Movie Reviews
A review of 'Migration' disguised as a how to guide for movie reviews (or vice versa)
How do you review a movie?
Let’s take, as an example, the movie Migration. The purpose of a review is to give the reader an idea of what the movie is like, and whether or not they might want to spend the time and money to watch it or not. The basic facts of the movie should be listed, so, in this example, Migration is a computer animated movie from Illumination (The Secret Life of Pets, Sing), directed by Benjamin Renner (Ernest & Celestine, The Big Bad Fox and Other Tales). I included examples of the creator’s previous work that might give my audience some idea of what to expect. However, this is pretty easily searchable on free sources like IMDB or Wikipedia, and a review is not just a recitation of facts.
A brief plot synopsis is usually a good idea. In Migration’s case, the story is about a family of ducks (Kumail Nanjiani as father Mack, Elizabeth Banks as mother Pam, Caspar Jennings as son Dax, Tresi Gazal as daughter Gwen and Danny Devito as uncle Dan) who decide to migrate from their tiny pond to Jamaica. It plays like a road trip comedy, but with ducks. Along the way, they have adventures with a decrepit heron (voiced by Carol Kane) and her mute husband, a one-legged pigeon (voiced by Awkwafina), a caged parrot (voiced by Keegan-Michael Key) and a cult-like group of farm ducks, while being chased by a chef who specializes in duck à l’orange.
Now that we have gotten the details of what Migration the movie is, we can move on to the opinion parts of the review.
It is important to note what a review isn’t as much as what it is. For instance, a review is not a critique. It is not for the filmmakers, giving them advice on how to make a better movie next time. It would be silly to think one individual reviewer would have that kind of power in general, and one from a small furry outlet specifically. Maybe in aggregate, like on Rotten Tomatoes, critics can throw some weight around, but even then the “percentages” and “Critics’ Consensus” are still more help to an audience looking to watch the movie than the filmmakers. A critic should remember who they’re writing for.
In a similar manner, when writing a review, a critic may want to point out what the movie being reviewed isn’t as well. In Migration’s case, it’s primarily a family comedy and therefore not an overly complicated or risk-taking movie. Once again, a critic should know their primary audience, and mine is primarily adult furry fans. It might be advisable to bring in some outside context, and note that Illumination’s head has said that they don’t have a strong “name recognition” as of yet, but I feel like that’s not really true. Illumination, of all the main American animation studios, seems the most comfortable just making kids movies. It might not always be advisable to bring up past reviews, but in my review of Illumination’s Sing 2, I noted that the movie was fine or even above average as safe “family” entertainment, but my problem was that it explicitly was not content with this idea, and seemed a bit over-insistent that it was more, despite not actually offering that “more”. Migration also doesn’t really offer much more, but it least it seems happy with being what it is; a fine, or even above average, safe “family” entertainment.
Well, that’s the main point of the review done, if I’ve done my job well, though now might be a good time to round up a few points, either in the movie’s favor or against it, that didn’t fit in before. For instance, I can note Migration’s animation is quite good, with colorful, pretty backgrounds that use color in a painterly way, without resorting to the in vogue tactic of actually making the CGI look like brushstrokes. Occasional experiments with form and content can be fun, but should be used sparingly.
The character designs are appealing when they’re supposed to be, and very ugly when they’re not, so the herons, villainous chef and Awkwafina pigeon are not pretty. Some audience reaction reportage is appropriate, and I had a later screening with older audience members. There was not exactly stony silence, but there was more polite chuckles than out and out laughter for a comedy. The only scene where an audience laughed very loudly was a scene where the Awkwafina-voiced pigeon has trouble avoiding traffic. (In this regard, the movie did better than the short subject it was paired, the Despicable Me spin-off “Mooned”, which garnered no notable reaction whatsoever.)
To finish a review, it may be necessary to reiterate and expand the final verdict on the movie. In Migration’s case, I feel like it’s an okay movie that is worth seeing at some point, especially for bird fans, though it’s not a must-see, either. Some people believe you should end a review on strong statement, but sometimes, I find, it’s best just to end it.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: Paul Feig’s ‘The Housemaid’ is a twisty horror-thriller with nudity and empowerment – Sentinel Colorado
Santa left us a present this holiday season and it is exactly what we didn’t know we needed: A twisty, psychological horror-thriller with nudity that’s all wrapped up in an empowerment message.
“The Housemaid” is Paul Feig’s delicious, satirical look at the secret depravity of the ultra-rich, but it’s so well constructed that’s it’s not clear who’s naughty or nice. Halfway through, the movie zigs and everything you expected zags.
It’s almost impossible to thread the line between self-winking campy — “That’s a lot of bacon. Are you trying to kill us?” — and carving someone’s stomach with a broken piece of fine china, yet Feig and screenwriter Rebecca Sonnenshine do.
Sydney Sweeney stars as a down-on-her luck Millie Calloway, a gal with a troubled past living out of her car who answers an ad for a live-in housekeeper in a tony suburb of New York City. Her resume is fraudulent, as are her references.
Somehow, the madam of the mansion, Nina Winchester played with frosty excellence by Amanda Seyfried in pearls and creamy knits, takes a shine to this young soul. “I have a really good feeling about this, Millie,” she says in that perky, slightly crazed clipped way that Seyfried always slays with. “This is going to be fun, Millie.”
Maybe not for Millie, but definitely for us. The young housekeeper gets her own room in the attic — weird that it closes with a deadbolt from the outside, but no matter — and we’re off. Mille gets a smartphone with the family’s credit card preloaded and a key for that deadbolt. “What kind of monsters are we?” asks Nina. Indeed.
The next day, the house is a mess when the housekeeper comes down and Seyfried is in a wide-eyed, crashing-plates, full-on psychotic rage. The sweet, supportive woman we met the day before is gone. But her hunky husband (Brandon Sklenar) is helpful and apologetic. And smoldering. Uh-oh. Did we mention he’s hunky?
If at first we understand that the housekeeper is being a little manipulative — lying to get the job, for instance, or wearing glasses to seem more serious — we soon realize that all kinds of gaslighting games are being played behind these gates, and they’re much more impactful.
Based on Freida McFadden’s novel, “The Housemaid” rides waves of manipulation and then turns the tables on what we think we’ve just seen, looking at male-female power structures and how privilege can trap people without it.
The film is as good looking as the actors, with nifty touches like having the main house spare, well-lit and bright, while the husband’s private screening room in the basement is done in a hellish red. There are little jokes throughout, like the husband and the housemaid bonding over old episodes of “Family Feud,” with the name saying it all.
Feig and his team also have fun with horror movie conventions, like having a silent, foreboding groundskeeper, adding a creepy dollhouse and placing lightning and thunder during a pivotal scene. They surround the mansion with fussy, aristocratic PTA moms who have tea parties and say things like “You know what yoga means to me.”
Feig’s fascinating combination of gore, torture and hot sex ends happily, capped off with Taylor Swift’s perfectly conjured “I Did Something Bad” playing over the end credits. Not at all: This naughty movie is definitely on the nice list.
“The Housemaid,” a Lionsgate release that’s in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for strong bloody violence, gore, language, sexuality/nudity and drug use. Running time: 131 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.
Related
Movie Reviews
‘The Spongebob Movie: Search for Squarepants’ Review: Adventure Romp Soaks up a Good Time for SpongeBob Fans of All Ages
I’m convinced that each SpongeBob movie released on the big screen serves as a testament to the current state of the series. The 2004 film was a send-off for the early series run. Sponge Out of Water symbolized the Paul Tibbitt era, and Sponge on the Run served as a major transitional period between soft reboot and spin-off setup. The team responsible for Search for SquarePants, which consists of current showrunners Marc Ceccarelli and Vince Waller, as well as the seasoned Kaz, is showcasing their comedic and absurdist abilities. The sole purpose of the film is to elicit laughter with its distinctively silly and irreverent, whimsical humor. More so than its predecessor, it creates a mindless romp. Granted, there are far too many butt-related jokes, to a weird degree.
Truthfully, I am apprehensive about the insistence of each SpongeBob movie being CG-animated. However, Drymon, who directed the final Hotel Transylvania film, Transformania, brings the series’ quirky, outrageous 2D-influenced poses and expressive style into a 3D space. Its CG execution, done by Texas-based Reel FX (Book of Life, Rumble, Scoob), is far superior to Mikros Animation’s Sponge on the Run, which, despite its polish, has experimental frame rate issues with the comic timing and is influenced by The Spider-Verse. FX encapsulates the same fast, frenetic pace in its absurdist humor, which enables a significant number of the jokes to be effective and feel like classic SpongeBob.
With lovely touches like gorgeous 2D artwork in flashback scenes and mosaic backgrounds during multiple action shots, Drymon and co expand the cinematic scope, enhancing its theatrical space. Taking on a darker, if not more obscene, tone in the main underworld setting, the film’s purple- and green-infused visual palette adds a unique shine that sets it apart from other Sponge-features. Its strong visual aesthetic preserves the SpongeBob identity while capturing the spirit of swashbuckling and satisfying a Pirates of the Caribbean void in the heart.
The film’s slapstick energy is evident throughout, as it’s purposefully played as a romp. The animators’ hilarious antics, which make the most of each set piece to a comical degree, feel like the ideal old-fashioned love letter to the new adults who grew up with SpongeBob and are now introducing it to their kids. This is a perfect bridge. There’s a “Twelfth Street Rag” needle drop in a standout montage sequence that will have older viewers astral projecting with joy.
Search for SquarePants retreads water but with a charming swashbuckling freshness.
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: ‘The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants’ – Catholic Review
NEW YORK (OSV News) – Cartoon characters can devolve into dullards over time. But some are more enduringly appealing than others, as the adventure “The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants” (Paramount) proves.
Yellow, absorbent and porous on the outside, unflaggingly upbeat SpongeBob (voice of Tom Kenny) is childlike and anxious to please within. He also displays the kind of eagerness for grown-up experiences that is often found in real-life youngsters but that gets him into trouble in this fourth big-screen outing for his character.
Initially, his yearning for maturity takes a relatively harmless form. Having learned that he is now exactly 36 clams tall, the requisite height to ride the immense roller coaster at Captain Booty Beard’s Fun Park, he determines to do so.
Predictably, perhaps, he finds the ride too scary for him. This prompts Mr. Krabs (voice of Clancy Brown), the owner of the Krusty Krab — the fast-food restaurant where SpongeBob works as a cook — to inform his chef that he is still an immature bubble-blowing boy who needs to be tested as a swashbuckling adventurer.
The opportunity for such a trial soon arises with the appearance of the ghostly green Flying Dutchman (voice of Mark Hamill), a pirate whose elaborately spooky lair, the Underworld, is adjacent to SpongeBob’s friendly neighborhood, Bikini Bottom. Subject to a curse, the Dutchman longs to lift it and return to human status.
To do so, he needs to find someone both innocent and gullible to whom he can transfer the spell. SpongeBob, of course, fits the bill.
So the buccaneer lures SpongeBob, accompanied by his naive starfish pal Patrick (voice of Bill Fagerbakke), into a series of challenges designed to prove that the lad has what it takes. Mr. Krabs, the restaurateur’s ill-tempered other employee, Squidward (voice of Rodger Bumpass), and SpongeBob’s pet snail, Gary, all follow in pursuit.
Along the way, SpongeBob and Patrick’s ingenuity and love of carefree play usually succeed in thwarting the Dutchman’s plans.
As with most episodes of the TV series, which premiered on Nickelodeon in 1999, there are sight gags intended either for adults or savvy older children. This time out, though, director Derek Drymon and screenwriters Pam Brady and Matt Lieberman produce mostly misfires.
These include an elaborate gag about Davy Jones’ legendary locker — which, after much buildup, turns out to be an ordinary gym locker. Additionally, in moments of high stress, SpongeBob expels what he calls “my lucky brick.” As euphemistic poop gags go, it’s more peculiar than naughty.
True to form, SpongeBob emerges from his latest escapades smarter, wiser, pleased with his newly acquired skills and with increased loyalty to his friends. So, although the script’s humor may often fall short, the franchise’s beguiling charm remains.
The film contains characters in cartoonish peril and occasional scatological humor. The OSV News classification is A-I – general patronage. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG — parental guidance suggested. Some material may not be suitable for children.
Read More Movie & TV Reviews
Copyright © 2025 OSV News
-
Iowa4 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Washington1 week agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa5 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine2 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland4 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota4 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class