Tag: 2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Better than the 1st one? Guess so. VERY episodic – doesn’t stand on its own at all. Once again, all the best moments are dialogue scenes…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Avengers: Age of Ultron:

I really don’t have a lot to say about Avengers: Age of Ultron. I was very excited to see it, thought it would be good and it was.

It was exactly what I expected. You may have to decide for yourself if that is worthy of praise. The film takes approximately zero risks.

Writer/director/franchise-runner/geek god Joss Whedon is making the smart choice hopping off the horse now. I’m not expecting these films to actually start getting worse, but there’s really little room for them to get any better. It’s a little hard to put into words why such a solid effort is not very satisfying. I guess it just lacks the element of surprise.

I don’t mean to suggest that the film is perfect as it most assuredly is not. It’s simply that it fails at nothing meaningful. There are all sorts of fanboy gripes and such, and you can pick apart the narrative for its flaws, but ultimately, who cares? It’s a comic book movie and they really can’t make a film with this lineup of heroes any better than this.

Particularly if you know the direction they are headed in. The stories they are working on adapting are completely joyless – great, but low on levity. The fun level of the Marvel movies is going to continue to drop sharply – hence the need for movies like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man.

By the way, why does Marvel get a free pass on simply filming the stories that were already comic books? I live to trash DC and Zack Snyder for simply making film versions of graphic novels, feeling that there’s really no point in doing so, but Marvel is even more guilty of this. They don’t even try to pass off their pictures as original in any form, but no one seems to call them on this. Personally, I seldom read these books back in the day, so I’ve really got no skin in the game; whereas I am hugely protective of the old Batman classics. Anyway, I’ve let this pass for too long, so consider yourself warned, Marvel…

If I were to get more specific, I guess I’d say:

• James Spader is a tool – that’s why he has a tool in his name. His voice is just not the right direction for Ultron, but it could maybe work if Ultron wasn’t such a fluid metal CG creation. Speaking of that…
• Ultron’s mouth shouldn’t move. It doesn’t make any sense. He’s a creation of Stark – he should move like Iron Man. He doesn’t. His face can actually give off expressions. That’s absurd…
• Jeremy Renner’s recent comments about Black Widow during the press junket made me actually root for Hawkeye to buy it. The character is never going to be as fun for me again until someone else is filling the role.
• The action being rooted in a slightly more earthly tale this time should help the climactic battle be more rooted in reality. But it doesn’t. It’s still wave after wave of faceless enemies. And the sheer amount of adversaries is just not credible. They’re everywhere. Everything appens so quickly in this one…
• Which is another issue. Condensing a long, multi-title arc into a film is always going to necessitate severe acceleration of the narrative, and it certainly does here. Ultron goes from impossible dream to villain in about 90 seconds.
• Loki’s scepter. Always with Loki’s scepter. Yawn. I hate Loki’s scepter, hate the ability to mind control people. It’s cheap and weak, and this whole massive, overreaching infinity stones thing is making me long for the simplicity of the first Iron Man…
• Despite my love of Guardians of the Galaxy, my interest level in galaxy-wide space villains can’t even be charted…
• Danny Elfman did some of the music, except for the themes he inherited. It’s good, if not up to his usual standards…

• When it comes to dialogue, Whedon is best in class. In fact, he teaches the class. And wrote the textbook…
• The action and effects are excellent, but honestly, that’s table stakes. The humanity, the relationships, the quiet moments – these are what make these films work. Most of the time I’m just biding my time during the action scenes unless they are next-level cool. I want that stuff, I do. But without the brilliant writing of Whedon and acting of the principals I’d be bored.
• After meeting Falcon (Anthony Mackie) in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, it’s kind of a drag that cool characters like him and War Machine (Don Cheadle) are pretty much kept on the sidelines…
• I’m happy that this film isn’t all about Iron Man, which was how it was headed based on the success of that character. Full credit to Kevin Feige for not pulling an X-Men and turning the whole series into Wolverine Fan Club.
• Similarly, while Hulk is smashy good times, they resisted the urge to follow the Louis Tully rule after the green guy practically stole the first Avengers movie. I’m impressed/astonished…

Avengers: Age of Ultron is a fantastic superhero movie. Period. We may never reclaim the early excitement and surprise of our first introduction to these characters, but there are beneficial trade-offs to be had in advancing their arcs. And they’re still heaps more fun than the Dour Cynicism movies…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: C (4 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://marvel.com/movies/movie/193/avengers_age_of_ultron” name=”Avengers: Age of Ultron” description=”Marvel Studios presents “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the epic follow-up to the biggest Super Hero movie of all time. When Tony Stark tries to jumpstart a dormant peacekeeping program, things go awry and Earth’s Mightiest Heroes, including Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye, are put to the ultimate test as the fate of the planet hangs in the balance. As the villainous Ultron emerges, it is up to The Avengers to stop him from enacting his terrible plans, and soon uneasy alliances and unexpected action pave the way for an epic and unique global adventure.

Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” stars Robert Downey Jr., who returns as Iron Man, along with Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Mark Ruffalo as Hulk and Chris Evans as Captain America. Together with Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow and Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and with the additional support of Don Cheadle as James Rhodes/War Machine, Cobie Smulders as Agent Maria Hill, Stellan Skarsgård as Erik Selvig and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, the team must reassemble to defeat James Spader as Ultron, a terrifying technological villain hell-bent on human extinction. Along the way, they confront two mysterious and powerful newcomers, Pietro Maximoff, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and Wanda Maximoff, played by Elizabeth Olsen and meet an old friend in a new form when Paul Bettany becomes Vision.

Written and directed by Joss Whedon and produced by Kevin Feige, Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” is based on the ever-popular Marvel comic book series “The Avengers,” first published in 1963. Louis D’Esposito, Alan Fine, Victoria Alonso, Jeremy Latcham, Patricia Whitcher, Stan Lee and Jon Favreau serve as executive producers. Get set for an action-packed thrill ride when The Avengers return in Marvel’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron” on May 1, 2015.” director=”Joss Whedon” actor_1=”Robert Downey Jr.” ]

Main Cast	Robert Downey Jr. Tony Stark/Iron Man, Chris Evans Steve Rogers/Captain America, Mark Ruffalo Bruce Banner/Hulk, Chris Hemsworth Thor
Rating	PG-13
Release Date	Fri 01 May 2015 UTC
Director	Joss Whedon
Genres	Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Plot	When Tony Stark tries to jumpstart a dormant peacekeeping program, things go awry and it is up to the Avengers to stop the villainous Ultron from enacting his terrible plans.
Poster
Runtime	141
Tagline	A new age begins
Writers	Joss Whedon (written by), Stan Lee (comic book) …
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Typically lazy filmmaking by DreamWorks Animation undercuts promising tale and produces familiar result: a cute, funny, unoriginal yawn…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of HOME:

At the risk of being alarmist, I’m here to suggest that animated filmmaking by the major studios is approaching a 1980’s type nadir. Despite some of the fine work done over the past ten years, CG films for kids have once again become a predictable race to the middle. No studio is more culpable than dead-studio-walking DreamWorks Animation, but every studio is guilty of this cynical homogenizing, even the once unassailable Pixar.

Why do all of these pictures have to share the same look? Even when the story is truly original – which is certainly not the case with HOME – they all look alike. The one possible reason for this sameness that I might accept would be that there’s a financial, economies of scale thing going on here. Animation has never been inexpensive, so if they felt compelled to maintain a visual similarity in order to reuse digital assets for cost containment, I’d understand. But the budgets on these films are always north of $100 million, so it doesn’t seem like there’s much recycling happening. (Although there really should be – all reports indicate that despite putting out 31 features to gross $12.5 BILLION, the company is almost completely tapped out.)

I haven’t read the source material, so I’m not sure how much the story itself is derivative and how much is due to the adaptation and execution. Based on the children’s book “The True Meaning of Smekday” by Adam Rex, it’s true that the tale of an alien befriending a human child is hardly going to strike anyone as original. Add the fact that the alien in question is invading, not simply left behind a la ET or Earth To Echo, and you’ve now covered Lilo & Stitch, as well. But it is a kids book, after all, and maybe it doesn’t need to be quite as worried about being compared to a number of movies. Until it becomes a movie itself, of course…

Honestly, despite the over-saturation of advertising for the film, I had no idea that the conceit of HOME was that these adorable aliens were invading Earth and relocating all of the humans to Australia. None. That seems like an intentional oversight in the marketing of the picture, as though they were afraid that audiences would stay away if they realized the cuddly star of the picture is actually somewhat the conqueror at the outset. They may well have called that correctly; with a change of music this could be Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee…

Okay, maybe that’s overstating things, but it’s certainly true that a more truthful summary of HOME would certainly have raised a few eyebrows: On Christmas Day, aliens invade Earth, literally sucking the humans out of their homes to be processed and relocated to camps on another continent while the newcomers completely settle into the properties they have taken by force and reshaping the land to their own design. Meanwhile, our underage protagonist, who is forcibly separated from her single mother, humorously scrounges for supplies and sustenance before fleeing the city in a car she is not licensed to drive with an alien companion who may have doomed her world to demolition…

Y’know, in other hands, that could have made a good black comedy full of gallows humor. But this is DreamWorks, so instead they’ll gloss over the dodgier parts of the premise and serve up a Stranger in a Strange Land / Odd Couple road picture. There must be entire film classes in Hollywood focused entirely on one recipe: displace one character to a new setting, add in one local and sit back and watch hilarity ensue…

The picture is just so predictable it could have come from a similar class in paint-by-numbers storytelling. The film is quite simply lazy.

Oh, I nearly forgot to criticize the music. It’s dreadful. I’m as happy as the next person that the studio has FINALLY centered a story around an African-American girl (from Barbados, actually), but did it have to get a pop-star to voice her? Rihanna isn’t actually bad as a voice actor, but someone needs to have a quick chat with the producers about casting voice talent that can credibly pass for the age of the characters. Between the lack of story clarity and the voice work, it’s quite hard to have any sense of how old the character is supposed to be.

The bigger problem with casting a pop star is that they will invariably want to sing. Rihanna contributed a fistful of toothless and useless pop songs. Hey, everyone has their own sense of taste – I’m not trying to pick apart kids pop music. My beef is that the songs are integrated into the narrative. There’s a scene in all of the trailers where the alien protagonist, Oh (Jim Parsons) is involuntarily compelled to dance by the incredibly catchy music. The problem is that it isn’t catchy. It’s vapid and innocuous Muzak. Re-imagine the climatic scene at the dance in Back to the Future; Marty McFly blowing the minds of the 50’s kids with futuristic 1980’s music – by Toto. It’s kind of like that. Knowing the long lead time on animated film work (and crappy pop music), I’m thoroughly convinced that the animators developed the entire sequence with temp music that actually had some personality. Probably worked better then.

So if the story is unoriginal and the picture is filled with all the familiar narrative peaks and valleys, and all the usual modern CG animated film hallmarks are here (pop culture references, over abundance of star voice talent, de rigueur end scene with all of the characters humorously getting down to pop music), is there anything good about the picture? Sure…

Even if all of the characters have the same basic look as every other feature of this type, the aliens (“the Boov”) are mostly cute. Well, Oh is anyway. If he was the only alien in the film, it would have been much more effective. But I genuinely enjoyed the character.

Nearly 100% of the enjoyment of the feature from an adult perspective comes from Jim Parsons doing the mixed up dialogue of the Boov as he tries to communicate. It’s essentially the same joke for the length of the picture, but it’s usually good for a chuckle even after you’d expect it to be played out.

There’s also a calico cat named Pig. I love calico cats. So there’s that…

Most importantly, though? My daughter loved HOME. So did every kid in the theater. Which is of course the whole point. So, hey, what do I know…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (9 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.meettheboov.com/” name=”HOME” description=”When Oh, a loveable misfit from another planet, lands on Earth and finds himself on the run from his own people, he forms an unlikely friendship with an adventurous girl named Tip who is on a quest of her own.

Through a series of comic adventures with Tip, Oh comes to understand that being different and making mistakes is all part of being human, and together they discover the true meaning of the word HOME.” director=”Tim Johnson” actor_1=”Jim Parsons” ]

Main Cast	Jim Parsons Oh (voice), Rihanna Gratuity ‘Tip’ Tucci (voice), Steve Martin Captain Smek (voice), Jennifer Lopez Lucy (voice)
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 27 Mar 2015 UTC
Director	Tim Johnson
Genres	Animation, Adventure, Comedy, Family, Fantasy, Sci-Fi
Plot	Oh, an alien on the run from his own people, lands on Earth and makes friends with the adventurous Tip, who is on a quest of her own.
Poster
Runtime	94
Tagline	Worlds Collide
Writers	Tom J. Astle (screenplay), Matt Ember (screenplay)
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Typically well-made live-action update of classic fairy tale is aggressively ok. Far too long for little ones to sit still – parents, too…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Cinderella:

Disney has my admiration when it comes to milking a cow. They really do not miss a single trick. Not only did they strike pure gold with their strategy of mining old fairy tales for most of their early film classics, they’re now getting a second bite at the apple by remaking all of their old hits in live action. They could frankly make movies forever without ever having to write a single story. As I’ve noted before in my review of Maleficent, I quite expect that they plan just that…

So if the idea here is to update all of the old kids animated movies for the kids of today, why is this so long? With attention spans getting shorter, why are films going in the opposite direction when it comes to run-times?

It only took 74 minutes for Walt Disney’s animation team to spirit us through the Cinderella story, and it had 6 songs – not one of which is repeated here (although I did hear one in the end credits). I don’t understand what on earth made the filmmakers responsible for the update feel that this version merited another 40 minutes. 112 minutes is far too long for kids to sit still, so who are you making this film for?

The intended audience of the film is the puzzle that stuck with me through the whole picture. Despite the serious matter inherent in the death of the titular character’s parents, it’s not a particularly dark tale. To the credit of the filmmakers, they didn’t ramp up the action or danger or anything like that. That suggests a younger target market – fair enough. But why then is it so talky and epic and repetitive?

The screenplay by Chris Weitz plays it extremely safe, but that’s not really a bad thing. There are missed opportunities and maddening decisions, sure. (Including the tale about asking the father to bring home the first branch he sees is great, but not if you don’t show the tree planted for her mother. Also, if you insist on making this picture so long, why excise the business of the ball lasting three nights and having three dresses?) But at least he didn’t try to hit the LOTR-y with unnecessary villains and battle scenes, or placing the heroes in great danger.

Similarly, although the acting is quite good, the actors are seldom given any real room to create something new. Most noteworthy, as you might expect, is Cate Blanchett. She turns in a predictably great performance as the wicked stepmother Lady Tremaine, and in adding a hint of subtle suggestion that the woman’s actions are driven by a sad backstory gets just enough opportunity to let you see how much better of a character you’re not going to be getting. This is a real missed opportunity to make this character slightly less one-dimensional.

Most of the characters are fairly milquetoast, so any added embellishments do little to distinguish them, but they are fine performances nonetheless. Lily James is perfectly suited to the role of Cinderella, and her interactions with her dead mother & father walking (Hayley Atwell & Ben Chaplin, respectively) are lovely and earnest if a touch heavy on the treacle.

Helena Bonham Carter kind of phones in her turn as the Fairy Godmother. Her casting was actually probably a good call, but the whole sequence seems extraordinarily rote and hurried. The picture has a lot of pacing problems, with certain scenes overstaying their welcome, but you wouldn’t have expected the only magical portion of the story to have been directed as though the pumpkin coach was double-parked. This is the best part of the story for kids! 

I noted with interest that they actually added some significant interaction between the King (Derek Jacobi) and Prince Charming (Richard Madden), allowing them to express familial love. It’s fine, but the cynic in me was accutely aware that this may be Disney’s attempt at a Frozen / Maleficent moment for males.

That leads me to the conundrum that Disney has created with these films. As an audience member, you have now been trained to expect a “hook” or a surprising twist. Watching these Disney updates has become an exercise not unlike going to a Christopher Nolan or M. Night Shaymalan film – no matter how much you may be enjoying the picture, you are distracted the whole time wondering what third act surprise they’re going to drop on you. I find I can only really enjoy these films upon a second viewing, when I’m no longer focused on what they’re planning next. Similarly, I spent the entirety of Cinderella wondering if they were going to pull some metaphorical play like having the slipper not fit but the prince realizes that Cinderella fits in his heart or some similar drivel.

Another aside; I couldn’t shake the feeling that there were a lot of meetings at the studio about how the depiction of Cinderella in Into the Woods was going to differ from this picture. I strongly suspect that Branagh was instructed to play it straight and not go for the darker parts of the original tale since that ground would be covered by the studio’s other picture. Oh, and by the way Branagh? You’re slumming, pal…

The picture is absolutely gorgeous. The set design, the costumes, the photography – it’s all superb. In some ways it’s like the Oscar-bait films that are always nominated but never seriously considered. You only get partial credit for succeeding with these films; they’re supposed to be gorgeous…

So, after that overlong review – was it any good? I suppose so. Despite my stated ambivalence about the overlong runtime and surfeit of humor, the kids in the theater seemed to go for it. Most of the adults looked bored – I sure was – but my daughter loved it. So, mission accomplished, I guess…

Oh, and the cynical decision to throw a Frozen short at the beginning of the film to increase ticket sales paid off big time. The picture had a smash opening weekend, and I’m certain half of the ticket sales are due to the inclusion of Frozen Fever (which was cute, if slight). It certainly ensured our attendance at a picture that looked a little underwhelming. Well played, mouse…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (8 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 [schema type=”movie” url=”http://movies.disney.com/cinderella/” name=”Cinderella” description=”The story of “Cinderella” follows the fortunes of young Ella whose merchant father remarries following the tragic death of her mother. Keen to support her loving father, Ella welcomes her new stepmother Lady Tremaine and her daughters Anastasia and Drizella into the family home. But when Ella’s father suddenly and unexpectedly passes away, she finds herself at the mercy of a jealous and cruel new family. Finally relegated to nothing more than a servant girl covered in ashes, and spitefully renamed Cinderella since she used to work in the cinders, Ella could easily begin to lose hope. Yet, despite the cruelty inflicted upon her, Ella is determined to honor her mother’s dying words and to “have courage and be kind.” She will not give in to despair nor despise those who abuse her. And then there is the dashing stranger she meets in the woods. Unaware that he is really a prince, not merely an employee at the palace, Ella finally feels she has met a kindred soul. ” director=”Kenneth Branagh” actor_1=”Lily James” ]

Main Cast	Lily James Cinderella, Cate Blanchett Stepmother, Richard Madden Prince, Helena Bonham Carter Fairy Godmother
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 13 Mar 2015 UTC
Director	Kenneth Branagh
Genres	Adventure, Drama, Family, Fantasy, Romance
Plot	When her father unexpectedly passes away, young Ella finds herself at the mercy of her cruel stepmother and her daughters. Never one to give up hope, Ella’s fortunes begin to change after meeting a dashing stranger.
Poster
Runtime	112
Tagline	Midnight is just the beginning.
Writers	Chris Weitz (screenplay)
Year	2015

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Formulaic, unnecessary CG update of classic kids book hugely surpasses expectations with loving & artistic presentation. Enjoyable & cute…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Paddington:

On the face of it, just another ill-advised modern update of every intellectual property that unimaginative filmmakers could scrape up instead of coming up with original ideas. And it is – the movie really didn’t need to be made. But since they did make it, at least they were good enough to make a decent job of it.

If you are getting the sense that I’m conflicted about this one, good. It means I’m at least managing to communicate my unease clearly. I hate that they made this film. I really do. Paddington is a great character in a series of lovely and beloved children’s books. While the character was never one hugely popular in my house growing up or with my own child, there’s no real intent there. There are thankfully a ton of great children’s books out there and this series just slipped through the cracks I guess. I vaguely remember reading a few of the stories to my nephew and they’re wonderful.

All by way of saying that I don’t have any particular bone to pick; they haven’t trod on sacred ground in my case, but I have enough respect for the legions of fans of the character to be at least a little indignant on their behalf.

I don’t know what this impulse to adapt every single successful character ever created for Hollywood is all about but I strongly suspect it rhymes with greed. And sounds like greed. Exactly like greed. It is greed.

There are some unbelievably talented writers out there with truly original stories – go find them. Now. I’ll wait. Seriously. I’d be willing to wait quite a bit. There’s no rule stating how many films you must release every year. I’d cheerfully, gratefully, accept fewer films if they were fresher stories.

The problem isn’t strictly that adapting previously written characters for the screen is lazy and lacking in ambition. The far bigger issue is the perceived necessity to make these characters now fit some pre-configured mold for feature films. It’s entirely possible to adapt works in ways that honor the source material and don’t slavishly adhere to a set formula. If you’re so hot to update Paddington for the modern cg-expecting audience, why not make it into a TV show? Or create a feature that tells several short vignettes. You really don’t need to fabricate a story that injects peril so that it can fit into your “90 minute kid movie” template.

And now we come to it. There is a perception that all films must have arcs that place the characters in peril. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know how many kids movies have been ruined by the intentional ramping up of villains and dangerous situations in an effort to create a narrative, but it’s not a small number.

Those of you who know the original stories better than I can feel free to correct me, but I don’t remember any villains in the series. There certainly wasn’t some mad Australian taxidermist after poor Paddington’s hide in anything I read. It’s a deeply disturbing premise. (In fact, I’ll risk spoiling things by warning tall people that Paddington, in addition to not having parents, loses the uncle that raised him within the first ten minutes. Definite potential for upsetting little ones.)

You don’t need to make every kids story dangerous. I simply refuse to accept that there are children out there who read the Paddington books and said “Mummy, you know what would make this story even better? If I were truly concerned that Paddington might be skinned. Otherwise, what’s the point of all this? The story doesn’t move.”

Other than that plotline, the story, the characters, the family dynamic – it’s all about what you’d expect – the whole thing is so formulaic. But it is all redeemed by the loving artistic touches. The whole movie in fact is saved because of art direction and visuals. Not the CG realistic visuals either, although they are really top shelf if completely lost in the helter skelter action. Paddington as a bear is a marvelous accomplishment and it’s too bad that this sort of thing isn’t really noteworthy at this point. In 2015 these visuals are de rigeur; that doesn’t make them any bit less impressive. It is some masterful design and execution.

No, I’m talking about the creative use of flourishes that bring the whole production up in the eyes of the audience. The filmmakers earned my respect the hard way, frame by frame. No quarter was asked – they earned it, the obvious attention to detail and love and care for the work forcing me to take note of their accomplishments. They made it clear that this may be a trifle but they were damn well going to squeeze some value out of it.

The acting is fine, nothing to write home about but solid. There’s an unusually large number of harry potter alums which seemed a bit odd until I found out that the film was produced by series vet David Heyman.

Ben Whishaw, so excellent as the new Q in the recent Bond films is wonderful as the voice of Paddington. The part was originally cast with Colin Firth, but as the production developed, everyone involved realized they needed something else, probably someone more youthful, and it was absolutely the right call.

I was pleasantly surprised to see Peter Capaldi pop up, since I wasn’t expecting him. He’s funny – he’s Capaldi – but the fact remains that the character could have been excised completely and you’d never miss him. I know the character of Mr. Curry, the disapproving neighbor is in the books, so I guess they had to include him, but he’s really surplus to the story. (Although just seeing him entering a red phone box is fairly amusing.)

As for Nicole Kidman’s turn as the taxidermist, the less said the better.

My daughter and I went to go see Paddington because we were having a special night out together and wanted to see a movie. I somewhat reluctantly picked it over Spongebob, bemoaning the lack of good family films out there and was quite pleasantly surprised by how enjoyable it was. Pleasant in fact is a very appropriate word for it – very British. It’s good, you’ll enjoy it. And then you’ll never think of it again.

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: B (7 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.paddington.com/us/home/” name=”Paddington” description=”A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he meets the kindly Brown family, who offer him a temporary haven.” director=”Paul King” actor_1=”Ben Whishaw” ]

Main Cast	Hugh Bonneville Henry Brown, Sally Hawkins Mary Brown, Julie Walters Mrs. Bird, Jim Broadbent Mr. Gruber
Rating	PG
Release Date	Fri 16 Jan 2015 UTC
Director	Paul King
Genres	Comedy, Family
Plot	A young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he meets the kindly Brown family, who offer him a temporary haven.
Poster
Runtime	95
Tagline	Please look after this bear. Thank you
Writers	Paul King (written by), Hamish McColl (screen story) …
Year	2014