![]() ![]() Ken Jeong and Michael Peña are very talented comedic actors, but they don’t say anything amusing in this movie. Unfortunately, the movie’s comedy isn’t funny. No one is giving a memorable performance, and while Moretz is charismatic in her line delivery, she has no good comedy to work with.Ĭhloë Grace Moretz, as most of the human characters, have nothing special about them. This film should not have given so much time to the human characters because of how unnecessary they are.Īt times, “Tom and Jerry” feels like the studio assembled a bunch of talented actors who agreed to the film for a paycheck. Every other character is quite boring despite the minimal attempts to develop them. However, the point of this is to give her an arc where she becomes a better person but despite that, her arc is very contrived, and it barely feels as if it is related to Tom and Jerry’s antics. She then proceeds to scam her way into the job she holds for the rest of the film, immediately making her an unlikable character. Our human protagonist is Kayla Forester ( Chloë Grace Moretz), who quits her job at the beginning of the movie in the most high-definition Face-time in the world. The human characters have nothing special about them. This movie features many human characters, and the amount of screen-time the humans have is surprising the humans have more screen-time than Tom and Jerry, which can be disappointing for those who want nothing more than slapstick humor between these animated animals. However, the movie also features other cat and mouse characters who speak, so there is no reason why Tom and Jerry do not speak in this film when every other animal in this movie does.įurthermore, this is not just a film where Tom and Jerry run around and hit each other. The film amends the mistake of the 1992 film, “Tom and Jerry: The Movie,” by not having Tom or Jerry speak, preserving the silent nature of the cartoons. Most of the film’s issues arise from the conflict between its dedication to the original cartoon and the desire to do something greater. Inserting the duo into a 3D world didn’t help the film. It’s incredibly odd to see the juxtaposition of the real humans and animated animals go unacknowledged. In this film, it appears as if every animal exists as a 2D animated figure. It’s a technique that works in films such as “Space Jam” because of how self-aware that movie is Michael Jordan was aware of the existence of “Looney Tunes,” and he finds themselves in their world. They smash many things, and unfortunately, the slapstick doesn’t quite work due to the strange integration of 2D animated characters into a live-action setting. What this film offers are a few classic sequences where Tom chases Jerry and Jerry trips him up and Tom gets hurt. Given the development hell the movie went through, this feels very much like a product churned out by a studio trying to cash in on a franchise they own. This film is reminiscent of the 2011 film, “The Smurfs,” another movie that features classic cartoon characters and their antics in the Big Apple. And it does not pick up from there, as this film is a frustratingly generic adaptation. When the opening credits of this movie began with a group of animated pigeons looking directly into the camera and rapping over aerial stock footage of New York City, I had a bad feeling about where this movie would go.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |