Full Movies and TV Series - www.5dmovie.com

115 Comments

1. 
   pwleslie from United States
   

   Dec 31, 2010

   Lovely movie, but not classic

   *** This review may contain spoilers ***

   Disney's Tangled is hands down one of the best films they've met in
   years. I had tears streaming down my eyes the minute the lanterns
   starting appearing all the way to the end. The animation is gorgeous
   and the storyline, for the most part, is pretty solid and believable.
   The film still, however, has a number of serious flaws.

   The sidekicks: While amusing, the sidekicks play a very, very small
   part in this film. Pascal is cute – and pretty much pointless after
   that. He doesn't really serve much purpose except as a sort of nice
   pet-on-the-back. He really isn't even substantial emotional support.
   Also, the whole chameleon idea in general was pretty bizarre. They
   obviously just generated a sidekick for the sake of having one.
   Maximus, while amusing as well, helps out to some extent in the climax,
   but really isn't even featured that much. More than half of the film
   he's chasing Flynn, and then Rapunzel treats him nicely and he's just
   hunky dory for most of the rest. Again, the robo-cop-horse idea itself
   was… weird. And when he starts acting like a dog, it's… even
   weirder. It's like they can't decide to make him human-like or canine.

   Flynn's name: As I understood it, Flynn revealed his real name towards
   the end. But when I saw it, he reveals it towards the middle, and
   Rapunzel calls him by it the *entire rest of the movie*. The name gives
   him back-story, but it definitely confuses the audience on what to call
   him. I can't help wondering if it could have been dropped altogether.

   When Rapunzel realizes she's a princess: little can be said on this
   part because it's so confusing. She somehow is able to recollect a
   memory from when she was barely a toddler. And it's all very sketchy
   and not totally believable. Also, kind of anti-climatic.

   Rapunzel's character design: her eyes definitely change size a few
   times, and quite honestly she often looks really ridiculous. Her facial
   features often grew quite out of proportion.

   The villain: Donna Murphy plays Mother Gothel very well. And Mother
   Gothel is definitely a villain. But she really just lacks something
   that especially the original Gothel had – a kind of maddening
   obsession, a real sense of threatening power. Gothel is vaguely
   complicated here because of maternal actions, but not in the way that
   Frollo of Hunchback is. She has very shallow motivations and really
   isn't very frightening at all. She's creepy looking, but that's about
   it.

   The music: The music is pleasant, but… in the end none of the songs
   manage to really grasp you. A lot of them are really pretty, but
   nothing gorgeous and memorable. This could partially be blamed on
   Menken's source of inspiration – 60's rock, although even Gothel's
   villain song falls short. Slater's lyrics weren't a treasure to hear
   either.

   Changes to original: as good and functional as the plot is, it actually
   would have been better being kept closer to the original. There are
   just some elements that really made the original shine that have been
   lost here.

   The Pub thugs: As someone else mentioned, the pub thugs really didn't
   play that significant a part in the movie. They were comedic and played
   a (contrived) role in the finale. That was it. Essentially, with the
   exception of the three main human characters and the Stabbington
   brothers (and Rapunzel's parents of course), all of the characters were
   really expendable.

   The town scene: it was just kind of strange and didn't make sense.
   Rapunzel just starts dancing with all kind of people, despite never
   even SEEING so many people before and just suddenly has social skills.
   And then she's painting stuff and reading mysterious books and… I
   kind of had no idea what was supposed to be going on. It was all epic
   and exciting, but still kind of ridiculous.

   The action scenes: we all know why they were in there. Disney had to
   entertain the boys, because boys are only entertained by fighting and
   violence. What utter nonsense. Quite a few of the scenes were utterly
   pointless and unnecessary. I understand the need for some action
   scenes, but there were a few in here that were just present to make
   attempts at entertaining the male crowd.

   Ultimately, Tangled is a really nice movie. I don't feel like it
   supplants Rapunzel, however. The two are still very different in
   essence. Also, this is a pretty meager attempt at the complexities of
   Rapunzel.

   (reply)
2. 
   gavin-thelordofthefuture from United States
   

   Dec 30, 2010

   The First CGI Animated Musical To Become A Success From Disney

   Growing up as a kid… oh, what the heck? I love Disney for their
   successful animated movies based on history novels, and many more. When
   I've heard that they made a CGI movie based on a classic fairy tale a
   month ago, my brother really wanted to see it. So, we went with our
   stepfather and mother, along with our younger siblings and our cousin
   to see this movie in Regal Entertainment Group Theaters in Albany, New
   York only in 3D and we all loved it since it was intended for kids and
   their families.

   The CGI Animation was beautiful, The Characters and Acting were
   well-done, The Songs were powerful, The Heart and Humor were
   spectacular, The Storyline was well-written, and The Adventure was
   brilliant. Thank you Disney, for keeping my younger siblings
   entertained. This will please and entertain fans of Disney from all
   over the world.

   Go see it, Disney fans! Rating: **** out of four stars

   (reply)
3. 
   Wayne Malin (wwaayynnee51@hotmail.com) from United States
   

   Dec 30, 2010

   GREAT CGI Disney film!

   *** This review may contain spoilers ***

   Disney takes the tale of Repunzel and makes a few changes. Repunzel
   (voice of Mandy Moore) is taken away from her royal parents at an early
   age. She was kidnapped by Mother Gothel (voice of Donna Murphy) because
   Rapunzel's long golden hair helped keep her young (it's complicated but
   the movie explains it). She keeps Rapunzel in a tower warning her to
   NEVER go outside. Then robber Flynn Ryder (voice of Zachery Levi) gets
   into the tower and gets Rapunzel out. Then a series of fantastic (but
   fun) adventures take place.

   First off I should mention I saw this in 2-D NOT 3-D (I refuse to pay
   $15.50 for an animated feature). Still I LOVED it. It's Disney's first
   (I think) GCI feature and it works beautifully. The characters look
   real and the settings are incredible. It's like one of the best Pixar
   features. The script is fast and funny with jokes that mange to appeal
   to the kids AND adults equally. The voices match the characters
   expertly and I got a BIG kick out of Flynn Ryder (obviously modeled
   after Errol Flynn). There are also two CGI animals–Pascal (a
   chameleon) and Maximus (a horse)–that are hysterical! They don't talk
   but their facial expressions alone had me laughing out loud! It IS PG
   for some (very mild) violence but I don't think it would bother the
   kids. The little girl sitting behind me couldn't have been more than 6
   and it didn't bother her at all! It was fast, funny and full of
   adventure and humor! I was never bored for one second. A 10 all the
   way!!!

   (reply)
4. 
   tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach
   

   Dec 30, 2010

   Drawing Love

   *** This review may contain spoilers ***

   Sometimes the inner narrative is clear.

   The outer narrative is fine enough to sell tickets to parents, thinking
   this is what their kids want and their kids returning the favor. You'll
   have to read elsewhere for how well this is done. What fascinates me is
   how obviously we can see what concerns the animators.

   This is marketed not as a film in its own right, but as the 50th Disney
   animation. It is easy to see it as such, as a narrative about the
   artists.

   Our heroine starts the film with her obsessive two-dimensional
   drawings, quite literally cartoons like the initial Disney era. In
   these is a depiction of an event that we discover is her dream, her
   wish. Following the princess formula, which Disney invented, we hear
   her "wish song," about this dream.

   The dream is fulfilled in "paintery 3d" as the main story.

   By the end of the film, we are reminded that her memories and the
   projected cartoon of the entire film has been painted on the walls of
   her space. There is literally a moment where they start to merge. But
   in between we have the layer of that cartoon in the "real world,"
   meaning the three dimensional world of the current animation
   technology. In that layer, we have the quest for the three dimensional
   experience: the losing of the lantern kites on an anniversary.

   When this came for me, I was overwhelmed. This was partially because
   the "fold" worked for me; The watched cartoon was on the walls and the
   real world was the one I shared with the characters. Disney first did
   this (to my knowledge) in their dinosaur movie where the "cartoon" was
   in cave paintings.

   The "lights" was an extraordinarily well done adventure in framing,
   editing and camera angle selection. There is no Pixar influence here —
   this is all homegrown Disney and now that Pixar is worn out, we may see
   a new generation of animated cinema here.

   Another reason it worked for me is the simple geometry of romantic
   imagination. Connection is spatial, extreme spatial experience where
   the senses and sense are overwhelmed. The lantern scene effectively did
   that for me and I admire its manipulative construction. This is very
   much an adult movie and very overtly sexual. The source images are in a
   space created by a sexually manipulative woman, managing a hidden
   fecund valley in which an overtly phallic tower houses our future
   stories.

   So it is extremely easy for me to see this as a story about animation,
   folding and sex. Pure in each regard. It is not about love. It is about
   drawing love, and much more romantic as a result.

   Ted's Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.

   (reply)

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name *

Email *

Website

Security Code: