittedly, may or may not be a good thing, depending largely on whether you’re a parent who’ll now have to fork out on Minion toys (now available at a store near you).

Despicable Me 2 is a fun, funny, fluffy family movie and a pleasant way to spend an afternoon. It’s no masterpiece of cinema, but with the current crop of movies out right now you could easily do worse.

Alex’s Rating: 3.5/5

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Director: Sam Raimi

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 130mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Kids and Family, Fantasy

I was reluctant to watch this movie. I wasn’t quite sure how the actors would sit in this genre since none (that I’ve seen) have been in this style before. I loved The Wizard of Oz as a kid and loved, even more, Wicked the musical. I didn’t want anything to ruin my memories of Oz. But, alas, it is not ruined.

Oz the Great and Powerful is not even in the same league, hence not worth being associated with The Wizard of Oz or Wicked.

The story tells how a circus magician, Oz (same as the land), played by James Franco, arrives in Oz and how his arrival changes the struggle between 3 witches (Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams). With famous actors/actresses, magical costumes and stunning visual effects, how can this movie go wrong? Well for a start it felt more like a mini TV series than a big Hollywood film.

None of the actors/actresses delivered. This may be due to them not fitted for this genre or to the ‘shallow’ script. The characters were developed lazily and poorly, even the established characters were so basically written, there was no depth in their personality therefore I felt nothing towards them.

The worst was Oz himself, James Franco. He is an unreliable man who wants more in life but does not have the courage to achieve his ambition. He is a liar; he sleeps around, and will do anything for money. Oz is not a likable character, even till the end when all ends well and he saves the day, I was left feeling cheated and underwhelmed. He had the most reason and depth to have his character develop thoroughly but at the end of the day he is Oz 'the not so great and not so wonderful'. 

For the 3 witches, it would have been better to have shown their history rather than hear it from the characters. At least with visual aid, the ‘who’s good, who’s bad’ isn’t just merely implied but set in solid. From the movie, I did not feel the hatred between them was real since I had nothing to go by but talk.

(Side note: Am I the only one who thinks James Franco is not a good actor? Okay, so I haven’t seen 72 hours, but I’ve seen him in other movies and… nope, don’t like his acting…. Maybe it’s just me.)

The costumes stay true to the story with one exception, Theodora. She is the one dressed black pants with a purple jacket and a massive rim hat which I can only assume was chosen because it resembles a witch's hat. Her costume looks less Ozzian, and more Carmen San Diego in purple.

The visual effects were bright and stunning….. but a little too bright. The characters seemed to bounce off the screen in a ‘does not fit into the scenery’ way. Imagine the puzzle pieces that do not fit, now picture those pieces in an entirely different colour as the puzzle. This might have been done on purpose to allow a magical effect but what surprised me the most was all the animated creatures suited the background just fine. Then again I watched this movie in 2D and on a fairly modest sized screen. Maybe on the big screen it would have been different.

Having mentioned 2D, this movie was obviously made for 3D with the occasional flower or weapon diving straight into the camera. The 3D effect was less beautiful (Avatar) but more fun (Spy Kids). Watching it in 2D, I found the effects wasteful and eventually annoying. I recommend watching it in 3D.

Having ranted about the movie: the black and white introduction was a nice touch. Oz the Great and Powerful gave a respectful nod to the original film. It felt like home…..

The Wicked witch of the West was my favourite character by far. She had enough intensity in her make up and eyes to make her really evil.

This movie is enjoyable if you watch it in a kid’s perspective. I did not love the movie, but I did not hate it. I can see the enjoyment and the fun ride some people might have, and at some parts so did I, but I will not be re-watching this movie any time soon. 

Terri's rating: 2/5

Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Title: Wreck-It Ralph

Director: Rich Moore

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 108 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Animation, Family and Kids

Being a long-time fan of Pixar, I was quite sceptical with Wreck-It Ralph. No one can possible do better than Pixar. I was wrong. Wreck-It Ralph may not be my favourite animation movie but it’s definitely one of the best.

Basically, this movie is about Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), a video game villain who is sick of being the villain and decides to go fulfil his dream of being a hero. While on his quest, he causes chaos in the arcade world.

This movie ticks all the boxes of a good kids’ animation. It is enjoyable to boys and girls, adults and children, has great animation, a tender touching story with the perfect amount of comedy. If you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend it. It may not top Toy Story 3 (which is a personal favourite) but Disney is definitely heading in the right direction with Wreck-It Ralph.

One of my favourite parts of this movie is its reference to old video games. If you ever played video games as a kid, you’ll be delighted to see some appearances of characters from your childhood memories. There is also a joke about High Definition games.

The story is unique and was well thought out. Rather than having the ‘games central’ in cyber space, Wreck-It Ralph’s ‘game central’ looks like a train station with platforms leading to different games. This idea allows the ‘game central’ to look more solid and realistic.

The characters are all likable and surprisingly, relatable. Everyone can sympathise with Ralph. There is a bit of everything for everyone in this film. Comedy, likable main character, little treasures to be found and a twist (which I did not see coming). There is nothing poor I can say about this movie.

Just go watch it already.

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Movie Review: Holiday in Handcuffs

Title: Holiday in Handcuffs
Director: Ron Underwood
Year Released: 2007
Running Time: 86 minutes
Classification: Unrated
Genre: Romance, Comedy, Drama, Family (?)


Though its title is suggestive of a buddy crime caper (or kinky sexytimes, if you will), Holiday in Handcuffs is actually a romcom produced for TV by ABC Family. Now, while I am quite tolerant of happy crappy Christmas movies (and indeed enjoy them much more than I should), this film has the distinction of being the silliest Christmas movie I have ever seen. Ever. It's utterly ridiculous and makes absolutely no sense. And yet, if you can manage to bring yourself down to its level, you'll find that it does quite nicely as a brainless fluffy diversion.

The plot is basically this: waitress Trudie (Melissa Joan Hart) gets dumped by her boyfriend on the eve of a family Christmas trip, so she kidnaps David (Mario Lopez), a random handsome customer, so that she can present him to her family as her boyfriend. Just let that sink in. The premise is so dumb and so unbelievable that you have to wonder how it got past the development stage. I mean, they try to insert some level of realism, having David protest his kidnapping and all, but the reasons for his failure to escape are very contrived: Trudie's family believes his “help me I've been kidnapped!” thing is all a joke and (spoiler alert!) when he somehow manages to get a phone, he calls his horrible snobby girlfriend (of course) instead of the police. Further, unlike a real person, David accepts his predicament all too easily – it would not have been hard for him to overpower his petite female captor, take her car, whatever. His objections are token at best. It's almost like he wants to be kidnapped or is otherwise unusually dim. So yes, the whole basis of the movie made no sense whatsoever.

Even so, it's possible to enjoy the movie even while raging at its stupidity. This can be mostly attributed to Sabrina Melissa Joan Hart as a very 90s-styled Trudie. She's the unglamorous loser of the family and it's easy to identify with and root for her. Add to this her painterly aspirations and I was totally on her side. She's such a hot mess that you can almost buy the the fact that she'd kidnap David in the throes of a nervous breakdown, so props to her for that. David, on the other hand, is a bland and smiley sort of fellow who's just there to do whatever the plot requires of him, and since the plot requires him to be a dumbass, he's not particularly believable as a successful human being.

Still, Hart and Lopez look cute together, and since this is a “family” movie (there's a bit of sexual innuendo, albeit decipherable only to corrupted adult minds), the troubling nature of their relationship is blatantly ignored in favour of a “bickering couple” dynamic. Further, Trudie is so harmless and likeable that David's continued imprisonment becomes more and more implausible as time goes on. Normally, one might assume that the film is trying to do something clever here, like explore the nature of Stockholm syndrome and so on, but no. The movie doesn't deserve the credit of your analysis, so don't waste your time (and yes, I realise the irony of saying that as I type my review).

The latter half of the movie treads more familiar romcom territory, with the leads bonding and Trudie's “perfect” family revealing how dysfunctional they really are. Sure it's a bit cliched, but I was always entertained (...perhaps in no small part because I often thought about what I would do if I were in David's place). Overall, the film is funny and highly watchable, ultimately delivering on the happy ending that you watched it for in the first place.

Long story short, if you're looking for a pleasant and brainless Christmas movie, you can do far worse than Holiday in Handcuffs. Despite its absurd premise, it has that warm, comfy quality that you get from hot chocolate and a soft blanket. I can see myself rewatching this when I get into a Christmas mood. Make no mistake though: Holiday in Handcuffs is too silly and too stupid to be a “good” movie, but also too charming to be written off completely.


Alex's Rating: 3/5

Movie Review: MirrorMask

Title: MirrorMask

Director: Dave McKean

Year released: 2005

Running Time: 101 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Fantasy, Drama, Family

A dark artistic fantasy world.

MirrorMask follows 15 year old Helena. She stumbles into a fantasy world and embarks on a mission to find the Mirrormask to save the kingdom and to find a way home.

The storyline is the traditional lost kid in another world believing it is all a dream. Very ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘The Wizard of Oz’.

What makes MirrorMask unique is its artistic story telling, designs and the distinctive eeriness of music used. Written by Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean the movie has a darker tone then a normal kids’ film.

Note: Neil Gaiman is a well known science fiction/fantasy writer. His books include American God, The Graveyard book and the graphic novel series The Sandman. If you enjoy his books, you will definitely like MirrorMask.

Dave McKean is a renowned artist and has collaborated with Neil Gaiman before on The Sandman series. His art work is unmistakable and it is his designs which make the fantasy world come alive.

The plot is self explanatory. The delivery of the storyline is intertwined perfectly with the mind game art technique used by McKean.

The entire movie is dim. Our world looks like a cloudy day before a storm while the fantasy world is covered in a sandstorm colour. The fading visual images in the fantasy world allow a dream like appearance. Kind of like submerging something in dusty water where you can see it, but not clearly.   

The creatures of the fantasy world resemble normal animals but yet are so unique you will have trouble placing them. (Besides from the Giant Twins, of course. They are definitely not from this world.)

Music is used wisely. Most of the music played in the background has a soft beat that I have never heard used in any other film. (Then again I have not seen every movie on the planet.) There are a lot of chiming noises. It makes the atmosphere feel more spiritual and even restful. The most memorable song would have to be Close to you played while Helena transforms into the Princess. I personal hate this song but the way this song is delivered in this particular scene, it hypnotised me as the magical dust did to the Helena.

However MirrorMask is not for everyone. It runs slower with no bright colours or happy singing to keep the more easily distracted audiences amused. So if you like your happy la la, bright colour singing children’s film, you may not enjoy MirrorMask.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who has always wanted to have an adventure. MirrorMask not only takes you on an adventure into another world, but will open your eyes to a place where dreams are lost, books have thoughts and where the darkness is alive. It is the mixture of art design and storyline that makes this movie brilliant.

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Movie Review: Dr. Seuss' The Lorax

Title: Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax

Director: Chris Renaud, Kyle Balda

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 86 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Kids and Family, Animation

Before watching this movie I had no idea what it was about. I knew it had to do with a boy, a small orange creature that I assume was The Lorax, and trees that have fairy floss like tops. And because it was taken from Dr. Seuss’, I expected a lot of rhyming. 

Quick overview of the movie.

The Lorax is a animation released by Illumination Entertainment, who also did Despicable Me.

It is about a boy name Ted who, to impress a girl, seeks out to find a living tree. He meets The Once-Ler who tells Ted the story of what happened to the trees. 

I’m a huge fan of kids’ movies that have morals. The Lorax has an obvious moral and it is enjoyable. The storyline is simple and the ‘teaching’ of the moral made simple for anyone to understand. The rhyming is made minimal but without losing Dr. Seuss’ ness (I know it’s not a word) of the film. 

I have never read Dr. Seuss before so I do not know if this movie was true to the book. What the movie did do was place this particular book in a future world that resembles a lot like ours. IE. Cars, streets, fake grass. I’m not saying it’s exactly the same and we will end up buying fresh air, but it’s enough to make kids imagination come alive and see the path we might be on. 

The animation was unique enough to the movie without it looking like an extension of a previous movie made by Illumination Entertainment. Although I just want to note down that Mr. O’Hare, the villain in the movie, looks a lot like a certain ‘superhero outfit designer’ in another kids’ animation.

I love the deep contrast between the town behind the wall, and the dead land surrounding it. The colours were bright, attention grabbing. The voice actors did well considering a lot were first timers and the songs (yes they sang in this movie) were relevant and easy on the ears.  

I really like this movie. It is not the funniest of kids’ films but enjoyable. Adults I believe would enjoy this movie too. If you are not into kids' movies at least rent it for your kids. They will love it and stay out of your way for an hour and a bit.

Terri’s Rating: 3.5/5

Movie Review: Mirror Mirror

Title: Mirror Mirror

Director: Tarsem Singh

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 106 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Adventure, Kids and Family, Fantasy, Romance

This new adaption to snow white stars Julia Roberts as the evil queen and Lily Collins as Snow White. It might be one of the latest adaptions but definitely not the best.

The storyline is pretty much the same with some minor changes from the Disney version of Snow White. The 7 dwarves are thieves that wear stilts, a dragon creature lives in the dark forest, and the kingdom is set in a land of snow.

Let’s start.

I like Julia Roberts. I think she’s a respectable actress but her portrayal of the Evil Queen was … poor. Instead of an Evil Queen, Julia Roberts came across as a pathetic Queen. 

Generally I would blame this on the writer or directer, but this Evil Queen was all Julia Roberts. 

I understand this movie is a comedy, but the point of an EVIL Queen is for her to be EVIL. She can be funny but at least have some aspects where the audience can believe she is ruthless. All I saw was a pathetic Queen obsessed with her looks who happens to have a magic mirror.

Snow White is meant to be innocent, sweet and altogether wholesome. I get it. This Snow White was also timid. I honestly did not believe she could do everything she did. The transition was poorly done. She went from an innocent girl to a woman able to stand up to the Evil Queen unconvincingly.

The part I hate the most is the end. The Queen is defeated. Everyone’s happy. Snow White turns evil? (Okay, she does not turn evil). But her facial expression, rather than a triumphant look, was a sly “I beat you Queen, now face the consequences and die”. So much for innocent, sweet and wholesome. (Unconvincing transition).

But the worse bit is the song. I'm not a fan of happy la la songs at the end of a movie when it's not a musical. After the Queen dies, Snow White breaks into a song. Not any song. A Bollywood style song. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Bollywood but if you're going to put a song in the end, put something more relevant to the genre of movie. 

However I did like the twist behind the King's disappearance. Visually, the costumes are definitely unique, not in a bad way, except for the large bow on Snow White’s dress at the end of the film. The costumes and stage set gives the movie a fairy tale quality which is perfect for this film.

I really liked the animation at the start of the film. I think I would have preferred the whole movie as the animation.

If you are looking for a good fairy tale, don’t bother with this movie. It is definitely a kids' film and to be enjoyed by kids, not by anyone over the age of 8. Make sure the kid likes princess films too. 

Terri's Rating: 1/5


**Extra mini-review by Alex** Oh my. I enjoyed this film! It was a big ham-fest all the way and it was fun, if a little predictable. I actually prefer this to Snow White and the Huntsman - the dwarves at least were distinguishable from one another and the romance here is more convincing, even though the Prince (Armie Hammer) is just beefcake (though this says more about SWatH, really). I agree about the costumes (only King Sean Bean looks uncomfortable) and I also liked how things looked in general. Tarsem Singh is known for stunning visuals, and here there is a fantastical hyper-saturated look which really works for the movie. I also agree that Snow White's character seemed a bit inconsistent, but this is more of a problem if you think about it. My solution: don't think. I'd leave my brain at home and just enjoy the pretty. Rating: 3/5

Movie Review: Brave

Title: Brave
Director: Mark Andrews
Year Released: 2012
Running Time: 93 minutes
Classification: PG
Genre: Action/Adventure, Fantasy, Comedy, Kids and Family, Animation

From the trailer, I thought Brave was about how a princess avoids marriage by defeating an evil bear, or something. What the movie is actually about is how Princess Merida (Kelly Macdonald) “changes” her mother via witchcraft so that her mother doesn't push for her to get married. The film in essence is about this mother-daughter relationship. This adds a original spin to the usual “hero's quest” story, and provides a refreshing change from the usual romantic focus in princess stories.

I am perhaps showing my age here, but I found it problematic that I sided with Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) pretty much from the get-go. I did not find Merida to be very likeable, at least at the beginning, and indeed thought her rather selfish for being so resentful of her (privileged) life. However, I doubt many others will have this same problem. I had expected a bit more historical realism and I realise that I was wrong to do so. Brave is a children's movie after all, and it will of course result in a happy ending in line with modern values. I suppose it's meant to be a celebration of ~girl power~ and ~independence~, but for me this message didn't carry any real weight: Merida's life isn't exactly horrible to begin with and her problems are mainly self-inflicted. On the flip side, the mother-daughter opposition allows for both characters to grow during the course of the film, and this was one of the film's strengths. The heroine is brave and all, but her journey, like her mother's, is ultimately one of learning to compromise. I suppose “Taking Responsibility” or “Humility” just aren't nearly so catchy as “Brave”.

Though it's an interesting enough story, I didn't particularly like the way it was told. As soon as I got a sense of what the film was about, the narrative structure became so obvious that I was often just waiting for things to happen – things like the “What Have I Done?” moment and the Bonding Activity Montage. While being predictable is not of itself a bad thing, I felt in this case there was a lack of wonder to make up for it. There was a sense of rigidity to the plot, a sense of “this is what has to happen next” rather than “oh no, that event has caused this other thing to happen”. I suppose I'm making it out to be worse that in it is, but frankly I'd expected better storytelling from Pixar.

Still, it's a fairly funny film, with many physical gags that both kids and adults would enjoy. In this instance, the trailer does a fairly good job of showing the flavour of humour that's in the film more generally. It also looks fantastic. Everything, from Merida's hair to the forests to the fabric of the queen's dress to the snowy landscapes, looks great. The Celtic music also added to the feel of Ye Olde Scotland, and there is a charming, cheerful atmosphere to the whole film. Further, it was also pleasant to hear Scottish accents all around (rather than just for a couple of old people – you know how it is when there's an animated film involving an ethnic group... *cough* Mulan, Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender *cough*).

Enjoyable as it was, however, I didn't like this movie as much as I hoped I would. There's a lot of charm in the window dressing, but the business-like plot drags things down somewhat, and the characters so compelling so as to negate this. It's not Pixar's best, but it's still pleasant and fun.

Remember to take my review with a grain of salt as I am clearly not the film's intended audience. I believe that kids will find much to enjoy this film, as they are highly unlikely to be as cynical and genre savvy as I am. Though... if your kids are like me, then, well, good luck with that. 

NOTE: If you're watching this in the cinema, be sure to get there in time. The short film La Luna is shown before this one, and it's just the most adorable thing ever. I enjoyed it much more than Brave itself.


Alex's Rating: 3/5