I was pretty early onto the U.S. Ghibli train, so I really wanted to see Mary and the Witch's Flower, the new film from Studio Ponoc, which was formed by ex-Ghibli animators. I tried the first time my local theater did the event, and it was sold out. I tried the second time, and the theater was closed due to a power outage. I got a third chance, and I knew I couldn't miss it.

The writing of the film was solid, but not anything revolutionary. It's basically a female-driven Harry Potter and I think that's fine. It's a nice little fantasy story that's aimed at children. The protagonist is really well-developed and can be extremely inspiring for young children. I wish there were a little more depth to the antagonists, though. Ghibli always did a good job of teaching a moral lesson through the antagonists, and while there were hints of that in this film, I feel like it could have been stronger. Perhaps it's because of the source material, but I felt like there was a lot of room to grow. The pacing of the film is good, though, with some great action and comedic relief.

The animation of the film is definitely great. I love the anime style of Ghibli, and you can see some of their influence on this film. Still, Studio Ponoc seems to have its own identity, and there are some major stylistic differences. It's not quite as beautiful as some of the Ghibli films, but it's still up there. The most impressive part of the animation was the detailed settings. The extra content talked about how the animators went location scouting, and their detail definitely shows. I saw the film in its subtitled version, and I'm usually very stubborn in that anime films should always be watched in their subtitled format, but I think this may be an exception. The film is set in English, so the dubbed dialogue may have worked. I'm not sure because I didn't see it that way, but I am curious and may need to check that out.

Overall, I really enjoyed Mary and the Witch's Flower. It was a nice, innocent family film that small children will definitely enjoy. It's also beautifully animated in continuation of the Ghibli tradition, although it is still able to hold its own.

Mary and the Witch's Flower
Big Tuna's Rating: B
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters at a special event.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

Even though I hadn't read the book, I was still excited enough for A Wrinkle in Time that it ended up in my top 10 most anticipated for 2018. The trailers made it seem like it could be a visually-stunning, thought-provoking piece of science fiction cinema, and I thought Disney could pull it off. Unfortunately, it ended up more like Disney's notorious misfire Tomorrowland in that it was far too ambitious for its own good.

The film is undeniably impressive in its visuals. The costume design and make-up is phenomenal for the witches, working with the wonderful set design to create a fabulous world of fantasy within the film. The cinematography and CGI are also great, capturing this world in a way that is beautiful and aesthetically-appealing. Apart from a few scenes that look a bit too cartoon-like, the CGI has a cool effect. The film's design is particularly successful when it features prevalent geometric shapes and designs that are futuristic and pleasing to the eye.

Outside of the technical elements of the film, there isn't much I can really praise. The plot of the film is way too convoluted. There are many things in the mythology that are just left unexplained, to the point of causing frustration. Some of these things are actual plot holes, others are just things that are confusing or ambiguous for no good reason. The character development was one of the most problematic things for me. The film's intention is obviously one of female and minority empowerment, yet the story is about a young black girl who feels incomplete without her white father? Huh? How does that make sense for minority female empowerment? It doesn't to me. There is also a weird level of romantic tension between the two pre-teens that made me feel uncomfortable watching the film when that obviously wasn't the intention. Part of this is the awkward dialogue and potentially the actors trying to do their best to improve it, but failing miserably. Then, there's the fact that Oprah is the height of a building for a significant portion of her screen time, and Mindy Kaling only speaks in quotes... wait, no. Mindy Kaling doesn't have to speak in quotes now. What? It's just bad on so many levels. It takes what could have worked and makes a true and absolute mess out of it. I couldn't enjoy it. I couldn't understand it (and not in a good way). It's almost unbearable. I really came close to walking out about four times.

Overall, I was thoroughly disappointed by A Wrinkle in Time. There may be some hardcore fans of the book or families with children that still want to see it, and I understand, but I apologize in advance for the pain you are going to face. This film really is not worth your precious time. I really wish I could tesser back in time and tell myself to not see this movie. Even the impressive visuals can't justify the awful script.

A Wrinkle in Time
Big Tuna's Rating: F+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
​Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?:

I purposefully avoided The Boss Baby when it was in theaters because, quite frankly, it looked awful, yet it somehow managed to get an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature. Jon knew just how much I was opposed to watching this film, so it was of course included in the five films which he challenged me to watch as a part of the Take 5 Challenge.

I found this film to be absolutely idiotic to the point of being insulting. It actually just doesn't work as a film. It may please the younger audience at which it was aimed, but it did not do anything for me at all. The story of the film is ridiculously surreal. At some moments in the film, I was questioning if I was hallucinating or that was actually happening on screen. It takes every trope of the generic animated film and somehow makes it worse by turning it to be thoroughly stupid. I believe I may have actually lost brain cells while watching this film. If I had to spend money on it, I certainly would have shed a tear for the waste of my labor that went into paying for it. The humor was unfunny, for the most part. It is predominantly potty humor, and that doesn't work. The rest of the humor also revolves around the central gag of the film, the baby being voiced by a man in his 50's, that wore thin in the trailers. I think that I laughed twice in the film, but both of those were out of shock for how negative of an influence this film would be for children.

I would be lying if I said the film wasn't well-animated. It definitely looks professional with Dreamworks's signature style. There are a few moments that are a little too brightly colored for my tastes, but they still look complex and layered. That being said, the film isn't a good film because it doesn't have a good story. I was also upset by some other elements of the films production, including the butchering of The Beatles' song, "Blackbird". Additionally, the voice cast seems like they are phoning it in for most of the film, especially Jimmy Kimmel and Steve Buscemi, both of whom can be absolutely hilarious with their delivery.

I honestly don't know how or why The Boss Baby got an Academy Award nomination. Sure, this was a weak year overall for animated films, but there were still multiple films that were of a significantly higher quality and enjoyment factor. I don't really recommend anyone watching this film unless if you believe that you have to in order to prove how bad it is for yourself.

The Boss Baby
Big Tuna's Rating: F+
How Did I Watch It?: Netflix.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: No.

Early Man is the newest film from Aardman, and I love Shaun the Sheep, so I knew I'd be making my way out to my local theater to see this upon its release. Ultimately, it isn't quite as entertaining, nor as insightful as the studio's other films, but it was still a solid film.

The plot of the film is simple enough: it's an underdog sports story. The film goes through the motions of the formula of the genre, but combines it with another story of family drama. Both storylines are rather formulaic, but as a whole, the film remains enjoyable despite its predictability because of the heart given to it by its characters. All of the characters are rather likable, and even though they aren't particularly deep, they work as characters in a children's film. Often the most important part of an animated film aimed at children is what it has to say, and this film definitely has a positive message. It isn't anything that hasn't been said before, but it is still delivered effectively and is something that needs to be heard. The comedy of the film is funny, but it isn't as universal as some of Aardman's other films. It's a little more dry and British-like, so young children may end up finding the movie bland; older children, on the other hand, may find it to be silly and disregard it despite its merits, so the film probably won't land with a younger audience.

That being said, the film is undeniably well-animated. The claymation from Aardman is always phenomenal. They have such a level of detail with their characters and environments that their animation always draws you into the film fully. I am frequently impressed by how much emotion they are able to get out of their characters, even the anthropomorphic animals. The voice cast is also wonderful. I knew that Tom Hiddleston was the villain, but I couldn't really recognize his voice. He was doing really well in transforming himself to that role. Eddie Redmayne and Timothy Spall are also great.

Overall, I did enjoy Early Man quite a bit. I don't think it will have much success with younger kids, but those who enjoy Aardman's other films may also find something to like in this one.

Early Man
Big Tuna's Rating: B
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Maybe.

In retaliation for being forced to watch Fifty Shades Freed, Jon Berk forced me to watch Norm of the North as a part of the February Take 5 Challenge. I really wanted to live my life saying that I had never seen this film, but I no longer have that opportunity. It is possibly one of the most degrading hour and thirty minutes I have experienced in my life.

I really can't wrap my head around why a film with this script was ever written! There doesn't seem to be a group of people that this film doesn't make a joke against. They make fun of Asians, Latinos, homosexuals, and pretty much every single group you can imagine. I don't even remember there being an African-American character. It's very bigoted and does not seem like something that we need to be showing to the younger generation. The plot of the film is also woefully misinformed. The level of scientific inaccuracy (ignoring the anthropomorphic animals) rivals that of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The plot is also absolutely ridiculous, annoying, and unsympathetic. There is not a single character that is interesting in any way. Even their attempt at the cute sidekick archetype fails miserably. The jokes are insensitive and unfunny. (The only times I would laugh were out of shock at how tasteless the film was.) The pacing is so erratic that the film is just a mess by the end.

The film is also poorly-made to an astonishing extent. Being that the film was initially intended as a direct-to-DVD release, I can see why the quality of animation is bad. Still, it doesn't look like they spent $18 million on it. The cast sounds largely unmotivated. Rob Schneider is annoying, even more so than usual in his role. Ken Jeong overacts like crazy (as he always does, and it rarely works). Heather Graham is just boring in her role. And Bill Nighy? Why would he agree to this? He deserves better.

Overall, I'm glad that I didn't spend any money on this, but I don't understand why anyone else would have. In fact, many people didn't, and yet it still has a sequel that is currently filming? The story leaves no need for a sequel, nor does the quality of the film merit it. Norm of the North is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Norm of the North
Big Tuna's Rating: F
How Did I Watch It?: Amazon Prime.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: No.

Based on the trailers, I surprisingly found myself very excited for Peter Rabbit. I didn't expect anything groundbreaking, but I loved the cast and it looked like it could be light-hearted, goofy fun.

The plot of the film as a whole is rather generic, but that isn't anything that would be unexpected of a children's film. However, it is not these obligatory elements of the formula on which the film focuses. Instead, it is more about the slapstick humor that made the film more enjoyable. I think that the cast truly made this film what it was. James Corden is absolutely charming as the eponymous anthropomorphic character. He delivers the lines with the necessary sarcasm and wit for the film to be thoroughly amusing. The character as a whole is a little problematic, with some flaws in development, but he is funny. Domhnall Gleeson is perfectly cast in his role as Mr. Thomas McGregor. Gleeson is quite funny when he's angry in an over-the-top fashion, and that is the majority of his role in this film. My one complaint with the casting is that they underuse Margot Robbie, Daisy Ridley, and Elizabeth Debecki. They are all talented actresses, but they often take the backseat to Peter's character. The film also gets very self-aware at points, much like the another film I had seen by the same director, but to mixed effects. Some of these moments were quite funny, like those with the birds; however, there are also moments that feel like they are in poor taste, like a comment involving allergies that is now becoming slightly infamous.

In technical terms, the film is definitely very impressive. The blending of CGI with live action footage is seamless and looks very realistic. The way in which they incorporated the artwork akin to the illustrations in the actual Beatrix Potter books was extremely effective. The soundtrack made use of popular music to build the comedic tone of the film. Additionally, the use of visual gags was admirable.

Overall, I really enjoyed Peter Rabbit. It is definitely silly, slapstick comedy aimed at children, but it is still enjoyable, largely due to the comedic talent of its cast. I think that this film is a light, fun romp that will be especially fun for families.

Peter Rabbit
Big Tuna's Rating: B-
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

When initial reviews came out for Paddington 2 and they were as high as they were, I was very intrigued, leading me to go back and watch the first film. I really enjoyed the first film, so I became even more excited for the sequel.

The film is extremely optimistic in a way that is both awe-worthy and saddening. My first thought was that this is the type of light, bouncy film that our world needs right now. It's like the classics of children's cinema. However, with our society in the condition that it is, it feels a little insignificant. It's too little too late to do much good for distracting us from the problems at hand. Still, it manages to provide effective entertainment and a rather heartwarming story. I felt as if this film focused more on the emotional elements of the character, and in that aspect, it truly succeeded, but as a result, some of the humor in the film suffered a bit. There are still parts of the film that were quite enjoyable and had me laughing, but not ever to the extent of the first one. Additionally, the film didn't do much to add to the character development established by the first film. The new additions are pretty well-developed, so it's fine, but if you haven't seen the first film, it may be a bit difficult to sympathize with some of the main secondary characters.

On the other hand, the film's execution is undeniably strong. The animation for the bears is blended very well with the live action actors. All of the actors do a good job with their performances, but Hugh Grant is a particular standout. He is hilarious and endearing in his role, playing it with both the goofiness and believability that was demanded. The cinematography and music were also spot-on for developing the tone and mood of the film.

Overall, I did enjoy Paddington 2, but not quite as much as the first. I do think that it is a great family-oriented film, though, and I highly recommend it if you are looking for something fun to do.

Paddington 2
Big Tuna's Rating: B
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

I really wanted to see "Goodbye Christopher Robin", and I had made plans to go see it multiple times, but they always fell through. Luckily, I eventually got to see it when it came to the theater where I work.

I found this to be a really solid biopic. I appreciate how dynamic they were with the portrayal of A.A. Milne. It shows his brilliance as a writer, but it also doesn't gloss over the bad things he did. The film lets the viewer make a decision as to their opinion of him as a whole. The film also does a good job with the supporting characters. Christopher Robin, Daphne, and Olive all have significant development in the film and they are what makes it stand out. The film tries for some commentary on PTSD on the part of A.A. Milne, but this feels like a side note and is far underdeveloped compared to the family drama at the heart of the film. As the film progresses, the pacing gets a lot quicker to the point that it is almost rushing because everything is handled so quickly and it jumps in time so much, but it still kept my attention.

The execution of the film is solid, too. The cinematography has some ups and downs. There are some beautiful shots, but there are scenes in the film where it gets a bit shaky. The score for the film is great. It does a good job of highlighting the emotional tension and making the film feel more resonant. The actors all do a good job in their roles. Domhnall Gleeson shines as he always does in his leading role, and I think he should get more mainstream leads. Margot Robbie is good in her supporting role, as is Kelly Macdonald, but they are both asked to do very few things.

Overall, I really liked "Goodbye Christopher Robin". It isn't without its fair share of flaws, but it has some solid elements and a good story. It will soon be on home video, so I recommend you check it out.

Goodbye Christopher Robin
Big Tuna's Rating: B+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

When "Paddington" first came out, I resisted it because it didn't really interest me. I wasn't ever exposed to the character as a young child, and it looked rather silly to me. However, with the glowing reviews for the upcoming sequel, I decided that I needed to give this one a try.

This movie was actually really funny. The humor isn't super insightful or everything, but it is really enjoyable for humor aimed at children, and never felt insulting to my intelligence. The best part of this film was the character development. I thought that all of the human characters were very well-written. They seem a little archetypical at first, but as the film progresses, you can see them change and become more dynamic. There is also a small twist in the film that I wasn't expecting and did add another metaphorical layer to the film. As a whole, the movie's message is very good and it is delivered in a way that feels natural. Paddington is also developed very well. He is a funny, likable, and sympathetic protagonist.

I also thought that the production value of the film was very good. The blending of the CGI and live footage was really good, being that there is an animated character surrounded by live actors for a significant majority of the film. For the most part, it is rather seamless. The casting is also very effective. Ben Whishaw was an excellent choice for the voice of Paddington. Nicole Kidman is great as the antagonist, and Sally Hawkins and Hugh Bonneville both do very well in their supporting roles. The cinematography and production design are also surprisingly well-thought-out for a children's movie.

Overall, I was very impressed by "Paddington". It was light and funny, and had a touching and inspiring story. I am really looking forward to what the sequel has in store.

Paddington
Big Tuna's Rating: A-
How Did I Watch It?: Netflix.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.

As a whole, I am used to Pixar's films being great. However, some of their more recent films, like "Cars 3" and "The Good Dinosaur" didn't have what it takes to really impress me. Still, I had enormous hopes for "Coco", as it looked both visually stunning and touching.

My mood soured when the preceding short film began. It was a Christmas-themed "Frozen" short starring Olaf. I actually love the movie "Frozen". I think that it is very funny and its story is great, but I abhor the film's music. I can tolerate it in context of the film because its redeeming qualities are good, but I can't stand the music when isolated. This short film focuses on the music, which is new, but not really, as it is based in the same rhythms and keys as the music from the original film. The plot is also very silly and predictable, so I didn't enjoy it as a whole. I'm obviously not going to count this against "Coco", as it isn't an issue with the film, but I believe that this is a fair disclaimer for anyone who is planning on seeing the film in theaters.

On the other hand, "Coco" is an absolute and pure joy. There was no way that I could have expected this film to be as good as it was. Somehow, the writers managed to capture the essence of the culture in a way that can be both educational and enjoyable. There is so much detail put into the film regarding specific traditions that it shows the immense level of care and respect that the filmmakers have for this world. The characters in the film are absolutely wonderful. Each character is developed in a unique way that makes you feel for them and sympathize with their every action. With this in play, even though the plot can be a little predictable, I still reacted in the intended fashion, as I did care about what happened to the characters. The film is hilarious at times, too. The humor isn't slapstick in a way that is aimed specifically at children, but it is obviously at the level which children will understand. I loved the film's use of irony and deadpan comedy, which at times had me almost rolling out of the chair in laughter. It works, and the viewing experience is altogether very enjoyable.

The visuals of the film were as amazing as can be expected of Pixar. The animation is super intricate, with every cempasúchil petal and every light in the Land of the Dead building to a greater whole. I especially loved the intricacy of the music scenes, as the hand movements were matched to how real music would have been played. On the topic of the music, I thought it was excellent, too. They did a very good job of paying homage to traditional Mexican music. It's not as stereotypical as one would expect of an American perspective on a foreign culture. The acting is also phenomenal. Anthony Gonzales does an amazing job in his lead role as Miguel. I love the fact that Disney goes for authenticity in their casting, using a fresh face rather than an established name who wouldn't really fit the role. Gael Garcia Bernal and Benjamin Bratt are both very good in their supporting roles, They deliver their humorous lines very well. The singing voices for the characters are also excellently chosen.

Overall, I was thoroughly impressed by "Coco". It has an amazing story, great humor, beautiful animation, and fantastic music. It is definitely my new favorite Disney movie, and is among my favorite films of the year so far.

Coco
Big Tuna's Rating: A+
How Did I Watch It?: In theaters.
Had I Seen It Before?: No.
Would I Watch It Again?: Yes.