Katy Perry: Part Of Me: Pros And Cons

Just saw this movie earlier today so I thought I'd review it. I bet you're all thinking "gasp! It's not animated and doesn't have to do with animals? Why would Amanda be interested!?" Well, this is the only concert movie that's come out of a singer that I like beside the Best Of Both Worlds concert movie, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Plus, I have plenty of free time this summer, so why not? Anyways, let's get started. And as usual, THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

Pros:

I'm gonna analyze this as best I can. It's not as easy with a documentary since you can't really make much of an opinion of the story, just how they portray it. On that note, I feel that they portrayed it quite well. Using the archival footage, as I said in my Space Dogs review, was a great idea. Again, I love the authenticity of that sort of stuff.

Many people from many different parts of Katy's life were interviewed, and that allowed us to gain a lot of different perspectives. (not that they all had some kind of completely different perspective on the situation, but you get my point) This was also a fun way to learn about the people in her life that most people who listen to her songs have no idea who they are.

It was really...immersive. Made you realize how even if you're just some regular old fan like me, you have an impact on her life. Seeing the footage that people made that was put at the beginning and end of the movie, hearing them cheer her on even on her hardest nights, and freaking out just to meet her, made me realize, "Wow. She used to be just a regular old girl. Now the world loves her." One can't imagine how incredible that must feel.

It was sad! And I didn't see that coming! Major spoiler ahead, when she was crying over Russell, my friend and I wanted to cry, too! After learning more and more about this person for the last hour, it's not difficult to feel bad for them when they feel bad. All the same, lessons are learned through that. Relationships are difficult when you're both all over the world, and even in their hardest times, celebrities will always do all they can for their fans.

It had its funny moments, as it should. The grandma, oh my God. She was awesome, lol. GOLDEN ENDING WITH HER. I'm a sucker for a good ending. And who can forget Katy putting on a dozen different outfits during her Hot N Cold performance?

And THIS before the movie started? Made. my. freaking. day.

Cons:

While, as most of you can guess, this isn't one of my new favorite movies or anything, there were really no significant cons to it. Heck, you can't really mess something like this up (unless, of course, you put in a false story, but with Katy as a producer, that was easily prevented). If I could pick one thing I had mixed opinions on, it was the ratio of concert and documentary. Now, I loved the documentary aspect, don't get me wrong, and I can't even really decide if more concert was necessary. Just comparing it to the BOBW concert, you never really saw a full performance, and, frankly, there weren't many performances. But unlike BOBW, this had a different focus. While BOBW had backstage clips, it wasn't intended as a documentary. In some ways, Part Of Me could've probably gone without concert footage, but it's hard to say. Again, a mixed opinion. I guess, the only definite thing I can say is I would have liked to have seen at least one full performance. (if there was one, than I forgot. fast. xD)

Okay, maybe another minor annoyance, was all the on-screen text necessary? You know, the stuff they put when it's harder to understand the actors? Honestly, I could understand them just fine, so I think that was a little much. But, obviously, not a big con.

Really, that's about it. Like I said, you really can't go wrong with a movie like this. And I'm happy to say that I quite enjoyed it!

Space Dogs: Pros And Cons

Today, I'm going to review a movie I recently watched on demand. I had my doubts about it, but I'm happy to say it far exceeded my expectations. THE FOLLOWING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

Pros:

Lenny was the perfect comic relief. I loved his personality, and he's just one of those classic rodent sidekicks that the audience almost always falls in love with. I know I did.

Though they of course had to exaggerate a little, they seemed to keep plenty historically correct facts in tact. Pushok (or however you spell it) was in fact the name of Strelka's puppy and also was sent to the President. Mice also accompanied Belka and Strelka in real life, and so on. Personally, the fact that it was based on a true story at all was cool enough for me.

The whole idea of dogs training other dogs. Now that's something I would obviously fall in love with. Plus, I've always envisioned a German Shepherd as a leader of a "troop", per say, and Kazbek as a character on his own had a great personality.

Speaking of Kazbek, the fact that he followed the girls into space was an honest shock to me. I expected the dog in the spacesuit approaching the ship to be Strelka's dad or something! I had kind of an "oh I see" moment (as my 8th grade science teacher would say) when I realized that Kazbek didn't want them to leave because he knew no dogs had come back from space alive yet.

The music flowed very well with the movie. It made it feel like a regular old American-made animated film. And to be honest, the songs were pretty catchy.

I loved the real clips shown during the credits. I always love when movies tie into the true stories like that. Plus, who else dawwwwed at the bunny in the space suit? Come on people, I know I wasn't the only one.

I thought the fact that Strelka and Belka came from different backgrounds was pretty cool. I loved the whole circus dog idea.

The group of mean dogs were actually pretty entertaining, and I liked their designs, as well as Kazbek's.

Cons:

There were no major cons in this movie. The only real turn-off for me was the animation. Now I understand that this isn't coming from as advanced of a studio as most animated films these days, but it just wasn't all that easy on the eyes.

Speaking of the animation, was it really necessary for the dogs to be anthropomorphic half the time? I have a big thing against anthropomorphic animals, and when they just look like a real dog would when he/she stands up on her/his hind legs, it looks really wrong. Now with characters like (Roadside) Romeo and Alex the lion, they make it look more natural. But with the female dogs in both Roadside Romeo and Space Dogs, it just looks odd.

Did Kazbek really have to fall in love with Belka? I thought she was way younger than him! I know size doesn't always determine age, especially in animals, but I think that was a highly unnecessary addition.

There was really no turning point in Belka and Strelka's friendship. They were fighting, they were okay, they were fighting, they were okay, and suddenly, they stopped fighting. I saw no driving force behind that "make up", so that made the movie a little confusing.

Over all, I really enjoyed this film, and the cons weren't near enough to make this film unenjoyable.

Madagascar 3: Pros And Cons

This will be the first of my "pros and cons" movie reviews. That is the format in which I predict I'll review all movies, analyzing what I did and didn't like about the movie at hand. Before I get started, let me say I'll mostly review movies I've seen recently, whether in theaters or on TV, but every now and then, I might review something I re-watched recently, a favorite of mine, or just some random movie! Feel free to request what you'd like me to review. And THE FOLLOWING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

Pros:

The new characters were perfect additions, much like in Happy Feet 2. Gia was strong at times and soft at others, Vitally was grumpy and unlikeable at first, but his dark past really made me grow to like him more, and Stefano was the perfect comic relief. Their voices (namely their accents) and animation styles made them even more likable. Heck, even the villain was entertaining! She could do flat out ANYTHING and not get injured. Bust through walls, jump from buildings, you name it! That made her really fun to watch.

Boy, was it a feast for the eyes! I have NEVER seen a film utilize the 3D that well. Heck, most movies I see in 3D don't really use it at all. G-Force was the only one that could really even compare. But this movie, wow! Everything just popped out at you! And the Firework scene, God. That was just a visual spectacular.

Two words: fur. power. The animals took over the circus all by themselves? Now is that meant for me or what! I'm a sucker for any kind of animal prominence, so that greatly pleased me.

I'll admit, it had some sentimental quality for me. Seeing the animals return to the zoo almost made me cry. The first movie was one of the biggest movies of my childhood, so I almost couldn't believe I was witnessing the moment I'd been waiting seven years for.

A surprise ending. Oh, how I love those. They didn't stay at the zoo! They went to the circus! Way to turn things around, Dreamworks!

DOGS! I'm a sucker for dogs in movies, even when they're sidekicks. To see dogs get added to one of my favorite franchises was all I could ask for.

Cons:

Shall I start with the biggest con? The one thing that kept this movie from being "awesome" and just put it at "pretty awesome"? When Gia and the others got mad at Alex and the gang for having lied about being circus animals. I've seen that so many times. "You lied to me!" "But I really do love it here!" "How can I trust you?" It bores me and it makes me feel bad for the characters that are trying to prove themselves truthful.

Though funny at times, the romance between Sonya and Julien was a bit annoying.

Maurice had hardly any speaking roles. Why was that?

I have somewhat gotten used to it since the first film, but I still don't love the idea of anthropomorphic animals. They made these look good, but all the same, was it really necessary for all felines to be anthropomorphic? 

And this, I can't decide if it's a pro or a con.

So, in summary, I loved this movie. The pros outweighed the cons; only the whole lying issue kept it from being perfect.

Why Did Happy Feet 2's Gross Not Nearly Match Up To That Of Its Predecessor?

I can't help but wonder why the Happy Feet sequel took an approximately $170 million drop from it's predecessor. Now if you're not as movie savvy as I am, may I inform you that that is an unspeakably huge drop. Sure, you might have thought that in the first place, but the truth is, $50 million sounds like a lot, but is hardly anything in the box office world. Anyways, why did this shock me? No, not because they were both amazing and I don't understand why the public didn't agree. I'm trying to analyze this completely impartially. So let's see. 

The first Happy Feet, though being one of few Warner Bros. animated films, was an enormous box office success, even beating out the new James Bond film on opening weekend, and took home the Oscar for Best Animated Feature, being one of only two films at the time that had beaten out Pixar studios. With this set-up, you'd think a sequel in production would be the perfect storm right? Well, not exactly. Adjusted, the first film grossed about $235 million, while the sequel only ended out with a disappointing $64 million (which, may I remind you, is a very weak number in the box office world). Now when this happens to a sequel, why does it happen? As most of us know, it's mostly because of bad reviews. Yes, Happy Feet 2 had some negative feedback, but I never heard any universal negativity about it. Even if it had gotten that universal negativity, with a first film being so successful, a dip that big is just illogical. Take Cars for example. Now THAT sequel had universal negativity, am I right? Granted, that negativity was more publicized with it being an expected-to-be-perfect Pixar film. Nonetheless, it ended its run with around $190 million, very impressive in general (though not impressive for Pixar), and not a huge drop from the first film. With Happy Feet 2 getting just mixed reviews, why didn't it have the same success as the sequels to the only other film to have beaten out Pixar at the Oscars at the time, Shrek? I realize that Dreamworks is a well-regarded animation studio and their first movie (and franchise) was Shrek, but think about it. Did the gross drop from 1 to 2? Heck no! It rose another $100 million, making it the best grossing animated movie of all time (unadjusted, that is, though still high up there when adjusted) even beating out Toy Story 3! I know, I know, we've all heard that Toy Story 3 was "the #1 animated movie of all time", but that's talking worldwide gross. Anyways, okay, so maybe Shrek 2 got that luck because it was Dreamworks and it had great reviews. But don't forget the next two films. Shrek The Third? Bad reviews. Still surpassed $300 million. Shrek Forever After? Even worse reviews! Yet still surpassed $200 million. Even though that's a meager gross for a Shrek film, and a close drop to the drop Happy Feet 2 had, no drop from $441 million, the highest reached so far by an animated film, can be that bad. However, when it's from $235 million, it can be. 

Okay, so we've analyzed why it doesn't make sense, let's think of why it is, right? I have a few possible theories. One is the length between the releases of the first and second film. When releasing a sequel, it's best to make the time in between short so the kids that saw the first are still kids and will want to see the second (take Kung Fu Panda for example) or long so kids will want to see it as well as now college kids who grew up with the original (Toy Story 3 obviously being an example of that). Happy Feet 2 had a medium length let's say, which, for the most part, invalidates those two just mentioned possibilities. Say you were a young kid when the first came out, 7 years old perhaps? By the time the second is out, you're 12, and only so many 12 year olds will pay money to see a kid's film. Let's say you were like me; you were 9. Now you're 15. Whatever came out when you were 9 can't be much of your childhood, considering that's the age for most kids that they begin to lose interest in those types of films. Though my friends and I considered it to have a huge childhood impact, I doubt that's the general opinion. This time difference can also be an issue because the public can forget and lose interest in the franchise, that is, without anything to keep it prominent in their minds. Most sequels don't have to worry about this thanks to the short time in between, but when there's a long time, they usually have ways of keeping the first movies on their minds. With the release of Madagascar 3, as much as I wanted to see it, I felt that it wouldn't be a huge box office success considering the second had come out three and a half years ago, pushing towards a "long put off" sequel. Of course, it was a cash cow, and perhaps a reason for that was The Penguins Of Madagascar, a show that began just months after the release of the second film, still on since, garnering a large fanbase, and even taking home a pair of Daytime Emmys. As for Toy Story, obviously there wasn't much they needed to do; it was considered a classic by 2010. All the same, there had been the Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command spin-off movie and show as well as the characters having prominence in the theme parks. Now, as for Happy Feet, its fad faded not long after the DVD release. Not much merchandising had come out afterwards, and certainly no further continuations of the film in short films or television series. That about sums up my time theory, but I do have one other thought. 

As stated before, Warner Bros. doesn't have a track record of animated movie releases. Now, I'm not saying good or successful animated movie releases, no. I'm saying they've hardly had any. Though having released more than five, which is more than Illumination Entertainment and Blue Sky, they have been around for nearly 100 years while Illumination has only been around for two and Blue Sky ten. Also, though not all the other Warner Bros. animated movies were unsuccessful, unlike Pixar, Dreamworks, Blue Sky, and now Illumnation, they were never consistent about churning out animated films. And also, their children's movies, live action or not, only take up a fraction of their total releases. Why could this have effected Happy Feet 2's gross? Well, I'm sure we've heard plenty people saying "It's a Pixar movie, I'll totally see it." or "It's a Dreamworks movie, I gotta see it." but have you ever heard someone say "It's an animated Warner Bros. movie. I have to see it."? People can only base their thoughts of the second off of the first and the very few and rare other Warner Bros. animated films, if they even know about them. And yes, basing your opinion off of the first, considering the highly positive reviews, would likely lead a person to seeing it, but may I remind you about the time washing away the fad. Also, with Warner Bros. animated films releasing sparingly, they aren't exactly "tied together" shall I say, which the other successful animation companies have done with their films. We consider Woody, Sulley, Lightning McQueen, and Carl Fredrickson to be all part of one movie family right? And same with Shrek, Alex, and Po? Well, that's not as commonly seen for Mumble, Blossom, Bubbles, Buttercup, and the Ant Bully. 

Those are my strongest theories, but my only other thought is it having to do with the animation or the voice cast, but I find that unlikely. The animation of Happy Feet 2 is not 100% as good as that of the first film, but I still think its about 97%. The quality didn't decrease much, and I haven't heard any complaints about that anyways. Though Brittany Murphy was replaced, I've heard general consensus that though she is missed, there couldn't have been a better replacement than P!nk. The only other noticeably replaced character voice was Seymour, from Fat Joe to Common. Neither of which are household names, so I doubt that had anything to do with it. With the exception of a very brief cameo without their original voices, Memphis and Norma Jean were basically cut out of the film, and Mrs. Astrakhan was cut entirely. Could the famous actors Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman have made such a big difference? I don't think so, considering they didn't have much to contribute to the plot, but it's hard to tell. Let's not forget that a handful of the voices that did return are big names, such as Elijah Wood and Robin Williams, and famous actors were added to the cast such as Hank Azaria, Sofia Vergara, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt. So, to conclude, though I have some thoughts, I still don't think any of them can fully explain why this sequel had such a huge drop from its predecessor

For more information and to be able to form your own opinions, check out the links below.

Happy Feet's box office information

Happy Feet 2's box office information