Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Disney movies analyse
I won’t lie - Pixar’s franchise about sentient vehicles, appropriately titled “Cars” has never been my cup of tea. According to many critics, the series barely compares to the studio’s other films and is mostly regarded as movies made purely for young children. Honestly, I can see why. Despite that, however, I found myself surprised after viewing the third installment to the main series. The movie was nothing special, but it proved to be better than I’d expected. Here are my thoughts as to why. The way I see this movie is as “the sequel that never was.” The film provides both a satisfying ending to the franchise as well as the potential for a “Cars 4” (because everybody knows they want that cash), and serves as a proper follow-up to the first movie instead of the spy-centered mess known as “Cars 2.” During the events of this threequel, the audience gets to see Lightning McQueen mature as he adjusts to the modern standards in racing. The original supporting cast takes a back seat while he trains and meets new cars. This film takes on a few themes along the way, though I’ve already seen some of them done before. The animation is smooth and visually pleasing. A character from …show more content…
The first thing that comes to mind for me is the use of one of the first big plot point in the movie. It’s surprising to find out that it barely has any relevance to the movie. Or at least, not as much as it probably could have had. The moment played a minor role in Lightning’s character development, but nothing that couldn’t have been done without it. Also, even though the beginning and end of the movie was entertaining and very well done, everything in between felt like filler. Chances are, this entire middle part of the film could have been almost entirely reworked as long as they kept the main points, and the movie could have had more or less the same ending. I simply didn’t feel that this part of the film held as much
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
It felt like something retro but with better special effects. This was surprisingly satisfying, because as technology progresses, even though a movie classic’s storyline may be phenomenal and the characters iconic, there is still is that craving for better visual effects. This movie kind of breathed a new life into that same feeling that movies like E.T. or the Goonies, give the audience by providing advanced CGI graphics. The provided the audience with some of the nostalgia, but the fact that the main characters were children is really what did it. It helped tremendously that the writer made sure his protagonists didn 't appear to be overly contrived. Many films with child stars tend to have the characters perform actions that would realistically be above the scope of ability for someone in their age group. But J.J. Abrams did a great job of fully developing each of their personalities. He let them show more of the emotions that would be expected from real life children. They shed tears, they were afraid. One of Joe’s friends, Preston (Zach Mills), even refused to go. Not a single one was unrealistically heroic or did ridiculous stunts, they were courageous but not so much so that they audience couldn’t suspend disbelief. And another refreshing aspect of the film, was the ‘romance’ between Alice and Joe. Abrams kept it on the more platonic side as it should be. Six graders should never be sexualized in film which unfortunately
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
better mood and plot details which made it much more dramatic and by far a
This is an ironic and unfortunate example of a film that would have really been considered a lot better than it is if it were not for the book upon which it is based. It is clear that the film is strong and that it is well made, but when compared to Shelley's novel, it's really a pretty sad mess. The film by itself is more than able to captivate and impress, but to someone who knows the original story, it is a weak attempt to bring the story of Frankenstein and his monster to the big screen.
The best improvement they could've made to this play would've been canceling it. I guess if I were the director, I would've tried to make it more entertaining, because it was really boring.
The movie did many things really well, such as the sets, the plot line, and the scenes they changed. The directo...
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
There was something for everyone in that film - whether it was a character you identified with, or the cars and the music - that wonderful music! - brought back so many memories.
Monsters Inc. is an incredible animated movie (by Pixar Studios, 2001, and directed by Pete Doctor) about monsters working in a scare factory. Proudly, the scare factory – a pillar in the community – is a workplace in a monster world where monsters scare children. Through a high-tech system, doors are brought to the factory that, if activated, allows the monsters to enter the child’s room through the youngster’s closet. The scream produced by the child creates energy for the monster world, so that monsters can do everyday things, such as quickly turning on a light or vacuuming the carpet. However, this is not an easy job because children are extremely toxic to monsters (who tremble when a child is near), and are also becoming increasingly hard to scare. With lessoned screams, Monstropolis (the monsters’ world) is experiencing a scream shortage. Who will save the day?
... of The Amazing Spider-man 2 would say that this film has a number of defects. There are Gwen’s death, unsatisfactory ending, and even insufficient storylines. I should agree that this film needs more efforts on the detail parts. However, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was abundant and technically magnificent production for me, in many ways. As I mentioned above, Gwen’s death part gave the audiences many meanings to think about heroic movies critically, and the actors’ movements were fantastic enough. The computer-generated special effects of this film director were spectacularly real when Spider-Man dangled from a tower shelf or swings through New York City. I could feel excessive joy, and Additionally, the scene where Electro appeared Times Square was masterful in drawing the audiences’ attention as well. I hope to watch the next movie as a big fan of the Spider-man.
Although I loved a great deal of the film, I think it could have done with a little less. Rob Vaux believes, “Rosenstrasse might have soared had it stuck unwaveringly to the topic,” which in a way I believe that to be true. Added details are beneficial like mentioned previously, but one must not overdo it. At times, I felt as if it was overdone because the director would sometimes shift away from the focal point of the film. For example, Klara taking off work because she was “sick,” and then getting caught in the lie later. The film could have done without that irrelevant detail. Due to some of these added details, the movie was considered to be “overly long and episodic (Ruthe Stein).” I sadly do have to agree with such a critical statement. It was enjoyable to watch, but I feel as if it could have been trimmed under two hours. It was very drawn out, and had numerous sections that could have been
The biggest is undoubtedly Kyôko Godai's script, which is wafer-thin and really lacks much of the smarts it thinks it has. The film's admittedly shocking finale works on the extreme it goes to rather than any sort of twist or other turn of events. Going through the motion of the police-investigation-backstory this plays out as, the ending is telegraphed from the opening frames of the film and ambles on to this predictable finish. Furthermore, the sisters' erratic behavior and quirks telegraphs their true nature from the start and Kazuhiko's inability to recognize this allows him to look foolish for not seeing what the audience knows all along. This is all the fault of the decision to do the whole film with this investigative angle. As well, the finale twist has little resonance or impact being used numerous times since which dilutes the impact it has, letting the film end on a somewhat sour note
I totally agree with this reviewer about this film. exspecially with his words about the audience, " Jurassic World is a suprisingly thrilling blockbuster experience that should leave fans roaring with approval". In reading this review, I still feel as though he didnt express enough. In all reality going back to the first film and explained the main characters enough to where readers who didnt see the movie will want to and look go back to the beginning of the franchise and fall in love with it as I have. As I have below;
The movie follows the typical story that dreams always come true. Yes, that is true, sometimes, but movies like these send the same messages about how dreams and ambitions can be fulfilled. Why teach children the same concept again and again? Also the movie did not differentiate from any other animation about talking animals. It was very similar to a recent animation, Zootopia, released by Disney in 2016. Consequently, the story was very cliche I do not think it is not worth spending money for because there are very similar to other movies. The only positive about the movies was that you didn't drag on it was straight forward. Most movies are very long, especially children movies and I liked that it was straight to the point with the idea that dreams can come true as long as you work hard and never give up. Determination and being hopeful is very important to children, but there is so much more children need to be taught. Today, children movies just seen repeated and they are not as entertaining as they used to