imnotinsane1 Reviews

Felidae (1994)

"Well, you know what they say about curiosity..."

[4/10 · 31 January 2011]

This movie was, or still is, the most expensive animated movie in Germany. It shows too, the main animation on the characters are gorgeous. The art style really has a lot of appeal too. Even the CGI that's evident in places looks really good for 1994 standards and doesn't get in the way at all. And why is this so movie hard to like for me? Well, I don't know about you but how could you get that deeply into understanding the plot and the characters where every 16th of a second, you get bloody cat guts shoved in your face?

"Felidae" is certainly a very toxic breed of animated film. Due to how limited its release is internationally (only being released in Germany, Spain and France theatrically), you'd only know about it from hearsay, word-of-mouth, coming across the movie while on holiday in mainland Europe or, as we're in the 21st century, nowadays coming across the multitude of fan-edited music videos on YouTube using clips from the movie. But once you find out about it or even see a little bit of it, it doesn't let go from your head. And if you have the same experiences I've had with this movie and trying to enjoy it, you'd wish it would just leave your mind as soon as possible! The otherwise decent animated murder-mystery with a fascinating subplot about the ethnics behind human behaviour to other animals is savagely ruined by the animators disturbingly having far, far too much fun animating blood and guts at any opportunity during the story (and sometimes for the sheer hell of it, the first piece of bloodshed in the movie comes from the main character stepping on a bug...this bug is given an extremely pointless close-up shot, as is every single other gory and bloody part of the movie). This stems from just looking more in-detail on the feline victims of the story to around 4 solid minutes of cat vivisection, as well as fights and even an extremely disturbing and nihilistic dream sequence animated in almost sepia tone. Every little detail is put in close-up or shown multiple, multiple times in the same scene and it ends up being an incredible chore to watch and whether you're squeamish or not, really distracts you from the actual story and character development.

It's such a massive shame too, because what story it has isn't that bad and the animation is incredibly good for the mid-90's. It basically feels like someone wrote an intelligent plot and then a Marilyn Manson fan with a lobotomy decided to take that story and alter it insanely to the point of where the movie turns from a dimensional, well thought-out and even original murder-mystery into sheer exploitation in far too many fields that should be allowed for any animated movie, even an adult one.

If you don't fancy being shoved in the face with constant animated cat guts as you watch a movie, I can't recommend this movie to you. What a sad disappointment.

• 4 out of 10

I Love You Phillip Morris (2009)

Oh, the Dramedy!

[4/10 · 26 October 2010]

Honestly, a part of me questions why I'm making a review for this. Because after seeing this, my head literally hurt from trying to think of what I thought of this movie as a whole...

The movie had a lot of promise. Really promising casting, a really interesting story, a good potential for it to be *the* so-called "Dramedy" for the ages, a lot of good promise! But on the final result...not so much. If you admire either the talents of Ewan McGregor or Jim Carrey, it might be worth a rental. But please understand that I said *might* instead of *is*. Why? Because respectively, this film is a bit of a mess. It's not a horrible movie, not at all! It's just...a real mess with where it's supposed to go.

Part of the problem is with the script writers...or at least just one of them. One of them it seems is a writer of great plots and story development and knows how to flesh out their characters and give them dimension, the other is the typical gross-out, college-humour comedy writer who only thrives on gimmicks in his gags purely to offend or even depress people and the rest of his gag roster aren't even gags at all, but blatant sex on camera. I get the feeling that the way this was all written seems like a constant battle between these two scriptwriters on the tone of the film and if that's the case, it's easily noticeable.

There are moments in it that are monstrously offencive, especially in the first quarter of the film, but then you get moments where it's actually likable and even charming at times (I think it's very shortly before the first quarter of the movie ends to just after the fourth quarter begins are those that have the best scenes in the movie). But then things start to get slightly less likable when Jim Carrey's character really makes the biggest jerk-moves of them all and then there's parts that are surprisingly depressing even for a "dramedy" and in the end, it's just alright...but then I just think it might be a little less or more alright than it actually was and then I just end up with a headache.

So it's not a horrible movie, just very miss-guided. If you do want to see it, definitely go for the movie for Carrey and McGregor's performances which are great. And like I said, there are likable moments in this. Just please don't expect to be cheered up by it too much. Do also expect to be monstrously offended in the first 15 minutes, unless you can easily dust those moments off.

3.5/10

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Alternative Title: "Alice in what she always called Wonderland but is actually called Underland but the title says Wonderland because it's marketing gold"

[4/10 · 5 March 2010]

"Alice in Wonderland". Surely everyone knows what it is. The story of a girl who goes into the strangest and most surreal visions for a Children's story. Whilst it's intentionally said to be a "nonsense" story (you don't get genres like that anymore, do you?), it's considered a classic. Thus, many adaptations have been made and the story and it's characters and sheer scale of surreality is more influential today in the late 2000's-early 2010's than it's ever been.

So, how's does getting one of the great artistic film visionaries of the late 20th Century, early 21st to resurrect and re-imagine the story for a new generation on an epic, big-budget scale with a high-calibre cast sound? Sounds like a pretty sweet investment. After all, this is Tim Burton we're talking about, the creator of "Edward Scissorhands", "The Nightmare Before Christmas" and "Big Fish" to name a few (of the best he's done at least). So now it's finally out, and did he succeed to really breathe new life into this highly-influential world and make it enjoyable to all? Yes and...not really.

I could talk about this movie a lot and point out every single little detail on what I thought of the movie, but I'll try and summarise without spoilers as best as I can. Positives first: The overall artistic design, character design, special effects and overall direction of the movie were for the most part, excellent. Tim Burton certainly has a penchant for bringing his visions and bizarre artistic interpretations of things right to the screen and it's usually an awe to see and it's definitely the case with this movie also. And the beginning and ending period-esquire "real-life" scenes are surprisingly well done too, never thought Burton can go period and get it done really well! Casting, on the most part, is really fantastic too. People would be pessimistic over Johnny Depp being the Mad Hatter, but he pulls off a good performance anyway. Not Depp's best, but certainly not his worst. The best casting in the whole movie however was without a doubt Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. My god, what an incredibly fun portrayal of the character she's brought to the screen and bar none one of the best villain characters of the past year thanks to Carter's performance. Anne Hathaway was also shockingly good as the White Queen, with an ultra-impressive British accent and a delicate, mysterious performance combining Nigella Lawson with a pure Disney Princess character, in a good way. Which brings me to my next positive, the existing characters are portrayed mostly to justice and sometimes even beyond that and whilst not all of the additional characters are particularly stand-out, those that are good are certainly great additions.

Now, the negatives: The story is a weird experience to get used to, not the good kind of weird neither. Not all of the story is bad, there are a lot of good scenes and some new additions and features are enjoyable too, but some of these shifts from the original story's narrative causes the story for some who already know the story to feel really, really slow in places. Unnecessary for a place like Wonderland which is originally brimming with whimsy and gleeful weirdness. Oh I'm sorry, "Underland" apparently. And whilst I did say that most of the character were very good, original or not, there are also some that are frighteningly generic. I could go on about these types of characters but I'm probably almost at 1,000 words already so I'll just say that one really frighteningly generic character shouldn't of been so prominent in the story, yet he is in the first quarter of the movie.

Alright, so in summary: Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" is worth going to see, if you can get through the movie's much slower moments and the differences in story to the original, granted if the original really did have much of a plot anyway.

6.5/10

Arashi no yoru ni (2005)

"We met one stormy night..."

[9/10 · 5 January 2010]

This movie is something of a real rarity at the time of this review being made. There really hasn't been a movie like this that can capture the hearts of those who watch it so easily and yet almost 5 years after release it still hasn't been seen by most of the world officially outside of Asia.

But when the time comes where the movie will be officially available worldwide, I'm certain this will be a new children's classic for generation to generation. You may think I'm over-exaggerating these words to get more people to see it, but I couldn't be more honest even if I tried.

"Arashi No Yuru Ni", or "One Stormy Night", is by far and beyond the best non-franchise, non-Ghibli anime movie you could possibly see. Released in 2005 and based on the phenomenally successful Japanese children's book of the same name, the story is about a goat and a wolf who accidentally met each other in a barn during a heavy thunderstorm. It was too dark for them to see each other at the time and they couldn't even smell each other to know what creature they are because they started suffering pretty bad colds. The next day, they decide to meet each other and from then on, after knowing what they are and accepting who they are, they end up having to make unbelievable sacrifices in order to remain friends.

There is way, way more to this story but the story is so well weaved- together and so intelligently-written that it would be cruel to say anything more about it to those who haven't seen it. Nothing of the story feels lacking in anything but at the same time nothing seems like it's going for too much. The entire plot evolves naturally, but is such an incredible story that you very easily emote to the main characters as if they are living, breathing creatures and that whatever happens, you'll be on the edge of your seat hoping for the best for both Gabu (the wolf) and Mei (the goat).

The animation is beautiful, it's similar to that of "The Snowman" in that it captures storybook art so well but coupled with such a great story it really immerses you into the world of the movie quite well. At the same time, it's an art style that'll appeal to everybody. Nothing is absolute cliché-anime but it's also not terrifyingly-realistic neither. Music is beautiful as well, definitely mirrors the beauty of the movie really well but also compliments the most emotional of scenes without being too over-the-top.

Some of the lines are overly-simplistic and repetitive in some certain scenes, but it really doesn't get in the way of the enjoyment of this movie too much and it's only a very minor complaint.

This really is the perfect animated movie for families to watch. And it's one of the very rare movies I've seen recently that legitimately almost made me cry and I can safely say that if no one who sees this movie and emotes with the characters so much cries in the last few scenes, I pity them.

Any opportunity you can, please check this out. You really won't regret it!

• Eric.

9/10

Across the Universe (2007)

Julie Taymor's Lonely Hearts Club Band

[3/10 · 13 December 2009]

The Beatles. Like them or not, you can certainly feel their mark on music history still to this day, whatever you listen to in most genres of music, you can hear their influence on music even today (coincidental or not). In fact, they're so good apparently that when you go to Hollywood executives to talk to them over a musical based on The Beatles' back catalogue, they'll go, "Sure! That's sounds totally original and amazing, here have the necessary money, have fun!" When in reality, this concept has been worked with 4 times before and unless it was done with the actual Beatles' co-operation, it never really worked ("Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" with the Bee Gees or "All This and World War II", anyone?).

But alas, the opportunity to make another Beatlemania movie came calling when the respectively-imaginative Julie Taymor ("Titus" and the stage musical version of "The Lion King") decided to weave a large string of Beatles classics together into a plot about a young transatlantic relationship in the 60's, under the passionate title of "Across the Universe".

Now, you'll be forgiven for thinking this movie would be absolutely incredible because it looked so astonishingly fantastic in the trailer (and it does). But it turns out that it shares two things trailers might have that can be problematic to the enjoyment of the movie: 1) They picked the best parts of the movie and 2) The trailer itself is even better than the movie! Well, ish...the movie itself has some very nice things about it, most of these things are especially noticeable and done well in the first half. The visual design is very appealing, the choreography is exceptional when it's being used to it's full and when special effects are used (in particular, Uncle Sam in the scene featuring "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"), they're pulled off quite decently. However, that's all that can be said over definite positives.

The main problem with the movie is that it can't decide whether it's telling a story or it just wants to be a straight-up musical. Or what mood it's supposed to use. The first part is the most consistent part of the movie, although there's still a lot of inconsistencies and some interesting parts of the story that end up being completely forgotten and tossed over for the cliché boy-meets-girl standard and bad attempts at outdated political commentary.

The middle part is the strangest part of the movie but is also the most odd-to-receive part. You're mean't to take it on as "Oh that's weird, ha-ha" but sometimes, it doesn't actually feel right in the context of the movie at all. I feel sorry for Bono as he has to deal with one of the most embarrassing cameos I've ever seen, as a guy who's supposed to be something of a ultra-psychedelia genius but just comes off as a bad Willy Wonka who even in the 60's would fail at being "hip", although of course the characters swoon over him anyway before his 8 minutes of screen time suddenly ends. Eddie Izzard however is fantastic as Mr. Kite and hosts a very entertaining and imaginative sequence, but sadly his screen time in the movie is even shorter and there's zero explanation to the scene and zero explanation to how the characters came back to normality.

Third act is the worst. Clunky, irritating and surprisingly boring. Hardly anything flows any more, the songs performed start becoming monotonous (apart from "As My Guitar Gently Weeps", with Martin Luther's smooth, soulful vocals and beautiful acoustic guitar having to serve as background music to a character's unnecessary rant over sound equipment) and there's a lot of scenes where it's wise to emote with the characters but because there's no real emotion driven into the main character's two-dimensional personalities or into how the actors should emote, everything comes off as awkward instead. I ended up actually wanting to speed the movie up so I can get to more interesting parts or for the movie to just end so I can stop wasting my time.

Overall, in my opinion this movie has good merit and potential to be quite good and some parts do have a sprinkling of good quirks and some inspired visuals. But overall, it feels too much like a movie made as a homework assignment than a fully-fledged major inspired production. Also, the Beatles covers are very hit ("Let it Be", "Benifit of Mr. Kite", .etc.) and miss (most of them as a lot of them sound the same). Which is a real shame as Julie Taymor is a fantastic visionary and she had to waste it on this. Good luck with "The Tempest", Julie, hope it makes up for this disappointing journey here!

3.5/10

Horton Hears a Who! (2008)

Well, who knew!

[6/10 · 9 April 2008]

There is a world out there that if you haven't heard of it, you're not a kid or never even *been* one. A world of insane imagination and the most creative ideas imaginable, told in the form of wacky but forever appealing poetry-style story-telling. This is the world created by Dr. Seuss, possibly one of the most iconic children's authors of all time. But his stories are in an odd place as of late, as the world of Hollywood looks up to his stories for inspiration on new movie projects. The first one was carried off well ("The Grinch"), but the next one didn't ("The Cat in the Hat") but there was still something missing to make these adaptations just right and that was to give up doing live-action and do it in animation, where practically anything could happen without as much pressure to make as live-action movies would be so to hear (pun unintentional, title's pun is) about "Horton Hears a Who" being an animated production, unlike these two movies, naturally I was very excited to see the end result.

Now, I have just yesterday so off I go with a review! The first thing that really struck me with this movie, which is also the best thing about it overall, was the animation. Blue Sky Studios, the people behind the "Ice Age" trilogy (third movie in production) are a trustworthy studio when it comes to making some really delightful and appealing pieces of CGI but with "Horton", they seem to have outdone even what they themselves thought about their talents! Without exaggeration, the animation is effortlessly stunning through and through and remained absolutely true to Dr. Seuss' playful and appealing drawing style as well as putting in a few new things that don't get in the way. In short, the animation *alone* is a good enough reason to see the movie, hands down.

There are added characters in the movie that weren't from the original book but pretty much all of them are not a nuisance and don't get in the way of the storyline so no one should worry, even if a lot of them don't add much. As for the original characters themselves, they are portrayed as they should be and any change to the characters is not easy to notice which is good enough.

Original story itself is adapted and carried off well and isn't spoilt by anything else in the movie. The back story of JoJo and the Mayor's relationship can feel a little odd at first but they've managed to blend this well with the original story and it's easy to get used to after a tiny amount of time.

The movie's most obvious problem however is that it does tend to focus heavily on humour in a lot of scenes and there are too many jokes that aren't really necessary, a few of them will sadly even date the movie in coming years (I won't say which ones they are here, you have to see for yourself) but thankfully the story manages to stay intact still and besides, there is quite a lot of jokes (that had a purpose) that were really *hilarious* so it's not a total disappointment. As for Jim Carey and Steve Carell? Well, they could have been better but they were good enough for me to say that they were good choices.

So overall, "Horton Hears a Who" is a good enough effort from Blue Sky Studios and good enough for me to say that it's a decent film. Really could have done without so many unnecessary jokes but the animation and good story adaptation make up for it. Worth checking out! I rate this: 6 out of 10.

• Eric.

That Mitchell and Webb Look: Episode #2.4 (2008) Season 2, Episode 4

Horrible and unfunny, a shockingly bad episode of what was one of Britain's finest sketch shows of recent times

[2/10 · 18 March 2008]

I have been watching "That Mitchell and Webb Look" since it premiered on BBC2 in 2006 and had been really enjoying it. Its witty and vastly original comedic style, its incredibly memorable characters, perfect comedic acting and razor-sharp script had helped the show become one of the most enjoyable British sketch shows of recent times and, along with the perfect "Peter Serafinowicz Show", one of many great alternatives to the more-commercialized sketch shows "Little Britain" and "The Catherine Tate Show". But the episode that broadcast on BBC2 on 13th March 2008 was quite simply, a disaster of a show.

Nearly everything that made the show so great was either forgotten or done totally wrong, with the end result showcasing what a lack of imaginative and original writing, depressingly unfunny subject matters, misshapen sense of comic timing and obnoxious ah-what-the-hell blurts of excessive sexual and overall strong language (mainly the "f" word and in one scene, an excessive use and literal mean to the "w" word) can seriously damage the potential for an already near-perfect show and totally turn an audience off.

This episode would get just 1 star but there was a sketch that out of all the other, worse sketches didn't falter on the first part. It was a sketch that took place in a very early time in British TV history where the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, of course) was introducing "Elevenses Television", a spin on modern British daytime TV and was introduced in true Monty Python-style by the then "King of England" and by a BBC announcer (both played by Webb) who was announcing "another chance to see live coverage of Hitler's corpse". This is the funniest and most likable moment in the entire episode, the second part of the sketch had an idea full of potential but was very clumsily delivered and was the first sketch of many to needlessly blurt out "f" words and the like.

The worst sketch of them all involved an extremely rude and abusive librarian and a woman bringing back a Shane Richie biography, to then have an onslaught of strong, needless verbal abuse thrown at her by the librarian (played by Webb). This is not just the least funniest scene in the entire series but possibly the least funniest scene I've seen in any comedy show for as long as I can remember. I have been a victim of heavy bullying at secondary school with pretty much no help and support from staff so watching the entire sketch was an incredibly uncomfortable experience and was overall a very depressing and extremely unfunny sketch. In fact, I hope the laughter track was totally canned during the scene because I just can't understand how anybody would find a scene like this funny due to how depressing and needless the nature of the scene is.

So, all in all, weather you're a fan of the show, a long-time viewer (like me) or a newcomer to the series, I suggest you stay as far away from this episode as possible. All I can hope now is that the next few episodes of the series will learn from this episode's mistakes, otherwise thanks to this episode the show that had so much huge potential to be one of the finest sketch shows of the decade would become the shadow of its former self.

I rate this episode: 2/10

Reviewer: Eric B.

The Cat Returns (2002)

"The Cat Returns" is the cat's whiskas! A highly-overlooked movie from Studio Ghibli...

[7/10 · 26 February 2008]

(This review focuses on the English-dubbed version of the movie)

What do you immediately think of when the words "Studio" and "Ghibli" are said together? For most, it's overall the works of "the Japanese Walt Disney" himself Hayao Miyazaki, who brought us such modern animated classics such as the delightful "My Neighbour Totoro", the imaginative and enchanting "Howl's Moving Castle" and of course Ghibli's Western-market breakthrough, the Oscar-winning "Spirited Away". For some others, the name "Isao Takahata" comes to mind too, who brought us films such as "Grave of the Fireflies" and "Pom Poko" (those two films I'm still yet to see). Of course, every now and again, a new director comes along and contributes to Ghibli's colourful and increasingly popular catalogue of animated classics. Sadly, not all of their movies are noted as much as the more widely-known Miyazaki or Takahata movies before them and what a shame to say that a movie like "The Cat Returns" has to be one of those lesser-known movies in question. The director Hiroyuki Morita, who worked on well-known Japanese "anime" titles such as 1988's "Akira" and "Lupin III", started his career at Ghibli as an animator for "My Neighbours the Yamadas" and boy, what a great directorial debut he's made with "The Cat Returns"!

In a nutshell, the story is about a girl named Haru who quickly manages to save a purple cat just as a truck was about to run over it as it was crossing the road. The cat then turned out to be Prince Lune who's Prince to a place called "The Cat Kingdom" and in light of this, cats rewarded Haru with gifts of catnip and mice and she eventually gets taken to the kingdom herself to marry Lune. The two prominent cat characters from "Whisper" return in this movie, the overweight, grumpy white cat Muta and the dashing and charming Baron who is the cat that the title says has *returned* in the first place.

The animation and artistry of the movie is exceptional and arguably one of the most enchanting efforts in animation and artistic direction you'll see from most non-Miyazaki Ghibli movies. Why? Because it may be really simple but everything still enchants you greatly on a subconscious level. You just watch the movie and it feels like a really wonderful dream but unlike most dreams which never come again, you can go back to it many times over on home video. In short, the artistry is so incredible that if your dreams were like that, you'd be excited to go to sleep every night! Well, I would think that anyway.

Most of the characters are well developed, even though a few of them still should have needed better character development, Prince Lune himself is a good example. They've made Haru into a wonderful, truly believable character and Baron and Muta are perfect as her trusted feline companions.

The English dubbing of the movie is perhaps one of the strongest and most entertaining dubs for any anime film so far, let alone any of Disney's previous dubs of Ghibli's films. Cary Elwes portrays Baron with such perfect charm and charisma that suits Baron even more than perfect. Anne Hathaway delivered a surprisingly terrific portrayal of Haru, making an already-believable character even more believable in what I feel is her best role yet! The late Peter Boyle delivered a hilarious and suitably grumpy performance as Muta. But the real surprise came from Tim Curry , an already well-known and highly respected actor who simply just re-invented The Cat King, it was a terrific performance and I'm really happy Tim Curry was chosen!

However, even with all the positives, there is only one big flaw with the movie: the movie was shorter than it really should be! I'm serious here, the movie was only about 1 hour and 15 minutes long and this slightly harmed the development of the story and the development of some characters (is the word "Lune" a clue?). This is a movie that deserves the full 90+ minutes so it's a real shame to see such an enchanting movie end so soon, though once you get over how soon the movie ends, you'll still enjoy the movie anyway.

So overall, "The Cat Returns" is a hilarious and enchanting movie from Studio Ghibli and a promising start for first-time director Hiroyuki Morita. Weather you're a fan of Studio Ghibli, a cat lover or someone who just loves animated films, this movie will blow you away in new and unique ways that are still rare in animation today. Trust me, you will not regret it!

I rate it, 7 out of 10!

• Eric B.

28 Days Later (2002)

Not really as terrifying as I thought but a very unique movie nonetheless...

[7/10 · 2 July 2007]

There is something odd about the way movie promotion teams make their movies look like what they actually aren't, weather it's with terms of genre or quality. Please don't laugh but back in 2002, when the movie came out in the UK (which is of course the country where this movie originates from and takes place at), I was terrified of seeing this movie purely because the poster scared me enough! I saw it because it was playing on Channel 4 not too long ago, playing in the same room where I was busy on the computer I use and I slowly found myself watching it out of blind curiosity so then after getting into it, I logged off and started watching it properly and I was very delightfully surprised by it.

I do not consider "28 Days Later" as a horror of any real kind but I more consider it as a very tense sci-fi thriller. This is great for people like me who really are not fans of the horror genre but that said, the movie still has some haunting elements and quite a bit of bloody violence so people who love horror wouldn't feel too disappointed neither. There are a lot of other reasons why this movie is so unique, it's use of digital video to shoot the more intense scenes is an ingenious idea and makes the whole experience even more adrenaline-filled, exciting and in the right moments, a bit scary too.

Other things to mention is that the story is very clever and the screenplay by Alex Garland delivers it incredibly well without lacking in any place throughout the movie, the direction by Danny Boyle is very professionally done, the score by John Murphy is very original and atmospheric and the acting is superb, especially for a movie like this.

So to round things up, if you don't like horror, "28 Days Later" is the best alternative to the genre around. To those who do like horror, "28 Days Later" won't disappoint you there neither. Definitely worth checking out! Just be prepared for a few gruesome elements and some bloody violence.

I give this movie, 4 out of 5.

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Enjoying this movie would make you a sinner!

[1/10 · 24 April 2007]

Well, where do I even start? Last October, I wasn't allowed to take part in Halloween so instead I had to go with some of my family relatives to see "The Devil Wears Prada". Like all movies I go to see, I make the most out of them and try to enjoy them as much as I can. And needless to say, if there's any movie I'd like to burn, it's "Prada". Why do I hate this so much? I'd love to say, there's so many reasons why this movie should be avoided.

This movie is mean't to be a Comedy/Drama. Well, they're right about the Drama part but not so much about the Comedy part. This movie just simply wasn't that funny at all and the humour was not only very bland and lifeless but the movie's humour was also quite abusive and sexist (which is surprising for a movie that's aimed at mainly a female audience and yes, unfortunately the sexism is being directed towards women). There's one scene where some of the characters in Runaway Magazine HQ tell Andy Sachs (played by Anne Hathaway) that she is too fat, even if she is obviously not fat in the slightest and in a decade where you see TV news headlines talking about the fact that more and more women are *dying* because they're suffering from anorexia, this sort of stuff being in a movie aimed at mostly young women is completely unacceptable and in a way also encourages more and more young people to falsely bully other people for image problems they don't have, just because they found it funny in a movie like this, also unacceptable for a movie with audiences like "Prada"s.

Not only that but also, as the movie progresses, it gets less and less funny and it feels as though you're watching a serious drama about divorce and the fickleness of popularity instead of a comedy/drama about a girl trying to do ridiculous tasks to try and get a job for a magazine run by a very bossy fashion expert. And on top of that, the direction of all the scenes involving Runaway HQ and it's editor Miranda (played by Meryl Streep) seem all too familiar to all the scenes involving Cruella DeVil (played by Glenn Close) and her fashion studio in the 1996 live-action remake of the Disney classic "101 Dalmatians".

Without exaggeration, this movie was really painful to watch and the worst movie I ever went to a cinema to see so far (even worse than "Spice World: The Movie", but not by much). And I wasn't the only person there who hated this movie, all my other family relatives hated it and felt as though the time they spent seeing this movie was wasted. If you're thinking of renting this movie, don't bother. Save your money and your precious time, trust me, you really aren't missing much at all.

I give this movie, 1 out of 5 (or if possible, 0.5).