Animated Feature Length Films – Mr. Khan's Reviews

A review on Hollywood live action animated film, Tom & Jerry (2021). The film is based on the popular MGM studios cartoon characters ‘Tom & Jerry’, created by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera. The live action animated film is directed by Tim Story and stars Chloë Grace Moretz in the lead role. The film is distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures and is released on HBO Max streaming service.

+ Crew I

Directed by Tim Story
Cinematography by Alan Stewart
Screenplay by Kevin Costello
Edited by Peter S. Elliot
Music by Christopher Lennertz
Produced by Chris DeFaria

+ Crew II (Production Houses)

Warner Animation Group
The Story Company
Turner Entertainment Co.

+ Note

Tom & Jerry are an extremely popular cartoon duo where the premise most likely revolves around the cat (Tom) chasing the mouse (Jerry) with lots of slapstick comedy in between. The characters were first conceived and presented as an MGM animated short “Puss gets the Boot” in 1940. Since then, they rapidly became pop cultural icons and are beloved by children and adults alike. In 1993, the cat and mouse duo made their silver screen debut with their feature length animated film Tom & Jerry: The Movie. The film was an unfortunate financial and critical failure, earning only $57.2 million at the box office from their $79 million budget.

A live action version of Tom & Jerry was announced back in 2009 and the film was supposed to incorporate animated Tom & Jerry cells within a live action setting of New York City. The film was shot around 2019 and was released in February 2021 on HBO Max streaming service.

+ Main Cast

Chloë Grace Moretz as Kayla
Michael Peña as Terence
Colin Jost as Ben
Rob Delaney as Mr Dubros
Ken Jeong as Chef Jackie

+ Plot

Kayla (Chloë Grace Moretz) lands a job in a fancy Hotel in the Big Apple and is made in charge of leading a massive Indian wedding of a celebrity couple. But there seems to be a problem; a mouse problem by the name of Jerry. In order for the wedding plans to go smooth, Kayla hires a cat by the name of Tom in order to take care of the ‘mouse in the house’ situation. Will Kayla be able to lead the wedding and in the process, bring peace and friendship between the two arch rivals Tom and Jerry?

+ High Points

i – If you grew up watching Tom & Jerry and have diligently watched most of their animated shorts, you will find a lot of things to appreciate about it. The film at times pays homage to classic Tom & Jerry moments, makes cameo appearances from the Bulldog Spike, the alleyway cats like Butch, Sound Effects directly taken from the classic shorts, such instances clearly show that the creative team loves and respects the source material.

ii – The animation cells of Tom & Jerry and their animated anitics are brilliantly realised. Although the animation is a 2D/3D hybrid, it still gives the feeling that you are watching the animated shorts from the 40s but with live action footage within it.

iii – Unlike the animated film from 1993, Tom & Jerry do not talk. And thank God for that! The classic Tom & Jerry was all visual gags and slapstick comedy and that’s all it needs to be.

iv – In this universe, all the animals solely exist as animated characters. That I feel, is a great way to explain how Tom and Jerry are among live action characters without going too much into needless exposition. Good on the movie for that.

+ Low Points

i – With Tom & Jerry, there has always been the vital question; how do you convert 5 min short animation skits into a feature length film? The first film tried and failed, would this live action film fare any better? The answer is an unfortunate No. In feature length narrative, Tom & Jerry does not work. They always end up becoming mere side characters in their own feature length film and the audience has to patiently wait for the uninteresting live action actors to pass by before we momentarily get back to the Cat and Mouse duo. If there is a way to make a successful Tom and Jerry feature length story I am not sure but for now, Tom & Jerry fails yet again to make a successful transition onto the silver screen.

ii – Speaking of boring live action characters, none of the non-animated characters make any lasting impression in the film. The dialogue delivery from every actor makes one feel that they are just part of this film to collect their pay check and move on with their careers. The minimal character arc that Kayla has seems incredibly forced and unearned by the end. Honestly, there is probably more depth to Tom & Jerry’s character than there is to the whole live action cast of the film.

iii – The catalyst to the premise makes no sense. For some odd reason, Tom is a musical street performer, pretending to be blind (..why?) so he can earn cash but then Jerry seizes that crowd to earn his own cash by dancing to Tom’s tune and in the process, garnering sympathy towards him. Um…what? How does anything have to do with the hotel later on? It is needlessly complicated. Why not just make the premise of Tom being the Hotel cat, who has Jerry as his new adversary? It’s simple and to the point. The charm of Tom & Jerry has always been in its simplistic premise.

iv – Although the animation itself looks good, it has not been integrated well into the live action footage. The actors have no clue where to look, or how to hold an animated animal in their arms which makes the production look cheap and unconvincing. There is a lack of details on animated characters whenever they are walking from light to shadow, they seem a bit ‘floaty’ at times whenever they are standing on a solid surface. The best example of integrating animation with live action is Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) a film which is more than 30 years old!

v – The premise of the film itself is uninteresting. Who cares about the hotel and how many great fancy rooms it has? Why should the audience care about this celebrity Indian wedding if the characters themselves are more 2 dimensional than their animated co-stars? The whole “ beloved animated characters in live action New York City” plot is old and tired and Tom & Jerry feels like a movie 12 years too late.

vi – The rap music, pop cultural references, Tom doing the floss dance (seriously, stop that please); it all makes the film so desperate for kids to like this film. Sure, it might be entertaining for children up till the age of 6 but I can’t imagine anyone enjoying this film beyond that age group.

vii – Too many unfunny scenes. One too many poop/ fart jokes. Because the film is desperate to make you laugh and fits nowhere into Tom & Jerry’s sense of humor from the cartoons.

viii – A cartoon which is famous for its inventive ways to present the same old premise of Cat and Mouse is now a tired old film, trying to rip off from the success of other lackluster kids films like The Smurfs. As a fan of Tom & Jerry, it makes me sad and depressed to even watch this film for the review.

+ Overall

Tom & Jerry (2021) is nothing more than a lifeless cash grab. It’s yet another lackluster take on the beloved duo who have made generations of kids and adults laugh. Please do not pay to watch this film. Watch it only when it’s free on cable and you would like something in the background to keep the kids occupied. Or better yet, someone will be kind enough to compile all the animated Tom & Jerry sequences from the film on Youtube. Watch that instead.

Rate: 1.5 out of 5 stars

A review on Animated feature length film, , Soul (2020). It is directed by Pete Docter (Monsters Inc. (2001), Up (2009), Inside Out (2015) ) and is produced by Pixar Animation Studios and Walt Disney Pictures. The film is also distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures and is a Disney Plus Original film.

+ Crew

Directed by Pete Docter
Cinematography by Matt Aspbury & Ian Megibben
Written by Pete Docter, Mike Jones & Kemp Powers
Music by Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross
Edited by Kevin Nolting
Produced by Dana Murray

+ Note

Soul is the fourth animated film directed by Peter Docter for Pixar Animation Studios. The theme of the film is very familiar territory for Docter as it once again deals with concepts of human personalities, determinism and of course, the human Soul. Since the main protagonist of the film is a Jazz musician, the music plays an important role throughout the movie. Soul was first premiered in October 2020 at London Film Festival and then was released in December 2020 as a ‘Disney Plus Original’ film, exclusive on their streaming service.

+ Main Cast

Jamie Foxx as Joe Gardner
Tina Fey as 22
Graham Norton as Moonwind
Rachel House as Terry
Alice Braga and Richard Ayoade as two of the soul counselors
Phylicia Rashad as Libba Gardner
Donnell Rawlings as Dez
Questlove as Lamont “Curley” Baker
Angela Bassett as Dorothea Williams

+ Plot

Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) gets by as a High school music teacher in the heart of New York City when suddenly, out of sheer luck, lands a huge gig at a local Jazz club. As Joe prepares for his big break, he accidently falls into a manhole and his Soul ends up in the ‘Great Beyond’. There, he meets another fellow soul named “22” (Tina Fey) who is in search of her special “spark” which will allow her to be born and start her life on Planet Earth.

Together, they must help each other and find a way to reach their goals and discover throughout their odyssey, what it means to have a Soul.

+ High Points

i – I guess this is always a ‘no-brainer’ compliment for Pixar films but the animation is absolutely gorgeous to look at. The beautiful lighting effects (especially scenes on Earth) brings out the warmth from the screen and onto your hearts.

ii – The character designs are brilliantly thought-out and executed. Although the facial features are exaggerated, they never feel too “cartoony” or stray away from reality too far.

iii – The designs of soul counselors are especially unique (kinda like Apple “Mac Finder”-esque) and creative. They lack details or a coherent body structure but play beautifully to the concept of beings who handle the abstract land of ‘Great Beyond’.

iv – The film is simply outstanding with the more “quieter” moments of the story where instead of dialogue; the music, animation and visuals consume the screen. Even though Pixar/ Disney is a big money making conglomerate, such scenes show that it still inherits that creative spark; the spark that made Pixar resonate so much with the audiences to begin with.

v – Joe Gardner is a sympathetic and lovable main protagonist with whom people from different parts of the world can relate to.

vi – Even though the subject matter deals with the afterlife, Soul never becomes religious or preachy but keeps a good balance with people all over the world with different faiths (or none for that matter).

vii – The voice acting is great from everyone involved. No celebrity voice felt forced or out of place with the overall theme of the film.

viii – Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross have done a fantastic job with the Soundtrack of the film. They had the daunting task to make the music a central part of the film and they delivered in spades. The “In the Zone” scenes were probably the biggest highlight of the movie.

+ Low Points

i – As a fan of Docter’s previous Pixar film Inside Out (2009), the biggest disappointment for me was the plot of the film itself. It was once again treading the same waters as before of determination, Persona, finding oneself. Did ‘Soul’ have anything new to say? Not really.

ii – Some of the comedy doesn’t work and unnecessarily drags the movie. Why did the cat have to give a haircut? Why the madcap subway chase? It seemed that the film was struggling with what it really wants to be; An honest, spiritual look at what makes human life special or an odd couple, hijinx comedy of errors?

iii – It is obvious that Pixar’s spark as a creative force in Animation has been massively subdued since pairing with Disney Animation Studios and unfortunately, it still shows. The overall structure of the film is nothing more than a list of checkmarks that need to be fulfilled in order to please the audience (and the company’s stockholders!). Challenge the audience’s intelligence a bit like WALL- E (2008), don’t hand them solutions to conflicts on a silver platter like any other regular animation studio.

iv – Speaking of conflicts, they just felt really unconvincing and seemed like they were only added as a necessity to have a conclusive, feel good resolution to the film. The Cat/ Human switch did not make much sense but hey, talking animals are always funny, right?

v – The last act of the film was forcefully wrapped into a neat little package and made no sense to the overall theme of the film. I’ve elaborated it a bit further…

NOTE: SPOILER ALERT! (Skip ahead to the “Overall” if you would like to avoid it)

The “Noble” sacrifice by Gardner never paid off and was immediately reversed in order to have a happy ending to the film. Why does he get his life back but no one else on the conveyor belt? Why tease this bold move if you don’t have the guts to go through with it? Children films have successfully dealt with issues like death before (The Lion King (1994), The Land Before Time (1988)) so it can be done. At times, it is necessary for kids to learn that not everything works out in Life the way you want it.

+ Overall

Soul does bring out the best in Pixar when it comes to animation, voice acting and music but unfortunately, it is quite lacklustre when compared to their other long list of great films. There are a couple of really great sequences and It’s still a fun time with the kids but don’t expect this experience to be a memorable one.

Rate: 3.25 out of 5 stars

Category: Animated Feature Length Films

Mr. Khan’s Review on Tom & Jerry (2021)

Mr. Khan’s Review on Soul (2020)