Reviews

When I saw this being advertised, I thought "oh great, another Disney remake that changes JUST ENOUGH to 'justify it's existence' but is really just a cash grab." You know, like all the live action remakes of recent years. It's also not like 2003 one was THAT long ago, and in my opinion is the more timeless version, given that the 1976 version has electric type writers and overall feels "very 70s." But since it's a TV movie that's included with my cable subscription, I figured "why not?"

First off, I wasn't expecting a musical. It's kind of funny, the recording in my DVR was from a "Disney Channel sing along marathon," and when I saw lyrics popping up on screen, I was really confused, and then...musical. Well...that's certainly different than the other adaptations. The songs aren't good, or memorable, and I don't think are going to pop up on Disney karaoke games or compilations any time soon, but they definitely differentiate this from the 2003 version.

It also takes a really dark turn about halfway through. Yes, the mom is remarrying just like in the 2003 version, and a teenager trying to navigate a pending wedding is one of the conflicts, but this time the daughter is still mourning her dad and at times feels like she's actively trying to sabotage the wedding (maybe she is, I couldn't tell if it was accidental or intentional). There's also the mom reliving high school. Yeah, there's the expected "applying adult logic and reason to teenage immaturity" conflict, which is primarily seen by constantly trying to be friendly to the mean girl queen bee antagonist only to be kicked aside every time, but then it takes this dark turn where the daughter's friends point out how she's being a bad friend to them by constantly putting the mean girl above them and how they get hurt as well when the mean girl kicks mom-daughter down. And it's not like they're exaggerating, they do get social and some physical distress from mom-daughter's antics. That's...a unique take on this body swap story.

And now for some things that are...very poorly handled. There's this one "comedic scene" where it's a parent teacher conference, where the daughter is in serious academic trouble from cutting class and skipping tests, and it's all because she is having emotional problems due to still mourning her dad. And it's not like this came out of nowhere, they build up that she has emotional problems and her mom isn't providing the support she needs, and this is sort of the climax of this serious character arc. Buuuutttt, the scene is directed to be comedic. We're supposed to laugh because "mom is in daughter's body and is treating this like a parent would, and daughter is in mom's body and is treating this like the child in trouble would, hu-yuk, that's not how it's supposed to happen." There's also the fact that there's a teenage love interest, or at least that's how it comes off as. The way the scenes between mom-daughter and the teenage boy the daughter has a crush on are directed like mom-daughter is the one with the crush, and not daughter-mom. The 2003 one handled it much better, where 16 year old Anna was interested in an 18/19 year old man (2-3 year age gap, not THAT creepy), and mentally 16 daughter-Jamie Lee was the one that was interested, instead of mentally 30-40+ mom-Lindsay. It's definitely different from the other versions.

Then there's the parts that are REALLY depressing. Remember how I said "the song's aren't memorable"? Well there's an exception, and that's "parent's lie." The daughter in the mom's body is out for a walk with her little brother, who's an innocent little boy with big dreams of being a magician. Then it's this song about how parents lie to make their children feel safe, and that the world is far meaner and dangerous than they're led to believe, and his dreams will never come true. Uhhhhhhhhhh...yeah, that's what we want in our musicals. The fact that I was watching a sing along version made things even worse. Like, "hey kids, sing along to this song about how your parents lie to you," just feels weird. Then at the end when they think they're going to switch back but then don't, both of them have the realization that their lives are ruined. The daughter realizes that she just missed out on being a young adult and all those formative life experiences, and the mom realizes she's going to have to go through all the difficult adolescent development experiences again. I think the daughter says something like "my life just flashed before my eyes and there was nothing," and the mom says something like "all those things that were so hard the first time, I'm going to have to do again." That was an unexpected turn. All turns out OK in the end and they switch back, but it's still a "this isn't a place I was thinking a Disney Channel movie would take me."

This movie is terrible, and if you want a GOOD Freaky Friday movie I'd say stick to the 2003 version. I do recommend this though, because it is fascinating. Unlike the other soulless cash grab remakes Disney has been making recently, this definitely was someone saying "I have a unique take on this story, and I want to make it." It's not a GOOD take, but you definitely can't say "this is just the 2003 movie with different actors and updated references."

Full disclosure, I have been a vocal critic of Teen Titans Go in the past, but that's primarily because of the nonsense surrounding the show and the call out the critics episodes (Return of Slade, Lets Get Serious, Classic Titans, etc.). I used to watch the series regularly (because that's all CN would air at the time), and didn't stop until The Return of Slade where they said "adults shouldn't like cartoons, cartoons are for children" (ignoring the fact that most of the non-toilet humor was based on references only older fans would get). At the advice of many critics whom I trust, I went into this movie with as much an open mind as I could. I also kept a tally of how many times I laughed out loud and how many times I cringed. Here are my thoughts.

There's nothing original in this movie. The story is pretty much the same old tired "I want more out of life, I achieve it, only to find out what I really needed were the friends I already have." Pretty much all the good jokes were spoiled in the trailers; and it's not just "the trailers spoiled the movie," I'd estimate about 1/10 of the movie was just trailer fodder and set-up for the trailer fodder. I'd say a good half of the jokes are recycled jokes; not just the "you're going to kill martha" and "I'm a comic book movie character that breaks the 4th wall," I mean they actually took jokes from the series and said them again pretty much word for word ("Robin has baby hands" was the big one I remember). While not EXACTLY the same, the set-up and punch lines were the same. The animation quality isn't all that much better from the TV show either. I think there's some more inbetween frames and maybe some more elaborate backgrounds and dynamic camera, but it looks very similar to the TV show (though that is kind of expected when adapting a TV show for a movie, South Park and Simpsons did the same thing).

Then there's the wasted potential. The biggest example is probably Nick Cage as Superman. If you know DC movie history, Nick Cage was supposed to play Superman in the canceled movie Superman Lives (The Death of Superman Lives is a good documentary on it). Nick Cage as superman is a joke in itself, and there are some jokes about Nick Cage being Nick Cage in the movie (that are actually pretty good), but the thing is Superman does not sound like Nick Cage. You can't look at Superman and say "that's Nick Cage," for you to get any of those jokes you need to know Nick Cage plays superman before going in, otherwise the jokes fall flat. All that could have been avoided, if Nick Cage was just directed to deliver the lines in his normal voice. That in and of itself would have been absolutely hilarious (Nick Cage kind of has a "defeated" tone to his voice now, that would have been hilarious coming out of super strong Superman's mouth), and all the Nick Cage jokes would have made sense to more people. But no, Superman has a voice that actually sounds strong. There are a lot of instances of "if you did that just a LITTLE differently it would have made that not only funny but super hilarious, but you didn't and it fell flat."

Why is this a 4/10 and not 1/10 you may be asking? Because I did laugh, there was some good stuff. While my cringe counter was at 41 instances, my lol counter was at 36, and it's theatrically released 2D animation. My advice, just wait for Cartoon Network to play this once a month as part of a TTG marathon, because there's no way cartoon network isn't going to milk this movie like they are with the show.

Let me start out by saying, as a fan of Pokémon since the beginning, I love this movie. It tells an original interpretation of the beginning of the Pokémon story, mainly Ash as he is just starting out. I found this to be a great interpretation of the source material with an original story and enough fan service for fans that have been there for 20 years without being too reliant to be open for younger viewers. I especially love how it touched on how magical the world of Pokémon is with the normal school dream. It's not perfect, but it's pretty awesome.

Now with this, I've read multiple negative reviews across the web and I think people are going in with the wrong mindset and as a result are critiquing it based on things it wasn't trying to be in the first place. First, I'll address some "this isn't exactly like season 1" criticisms. The largest complaint I hear is "Misty and Brock only appear in the credits and not in the main movie" and "they replaced Misty and Brock with new companion characters." While I admit I would have liked to see them in their gym leader roles like Brock did in Origins, I think many people forget that we're currently in season 21, and Misty hasn't been a companion since season 5 and Brock hasn't been a companion since season 13. All the other characters you see in the credits are the other companions Ash has had. I don't blame them for having different companions.

Another criticism I've seen is "Verity and Sorrel don't get enough development." Historically the companions haven't received a lot of development in the movies. Tell me, what did Misty do in Pokémon the first movie, what did Tracy do in Pokémon the Movie 2000, what did Brock do in Pokémon 3 the movie? I can only recall Misty getting some "shipping development" in 2000, that didn't last in the main series. They received some pretty good development if you ask me, considering it's a 2 hour movie.

Another criticism I've seen is "Charmeleon/Charizard isn't a jerk to Ash." That's because Ash is far more competent in this movie. Charmeleon/Charizard didn't respect Ash in season 1, because he was pretty incompetent. In this movie Ash may not completely know what he's doing, but he learns and remembers.

There are many similar complaints about how it's not a "shot for shot condensation of season 1," and to that I must ask "do you really want another Last Air Bender?" Then there's the other main criticism I've seen, the "it's as if this was written for children" criticisms. Things such as "the story is too simple," "things get solved too easily," and "they're really doing the chosen one story again?" To which I say "it's not Wolf Children, and it's not trying to be Wolf Children, it's a Pokémon movie." You need to remember who the target audience is. While there is a lot to love about Pokémon as an adult, and this movie does have a lot of fan service for the fans that have been there since the start, Pokémon is a franchise that primarily is targeted to children. Toy Story is a very simple movie that tells the story about 2 toys that got lost, have to escape a toy torturing child, to get back to their loving child before he moves. It's a simple story, because children won't be able to follow a super complex story (and is pretty complex considering the other movies). Of course things get resolved simply, kids like happy endings. You can do the Don Bluth "take children to difficult places, but you have to end on a happy note," with emphasis on "end on a happy note." Yes, Ash dies to come back to (which I saw coming with how they were setting everything up), but he had to come back because of the "end happy." Kids don't want to leave depressed. They're doing the chosen one again; yeah, that's what these movies do. Ash is the chosen one. It's like complaining that Star Wars is about Jedi.

I'm not saying this movie is immune to criticisms. The Pikachu talking thing, while touching, was very out of place. The "Bye Bye Butterfree" arc didn't have the same weight as it did in the anime. Raikou's inclusion didn't have any other purpose than "we included the other 2 legendary dogs, we need to include the third." I rated it 8/10 for a reason. However, if you do review this movie, I humbly ask that you consider what it was trying to be, because it's not fair to rate a slasher film negatively because the teen couple that get killed in the first 10 minutes didn't get enough development.

Lets go back to 1999. I was 5 years old, and even though I was a boy into "boy things" that didn't like "girl things," I enjoyed Madeline a lot even though it was "girly." There was a lot of fun adventure, great characters, and stories that were simple enough for me to follow. I absolutely loved the cartoon that aired on Toon Disney. That year in Kindergarten we watched this movie, and it was great because it was just like the cartoons I watched on Toon Disney. It captured the imagination very well, even if it was a little scary.

And that's it's single flaw, the "PG edge." I watched it recently, and this movie doesn't really do anything for me outside of nostalgia. I can see how it's great for young children, but not really beyond that. I'm kind of board as a young adult, would have been board as a teen, and would have been board as an 8 year old. The 2 swear words, Pepeto's animal room, and the kidnapping plot (main contributors to the PG I suspect), don't really do anything to make the movie "more appealing for older audiences." All I can see these doing is make it less appealing for parents and guardians to put this on for their young children. While all the plots are handled realistically, they laid them on a tad thick, considering that the TV-Y cartoon could pull them off without being too scary.

I recommend this for the target audience of young children, and don't be too turned off by the PG rating. This isn't Goonies PG, this isn't Star Wars PG, this is Frozen and Moana level PG.

I like the Astro Boy series (60s, 80s, and 00s), all of which are a little different from each other, but with a lot of the same heart. So when I watched the movie, well it left me feeling a bit...weird.

Now a lot of people like to complain about the voice acting, and character designs, and the art and animation style. I don't have any problem with those things though. The character designs are faithful to the source material, but with it's own CGI twist; just like each series had it's own little art twist based on the capabilities and budget at the time. Each series also had it's own voice actors, and the VAs in this movie did a good job at bringing their character's life.

With that being said, this is like a 10 act story, with a couple acts cut out. There's the establishing act with Toby's death and Astro being created; the next act is Tenma trying to use Astro to replace Toby, but then finding that he can't so easily replace his dead son; the next act follows Astro making friends and trying to come to find his place in the world (robot or human), only to have the world (the surface) kind of reject who he is and instead thrust their own idea of who he should be onto him; and then we just jump to the final act where the villain's monster becomes too powerful and now Astro has to save the day (which has many "self discovery of powers" elements that should be reserved for middle "figure out your powers" act, not "final climax battle").

If you ask me, this should have been a TV series. It has all the potential to be another great incarnation of Astro Boy; Astro Boy origin, figuring out how Astro fits into the world, and characters that have a lot of potential. Unfortunately, a lot of elements that should have gotten their own episode (metro city's trash culture, the robot resistance, the girl's parents, Astro pretending to be human with the surface dwellers, the robot games, fixing up ZOG, competing in the robot games and his new friends coming to grips with what he is, the government trying to shut him down, why the president wants to harness the power of the red/blue core, etc.) were just kind of rushed through.

I enjoy the movie, but I just feel wanting more.

As a religious person and hobbyist film critic, I am very conflicted on this movie. Let me explain.

First the bad. Half the movie is "go nowhere exposition." The first 15 or whatever minutes is just Kirk talking to the camera talking about why he likes Christmas. It tries to be well shot, but it's just boring. Then there's like 15 minutes of "family Christmas party scene." Again, very boring, and also kind of poorly shot, with bad lens flairs and camera angles. Oh, and after the brother has a change of heart about Christmas, he starts a "Christmas music rap band" with some of the most cringy and grating dancing and singing I've ever seen in a "professional" work.

But with all this bad, when Kirk is talking about the religious significance behind the nativity, Christmas tree, and Santa, it's REALLY good. I knew the stories behind the nativity, Christmas tree, and Santa, but Kirk shed an entirely new light on them, and I won't look at them the same again. Plus, it's really well written, shot, and entertaining.

When it's good it's really good, but when it's bad it's really bad. Kirk should forget about "feature length" and instead should make short films about religious symbols.