Reviews

This movie has all the makings of a pretty typical family affair. It draws a bit on the "Modern Medevial" setting that Shrek created (there are malls and teen magazines and such) But the only thing that saved this movie from being totally cheesy and predictable is the cast lead by the Impossibly charming Anne Hathaway.

Mandy Moore, Hilary Duff and Lindsey Lohan's boobs may rule the young actress scene, but I'd be hard pressed to think of a young actress with more potential than Anne Hathaway. She hasn't been in anything great yet (only other major roles are in the short lived fox series "Get Real" and Disney's "Princess Diaries') but at the same time she's pretty much made everything she's been in worth watching. She's a pitch perfect Ella, and there's a certain warmness about her that make you care about her characters.

Prince Char (not short for charming, surprisingly) could have probably been played by any young actor, but the casting crew did good with adorable British actor Hugh Dancy. Hugh, who unfortunately had nothing to do in his other 2004 release, King Arthur, shines as the apathetic prince who grows a bit of a heart. Since this is a fairy-tale, you know there's love, and Anne and Hugh have fantastic on-screen chemistry.

The supporting cast is great, though I wish they gave Ella's friend (played by Parminder Nagra) a bigger part. The special effects aren't the best, but the films going more for fantasy than reality, so the effects work fine. With it's lightheartedness and strong female lead, this is a good movie to watch with any young girl.

Jerry Bruckheimer's yearly contribution to the annual `Low on Plot High on Style' Movie Fair that is the Summer Blockbuster Season is `Kind Arthur,' whose tag line is `The Untold true story that inspired the legend.' I guess when a movie claims to be telling the `true story' of a man that historians can't even agree ever existed, I get suspicious. And when this movie that claims to be telling the `true story' features current `it-girl' Keira Knightly wearing a belt for a top (and a cinched up belt at that), I determine that this movie is based on about as much fact as a grocery store tabloid. And I'm talking about those `Woman marries Werewolf and has a Bat Boy' tabloids too.

The `true story' claim is really just code for `no magic, no singing, just lots of dirty guys.' Arthur (Clive Owen), a general for the rapidly declining Roman Empire, and a group of knights protect one of the farthest and most vulnerable Roman posts. At the end of their tenure, a snarky Roman Bishop sends Arthur and the handful of remaining Knights on one last suicidal mission to retrieve a Roman family living living in hostile territory on the brink of being invaded by the Saxons (why they're living so far into non-Roman territory is a mystery to all). At the Roman estate, Arthur is determined to saved a few dozen villagers from the Saxons in addition to the Roman Family (he also rescues Guinevere who was in a dungeon being punished for her pagan ways). Arthur, though he had a Briton mother, considers himself a Roman above all and is eager to return to Rome. But, after learning his beloved Rome is on the brink of being sacked and Guinevere uses a little gentle persuasion, Arthur begins to care about the Britons he once fought.

Question: What would the story of Arthur be like without the Sword in the Stone or the Lady in the Lake? If Merlin was a rebel Briton leader rather than a wizard and Arthur's mentor? If Lancelot and Guinevere weren't lovers, and if Arthur's illegitimate child Mordred never came to crash the party? Answer: A big, gloomy movie that often feels like little more than a wannabe "Gladiator" and "Braveheart." "King Arthur" is one of those frustrating movies that had the potential to be good, but thanks to some missteps and mistakes only ranks as average. Some of the missteps are small, for example, Guinevere's little war outfit that just makes me giggle, or how her fingers were mangled in the dungeon she was kept in but Arthur resets them and by the next day she's shooting an arrow with deadly accuracy. "I see your hand is better," Lancelot quips. Glad to see someone in the movie itself found it ridiculous too.

My biggest grip with the movie is the way they handled Lancelot, well, I should really complain about all the knights since they were all cardboard cutouts at best. I figured since they went to trouble of starting the movie with a clip of Lancelot as a child that he would be a larger factor in the movie. But as an adult (played by Ioan Gruffudd, who I'd cheat on Arthur with any day) his role is relegated to some one-liners and a couple bitch-sessions with Arthur about how to much he doesn't want to do whatever. In what is probably the worst move in the movie, the love triangle between Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot is completely absent. Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship consists of Lancelot staring at her a lot, and it's hard to tell if he wants her, or if he's angry at her for taking Arthur affection. Now it's not because I was eager to see some Ioan/Keira make-out sessions, it's just Guinevere's betrayal has always been a core part of the Arthur legend, how when things seemed so perfect, Arthur's wife and best friend betray him and ultimately bring down Camelot.

With it already falling to 6th place at the box office in it's second week of release, King Arthur will likely go down as the big flop of the Summer of 2004. It's sometimes hard to figure out why some movies flop while other similar movies (Troy and Van Helsing, neither a box office smash but at least reached the $100 million level that King Arthur will never reach) enjoy moderate, and even great, success. "King Arthur's" problem is that the makers were so eager to demystify the legend that they stripped away all of the elements that made it a legend. All that's left are some uninspired battle scenes, a few mundane speeches about being born free, and footage of Keira in that outfit that talk-shows hosts will probably tease her about for the rest of her career.

I really love the Harry Potter books (can't convert my friends, but that's alright) and have read all 5 of them, and the 3rd is far and away my favorite. I mean, they're all great, but for me the third just falls together so perfectly, it felt a little like a reward for reading the first two books. And now I feel the same way about "Prisoner of Azkaban," it's like a reward for sitting through the first two movies.

Don't get me wrong, Chris Columbus did a fantastic job with the first two. Much like Harry himself, I watched in awe as he wandered around Hogwarts, every little detail was perfect. But while I really liked it, my friend who hadn't read the book fell asleep. Same with the second, I stared in awe, my friend kept asking when it was over.

I was more than skeptical that the director of the sex-romp, Y Tu Mama Tambien, was directing my beloved Harry, but now I kind of wish he would direct them from here on out. Harry was finally able to break out of the idealized little boy, worshipped by 10 year old around the world, who kind of beat the bad guys out of dumb luck in the first two movies and became more real. He's hotheaded sometimes, but also very insecure about who he is and where he came from, and really faces his fears.

This movie is only 10 minutes shorter than the first, and 20 shorted than the second, but it felt like it was 45 minutes shorter. The pace really picked up (by getting rid of some of the pomp and circumstance the first two sometimes focused on) the tone is darker, and even though I knew what happened I was still very excited. And my friend (same friend) only asked if it was almost over once, and there was only 10 minutes left.

As much as I liked the first two movies, it's nice to see a Harry Potter movie get over itself and not play like the longest kids ad ever. ***1/2 out of ****

I just caught this film on cable, and had rented it once before. What can I say, it's good, solid entertainment, one of those flick you won't mind sitting through on TNT.

It's too bad it didn't do better Box Office-wise than it did, probably due to it's January release (where movies not big enough for summer and not good enough for December go to die) and the lack of any superstar names. But I really liked this movie, it has a little of everything. James Caveizal is great as the wronged Edmund Dantes-revenge seeking Count of Monte Cristo, as is Guy Pearce (very underrated actor) as Mondego. The result is a very stylized swashbucking adventure that just fun to watch.

I'm not going to say I went to this movie with any expectations, I'm not that foolish. I knew it was for 13 year old girls, and if I had to write down what the major plot points would be before I actually saw the movie, I think I would have had a pretty accurate list.

What drove me to the theater was Mandy Moore, She gave a surprising good performance in "A Walk to Remember", and you have to admire a pop princess who chooses to dye her hair brown.

Unfortunately, and I think this is more writing than Mandy's acting, her character Anna Foster is not very likable at all. She's going through the typical Disney princess "I want to see how the other side lives" phase, but her rebellion strangely includes wanting to drink as much as possible, making out with strange boys, and the need to go to the "Love Festival." A tad risque for the target audience if you ask me.

Anna's love interest, Ben (Matthew Goode) is a little more likable, and though his character succumbs to bad lines, Matthew's crooked smile and overall charisma shines through, and I hope to see him in more (and better) films.

Jeremy Piven and Annabella Sciorra play Anna's bodyguards who have to chase Anna around Europe, and oddly enough, their scenes and interactions with each other are way more entertaining and interesting than what's going on with Anna and Ben.

The highlight of the movie is the Beautiful locations of Prague, Venice, and Germany. If I got nothing else from the movie, it was probably a deepened desire to travel around Europe.

A number of people have made the obvious comparison between this movie and Roman Holiday (which is an excellent film, and one of my favorites), and I'm going to go a step farther and say this flick was like a combo of two Disney TV Movies from 1998, "My Date with the Presidents Daughter" and "Sabrina (the teenage witch) goes to Rome." One had the beautiful European scenery, and the other had, well, the Presidents daughter rebelling while dragging along a guy. The thing that makes these two movies superior to Chasing Liberty is that they were free.

I'm sure in the upcoming weeks dozens of people are going to write reviews for this movie and the first thing they will say is "Typical romantic comedy, cheesy lines, an ending you can see coming from a mile away." I hate to break it to these people, but Romantic comedies are pretty much all the same. There are exceptions, some have more cheesy lines than others, and some have a more surprising ending than others, but they're pretty much the same. If you go into a romantic comedy expecting anything more than light hearted fun, you're going to be disappointed.(Especially with a title like Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! Come on now)

With that rant out of the way, I will say that this is a typical romantic comedy, plenty of cheesy lines (though the dialog is wittier than most rom-coms), and you will probably have the ending figured out a half hour into the movie. What makes it stand out from the countless other predictable romantic comedies that have been made is the Charming Cast. Kate Bosworth's Rosalee is a sweet, down home, eternal optimist, and you can't help but love her when she smiles. Topher Grace's Pete doesn't really stray far from his Eric Foreman character on That 70's Show, but hell, I love this kid so much, he's so adorable. Josh Duhamel (who will always be Leo to me) is great as the cocky movie-star who suddenly grows a heart. These three actors have such great interaction on screen and really make this movie worth watching. Good, light-hearted fun, and fresh enough that you won't be gagging by the end.

Say what you will about Smallville, that the characters are 2-dimensional, that the writings weak, that the lead actors have no talent, that the episodes are formulaic, I don't care, I still love this show.

Why? I'm not sure what it is, probably cause I'm a simple girl and I like getting lost in Tom Wellings big green eyes. But I just like the premise of this show. It's fun to see Clark dealing with the normal teenaged issues like rebelling against his parents, dealing with girls, and, of course, saving the town when necessary. I find the dialog to be witty, even if it's cheesy at times, and I think all the characters are fun. I especially love Chloe, though her love life's as successful as mine, it seems.

The first season trend of "Who infected with kryptonite this week?" got a little old, but I think there was a lot more character growth for everyone in season two, and the episodes were better. I'm looking forward to season 3.

I'm not really a Bond person. The only Bond film I've seen in it's entirety was "The World is Not Enough" and man, that was enough to make me never want to see another Bond film. But the previews for "Die Another Day" were sucking me in, and that Madonna song has been stuck in my head for the past couple weeks.

So, I'd have to say if "World is Not Enough" turned me away from Bond films, "Die Another Day" might bring me back. It's a typical Bond film, hot babes, cool cars, villains that never kill Bond when they have the chance, but at the same time Bond gets a little dirtier, the Bond girl is a little smarter, and the movie's a little darker, a little grittier, and a little more exciting than many Bond film (I'm basing this off the bits and pieces I've seen of other Bond Films) So I'll recommend it.

Not to mention that after 40 years, Bond can still kick the @$$ of wannabe's like xXx. Take that Vin

I just got this movie on the special edition dvd, and what can I say, this is such a great movie. I love it more than I did when I 9 and I would play with my Belle doll and run around the house singing the songs. The animation is gorgeous, you could never guess this movie came out 11 years ago, the songs, the story, the characters, it's just so great.

I just have to say that I saw XXX last week, and this movie is so much better than that I can't even believe it. I don't really care if all the users here call "The Bourne Identity" cliched and it's been done before (it is a also book and a tv miniseries, people) I have to say that this movie ties Spiderman for my favorite movie of the summer. It's just a good movie, action packed, thrilling, with a little romance, and lots of Matt Damon kicking butt, I couldn't really ask for anything more.

Let's face it, surf movies don't exactly make for Oscar-worthy drama, so I for one went to the theater expecting lots of surfing and lots of beach-bum-babes. The good news is this movie is much more than a 2-hour episode of Baywatch.

Yeah, there's plenty of hot chicks, but they aren't on a Sport Illustrated Swimsuit photoshoot here, they're serious surfers. The lead character, Anne-Marie, has some serious issues to deal with. In addition to overcoming the trama of nearly drowning in a surfing competition, she working for minimum-wage as a maid for a fancy Oahu hotel, and struggling to take care of her rebelious little sister and pay the bills. (It's kind of funny how this movie paralells Lilo and Stitch).

But who cares about the back story? This movie's about surfing, and surfing you will get. The camera work is great, you can almost feel the 20 foot waves crashing down on you. Don't listen to the people who say wait for the video, because your tv isn't going to portray the intensity and mass of the waves. If you're even somewhat interested in seeing it, you have to see it in the theater.

So while the non-surfing portions are pretty cliche and forgettable, the surfing is awesome, so at least see a matinee.

I knew deep down that this was going to be typical big-bang-little-plot-hot-babes-impossible-stunts kind of movies. But I still wanted to see this movie. Fast and the Furious was surprisingly entertaining, so I thought the combo of Vin Diesel and Rob Cohen would produce similar results. And XXX is surprisingly entertaining, only because it's unintentionally hysterical.

The action is very similar to any John Woo movie. But while the over the top action in Woo movies is still very cool, the over the top action in XXX is just over the top. Vin Diesels first stunt is pretty cool, but after that, its just beyond believable, and you find yourself laughing at the ridiculous stunts.

There's also all these unnecessary aspect of the movie, I don't want to give anything away, but stuff happens and you think "okay, that serves no purpose" You can see the plot twists coming a mile away, and the whole thing is just poorly executed.

If you want to see a decent spy movie, go see the Bourne Identity. But if you want a good laugh, XXX is good for it.

I would consider myself a hopeless romantic of sorts, but I'm not much for "romantic comedies." Don't get me wrong; I like them as much as the next chick, but they are often clichéd, predictable, forgettable.

Then there's Amelie, a movie that's as charming as the lead character herself. I think there's a little Amelie in all of us, she's quiet, quirky, painfully shy, and thinks of everyone else's happiness before her own.

Romantic Comedies are plagued with predictability, but Amelie is quirky enough that you don't know what she's going to do next. You just want to watch.

In a time where it seems movies are only get more bizarre, more violent, and more sexual, Amelie provides a breathe of fresh air. It's like a little Parisian Cafe; quaint, understated, colorful, charming, and leaves you with a warm, satisfied feeling.

***1/2 out of ****

Yes, I am a comic geek. I go to my local comic shop every week and buy anywhere from one to 5 comics (My absolute favorite being Ultimate Spiderman, which you guys should check out whether you liked the movie or not). I know that the genre of comic book movies is a risky genre. For every successful comic movie there are many more failed movies, unreadable scripts, and mindless sequels.

When I saw the first Spiderman trailer (The WTC web thing) I was very worried that Spiderman was going down the road of the last Batman movie. Tobey Maguire as Spiderman? I saw more trailers, started to become more interested, and soon I was dying to see this movie. It's definitely worse to really want to see a movie than to not be that interested in it, cause then you'll be set up for disappointment (Pearl Harbor, Final Fantasy and Lord of the Rings comes to mind for me).

So I go and see it, and I was shocked. Yeah, some dialogue is super cheesy, and yes, the CGI isn't that great. But this movie is what so many other puffed up so-called "Summer Blockbusters" aren't; it's fun. Tobey turned out to be the perfect Peter Parker, and the rest of the cast was right on. For me it was like stepping right into a comic book. It's colorful, larger than life, pure fun. My non-comic type friends loved it too. And considering how it is doing so much better than anyone could of dreamed off, I would love to see it beat Star Wars this summer. Probably won't, but then again anything is possible.

9/10, a giant step forward in the comic book movie genre.

I thought this movie was very sweet, it does have some of the cliches of a teen movie, but at the same time it had a much deeper and more powerful story than most teen movies. Some of you are saying that it's a typical "pretty ugly girl" movie, where the popular guy takes on the mousey girl with glasses, big clothes and a bad haircut and underneath she a babe. And yeah, it's clear that Mandy Moore is no "ugly girl", but it's not like she changed her clothes and cut her hair, she was still the same person at the end as she was at the beginning. Can you name any other "pretty-ugly" girls who didn't change their entire being by the end of the movie?

And I would also like to inform everyone that being pretty doesn't make you automaticly popular in highschool. I knew plenty of girls that were a pretty as any of the "popular" girls and their Friday's night were always free. And many of the "popular" girls are popular because they play a lot of sports, wear trendy clothes, have nice houses to party at, and it didn't hurt to be a little bold with boys. They weren't necessarily popular because they were nice or pretty.

Anyway, I'm done preaching. I liked this movie pretty well. I think Mandy Moore's a decent actress and may have a promising career when she done teen bopping (I think she one of the better teen queens and she's not a ho, unlike a certain singer whose upcoming movie was previewed at this one, and after the 30 seconds I feel like I saw the whole thing)Shane West was also really good, and real cute too. It's no masterpiece, but it's sweet and a good debut for Mandy.

Well, I thought that Shrek was going to run away with the best animated movie title for 2001, but those magical computers over at Pixar has delivered another great movie. It has the fun fantasy aspect of Shrek without sacrificing it's originality for a barrage of pop-culture references or it's good family values for gross and crude jokes.

Monsters Inc creates a whole new world that somewhat parallels out own world, only the inhabitants are a variety of monsters, most of which work at Monsters Inc., a factory that collects screams, the source of power for Monsterland (or whatever it's called). The greatest scarer is Sully, a fairly cuddly furry blue monster, who rooms with his little round green friend, Mike Wakowski. But the world is turned upside down when a little 3-year-old, Boo, invades monster land.

Everything is so imaginative in this movie. Even with just an eye, an eyebrow and a mouth, Mike's character is so expressive and fun. His girlfriend, Celia, who has medusa hair has snakes that share the same emotion as Celia. But as great as the character design is, it's the heart of the characters like Sully, Mike and Boo that make this movie such a great family flick. Best of all, both kids and adults can enjoy it. Kids will love the colorful characters and the action scenes, adults with love the references and the creative aspects of this movie.

A 9 out of 10

Don't ask me how I ended up seeing this movie, but at the end I actually didn't feel like I had totally wasted my six dollars. Reese Witherspoon is actually pretty damn funny, and though the plot is totally hoaky, you do find yourself laughing.

Now that the summer season's over, I can look back and say that Summer 2001 was full of High Hopes and Short Comings. Nearly every movie fell short of expectations, and Tomb Raider was no exception.

I can't blame them for trying to put out a Tomb Raider movie, video game movies are, I think, the most difficult adaption to pull off. The handful of video game movies that have been made gained a cult following at best and may show late at night on cable TV, but other than that haven't done too well. 2001's other video game movie, Final Fantasy, fell wildly short of expectations despite the great reputation of the Final Fantasy Games. In that respect, Tombraider may be the best video game movie ever at this point, but it still falls short of being a good movie.

Like so many summer flicks, Tomb Raider is all eye-candy, but no substance. It had a wide variety of locals, good special effects, and Angelina Jolie as a pitch perfect Lara Croft. But the story's too simple, the supporting characters are too cardboard, and you feel you might as well have spent your two hours playing the game.

If you like Angelina, you'll at least be able to watch this film, otherwise, wait till it's on TNT after Street Fighter or something.

I can't quite explain what attracts me to X-Men but when I was 13 I became an X-Freak. I watched the cartoon religiously, I read the comics when i could find them, and even now I still like to catch an episode if X-men evolution. Naturally, I went to see X-Men the day it came out, and I love it so much.

Comics are touch to adapt to the big screen, especially comics with 30 years of history and a cast that make the cast of a soap opera look like a small ensemble. Not every X-fan got to see all their favorite mutants on the big screen (I still pray Gambit at least gets a cameo in the sequel) but they did do a good job of narrowing the cast down so that everyone had a good portion of screen time.

The casting was great, all the actors portrayed their characters perfectly: The goody two-shoes Cyclops, the brilliant Jean Grey, the alienated Rogue. The most perfect casting of all is Hugh Jackman as resident bad-ass Wolverine. Considering he wasn't the first choice and got the part out of pure luck, Hugh turns out to be the best character of all, not to mention extremely yummy.

This movie is great for X-Men Fans, but for non-fans as well. You don't know a thing about X-Men to enjoy this movie, which is the best kind of adaption, the kind that pleases both fans and newcomers. Great Flick!

There's a certain kind of average in movie making, if you take an A cast and put it with a C script, you'll at least average out to a B. This is what Life as a House depends on, having it's great cast pull up it's mediocre script.

If your looking for a life-changing movie, you probably won't find it here. A dying man wants to build a house with his alienated son. The story's pretty thin for the type of movie it's trying to be. Some issues aren't explained enough, while other issues are just thrown out there but never developed. This movie is trying to be American Beauty, and while I'm not the biggest American Beauty fan, I will say in it's defense that it's at least consistently at addressing it's taboo themes in it's strange almost surreal way. Life as a House has it's share of taboo issues, but they are solved much too easily or never really addressed at all.

The only thing that saves this movie is it's cast, who all rise above their dull material. Kevin Kline is a great dramatic actor, and you will feel for him. Hayden Christenson is very good at portraying the troubled teen Sam, and I am defiantly looking forward to seeing him in Star Wars next summer. The supporting cast is very good also.

See it if you're looking for 2 1/2 hours to kill.

I don't know what makes a Knight's Tale good, because there are so many things about it that shouldn't work, but do. It's predictable, it's has 70's rock songs from "We Will Rock You" to "Low Rider", it has strangely modern clothes (think Richard Gere or Julia Ormond in "First Knight.") and at times an unrealistic story. But if you let the modern elements slide and keep an open mind, a Knight's Tale is surprisingly entertaining, I think Peter Travers of Rolling Stone said it best when he said "It's big dumb fun."

Yeah, all those heartfelt Disney flicks are great, where it's the "be yourself" or the "beauty lies within" message, Disney always seems to have that important message for the kids. And yeah, if you dig enough you can find a good message in the Emperor New Groove. But I don't like Emperors New Groove for it's message or breathtaking animation, I like it because it's one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. It's one of those movies you will constantly quote to your friends, and find yourself saying "Bad Llama" and "No touchie."

Everything about the movie is so funny, David Spade's Kuzco, Eartha Kitt's Ezma and more histerical of all, Patrick Warburton's Kronk (he is so funny, Puddy had to be the most underrated character on Seinfeld). The timing is great, and everything is just so funny. This is the best carefree clean humor movie I can think of.

I read the 1st Harry Potter book early this year, and like millions of other was enchanted by the tales of this young boy. When I saw the preview to the movie I thought to myself "this could be great, as long as they stay true to the book and have good casting."

Well, my criteria was filled beyond expectation. Often books are changed to be made more exciting, more screen ready. They realized that save very few things, the book was very adaptable to the big screen already, and didn't need to change the story. And not only did Columbus stay true to the book, he went above and beyond in portraying everything as close to Rowling's vision as possible.

The casting is perfect, from Harry to Hagrid to Nearly Headless Nick. All the teachers are cast to a tee, as are Harry and his partners in crime, Hermione and Ron. Emma Watson, Rupert Grit and Danial Radcliffe do a perfect job portraying the Overacheiving Hermione, the carefree Ron and the quiet but determined Harry respectivly.

The perfect cast also gets to parade around in the perfectly realized world of Hogwarts. The attention to detail is something I haven't seen since Titanic. Even when no attention is being paid to the portraits in the background, the people in them are still moving. Most amazing of all to me is the realization of the Quidditch match in a dizzying sequence. Though explained very well, it is still hard to imagine the matchs when reading the books, but the match in the movie is fast and exciting.

I am giving this movie a 9, and the only reason I'm not giving it a 10 is because while I enjoyed it very much, my friend who hadn't read the book seemed a bit bored during some parts, and I can see where she would be bored while people who have read it would be captivated. I am looking forward to the sequal, because I think they will be able to put less emphasis on all the different places and effect and more on the story and characters.

But it's a wonderful movie, with great casting, great effects and a true to the book story, what more could we ask for?

CGI movies are becoming more popular (I just saw Monsters Inc, and there were previews for 2 or 3 upcoming CGI films) and this year (2001)alone there have been 3 major CGI movies. But while everyone has fallen under the Shrek bug, I believe Toy Story 2 (which I saw for the first time after I saw Shrek) is still the best CGI film to date. While I did laugh at some of the barage of parodies in Shrek, and smiled a little even during the gross and even questionable scenes, Toy Story 2 is still leaps and bounds ahead in story, character development and just overall fun.

I love Toy Story, don't get me wrong, you have to give credit to the first full length CGI movie, but with Toy Story it was "Ok, let's make the first CGI film" with Toy Story 2 it's "Ok, let's make the greatest CGI film." One thing that I think Pixar is the best at when it comes to CGI is character emotions. You can see any still from a Pixar film and know immediatly what that character is feeling. Even toys with limited movement, such the dinosaur Rex or Mr. Potato head, have so much personality. Heck, I know what the Etch-e-Sketch is thinking. When Jessie tells her story, it the most emotional scenes I've seen in any CGI movie.

Toy Story 2 has it share of pop-culture references, most obvious is the paralellism between Woody's Round Up and the Howdy Doody Show, and the Star Wars spoof. But they blend into the story well. And some kids movies have a tendancy to have a gross factor to get laughs, but Toy Story 2 is funny without being gross.

I like other CGI films like Shrek, Final Fantasy, Dinosaur, but what really makes this films is how much personality every character has. They're toys, and not even that, just animated toys, but you will be surprised how much to feel for them.