Tag: Elle Fanning

Maleficent stormed onto the scene many years ago, one of the first of the Disney live action titles, outside of that bad Alice one.And it was pretty forgettable. A weak plot, a lot of time of just watching a kid grow up, and then some terrible CGI fight battles.

But hey, the whole reason for doing it is to say that someone with the name of Maleficent,meaning to cause harm supernaturally, isn’t actually bad. Oh okay. And sure, they made her seem misunderstood, and basically a revenge film about a rape, metaphors aside.

So why is this sequel, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, doubling down on the badness? But she isn’t bad. Just bad looking. Now she is also the mistress of evil? I uhh, don’t know why they want to do this?

I’ll go ahead and say this early enough, that they don’t have a good plot reason for this title.

Ah, green fire magic. Magic-y. Evil. 
Alright, so Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) was a sort of hero, killing a king who was a liar and a bad person, and I guess everyone agreed? She magically got her wings back and restored some sort of order, and went back to her magical forest to chill with magic forest people.

But apparently in like, a year or two, the story changes so much that she is a bad guy again. Cool.

Well, Aurora (Elle Fanning) wants to get married finally though, to Prince Philip (Harris Dickinson), who was definitely recast between movies. So they get their parents together, Aurora finding Maleficent, and Philip getting King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer).

Neither set of parents like this at all, especially not Ingrith, who sets about immediately being a bitch. This leads to a curse being cast on a King, Maleficent noping the hell out of there, and then a war against the fey, again.

But hey, this time there are going to be lots of people like Maleficent this time, so you know, bigger stakes, and lots of CGI warring.

Also starring Sam Riley, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Ed Skrein, David Gyasi, Jenn Murray, Juno Temple, Lesley Manville, and Imelda Staunton.

The king has huge look of regret about this whole thing.

Without a doubt, this is a two hour movie that feels like four hours. On the first day of the year, ready to watch a bunch of films, I was completely warn out after this one, my 2nd film of the day, because of how much this movie dragged.

This felt like more of the same, with worse reasoning for existing. This time, the big CGI fest battle happened for a bigger chunk of the movie, if we start it with the very obvious double cross that started against the magical creatures.

This film tries to do more world building this time, but it is building a world, answering questions none of us had. Maleficent is stronger and better than others because. Just because.

Pfeiffer’s character is completely stupid in this film. An antagonist without a good reason. And honestly, Pfeiffer does nothing to really elevate the role at all, she is here for a paycheck.

Maleficent 2 is a movie with more CGI that is exhausting in his excess without being worth looking at. It has acting from all fronts that is forgettable. It tells a story that is very, very similar to the first one, but with “bigger scales” that don’t really matter either. It is a waste of what felt like four hours of my life.

0 out of 4.

2017 has been a shit year for animation. That is basically how I begin everything for animation at the end of the year, by the way.

At this point the only films I gave okay ratings to were Coco and Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie, which is saying a lot about my opinions on these films.

Well, Leap! was released at the end of last year in France and Europe, but didn’t make it to America until August. I had been waiting for a bit and waiting even more. When it finally came out, no one seemed to care, due to lack of advertising, and even I forgot about it.

It is one of those weird films that is already in English, but has a slightly different voice cast depending on the country. Not many changes were made, but the European version had Dane DeHaan as the boy lead. And honestly, without hearing it, it was probably a good change. We don’t need to hear 12 year olds with extra deep voices as if they are constantly pretending to be batman.

Now if DeHaan had voiced the lead? I would pay extra for that uncomfortable version.

Felicie (Elle Fanning) is an orphan in a small French town, in a Church. She doesn’t want to be there of course, she wants to escape and become a famous dancer! Partially because the only thing she has from her mother is a dancing figure in a music box, her main treasure. Her best friend, Victor (Nat Wolff) also wants to escape with her. He has dreams of being an inventor and is focusing a lot of his efforts on a flying machine.

Well, Victor finds a flyer for a famous ballet school in Paris, so they decide they should run away and make it there! And they do!

But they immediately get separated, so Felicie is on her own to achieve her dreams. She finds the dance hall, sees an amazing dancer, but gets found out by the groundskeeper and almost given to the police, but a cleaning lady saves her. Odette (Carly Rae Jepsen) walks with a cane, clearly having once been a dancer and had her life ruined by something or another. She stays in the guest house of a mansion, she just also has to clean it up as well. And the owner, Regine (Kate McKinnon), is a huge bitch.

She is rich though, so she can be a bitch. She has raised a bitch daughter too, Camille (Maddie Ziegler), who just so happens to be a dancer. And because she is a bitch, Felicie steals her invite to the dance school and pretends to be Camille to get a shot of her dream coming true. She just has to be good enough every day to not be the one person cut, so she can have a feature spot in the upcoming Nutcracker show.

Also featuring the voices of Shoshana Sperling and Mel Brooks.

Oh he is definitely in the “best friend for years until she loves me” role. Silly boy. This isn’t the 90’s anymore.

Leap! tells a very standard story about a girl and a boy running off to achieve their lofty ambitions, and do so, quite easily! How they both fall into their respective positions is meant to be quick and easy, which is part of the comedy and charm, so that is not an issue.

It has its moments, both funny and cute. The animation is fine, Victor makes a good comic relief, and Felicie a great go-getter lead! The film also had some Karate Kid moments, just to keep things interesting.

But the devil is in the details, and this film was a mess. I first noticed it on my own, after three very specific references happened, and I was curious if they all were around the same time. That would be, The Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, and Sherlock Holmes. The first Holmes story was in 1887, the Eiffel tower started being built in 1887, but the Statue of Liberty was already in America in 1886. So to show it barely built at the same time as the Eiffel Tower was barely built is just wrong. And it had the statue already green, which is also quite annoying.

So I figured it must be set in 1887 and they had one mistake, sure. But apparently the film was set in 1979, years before all of these things. In addition to those facts, the dancers were trying out for a part in The Nutcracker, which came out in 1892. I learned the last fact and more from IMDB’s goof section, after I already found out these inconsistencies. If they are going to set the film in a lively part of the world and go for a realistic story, then it just seems terrible to have so many references just wrong.

Another aspect that just consistantly threw me off was the soundtrack. There five or more pop songs used as montage music mostly, including songs from Sia and Jepsen, and these things took me out of the experience. They never quite melded well with the scenes behind it. Given the subject matter, actual ballet, opera, classical, anything music wise like that would have felt better for the story.

Despite being called Leap!, this film was unable to rise above other animated films this year. It just ended up okay like the rest of the best.

2 out of 4.

I remember, four years ago, being really excited about the movie Beginners. It had Christopher Plummer, Ewan McGregor, and a good potential story.

But when I finally saw it, I thought it was only okay and a bit disappointed by that fact. I might have liked it more if I was a more mature film watcher though, but who knows, going back and rewatching it just feels like a chore now.

Despite that, I was still surprised to see that the same director, Mike Mills, also directed 20th Century Women, which judging by the trailer seems like such a very different film. Well, obviously one point is that it is mostly about women and not men. It still involves age and growing up as a major theme, and some quirky characters. But still, quite different films.

Needless to say, I needed to watch this movie because I know it will be nominated probably for Best Actress. And because Best Actress films are biased against, it might not be nominated for anything else.

And there are so many women to be the focus of, such a shame. The year is 1979, in Santa Barbara, California, and yes, that is the same place that Psych was supposed to have taken place.

Dorothea (Annette Bening) is a decently modern woman for the time. She is strongly independent, as her husband left her about a decade before. She has a son, Jamie (Lucas Jade Zumann), who is now 15. He is smart, curious, and a free thinker, like she has raised him to be. But she is a bit worried that he has no strong male influence on his life.

Sure, she has had him hang out with men before. In fact, the house they have they rent out to several guests, one of them being a middle aged man (Billy Crudub), who fixes cars and is a handyman. But they have nothing in common, so he is bored when they have to interact.

So she gets the help of two women. One, Abbie (Greta Gerwig), another renter who lives with them, and survivor of cervical cancer. And also Julie (Elle Fanning), a girl slightly older than Jamie who is his best friend, who tends to sleep over in his bed in a completely non sexual way. She wants to have them help teach him about the world. About how to be a good man, even if it is from the women point of view. She cannot see him in the world how he really is, as she is the mom, so she thinks he will listen to them and they have his best interests at heart.

And well, teach them they sure do.

Like the proper way to drug up before your first rave.20th Century Women was a surprising film. Despite the title, I ended up liking it more than I thought I would. Not saying that I don’t like films about women, I just might not get them as much depending on the focus.

First of all, the camera work was really fun in this movie. Every time travel occurred, it was sped up and made colorful (double meaning on the word trip, potentially). Characters were sped up on regular movement between scenes as well, even if just walking. The framing was well done, especially on the Bening/Crudup dance scene. And a decent chunk of the story is told through flashbacks, narrated by various cast members, going over their story on how they got to this point in their lives. It was creative and visually pleasing.

My biggest issue from this film comes mostly from our lead, Bening. The character she plays is kind of shit, and her actions are a bit confusing. She is set up as this strong, modern, free spirited thinking woman. But all of that goes out the door when she sees what other women do, or what her son thinks. Most of the film she seems like a normal conservative lady, unable to deal with the changes in the world. It is so weird and bizarre, and it made me feel nothing for her character.

The side characters all have their charms though. Zumann, Gerwig, Fanning, and Crudup. Those are the people who I think should be nominated come Oscar time. A decent and amusing film otherwise.

3 out of 4.

Trumbo! The great white buffalo! Of the main acting awards, this is the final film I needed to see to complete the categories.

I missed it when it came out in November, because, I dunno, I was busy or something. I didn’t care to see it. I figured it wouldn’t get nominated, no matter how much I like Bryan Cranston.

But hey, he did get nominated for best actor. And with a mustache! It is basically what Johnny Depp was doing with Mortdecai. That is the movie in 2015 he wanted to win Best Actor for right? I can’t think of any other film.

Erm. Trumbo! True story! Communists! Time to party! Red Party.

That’s a communist joke and damn it, that is probably a communist dress too.

Back to Trumbo, or Dalton Trumbo (Cranston) as everyone everywhere calls him. He lives a good life. He is one of the most successful writers in Hollywood. He has contracts with movie studios to write exclusively for them, meaning that his family can live a nice life. That is of course his wife (Diane Lane), main daughter (eventually Elle Fanning) and two other kids who we don’t care about.

But he has a secret. A very vocal secret. He cares about the rights of the workers. Any workers technically, but specifically the Hollywood workers who don’t make money and should make more instead of the Hollywood fat cats. He is a…a…a…COMMUNIST. And there are a bunch of them too. This is now the late 40s and people are starting to get afraid of the Commies, thanks to the Russians and the coldness of their threats. So they try and round up all the communists in Hollywood and KILL THEM! No, not kill them, but black list them. Refuse to let them work in movies ever again. After all, if they are writing their movies, they could be putting subliminal communist things into mainstream America and fuck us from the inside! That would be terrifying.

And Trumbo is about how this man and his friends decided to try and fight for their first amendment rights. And to work despite the blacklist through aliases, friends, or by boldly ignoring the threats of others. Guess how many Oscars Trumbo won while black listed? Three. He was basically penning the “Fuck The Police” song well before the boys in Straight Outta Compton.

And of course we have more people in this movie: John Goodman and Stephen Root are brothers who make a shit ton of B movies. David James Elliott plays JOHN WAYNE. Louis C.K. is a fellow writer commie, Alan Tudyk is a fellow writer, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is a prison man, and Helen Mirren and Michael Stuhlbarg fuck some shit up.

It is rumored that Cranston was able to grow out the ‘Stashe in just 3 minutes.

Despite my wildly successful movie watching lifestyle, I am super behind on almost everything before 1990. I only barely have the 80’s covered, and everything before that is pitiful. So if I can watch a modern movie telling me about movies back in the day, I consider it a win. I have never seen Roman Holiday or The Brave One, but you bet your ass I have seen Spartacus. Getting to hear behind the scenes stories of how these films were written and what they had to do to hide Trumbo’s name was fascinating. It is probably the sexiest thing I have ever heard of when talking about 1950’s Hollywood writers.

Cranston gave a pretty good performance. I am not willing to call it incredible. I saw a lot of Cranston that I have seen in other roles, and I never really saw someone other than himself. I didn’t feel like he ever fully transformed into the man he was playing, not even when he was sitting in the bathtub. I can say it was my least favorite of the Best Actor nominee performances, and would probably rather someone like Steve Carell or Mark Ruffalo from Infinitely Polar Bear.

C.K. and Lane both did excellent jobs with their supporting characters, although Lane wasn’t given a lot to work with.

Story wise, again, there were a lot of interesting moments, but I will say I got confused a few times at a lot of the extra characters, who they were supposed to be, whose side people were on, and just why they were relevant. There are a lot of extra characters here with important roles, too many to list and name, and yeah. I can’t remember most of them. Thankfully it was only small bits of confusion and I could still easily grasp the main points of the story.

3 out of 4.

Let’s face it. Trailers for the most part suck. Every once in awhile you get a Walter Mitty trailer, but those usually end up only being a first edition trailer, and later trailers ruin everything. Too much plot, too many spoilers, all of the cool shit, they can leave nothing exciting for the viewers when they finally see it on the big screen or awkwardly on their sofa on an iPad a year later.

The Boxtrolls is a big exception to that rule. I only remember two trailers for The Boxtrolls, this trailer and this second one. The former gives us a look of the many models and work that went into the movie behind the scenes, while giving us a song and showing some scenes but not ruining the plot. The second, just a song and scenes, no plot.

And I loved them both so much. After I saw the first one, I really really wanted to see this movie and assumed it would be one of the best animated films of the year. The second trailer only helped secure that notion in my head. And it was brought to us by Coraline / ParaNorman team (the latter, I guess, I didn’t really love, shh).

So, I was totes excited to see this movie, especially because I really didn’t know any damn thing about it. Ahhh, bliss.

I guess I also knew that it starred some of my cousins from up north. You know. Those cousins.

Here. Let me ruin my experience by telling you a little bit about the movie. Just a little bit.

In the town of Cheesebridge, we have humans, and we have Boxtrolls. Boxtrolls are troll like creatures, who wear boxes as armor/clothing. Their name is based on what is on their box. They like to build and tinker, stealing trash from the humans. The humans are lead by those who wear white hats, the elite, those who love the cheese.

Archibald Snatcher (Ben Kingsley) wants to be a white hat, he only has a red hat. Who cares if he is allergic to cheese. He wants dat prestige, and will do anything to get it. Even if it means starting a fear mongering campaign against the Boxtrolls, declaring he will capture and kill them all, ridding the town of the pests, and saving the day, earning the white hat.

Yeah. You go Archibald! Unless he is lying, like saying a box was killed by them, when instead, the Boxtrolls saved the boy and raised him on their own. We shall call him Eggs (Isaac Hempstead Wright), because that is his box name. Raised by Fish (Dee Bradley Baker) and Shoe (Steve Blum), Eggs doesn’t really know if he is a human or a Boxtroll when he gets older and starts feeling things down there. If he is a human, he is a Boxtroll of a human, and if he is a Boxtroll, then he is a human of a Boxtroll. That reference might be too vague for some of you. I don’t care.

Also featuring Nick Frost, Richard Ayoade and Tracy Morgan as Archibald henchmen, Simon Pegg as an inventor, Jared Harris as the head White Hat, and Elle Fanning as a girl who has a punch in the face look the entire movie.

She is made of clay, she can totally help the way her face looks.

Early on in the film, The Boxtrolls had me a little bit uninterested. Sure, the stop motion was really rockin’ hard, but I thought the plot wasn’t moving fast enough and didn’t really enjoy any of the characters. But it surely got better, and somehow the animation even got better. This is by far the best animated film I have ever seen with stop motion, and I am sure it is not just because when I saw Coraline, my 3D glasses sucked. I really need to rewatch Coraline.

Either way, even in one tiny chase scene at a ball, I was wowed at how amazing it all looked knowing what they had to do to make it look amazing. Speaking of the attention to detail, I loved the existential crises that the henchmen were having about good vs evil and how they seemed to acknowledge they were in a movie at times. Had my laughing pretty hard.

The story got better and it ended with a tremendous bang. I wish this was an original story and not based on some book so I could give it even more praise for coming up with these tale out of nowhere. Those guys are good, with the stop motion and clay. I hope they keep giving us high quality work such as this.

I don’t think this is the animated flick of the year, I think at least 3 are better, but it is surely up there and you cannot go wrong with watching this in theater or at home. Very entertaining and a movie I could watch many times and not get sick of it. Yay! I don’t feel betrayed by the trailer!

3 out of 4.

Ah, another re-imagining. I think the last one recently was Jack the Giant Slayer, but I probably forgot a few other ones recently. This time, Maleficent, we are tackling the Sleeping Beauty tale. Instead of just telling the story a different way, we are getting it from Maleficent’s point of view.

So, at this point, the movie could go two directions. They could show us that Maleficent was really a good/misunderstood character (which is hard, being one of the more evil Disney villains ever), like what Wicked did, or they could give us a movie about a bad ass mother, who don’t take no crap off of nobody.

Do we get the awesome force of evil doing awesome things? Hell no, this is a Disney related property. You are getting a PG movie, Maleficent won’t be evil, tables will be turned. I mean. Wicked did it. Of course it is going the Wicked route.

But now there are some changes.

This film begins when Maleficent is but a young girl. She is also a fairy. Some dumb war between the fairy kingdom and human kingdom going down. She meets a human boy, finds him sweet, they frolic, he leaves to do human things and they grow old apart.

Now, Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) is an adult fairy, protector of the forest because she is better than the other fairies. The human kingdom is at war now with the magic land. Maleficent pisses some people off. Long story short, a metaphor that strongly resembles rape occurs, and her long lost child hood friend, is now the new King Stefan (Sharlto Copley).

So that curse thing happens, basically just like in Sleeping Beauty. But now, instead of Maleficent searching for Aurora (Elle Fanning) for sixteen years, she finds her like right away and becomes her silent guardian, protecting her from harm. Why? Not really sure.

Then a whole bunch of events happen, nothing at all like the events in Sleeping Beauty, and everyone lives happily ever after.

We have the three fairies again, but they have different names now, for some reason. They are now Thistletwit (Juno Temple), Knotgrass (Imelda Staunton), and Flittle (Lesley Manville). We also have Sam Riley as the raven boy thing and Brenton Thwaites as Prince Phillip.

Oooh, there is the Maleficent we know. Even if it is for just a short while.

Here is one difference between Wicked and Maleficent. Wicked, more or less, took the aspects of the original story, kept them all basically the same, and added in a lot of new material and made it great. Maleficent had one aspect of the original story the same (the baby girl scene), then changed everything else about Sleeping Beauty and called it a day.

If it was a “misunderstood villain” story and they actually did it in the context of the original story? Great. If they decide that she is misunderstood because someone told the story wrong? Boring and pathetic almost.

“But movie reviewer! You don’t take the source into context!” Well, that is true. Unless they bring the source material into context for me. Thankfully this movie includes in the actual film one of my least favorite things of the last few years, telling me the story I heard was wrong and this is the real way. Or that I don’t know the truth. It is one of the worst things to hear, and it just keeps happening.

Maleficent had some cool special effects. Her awesome magic powers were vague with what she could actually do. Sometimes really awesome creation magic and spells? Cool! Destruction? Yeah! But that was like, only once, all used for the trailer. Her magic became something that could do basically anything for her, unless it would have made the plot lame. The movie isn’t really dark like the trailer suggests. The middle chunk of the movie is just Maleficent standing around, peering behind bushes while the theater sleeps.

There is a lot wrong with this film, in my eyes. They took a beloved villain and made her a metaphorical rape victim. They made her really powerful, with out displaying any of this power. They made her wear a catwoman like jump suit at one point.

I think that last line really makes my points clear.

1 out of 4.

Somewhere is a film about a man and his daughter. A famous man, and his daughter, in Italy.

Fuck, I already explained the whole plot.

Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff) is a Hollywood actor, staying in Italy for a week or so. Among the random interviews and movie spots he has to do, there is at least one awards ceremony where he is going to win something too. He meets lots of beautiful women for the sexy time, and even sometimes hires twin pole dancers that occasionally put him to sleep. So he is pretty successful.

DEPENDING ON YOUR DEFINITION OF SUCCESSFUL.

More like meaningless. One of these days, he finds his daughter, Cleo (Elle Fanning), waiting for him outside of his hotel room. Whoops. That is unexpected. His ex wife sent her to him, and he wasn’t planning on it. No big deal, he does love his daughter and they spend lots of time together before she goes off to camp.

During their time together, he relies less and less on random women, and realizes his relationship with his daughter is pretty important. Thus, changing his life for the better. Then she goes on to summer camp. Then he leaves Italy.

But I agree with him. Their performance was pretty sleep inducing.

Did I accidentally explain the whole movie? My bad.

But trust me, if there is any way to enjoy the film, it is in the subtle transformation of Dorff. I mean super subtle. It isn’t like you see him go from snorting coke in the clubs to helping his daughter with homework. (Repetition) The transformation is a lot more subtle than that.

I recognize the effort, think Dorff did a good job, and still hate this movie. It was definitely not made for me, and I had to try incredibly hard to keep watching the whole thing. I heard a complaint before that “nothing happens” in the movie, which is now pretty much true. It is going for super realistic here. Just a guy in his life for a week or two.

The first words aren’t spoken in this film until 9 or 10 minutes in. Lots of silence, lots of realism. And I found it all to be incredibly dull.

I have now seen 5 of the last 7 movies that Dorff has been in, and I haven’t liked any of them. Yet interestingly enough, it is never his problem. Normally I would probably consider that a turn off from his movies, but eh, that is why there are the other two I haven’t seen yet.

0 out of 4.

Ready for a vague ass movie review? Because you are about to get one.

Why? Because The Nines is weird. Super weird. And weird stuff happens early on that I didn’t see coming and I think it is essential to the story to not know about it ahead of time.

Literally clicking on the imdb link and looking at the cast list may be enough to make you go “Wait, what?” and give some spoilers away.

So let’s see what the hell I come up with!

EVEN THIS IS A SPOILER. Wait. No. Just a mouse trap.

The movie begins with Gary (Ryan Reynolds) being a pretty troubled dude. He is an actor, and just got into an accident. Maybe some naracotics were involved. He also had burned down his house. So now he is in another house, and under house arrest. He hears noises and thinks the house is haunted so he tries to run away, but the cops find him and put an ankle bracelet on. Not before a strange encounter with a deaf girl (Elle Fanning).

Shit! Not only that, but his publisher Margaret (Melissa McCarthy) now is moving into the mansion with him, to keep a watch and keep him from going insane. She didn’t know that there was also a neighbor Sarah (Hope Davis), who he has been talking to who is also under “house arrest” because of her baby.

But once they do meet, you can tell they don’t like each other (it isn’t subtle. They argue), and are arguing about the truth and Gary finding out. Finding out what? Why 9s keep popping up and notes about “The Nines” that he doesn’t understand? And what WILL happen when he leaves the premises of his house again?

Cue crazy shit.

For all you know, this might be in the movie, and not just a random cute koala.

Uhh. So it was a weird movie, and the plot summary I gave was only the first third. It is broken up into three parts, all pretty different from each other, yet weirdly connected. IMDB has the summary as

A troubled actor, a television show runner, and an acclaimed videogame designer find their lives intertwining in mysterious and unsettling ways.

Which is true! But also still a bit misleading. It definitely goes into a psychological/potentially spiritual direction that I didn’t see coming. And earlier on, when a chant of “Nine!” happened, it actually scared me and I was worried I was about to watch some screwed up Horror movie. Thankfully, it wasn’t really as scary after that, just weird.

While I like that it leaves it for some sort of interpretation and deeper meaning, I still think it could have been a lot better. I don’t think any of the main three cast members put on a great performance, all of it mostly just ehh. Thankfully the mystery kept me interested. I am not mad at what the ending turned out to be, but overall, I think they could have one a lot better on the story.

2 out of 4.

I love this title, We Bought A Zoo. It probably got a lot of slack from it, but I think it is great. After all, now I know what the whole movie is about. Bad for people who want to be surprised, since its hard to not know the title. But it is also based off of a true story (Kind of), so that gives it more appeal too.

Everyone knows when you need to jump start a career, you do a family film and work with animals (that hopefully don’t talk).

Matt Damon plays an adventurer and writer. He goes around the world, tries new things, and interviews great people. Seems pretty silly. Brings home money, but his wife handles most of it. But then she dies. Unexpectedly. Leaving him to figure out what to do with his two kids (Colin Ford and Maggie Elizabeth Jones). But his son has now been expelled from school and they need a change so they look for a new house.

They find a great house! But it comes with a stipulation…they have to take the zoo that used to be there too and work on its upkeep. It is currently owned by the state, and if nothing happens soon, they will be shipped away and some put down. Due to his daughters peer pressure and his ability to just do stupid things without worrying about the consequences, he signs the dotted line, despite his brothers (Thomas Haden Church, an accountant) desires not to.

Their goal is to get the place back up to par before July, to earn most of the profits during the summer, their best months. Lot of work and money must go into it though to pass the inspection. Scarlett Johansson plays the head zookeeper, and now lives with her mom after a quick divorce (whats that, two single leads?). Her niece is homeschooled and works at the shop (Elle Fanning), and the head animal handler is Angus Macfadyen, a very angry man indeed.

BFFS. Also does Matt Damon look fake in this picture?

I love easy plots. Family buys a zoo after mom dies. Work to make zoo a better place for the community. Succeed? Of course. People don’t make true stories based off of failures.

The title is uttered mostly from the daughter, overall probably about six times. I think the real story didn’t have the guys wife die until years after they bought the zoo (a process that also took years). But that makes this story more complicated if it lasts years and has the wife constantly around. The ending I thought was really sweet, and thanks to that tear jerking music, well, you know.

The movie is kind of like a very family friendly modern version of Field Of Dreams, but not really.

While I thought it was a decent film, I wouldn’t describe any of it to be top notch acting. It was very predictable, but still acceptably heart warming. Honestly they made such a big deal out of how far away it was from “civilization” I thought there was no way they’d have any guests after the first week. The real one I am sure still exists, but I feel like the movie one was probably set up to fail. But no worries, if it fails Scarlett Johansson’s character can come move in with me.

2 out of 4.