Holy Cats! This Broadway adaptation terrible!

Francesca Hayward and Robbie Fairchild in Cats. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

Reason and sanity are not things to be found in Cats. Rather, the loopy, unfortunately and mildly enchanting Broadway adaptation is all things and no things at once. Somehow, despite a brilliant lack of cohesion or basic plot logic, this film drew a bunch of famous folks – Idris Elba! Taylor Swift! Judi Dench! Jason Derulo! – to lend an air of respectability to the lunacy. Perhaps I'm missing something indelible about a show that ran for many, many years on Broadway. Or maybe the film adaptation is the fever dream of ego-driven idiots.

 

I think Cats is about a talent show in which the winner is reincarnated or something along those lines. Aside from the stars mentioned above are Jennifer Hudson, Ray Winstone, Ian McKellen, Rebel Wilson, and James Corden. Ballerina Francesca Hayward serves as the audience surrogate exploring what tries to be a mystical world of feline majesty. Everyone is dressed like a cat, they have weird cat names and do quasi cat things that are far sillier than ever intended. There are many songs tossed in because this is a musical, including a song Swift sings that is well outside her capabilities. Then everything ends on a rather banal shot meant to mean something important to director Tom Hooper and Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Cats is an audacious calamity, wrong on almost every front and on nearly every level. Sometimes the film is bizarre and accidentally enchanting, littered with impeccable scenery devouring by Elba, McKellen, and Wilson. It tries to hit so many tones and have so many layers it misses all of them, dashing through emotions at unimaginable speeds and with no control. Cats is madness with a $90 million budget and a director with no clue what to do with it, the perfect recipe for an expensive cluster best viewed on hallucinogens.

With two hours of screen time to fill though Cats can't keep the insanity rolling. It's in those moments where the film's legitimate incompetence comes to light, bringing the terrible fun to a frustrating halt. Like the CGI, which looks dreadful and incomplete, as if they gave up about three quarters of the way in. Hooper fails wildly staging the musical numbers, most notably in the two renditions of Memory. This is the showcase song, and the film has the very experienced Hudson on hand to sing it. This should be the easiest win for this film, but it ends up completely mucking the whole thing up. The emotions wrought from the song land with a thud, due to a mix of Hooper failing to establish the right tone, strange choreography choices in the second version, and general framing and editing flaws that fail to convey the song's melancholy. Hudson is game and tries her best, but it's hard to succeed when everything around you is en fuego as it is in Cats.

If any one thing kept this film going though, it was the audience at the screening I attended. I've never sat with an audience as splendidly sincere and sarcastic as the one who soldiered through Cats with me. Every little cat pun or dumb, awkward cat movement garnered a wicked groan or one of those “I cannot believe this is happening” laughs. Some folks applauded after a few of the musical numbers – Memory was not one of them – because somehow applause is the only acceptable way to appreciate insanity, even if no one behind it is around to hear it. It was a hoot to watch it with folks, a shared experience that will be difficult to replicate in the future. Too bad this five-star audience had to sit through a one-star film. 

Review: One out of Five Stars  

Click here to see the trailer. 

Rating: PG

Run time: 110 minutes

Genre: Musical 

tl;dr  

What Worked: Audience 

What Fell Short: Everything Else 

What To Watch Instead: Singing in the Rain, Umbrellas of Cherbourg

Stars' charisma carries Hobbs & Shaw

Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham in Hobbs & Shaw. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.

The beauty of Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw lies in the simplicity of its existence. This film’s reason for being resides solely in watching two of the biggest action stars in the world action their way through a series of explosions, because watching megastars banter and bicker is an American pastime. This is a pretty old recipe for success, defined around three decades ago but rarely repeated well in the ensuing decades. At the least, Hobbs & Shaw proves the recipe can still produce a fun, albeit very silly, movie.

Hobbs & Shaw stars Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham as Hobbs and Shaw, who are brought together to find a virus currently in the possession of Shaw’s long-lost sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). Hot on their trail is the committed Brixton (Idris Elba), a borderline cyborg who is part of an international cult dedicated to wiping out the weakest parts of the human race. Hobbs and Shaw must put away the differences carried over from two Fast and Furious movies to stop Brixton and once again save the world from nefarious forces.

Objectively speaking Hobbs & Shaw is not a particularly good film. The dialogue is dopey and hammy, existing as either lazy exposition or juvenile insults directed largely at levels of virility. The run time is overly long, filled to the brim and beyond with extraneous scenes and jokes that go far longer than they should. The story is bonkers and nonsense in the way that movies about technology with no understanding of how technology works are. It’s clear from the get-go this movie is a marketing ploy, especially in those awkward shots that highlight brand sponsors like McLaren. Hobbs & Shaw is fortunate to be a mediocre piece of filmmaking, just good enough to avoid the dustbin.

But, honestly, few if any of those problems matters for Hobbs & Shaw. A lot of the fun from this movie is a result of how gloriously dumb it is. All of the plot holes, silly dialogue, and the abundance of hyper-masculinity that stays just on the right side of toxic because of Hattie’s overarching competence are more selling points than flaws. Providing a proper critique for this movie is nearly impossible, because all of the things it does wrong are utterly immaterial to its sole purpose of watching Johnson and Statham bicker and punch their way around the world. And, well, there are far worse things to spend money on than watching the most charismatic action hero alive argue with a smooth talking Brit with a list of insults 40 meters long. Hobbs & Shaw sell Johnson and Statham, and the movie delivers exactly that with the added bonus of Elba as the villain and Kirby as a more than competent female protagonist.

Hobbs & Shaw is still a lot in both run time and action, often coming close to exhaustion because the loose plot while lacking the verve and energy of the best Furious films. Yet the insanity of it all carries it through, and director David Leitch escalates the explosions throughout to minimize the monotony. He uses as many excuses as possible to blow something up, because explosions are fun and interesting and allow Hobbs and Shaw repeated excuses to demolish the laws of physics. Leitch is also a capable action director, playing around with the fight sequences with Johnson and Statham are brutal and the booms are much larger than necessary.

Despite the super-modern tech, Hobbs & Shaw is a throwback to ’80s flicks like Lethal Weapon and Tango & Cash, buddy comedies where the action and the stars are more important than plot or logic. The film is an ode to a lost genre, a reminder that bankable stars can sell ridiculous stories based on star power alone. It’s a level of sincerity that’s missing with action movies, which often center so much on winks to the audience about the silliness of the expenditure the implausibility becomes a crutch instead of an asset. For movies like Hobbs & Shaw, the madness of impossibility is the attraction; the beauty and brilliance lies in the spectacle of Johnson and Statham driving through an exploding nuclear plant because it’s there to be exploded. Hobbs & Shaw isn’t art at its finest or most divine, but it’s still worth admiring for its bravado.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 135 minutes

Genre: Action

tl;dr

What Worked: Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby

What Fell Short: Plot, Dialogue, Logic

What To Watch As Well: Fast Five, Furious Seven

Ragnarok finds humor at the world's end

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) in Thor: Ragnarok. Image courtesy Disney.

Thor: Ragnarok is a weird movie. It's weird because it's a movie about Norse mythology that focuses more on technological marvels than the mythology inherent to its title. It's weird because of the dramatic tonal shift from the other Thor movies. And it's super weird because Jeff Goldblum shows up with shockingly blue facial hair and literally melts a man with a stick. Ragnarok is a trip, but it is one heck of a journey to a place more bizarre than other Marvel movies have ventured.

What's so hard to reconcile about Ragnarok is how lightly the movie takes the end of a world. Superhero movies are all about saving planets from destruction while making sure the people are safe and the damage is minimal. A few jokes are sprinkled in to ensure the story doesn't get too dark, but for the most part the superhero as savior concept is a foundation for a lion's share of comic book-related lore. Except for Ragnarok, in which the threat of the destruction of Asgard starts as a gag between Thor (Chris Hemsworth reprising his role) and a skeleton just above a pit of fire. It sets the rhythm for the rest of the movie, with the comedy taking a precedence over the gravity of the situation the characters face. Everyone cracks a few jokes, from the naturally talkative Loki (Tom Hiddleston), to the goddess of death/destroyer of world Hela (Cate Blanchett), to the otherwise stern Heimdall (Idris Elba), to the fallen Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson). Even the Hulk, the Incredible Hulk and not Bruce Banner (both of whom are versions of Mark Ruffalo) showcases something resembling a sense of humor.

And you know what? It's actually kind of glorious in its own way. The sense of humor is akin to what’s found in the rest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Ragnarok makes it unique by changing the context to make the jokes a greater joke itself. Ragnarok is a slightly different family tree as Dr. Strangelove, in which the biggest laugh is earned by the insanity of the movie mocking the inherent somber nature of earth's destruction. The story Ragnarok tells is just as dark as Dr. Strangelove, but with brighter colors and Disney's stamp of approval. That also means the Thor movie can't be as nihilistic as Dr. Strangelove is; it is still a blockbuster first and foremost. But director Taika Waititi and the screenwriters push Ragnarok further than the other Thor films to do what the best MCU movies have done; make a movie with their own imprint on it. There are, again, limits to how far creatively the filmmakers can get with the Marvel movies – an entire cinematic universe is at stake – but Waititi and company turned a Thor movie into a comedy. Like the excellent Captain America: The Winter Soldier and the very good to great Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Ragnarok stands on its own as a piece of cinema.

Still, there remains a bit lacking with Ragnarok that pushes it a step or two down from the aforementioned Marvel movies and puts it more on par with the fun Spider-Man: Homecoming and Iron Man 3. There is what should amount to a great story arc involving Thor and the uncovering of his father Odin's (Anthony Hopkins) past, something that should force the mighty god of thunder to confront his own background and the demons his father has wrought upon his people. It's a Shakespearean bit in line with the first Thor movie, with the evil Odin committed living far beyond the good he brought in. Ragnarok barely touches the surface of this story, having Thor just sort of go with the news that his father was a monster for a very long time. That could be marked as a sign of character growth, but Thor does drop a few tears for Odin early on, and the amount of time the movie spends reconciling Odin's history is disappointingly minimal.

But the baseline for a quality superhero movie – good action, likable characters, expansive world building – remains intact, and the goofy nature and general oddness of the situation only add to those key elements. To repurpose another classic literary line, Ragnarok opts to end the world not with a whimper but with a bang and a lot of laughs along the way toward doom.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 130 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: As with every Marvel film, everyone who has ever watched a movie from the MCU and wants to keep up with the ongoing story.

Take the whole family?: Really depends on how OK the parents are with a lot of violence but little blood to show for it. A couple years under the PG-13 mark should be fine.

Theater or Netflix?: It's fun for a trip to the theater, although the 3D isn't really worth it though.

How has 2017 been for the MCU?: Pretty great. Despite releasing three movies, two of which were a second and a third installment to long-running series, this is the first time in a while that Marvel fatigue hasn't hit that hard. It helps that the three movies released were good and different enough to offer some separation to the weary viewers. It also offers some hope for 2018, with the release of Ryan Coogler's Black Panther and the probably stupidly stuffed Avengers: Infinity War.

Watch this as well?: Along with the other MCU entries, comedian/author John Hodgman has a comedy special devoted to the impending Ragnarok, called John Hodgman: Ragnarok, that is quirky and hilarious, highlighted by his decision to send a kid out in the cold to wait for doom to come

Dark Tower falls apart

Idris Elba in The Dark Tower. Image courtesy Columbia Pictures.

The Dark Tower teases with hints of how great it could, or rather should, be. The Stephen King adaptation has several fascinating magical bits and a typically great, understated lead performance by Idris Elba as weary gunslinger Roland Deschain that it could very well serve as the start of a great fantasy series on par with the Lord of the Ring. But it doesn't come particularly close to reaching those heights, stuck with just those glimmers of quality in an otherwise dire screenplay that lifts elements from, of all movies, Super Mario Bros. courtesy a brain trust led by the inconsistent Akiva Goldsman. What viewers get is a mishmash of concepts and tones, with a story carried by the wrong character and few positives from an abbreviated movie.

At the heart of Dark Tower is a simple good versus evil story between the troubled, tired fighter Deschain and giddy, evil wizard Walter (a wicked hammy Matthew McConaughey). Enough parallels exist to make the two mirror images of the other, the gunslinger's shooting prowess canceling out the sorcerer's epic magic abilities, who seeks some sense of revenge by taunting poor Deschain. Traces of that concept carry the film to as close to watchable as it can get, along with the hints about Walter's true powers and the skosh of mythology about the eponymous tower, the gunslinger legend, and the creatures that serve Walter's orders to destroy the sole boundary keeping the dark from cascading into the light.

Somehow most of that is sidelined to focus on some preteen kid (Tom Taylor) discover his psychic powers, or in King’s terms shine. With so many great options to choose from involving a brilliant gunfighter and a wizard, Goldsman and crew opted to center The Dark Tower on the adolescent coming of age story in which his powers (poorly) represent some sort of awakening. They effectively made an escort mission where Deschain grumpily but still lovingly protects the kid from the evils around him. That the movie doesn't leave enough time for their relationship to grow (let alone enough time to believe how quickly the boy's powers increase) exacerbates the problem. It's not the worst route this movie could have veered toward with its narrative; it just ranks pretty low on the list for what is or is not interesting with a story about a mystical gun fighter.

It's just frustrating watching Dark Tower and waiting for director Nikolaj Arcel and multitude of screenwriters to build some sort of a universe. There are a lot of little elements that crop up hinting at what could have been, some cool little bits of magic performed by an almost unstoppable being, and the general concept of Deschain's gunslinger legacy. What this movie needs more than anything is a well-plotted mythology to explain the movie's machinations and provide viewers some context as to what's happening. The battle between Elba's Deschain and an appropriately enthused McConaughey would make for a remarkable movie, with Elba's quiet intensity contrasting greatly with McConaughey's slightly menacing charisma. Dark Tower offers little aside from formulaic snippets of exposition and a ton of logical leaps the viewer has to make to fill in the gaps otherwise. Little explanation is offered for the existence of the movie's multiple worlds, the eponymous tower, or even the war between the gunslingers and McConaughey's dark wizard Walter. Viewership of what sounds like on paper to be an incredible experience is instead abbreviated to post-battle flashbacks (proper battle sequences are a little too pricy for this movie) and some mediocre world jumping that skimp on the special effects. Some of that would get built upon through the addition of some hypothetical sequels, but Dark Tower leaves viewers wanting far more from the movie they've watched.

Then again, building a world as elaborate as the one required for Dark Tower is difficult for a movie that lasts all of 95 minutes (end credits included). Ninety-five minutes is not long enough to establish a universe appropriate for this movie. Goldsman and company attempt to fill in the gaps with exposition and a whole lot of assumptions, leading to the aforementioned mythological holes and some rather notable plot holes to boot. Cutting corners has its consequences, in this case a less than engaging film and what is probably an early end to what should have been a great franchise.

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 95 minutes

Genre: Fantasy

Ask Away

Target audience: People who have read the book series and folks down to watch Idris Elba be awesome.

Take the whole family?: The content is too dark for young kids. Keep it at age 10 and up.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix if at all.

Should this franchise continue?: Ideally this would be rebooted immediately, with only Elba carried over to whatever comes next. It's easy to appreciate what this movie could have been even without reading the books, so perhaps a new round of talent can maximize this movie's potential.

Watch this instead?: Stephen King adaptations are pretty hit or miss. The Shining, The Dead Zone, The Shawshank Redemption, Carrie and Stand By Me are all pretty great, due in part to the respective directors taking liberties with the material. Also worth a read is The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon

The very pretty 'Jungle Book' a little light on content

Neel Seethi as Mowgli and Ben Kingsley's Bagheera in "The Jungle Book." Image courtesy Disney.

The frustrating thing with “The Jungle Book” is how much it teases the audience into being an excellent film instead of the good but underwhelming flick it ends up being. It is more often than not a visually stunning, engaging romp featuring a rather good child actor and some excellent voice work from its cast. And yet the problems arrive with a bang, a result of some dreadful decisions coupled with plotting issues that bog down the final act.

Yet another adaptation of Kipling's eponymous story collection, “The Jungle Book” centers on the adventures of feral child Mowgli (Neel Seethi), a so-called man-cub who lives a simple life with his family of wolves – including den mother Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o) and pack leader Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) – and is watched over by wise panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley). At least, that is, until the day when vicious tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) proclaims his intent to murder the boy, forcing Mowgli to flee along with Bagheera to a human village. Their plans go awry due to tiger-related shenanigans, and poor Mowgli is left alone to fend for himself in unknown territory, surrounded by hypnotic python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) and little creatures that steal his food. Fortunately he meets lazy bear Baloo (Bill Murray), who teaches the boy to embrace his human side and adopt a more carefree life. Baloo's teachings put Mowgli in a bit of a moral quandary, and it only gets more complicated once he runs into the sizable King Louie (Christopher Walken) and has to face down Shere Khan one last time.

“The Jungle Book” opens with a bang as young Mowgli scampers toward the viewer, escaping some momentarily unseen entity chasing him through the dangerous jungle. It's a terrific start to the film, hinting at Mowgli's ingenuity and cleverness while showing how he's both embraced and shunted a bit from his adopted family. The film at its best has a lot of these little details, including a running point in which Mowgli picks up a scar or two during every little adventure. It's a nice touch of verisimilitude for a movie that is fantastic by nature and by effect.

The film remains quite charming to a point, which comes out of the blue when Baloo starts singing “Bare Necessities” from the animated film. It’s a distracting moment that unleashes a floodgate of callbacks, lowlighted by a Walken performance of the very racist “I Wanna Be Like You.” That first moment with Baloo singing to himself unleashes a flood of flaws that dampen the viewing experience. The songs hinder the narrative flow, creating a rather rushed third act that also drains much of the film’s dramatic agency, a problem capped by a weak, puzzling and ultimately lazy finale. There’s also the insertion of a secondary revenge motivation involving Mowgli’s father, which highlights “The Jungle Book’s” major problem; writer Justin Marks’ disorganized script.

And yet the whole of “The Jungle Book” is just good enough to outweigh the weaker parts and is helped along greatly by Seethi, who performs more like a child then an actor, especially given that he acts alongside CGI creatures in a fake jungle. And the voice actors inhabiting those ersatz creatures are first rate. Elba is perfectly cruel and blasé as Khan, while Johansson plays a major part in providing what is the film’s best sequence; she has a knack for controlling her voice in a manner both alluring, sweet and subtly terrifying. Even Murray seems to be having a little fun as Baloo, who enters the film is a way Bill Murray enters people’s lives in real life.

Considering how much goes right with it, it’s still difficult not to consider the film at least something of a letdown though. Its flashes of brilliance – even the problematic third act has one really terrific visual moment – are enough to dream of what could have been for director Jon Favreau. Perhaps he and Marks were forced to shoehorn in the music numbers (although it wouldn’t explain why one song returns as an orchestral during a chase sequence) and add in the silly “Star Wars” inspired subplot, making for a more inspired film than what’s left. All that’s left to analyze though is what Favreau and company ultimately delivered; a very good but flawed film that comes very close to being exceptional.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 105 minutes

Genre: Adventure

Ask Away

Target audience: Families with kids old enough to handle a little intensity. Speaking of which...

Take the whole family?: There's way too much going on kinetically and a couple of scary scenes that will turn off kids younger than 5.

Theater or Netflix?: Theater should be OK, but don't pay for the 3D if you have more than a child or two with you.

How racist is this?: Not as bad as it could be given the involvement of Disney and Rudyard Kipling. The main issue is the resurrection of “I Wanna Be Like You,” which in is a song about racial inferiority and efforts to become more “civilized.” It's one of many reasons Disney would have been better served excising the songs from this version.

Watch this as well?: Disney's first crack at Rudyard Kipling's short story collection has its charms, along with a heavy undertone of racism that makes it a little difficult to watch these days. Also flash back to one of those old “Tarzan” films Johnny Weissmuller; considering the Tarzan character is based on Mowgli, it brings things full circle.

'Zootopia' is deceptively cute

Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) and Flash (Raymond Persi) reenact the typical DMV experience in "Zootopia." Image courtesy Disney.

“Zootopia” is one of those films that starts off on a very good note and just continues to build from there. In this case, it’s an opening sequence that provides useful exposition in a unique and credible manner and establishes the personality of its main character, a bunny named Judy Hopps.  Hopps, depicted in the opening as a child but voiced later by Ginnifer Goodwin, is shown as an inventive, optimistic, smart, melodramatic and resourceful rabbit willing to stand up for what she thinks is right no matter what the consequences may be. Viewers learn all of that within five minutes, and the important attributes of the little bunny (and female role model) that eventually can are built upon from there.

That little tidbit is isn’t the most important reason to enjoy this fun and clever little flick, but it does showcase the very good filmmaking behind “Zootopia” and puts faith in the audience that the filmmakers can handle the topic they are about to address. This film is about racism, a topic that is difficult to discuss or even write about because of its complexities, yet one the filmmakers handle with grace and a gentle hand. “Zootopia” tackles this issue head on and hammers the message home with the help of some good character buildings and oodles of humor that – to cop a phrase from another Disney film – helps the medicine go down.

Back to Goodwin's little Judy Hopps, who starts off as a rabbit living in a small town with her farming family (her parents are voiced by Bonnie Hunt and Don Lake) but dreams of becoming a police officer. Her goal is an ambitious one – no rabbit has ever served as a police officer because rabbits are small and seen as meek – but she finishes at the top of her class at the police academy and is assigned to work at a station in the heart of the titular city, Zootopia. Hopps imagines Zootopia as a place where animals from all backgrounds come together and thrive; the reality is a messy city where major conflict lies just under the surface. Even her dream job is a letdown, as her boss, Chief Bogo, (Idris Elba) assigns her to be a meter maid and dole out tickets as the rest of the department searches for more than a dozen citizens gone missing. She soon finds herself assigned to the case of a missing otter at the behest of assistant mayor Bellweather (Jenny Slate) and enlists the help of con artist fox Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) in the search. The investigation takes them all over the city's vast terrain and into a complicated conspiracy that puts the future of Zootopia in jeopardy.

At its heart, “Zootopia” is a film about racism. It’s a movie that outlines the dangers of racial stereotypes, explains how easy it is for people to succumb to and be manipulated by preconceived notions of other people (or animals in this case). That’s the funny thing about the world depicted within the city of Zootopia, a place Hopps initially imagines as a Utopia but a place that keeps it together out of necessity. So while a giraffe and a tiger might mingle on a bus, an elephant can and will deny service to a fox like Nick Wilde because of blatant racism, and a leopard can get demoted because of his perceived nature. Those are big notes to hit, the easy kind that when left in isolation create pablum like Academy Award winning picture “Crash,” yet “Zootopia goes for institutional racism – Hopps’ storyline is rooted in that issue – and even casual racism that pops up in quotidian situations. The fact that “Zootopia” takes a minute to discuss the use of certain words and outlines the problems of, say, touching people’s hair is rather impressive and much more nuanced than other films that tackle race like the one mentioned earlier.  

“Zootopia” presents all of this in a brightly colored and very hilarious package that limits the onslaught of animal-related cultural puns that cheapen the experience and opts instead to craft some subtly spectacular jokes. That sloth sequence shown in the trailer plays just as well in the theater – that slow-building smile is terrific – and “Zootopia” complements that with pratfalls, sight gags, clever word play, pop culture references and a few killer punchlines to form a rather fun time at the cinema. At least until the third act, which sees the film drag a little as its burdened by a complex yet easy to figure out plot. Then again, neither problem is a fatal flaw for a film targeted at children, and “Zootopia” does so much right (how many films successfully tackle race and feminism?) it earns a little forgiveness for those flaws. It’s easy enough to rail against kid-centered films like the loathsome “Norm of the North” that represent everything wrong with children’s entertainment; “Zootopia” on the other hand, is an example of what the genre can be at its best.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 108 minutes (One hour and 48 minutes)

Genre: Animation

Ask Away

Target audience: Families and people interested in anthropomorphism.

Take the whole family?: Kids old enough to attend a movie screening without automatically bursting into histrionics will find this film very entertaining.

Theater or Netflix?: Take the kids to the theater for a fun day out; just avoid paying for the unnecessary 3D or IMAX options.

How many pop culture references are there?: Not quite as many as one would find in a “Shrek” film, but “Zootopia” does have its fair share. Some, like a “Godfather” reference or one about Adele, are a little easy, but they're balanced by a rather fun “Breaking Bad” shout out and a subtle reference to the great Christmas special “Emmet Otter's Jug-Band Christmas.” Most importantly, the humor works without needing to know what is being referenced.

Watch this as well?: Anything within Disney's recent run – “Wreck-It Ralph” is my favorite – makes for a solid companion to this one. Add to that another little family film that deals with racism in spectacularly clever way while maintaining a strong sense of humor, “Paddington.”