What makes this show so good is how inventively it handles its every-episode formula and tackles typical modern cartoon tropes. But really, this show out of everything on television? And what's with the Universal credit?

The Oscar winner for Best Production and Costume Design is so overpowered by prettiness that it's no wonder they had to delay it. More style than satire, this adaptation shoves everything so far into your eyes that you forget what it's all about. Maybe a Great American Novel like this is better off a novel.

This is a documentary made to glorify bronies, BronyCon even moreso, when there's so much more to be said about them. What "clopping" really means, what John Joseco is really known for, the contradictions they make of "love and tolerance" against people who disagree, the bigotry, the fact that they take parody seriously unless it has anything positive to do with ponies, the rabid obsession over every minor detail (although some guy had more stickers of Minuette than any other pony), what Derpy means to them, what "plot" means to them, their judgement over the previous generations, the sexual fan art they draw of the crew members, the grimdark, the misconception of being called "chicken", the clueless feminists, the foalcon, their "not all bronies are like that" excuses, their PowerPoint presentations, their lack of sympathy for disaster/massacre victims...

I could go on and on and on, but to put it short, this fandom has 10x more problems than Jay Z and I regret ever having any sort of involvement in it. Remember that there are more important shows out there (e.g. Wander Over Yonder) and don't get yourself poisoned by this documentary if you want to be a better man. It's the most biased documentary I've seen since We Steal Secrets.

This adaptation tells the message of living your dream well enough; I just wish it was more of that than Ben Stiller's attempts at being artsy as well as Farrelly-esque, especially the dreams of Mitty's we'd rather not think about.

Gravity's a British co-production. Ending up like Hollywood during the climax? Fine by me, the director's Mexican! British fiction being turned into Hollywood films? Don't have a problem with that! Getting American directors, producers and writers to take on a British true story that has nothing to do with America? That I have a problem with.

James Corden is perfectly cast as Paul Potts, but thanks to David Frankel, Justin Zackham, Taylor Swift and the Weinsteins of all filmmakers, One Chance is bogged down by typical Hollywood formula that creates a jarring effect when played on a story about an Englishman who goes to Italy for inspiration on his opera singer skills.

Just look at the styles of films like Philomena, which primarily takes place in Britain and takes a trip to the States, but with Stephen Frears on board it has the kind of essence you wouldn't usually find in Hollywood productions. It works with films like 42 because the story was all-out American, but I've just never been this frustrated with an Americanisation in all my years of watching films.

Never has a cash grab been any more smurfin' obvious in the history of cinema. Not even Foodfight was this obvious - all the product placement, the blatant unoriginality, the godawful puns (approved by the Peyo family), the in-your-face marketing schemes; Grouchy falls in love with a Ms. Green plush doll. You know, the female M&M?

It further goes to show that if you add a touch of realism to a beloved classic cartoon character's eyes, the result will take a crap on its legacy as well as the memories of children's parents and therefore will never be any better than a stupid attempt at moneymaking. And before you ask, Mr. Peabody & Sherman doesn't count.

Man, this movie. What made Kung Fu Panda 2 so good was that it explained things. It gave answers to all questions we had about the first one. A month later, Disney made Pixar their bitch and instead of what became two movies about wolves and parrots released this heaping mess.

Now, I admit to liking the first Cars because it put a familiar story to good use. Mater was also a fun character. But because people liked Mater, Johnny Boy thought it'd continue Pixar's stream of success to make him the star, when Larry the Cable Guy is known as one of the worst comedians known to man, and when he's the star of a sequel that he wasn't the star of to begin with, you're in for trouble aplenty (e.g. Tooth Fairy 2 and Jingle All the Way 2).

But that isn't even the biggest problem I have with this movie. Just look at the world of Cars. You'd expect them at some point to reveal how they made everything the way it is, from drawing to using devices. Surely this can't be a post-apocalyptic universe because there are cars drawn onto everything, as well as puns like "Towkyo". Pixar would usually care to tell us how things work! Hell, it's clear how things work in Blue Sky's Robots because they have arms and legs! But these characters! They have wheels! Since when did they exist? How do they reproduce? How are they born? If they urinate gas then does that mean they're drinking their own pee? How do they type and draw those thiALTNETP (ETWQ*U$ £"UT_£$}U*Taz sounds* CUCKOO CUCKOO QUACK QUACK QUACK YABBA DABBA DOOOOO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO BE LO*smack*

Okay, now that I've calmed down, when I saw this at a Q&A screening, John Lasseter, who seemed to be prouder of this than any other film in his career, told us that Pixar makes sure nothing bad ever goes into their films by "spanking the bad stuff". Is Johnny entirely sure of this? He also believes that people will look at this in the future as a masterpiece like Toy Story, because Toy Story "got a lot of bad reviews". When society has dumbed down, maybe so. But for now, congratulations, Johnny, you've just squandered an entire reputation of care and intelligence. Spank harder.

I would call Will Smith's character lazy had I forgotten that he was injured the whole time his son was battling all these creatures, but it doesn't hurt to call him that because he's indifferent in every shot we see him in.