Film Review - "Where The Crawdad Sings"

I'm as surprised as you are.

Where The Crawdad Sings

Directed by Olivia Newman

Starring Daisy Edgar-Jones, Taylor John Smith, and David Strathairn

I saw the trailer for this film months ago and didn't give it much of a second-thought. You see "Based on The Best-Selling Novel" flash across the screen these days there's a 50-50 chance it's not gonna go well.

Then I happened to catch it back on National Cinema Day, and surprisingly I found Where The Crawdad Sings to be a captivating and suspenseful thriller.  

So again, based on the best-selling novel Delia Owens (Which I have not and probably will not read because I'm a slow reader and it takes me three years to finish one book), the film tells the story of Catherine "Kya" Clark (Jones) and her life growing up in the marshes of North Carolina. The townspeople of Barkley Cove look at her as an eccentric recluse, nicknaming her "Marsh Girl". In the present timeline of 1969, she stands trial for murder of her former boyfriend Chase Andrews (Harris Dickinson), and kindly attorney Tom Milton (Strathairn) defends her when no one else will.

As the trial unfolds, we learn of her life growing up in the marsh with her abusive father, and how her mother and siblings each ran from home, and abandoning her, one-by-one (Rather bizarrely I might add, like why is no one taking her with them??). Her father eventually passes away, thus leaving her to fend for herself at only seven years old. She survives selling muscles in town, and is assisted frequently by local shopkeeps James and Mabel Madison (Sterling Mace Jr. and Micheal Hyatt).

Soon a local boy named Tate Walker (Smith) takes a liking to Kya and helps her learn to read and write, while the two grow closer, and we also start to learn how Kya and Chase's relationship developed as well...

The mystery of the film is very compelling, as you truly get invested in the past, and wonder how it leads to the trial in the present. The relationship between the three leads is incredibly fleshed out. It is a love triangle, yes, but there's more at play beneath the surface. The conflict is in incredibly well-developed, tackling all four "flavors" of conflict in literature (That's man vs man, nature, society, and self). Man Vs Nature is probably the strongest in the film, as Kya's relationship with the marshes makes her an outcast and oddity to her peers.

While on the subject of nature, the film has a lot of beautiful visuals, perfectly capturing the beauty and sometimes sinister nature of the North Carolina marshlands (I don't want to know if it was partially CGI, or touched up in post. I just don't.) 

I would say the film's biggest flaw is its pacing. It wants to go back and forth between the past and present, but we spend so much in the past, we can almost forget in the present there's a trial and Kya's life hands in the balance. That and the present day scenes just aren't as interesting.

Daisy Edgar-Jones is perfectly cast as Kya, encapsulating the sweet innocence of the character but also the strength and independence. Taylor John Smith is a likable leading man as Tate Walker with a lot of heart, but there's also some naivety to the character. Not enough to make you annoyed with him, but enough to give him more depth (Side-note, this guy could play a live-action Kristoff when Disney starts getting remake eyes for Frozen). You absolutely love to hate Harris Dickinson as Chase Andrews. It's not over-the-top villainy but he makes a perfect antagonist. David Starthairn is just likable in everything he does.

I was surprised to find Where The Crawdad Sings to be an enjoyable time at the theater. It has some beautiful visuals, a compelling mystery, and a suspenseful drama with some truly harrowing scenes throughout. I never expected to find myself seeing a film like this (On National Cinema Day no less!) but I'm glad I did, and will probably rewatch this down the line.

...What's that? ...This film received poor reviews from critics?...The author of the book is problematic and may or may not be a murderer?...Where The Crawdad Sings might be rooted in realism and clue us in to what Delia Owens was doing as conservationist in Zimbabwe?...Well I still liked it.

 

Film Review - "Hocus Pocus 2"

I'm taking a big risk with this one...

Hocus Pocus 2

Directed by Anne Fletcher

Starring Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy

Let me start by sharing my thoughts on the original Hocus Pocus...It's enjoyable! It's campy but in a fun 90's way. The three leads are clearly having a ball. Like a lot of classic Disney, it treats its younger audience members with respect, as it can scare them as much as it entertains them. It's a good Halloween story that can be enjoyed year after year.

I saw it for the first time in 2015. I didn't grow up with it or hold it in the same regard as many people my age do. That said I never saw a need for a sequel. We got one though, and it was released on Disney Plus last month. I watched it and found Hocus Pocus 2 to be a surprisingly worthy sequel, but while in some areas it surpasses it, in others it can't compete. Let me explain.

The film opens with a flashback to 1653 in Salem (which might not add up if you remember the prologue to Hocus Pocus took place in 1963, when they were already old hags), where the young Sanderson Sisters are banished by the Reverend Traske (Tony Hale) after Winifred refuses to marry a John Pritchette. It is in their exile in the forbidden forest, where they meet Mother Witch (Hannah Waddingham), who gifts Winifred a spell book for her sixteenth birthday. This sets the three sisters on their path to become the infamous witches Salem will forever...fear? Idolize? It's a grey area.

Fast-forward to the present 2022, where best friends Becca (Whitney Peak) and Izzie (Belissa Escobedo) are preparing to celebrate Halloween and Becca's sixteenth birthday. How you ask? Why by going into the same forbidden forest The Sanderson Sisters found themselves in when Winifred was turning sixteen, of course. They light a candle for a special birthday ritual, which turns out to be another Black Flame Candle. Since it was lit under a full moon by a virgin (I along with many who've pointed this out before, am not comfortable with the whole virgin aspect of the spell in both films, considering teenagers are lighting these candles, and it's Disney, but at least Hocus Pocus 2 points out the absurdity of it) The Sanderson Sisters are resurrected once again: Winifred (Midler), Sarah (Parker), and Mary (Najimy).

This time, Winifred makes it their mission to cast a spell that will make her all powerful, and give them the ability to take revenge on Traske (His descendant is now the Mayor of Salem, also played by Tony Hale) and the whole town. Also thrown into the mix is The Mayor's daughter Cassie (Lillia Buckingham), who is also Becca and Izzie's estranged best friend, Gilbert (Sam Richardson) who runs the Old Salem Magic Shoppe currently located in the Sanderson's old home, and Billy Butcherson (Doug Jones), Winifred's former lover and back from the grave once again.

Hocus Pocus 2 is a film that falls into a category many have dubbed as legacy sequels, meaning it's a sequel that comes out decades after the original, very much like Mary Poppins Returns, Top Gun: Maverick, or Ghostbusters: Afterlife. Hocus is much more in line with Mary Poppins or Ghostbusters, where it's following the roadmap of the original (with *some* tweaks), but it's doing so with a lot of love and effort from the filmmaking team. Yes a virgin lights the candle that resurrects the witches, there's a "fish out of water" element where these women from the 1600s don't know how to handle modern times (Yet somehow they know what to do when a teenager holds up a smartphone to take a selfie...), and the heroes have one night to stop them before it's too late. But in this film...there's TWO musical numbers!! Quite catchy ones, I must say. As I said, there's a lot of love and effort on screen here. This was made for Hocus Pocus fans.

Unfortunately, I feel as though "fish out of water" humor was left behind by cinema in the 90's and early 2000's, so a fair bit of it falls flat. Actually, if you watch both films back-to-back you can get a real education on how filmmaking has changed over time. The evolution of special effects is clearly on screen. But as far as the comedy, there are some funny bits and a lot of clever callbacks to the first film. 

The supporting characters for this film sadly can't hold a candle (Heh) to those of the original. I can remember Sam, Max and Dani from Hocus Pocus easily, but I had to look up Becca, Izzy, and Cassie's names while writing this. That's not to say they're bad characters, or the performances are bad. I actually thought the actresses did a very good job, and I look forward to seeing more work from them in the future. They're just sadly not the focus of this film, and you know who is. You came for the witches. I can see and appreciate the parallel they were setting up between The Sanderson Sisters, and Becca, Izzie, and Cassie, but it's just not given enough attention in the script. That, and the conflict between the young three throughout the film is quite weak (Well, maybe from the perspective of a thirty-one year-old, but maybe not too younger viewers...).

Kudos to this film for giving more depth to The Sanderson Sisters. Not something I ever expected or thought we needed. They're not just scary, comical boogeyman for the heroes to defeat this time around. We actually get a better sense of the sisters' relationship with one another, specifically Winifred's. Also the three young girls playing the Sandersons in the opening flashback were perfect and, wever casting director found them deserves a raise.

Bette Midler is the star of the show here, displaying all her theatrics on screen. Kathy Najimy is so clearly happy to be here and loving every second of it. She is definitely the funniest of the three leads. Oddly, Sarah Jessica Parker does not stand out as much as her two co-leads. This time around her performance as Sarah is much more reserved. That said, these three cast a large shadow over the supporting cast. Tony Hale is quirky but fun as Reverend/Mayor Traske. Sam Richardson has some fun moments as Gilbert, especially when he's sharing scenes with Doug Jones as Billy, who gets more to do than lumber around as a zombie this time. Finally, Hannah Waddingham is criminally underused as Mother Witch and someone needs to pay for their crimes.

How much you love the first Hocus Pocus will factor into how much you enjoy the sequel. It's a fitting tribute to its successor, but not without its flaws. I truly feel that if the script had done a bit more heavy lifting in the character development department, this film could have surpassed the original. As it stands though it's a fun watch with a lot of heart, that may just become part of your annual Halloween watchlist.

Seriously though how did they know how to take a selfie?

Film Review - "Don't Worry Darling"

This is going to be quick, and harsh, but frankly deserved.

Don't Worry Darling

Directed by Olivia Wilde,

Starring Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, and Chris Pine

Don't Worry Darling is the second directorial feature from Olivia Wilde (I have not seen Booksmart). The film focuses on happily married couple Alice (Pugh) and Jack (Styles) Chambers, living in a company town of Victory, overseen by its founder Frank (Pine. I don't remember if the character had a last name. It doesn't matter anyway). Victory is a perfect suburban utopia, where the husbands go to work, and the wives stay home and do domestic duties. But one day, Alice notices things aren't as perfect as they seem in Victory, and begins to search for answers, despite warnings from her husband and peers.

So yes, this sounds like a lot of other films that have come before, such as The Stepford Wives, Pleasantville, The Truman Show, and Get Out to name a few. Nothing new here, right? Well as I've learned in all my years of studying and watching films, it's not the tool it's how use it and-no, no Don't Worry Darling brings nothing new to the table...

It's very easy for viewers to get a grasp on the "big twist" of where the film is going. Instead of trying to craft a compelling narrative, Wilde and Screenwriter Katie Silberman seem determined to push the big reveal off for as long as possible in its 123 minute runtime (The film feels more like four hours long than two and change). There are lot of surreal and bizarre moments throughout, that in the end mean nothing to the plot, and are just all sizzle and no steak. At one point Florence Pugh's character is making breakfast. She cracks an egg open and finds nothing inside. Just a hollow shell. A perfect metaphor for this film.

Speaking of Florence Pugh, she deserves an Honorary Academy Award and chiropractor for carrying this film on her back. The passion and effort she puts into her performance is meant for a much better film. Chris Pine also deserves credit for his portrayal as Frank. Pine perfectly capture the charming yet sinister nature needed for this role. There's a confrontation scene between Pugh and Pine in the film, and it's frankly (Heh. Frank) the best part of the film because you've got your two strongest players showing the rest how it's done.

Alright, I'll talk about Harry Styles...I have nothing against this guy trying to have a side-gig as an actor. But...he needs more practice. For the majority of the film I truly think his performance is fine. It's when he has to raise his voice, or get angry, is when the cracks start to show. You've all seen the face from that one scene. It's a meme at this point. I will admit I had to stifle laughter when I saw it.

Let's see. What else...Olivia Wilde's performance is fine. Gemma Chan and Nick Kroll have some fleeting shining moments in their supporting roles. The cinematography and set-design is very pretty. Um...yeah that's it.

It's sad when the behind-the-scenes drama of a film is more entertaining than the film itself, but Don't Worry Darling is an incredibly frustrating narrative that raises more questions than answers, as it tries to avoid the cliche' story foundation its built upon. I describe it as jingling shiny keys in front of a baby to entertain or distract them, and we are not babies, and it's insulting (Wait, you're an actual infant watching Don't Worry Darling? My God where are your parents?!?). I think "sophomore slump" is the best way to describe this second film from Olivia Wilde. I cannot even say it's like The Room, where you need to see for yourself how bad it is, or "its so bad its good". No, don't worry darling (Ha...) there's nothing to see here...

Film Review - "Thor: Love & Thunder"

Thor: Love & Thunder

Directed by Taika Waititi

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Christian Bale, and Natalie Portman

Of course I saw this film back when it first was released to theaters back in July. I left my screening feeling conflicted, and needed to think on it for awhile. Ultimately I think the version of this film I envisioned in my head for years (A MCU equivalent to Toy Story 4 with Thor as our Woody-I knew that wasn't gonna come out right.) was keeping me from enjoying the film I got. After rewatching the film last night on Disney Plus, I can say that Thor: Love & Thunder is an enjoyable adventure with a lot of heart.

After Korg (Waititi), the film's narrator, gives the audiences a recap of all the loss Thor (Hemsworth) has suffered throughout the years, we see The God of Thunder is still traveling the cosmos with The Guardians of The Galaxy. He has shut himself off from love, afraid of losing it again, but Peter Quill/Star Lord (Chris Pratt) tells him it's better to feel sh!**y about losing love than to feel nothing at all. 

Soon Thor is called back to New Asgard, when a villain known as Gorr The God Butcher (Bale) emerges, kidnapping all the Asgardian children as part of a plan to wipe out all Gods. Joining Thor on his quest to rescue the children and stop Gorr is Korg, the newly appointed ruler of Asgard, Valkyrie (Tessa Thompson), and his ex-girlfriend Dr. Jane Foster (Portman), who has been deemed worthy of the reforged hammer Miljonir and now possesses the power of Thor.

As if saving the world while reuniting with your ex, who is now your super-powered equal wasn't enough, Jane is also battling stage-four cancer, and her new powers may or may not be helping her fight the disease...

The core of the film is Thor and Jane's relationship, which arguably hasn't been the strongest aspect of the Thor films in the past, but Waitit does a great job retroactively building the foundation of their bond, and giving the audience reason to root for them. Thor is given a second chance with a lost love, but also risks losing it again. Thor, while he can be a very comedic character, is also a very tragic one in this franchise (Remember that opening recap). Love & Thunder definitely favors the comedic, but the tragic side is still on display, and Hemsworth does a great job navigating both sides. It's why he's played the character for over ten years.

Love & Thunder is a spectacular homage to the fantasy-adventures of the eighties, from the vibrant color palette, to the stellar use of music from Guns N'Roses, and how it plays with various tones. A lot of people have criticized this film for having tone problems. However many 80's films played with tone in a similar way, One moment things are bright, colorful, and making us smile, and the very next they're dark, cheery and trying to scare the sh!t out of us. And those dark moments sure are creepy.

Waititi loves his comedy, and the film has plenty of laughs, but he knows when to cut the jokes and focus on the moment. I will say though some jokes are run-in to ground, specifically the screaming goats that pull Thor's ship, and an odd love-triangle that develops between Thor, Miljonir, and his new weapon Stormbreaker. I'm just not sure when these weapons became sentient...or love interests (Unless you remember Stormbreaker was made from Groot's arm).

The film has a wonderful cast. I've already praised Hemsworth. Natalie Portman's return is more than welcome. As Jane she is "adorkable" as she learns to become a superhero, while also nailing every emotional moment. This is easily her best outing as Jane Foster in the MCU. Christian Bale leaps into the conversation of "Best MCU Villain" as Gorr. He's scary, charismatic, and endearing all at once. One particular scene gave me the creeps. Bale brings his A-Game. Korg remains a favorite of mine, but Waitit risks over-using his character this time around. Less is more with Korg. Tessa Thompson continues to be suave and charming as ever as Valkyrie, although I do wish her character got more development this film.

I think that is probably my biggest criticism of the film. Its untapped potential of its supporting players. We could have seen more of Valkyrie's time ruling Asgard (and her search for a Queen, but I guess that was cut). Jaimie Alexander returns as Lady Sit, but she doesn't do very much of anything. Even the Guardians of the Galaxy don't get much to do. They didn't have to be in the whole film, this is a Thor film, but Pratt's Peter Quill could've offered a lot more to Thor and Jane's stories. Again, at the end of the day this is a Thor film, and Thor has to be the priority.

I will say though credit has to be given to Russell Crowe for his portrayal of Zeus. He could've so easily phoned it in but he's giving it his all, and you can tell he's having a lot of fun with it.

There's been a lot of contentious debate about not just this film, but pretty much every entry in Phase Four of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I remain on the positive side of things. Thor: Love & Thunder may not be the next Avengers: Endgame, or Captain America: Civil War, or even the next Thor: Ragnarok (Well, I guess it technically is that..) but it doesn't need to be. The beauty of the MCU is its diverse body of stories. Love & Thunder stands strong as a heart-warming, entertaining adventure that is worthy of your time.

Film Review - "Elvis"

Elvis

Directed by Baz Luhrmann

Starring Austin Butler, Tom Hanks, and Olivia DeJonge

I don't think a lot of people know that one of my favorite singers is Elvis Presley. My mother had a good friend who was a huge Elvis fan, and I can't say for sure, but I think it might've rubbed off during the times she babysat me. During a family trip to Vegas we went to an Elvis impersonator show, and the Elvis museum. Then like most millennials, my biggest exposure to Elvis came from the 2002 animated classic, Lilo & Stitch.

My anticipation for Elvis was high but I was nervous because the last Baz Luhrmann film I saw left a bad taste in my mouth. Fortunately I walked away from Elvis as a (mostly) satisfied fan and moviegoer.

As one would expect, Elvis tells the story of...Elvis (Butler). The primary focus of the film is Presley's relationship with his longtime manager, Colonel Tom Parker (Hanks), who financially abused him for years. Other key points in the film are Elvis's influence by African-American music in Memphis, the public outcry against his on-stage demeanor, and his residency in Las Vegas.

It was an interesting choice on Luhrman's part to have the story focus on Presley and Parker's relationship, and have Parker act as the film's narrator. As much of a fan of Elvis I am, I never knew how contentious and abusive his relationship with his manager was. It's not the first time in a film where a music manager has been the villain (see Rocketman, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star Is Born Wayne's World...Wayne's World 2...etc) but it lands differently here, because to some degree...the villain wins (The battle, but not the war. The general public remembers Elvis. Not the Colonel). There's an underlying tragedy to all the song and dance, which makes Elvis all the more impactful. 

Like most biopics, Elvis does its best to cover its subject's entire life story, and as such the pacing ends up suffering. There are times when you definitely feel the two-hour and forty-minute runtime. It's also kind of disappointing when things like Elvis's unsuccessful film career, time in the army, and relationship with Priscilla are glossed over. However I can forgive those things since the main drive of the film is how the Colonel influenced the trajectory of his career, and those things might be smaller parts of the story it's trying to tell. Still, the film's pacing is very touch and go.

Austin Butler literally becomes Elvis. He nails the look, the personality, and even the singing. It goes way beyond an average Elvis impression. There's so much passion and energy. There are some emotional, dramatic moments that stand out strong in my memory, even stronger than the recreation of famous Elvis performances. We're only halfway through the year but he absolutely better be remembered when it's time cast votes for Oscar nominations. This is a career-defining role for Butler. 

Tom Hanks is fine as Colonel Parker. It really is intriguing to see Hanks, who normally plays good guys, play someone so shady and despicable. It adds another level to the character, because the Colonel himself was very much a wolf in sheep's clothing. It's a compelling performance, but at times also comes off as an odd Colonel Sanders impression. That and the prosthetics on Hanks can be a bit distracting. Ultimately, you love to hate The Colonel, and that's what the film needed to get across to viewers. 

Olivia DeJonge deserves some credit for her role as Priscilla Presley. In many ways, she's the heart and moral compass of Elvis, the person and the film. She has wonderful chemistry with Butler, and has a few good scenes, as I said earlier, sadly Elvis and Priscilla's relationship isn't given too much attention in the film, so she doesn't have a ton to do. 

Ultimately, Baz's style of filmmaking works better for Elvis Presley than The Great Gatsby. Some filmmaking choices don't land well, and can be jarring and disorienting for the viewers. For the most part however, his knack for flashy visuals and spectacle work well to bring The King of Rock & Roll's story to the big screen. 

My big gripe however, and it's a problem I had with Gatsby too, and that is Baz's desire to use modern music in his "period pieces". It's not as bad here as it was in Gatsby, because the film does use classic Elvis songs and even repurposes some of them for the score, but we don't need new remixes of Elvis's songs that use the Top 40 artists when we have the originals. This isn't a jukebox musical like Moulin Rogue, man. I will however, make an exception for Kasey Musgrave's cover of "Can't Help Falling In Love", and Butler's singing is almost indistinguishable from the original Elvis. 

In the end, Elvis is an enjoyable biopic that pays proper tribute to one of the most influential singers of all time, that is also shaped by a career-defining performance from Austin Butler. Wether you are a fan of Elvis or not, I think you'll find something to enjoy here, and maybe walk away with a new appreciation of the man. Baz Luhrman has earned some good faith back from me. Time will tell but I think this film has a good chance of cracking my Top 10 for 2022.

I still have to write my Top 10 for 2021 though...

Film Review - "Top Gun: Maverick"

Top Gun: Maverick

Directed by Joseph Kosinski

Starring Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, and Jennifer Connelly

Full disclosure, my friends...I had never seen the original Top-Gun until last Memorial Day Weekend. I caught it just before it left Netflix, and just as the sequel hit theaters. I liked it fine. The visuals were solid for their time. It had a good story, a great cast, and a killer soundtrack. I didn't necessarily see a lot of potential for a sequel.

I tell you all this to maximize contrast to my next few sentences. Top Gun: Maverick is well worth all the praise its been giving. Not only is it a worthy sequel, I found it to be better than the original. Believe the hype. 

Thirty years after graduating TOPGUN, US Navy Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Cruise) is called back to his old stomping grounds to instruct a new team of Top Gun pilots on a dangerous mission to destroy a foreign country's unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant. Among his students and potential recruits is Lieutenant Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw (Teller), son of Maverick's former wingman Nick "Goose" Bradshaw (Anthony Edwards), who was killed in action during a flight with Maverick in the original film.

As the mission draws closer and Maverick trains his students, tensions between he and Rooster grow due to their shared history. Meanwhile, Maverick reconnects with an old flame, Penelope "Penny" Benjamin (Connelly).

Right off the bat I think Maverick takes the Top Gun story to its natural next step (in fact they sort of set this up in the original). Yes this is a big spectacle action film but none of that matters if you don't care about the characters, and you do. There's a lot of heart and emotion to this, with big themes like fatherhood and legacy. The sizzle and the steak are both right here. But speaking of spectacle, this is a film that NEEDS to be seen on the biggest screen possible.

Advancements in filmmaking technology do nothing but benefit the world of Top Gun. You feel as if you're up in the air with these pilots. Everything from the visuals to the sound work come together perfectly. It's exhilarating. Pure thrills. Is there an IMAX near you? See it in IMAX.

Tom Cruise, putting his personal life aside, the man clearly cares about his work and the films he makes. Maverick is a prime-example. He's never been a favorite actor of mine but he gives a classic Tom Cruise performance here. He slips back into one of his most iconic roles flawlessly. Speaking of actors who were never my favorite, Miles Teller I think gives one of the best performances of his career (No I haven't seen Whiplash). Good for him. He can stay. Jennifer Connelly is also delightful as Penny, and she has great chemistry with Cruise. Jon Hamm matches up against Cruise well as Vice Admiral Beau "Cyclone" Simpson. It's easily one of his less-likable characters but that's a testament to his talent. You love to hate Glen Powell as "Hangman" even more, but he's definitely playing to his usual archetype. Finally, Val Kilmer returns as "Iceman" in one of the film's quiter but most emotional and memorable scenes.

Yeah so I don't have much more to say. I'm with the majority on this one. Top Gun: Maverick is not only a spectacular sequel, it's one of the best films of the year. It has everything a sequel to Top Gun should have. Spectacular visuals, wonderful characters in a compelling story, and a killer soundtrack. It's just a great time at the movie theater. Get on the highway to the danger zone and see it for yourself.

Side-Note: You know how many times I used the quote "Not gonna let you down, Goose" over the years because they referenced it in Ted? And I had no idea that Goose died! What kinda sick joke. Seth McFarlane you crossed lines...

Film Review - "Jurassic World: Dominion"

You know I've never written a review for a Jurassic film, Park or World. Shame that this is (supposedly) the last one...and it's bad...oh well.

Jurassic World: Dominion

Directed by Colin Trevorrow

Starring Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Laura Dern, etc.

I like the original Jurassic Park and Jurassic World, and that's where my enjoyment of the franchise ends. A lot of movie-viewers probably share that sentiment, although I know Jurassic World has its fair share of critics. It's been a long time since I've seen the second and third films in the original trilogy so I might not be the best judge on them. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was...okay. It definitely could've been a lot better.

I had hope the franchise could bounce back for a proper conclusion with Jurassic World: Dominion. Unfortunately this is a very disappointing and frustrating film, and easily one of the weakest entires in the Jurassic series.

Following the events of Fallen Kingdom, the world is struggling to cope with the fact that de-extinct dinosaurs freely roam the Earth. Owen (Pratt) and Claire (Howard) have gone off-the-grid living the log-cabin life, trying to raise and protect teenage clone Maisie Lockwood (Isabella Sermon). Blue, one of the raptors Owen trained on Isla Nubar, has taken residence in the woods by their cabin (Convenient...) and given birth to a baby, which Maisie names Beta. One day, operatives from an organization known as Biosyn Genetics kidnap both Maisie and Beta. Owen and Claire quickly give chase to rescue them both.

Elsewhere, Doctors Ellie Sattler (Dern) and Alan Grant (Sam Neill) set out to investigate Biosyn on their own, believing they may be behind a recent plague of prehistoric locusts that threaten the world's food supply. They're able to successfully infiltrate Biosyn's compound under the invitation of recent Biosyn employee, Dr. Ian Malcom (Ultra-Daddy Jeff Goldblum). It's also so *so* important for viewers to know that the CEO of Biosyn and our antagonist is Dr. Lewis Dodgson (Played here by Campbell Scott). Dodgson as in "Dodgson. Dodgson! Hey we got Dodgson here!!...See? Nobody cares." 

Who would've thought a single, disrespectful taunt by Newman from Seinfeld would turn a minor character from the original Jurassic Park into the franchise's final big bad...

Right off the bat you can see there are two plot lines going at the start of this film, and frankly neither are very interesting. The one with the classic characters gets bonus points because it's great to see the actors reprise these roles. The pacing is also terrible. This film is a half-hour shorter than The Batman while at the same time feeling an hour longer than it. The two plot lines take forever to converge, and when the old guard finally meets the newbies it's not even an exciting moment. It's almost a relief, that maybe we're finally approaching the film's end.

The marketing for this film and its predecessor heavily pushed the idea that the series was going to start exploring the idea of dinosaurs existing out in the modern world. Dominion starts out honoring that promise, but way too quickly drops the ball...in favor of locusts. LOCUSTS. Dinosaurs, in a Jurassic World film, become less relevant to the plot than LOCUSTS...BUGS. The ball has been dropped. That's not to say dinosaurs disappear from the film entirely. When they do show up on-screen they look great, and there's a nice blend of practical and CGI effects, which are both effective. There are some cool shots and interesting sequences. One standout is a motorcycle chase with raptors through the streets and rooftops of Malta. However these moments are far too fleeting in a lackluster film.

Dominion also relies heavily on good old cinematic nostalgia. It's a common thing in film today, and in films like this, that are sequels/follow-ups that come out years or decades after the original. There are good ways to use it, and bad ways. I feel like the last Star Wars trilogy gets a bad rap for how it relies on nostalgia, but I think the Jurassic World trilogy does it way worse, and Dominion is a prime example. I can't go too into it because spoilers, but I mean Dodgson is the villain, and don't worry, if you've seen any Jurassic film the T-Rex is going to show up, and you know when it's going to show up...

The cast is probably the saving grace of the film, particularly the returning Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum, who all slide back into their roles so smoothly. As one would expect, Goldblum almost steals every scene he's in. Pratt has proved he's a talented leading-man and action star before, and he continues that line of work in Dominion, but I wouldn't say he's a standout in this ensemble. Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire has certainly had the most compelling arc in the World trilogy. She balances the heavy-action and the heartfelt moments well. I guess that time directing those Star Wars series on Disney Plus rubbed off on her. 

DeWanda Wise is a fun new addition as pilot Kayla Wise, and I look forward to seeing more of her work in the future. Isabella Sermon holds her own against other seasoned cast members, and works hard to make Maisie a more fleshed-out, dimensional character in this film. Campbell Scott...I'm not sure what choices he was making playing Dodgson but it came off as weird. My best guess is he was trying to provide commentary on eccentric billionaire types like Bezos and Musk, but it fell flat. 

I wouldn't call Jurassic World: Dominion an unwatchable film by any means, but it's not great. A top-notch cast and some great visuals don't do enough to save it from its lackluster plot and abysmal pacing. I do feel like I'm nitpicking a bit, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting dinosaurs to take center stage in a dinosaur film (LOCUSTS.) Ever since COVID became a thing I've chosen my time at movie theaters carefully. I've watched some bad films the last few years, but this is the first time I wished I was at home with my remote and comfy couch opposed to the theater. Don't rush to see this one. Wait to rent or stream it at your leisure.

Six films and almost thirty-years later, the Jurassic franchise comes to a close. Maybe now we can stop trying to bring dinosaurs back, because it never works out...for viewers, and characters in the films.

I hope Top Gun: Maverick lives up to the hype...

 

Film Review - "Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers"

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers

Directed by Akiva Schaffer

Starring John Mulaney, Andy Samberg, and Will Arnett

I think most of the people reading this know I'm a big Disney fan. I grew up on it, and many of my younger days in the early nineties were spent watching the many animated series that were part of the Disney Afternoon lineup (and the Disney Channel. When it was good). My favorites I think were the same as many people's...DuckTales, Darkwing Duck, and Chip n'Dale: Rescue Rangers (If I had to pick a fourth it's a coin toss between Timon & Pumbaa or The New Adventures of Winnie The Pooh).

Chip n'Dale, like DuckTales, not only had an ear-worm of a theme song, but its leads were characters of Disney legend. I loved Chip n' Dale growing up, not just in Rescue Rangers, but in the classic shorts where they made Donald Duck's life a living nightmare. So like any millennial with an attachment to a classic old property, I got a bit defensive when the Hollywood Machine wanted to reboot/reimagine/revive whatever you wanna call it, Rescue Rangers. It's just the way of the world now. Originality in Hollywood is dead, "childhood ruined" and so on...

Now here we are, and I am so proud to say I was wrong. The Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers film is one of the biggest surprises and most fun film (Non-MCU) I've seen in awhile. 

The film is not exactly a direct continuation of the original series. Much like the world of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Chip, Dale (Mulaney, Samberg) and all toons coexist with humans, and some are actors. In the nineties, Chip and Dale made a big name for themselves with aforementioned tv series, until Dale decided to leave the show to expand his career. Unfortunately, this got the series cancelled, and both chipmunks' careers took a hit. It's all very meta, and also I'm guessing in the reality of this film all the older Chip n' Dale shorts produced by Disney just didn't happen.

Cut to the present day, and Dale has had CGI-surgery (Love that bit) and living off the convention circuit, and Chip is working as an insurance salesman. A desperate call from their old friend and co-star Monterey Jack (Eric Bana) reunites the estranged friends. Turns out Monty has run afoul of a very dangerous gang that has been rumored to be kidnapping old toons, making them over, and forcing them to make bootlegs of classic animated films. Chip n' Dale reluctantly reunite to rescue Monty and crack the case, living out the glory days of The Rescue Rangers.

I'm sure the plot where estranged friends reunite on a case/quest/adventure sounds familiar. It's a plot that I think is almost tailor-made for a continuation of Rescue Rangers, decades after the original series ended. Regardless, I appreciate the film's approach to not making it a direct continuation of the series, but instead taking the Roger Rabbit angle. Really the only connections it has to the original series is its name, and the premise of "Chip and Dale solve a mystery".

The film is much more a commentary on animation, celebrity and Hollywood. The creative team definitely had a lot of fun making this. The attention to detail...you will need a second viewing just to catch all the Easter Eggs, visual gags, and cameos. So many wonderful cameos. It's unfortunate the internet was so quick to spoil the best one. The film is also incredibly funny. Not just in its sight gags there's a lot of clever, laugh-out-loud lines. You can tell this was a film made by fans, for fans. It's hard to not appreciate the sincere effort that's right on the screen.

We need to talk about the animation for a minute because it's all over the place stylistically and it's lovely. There's not just top-notch traditional animation and CGI. There's clay-mation (JK Simmons's Gumby-like detective, Officer Putty, looks amazing). There's horrific motion-capture/hyper-realistic animation in the manner of Cats and Beowulf. There's even puppets of both the Muppet and sock variety. There's so much being homaged here from every era of animation. This film deserves a Special Achievement Oscar. I will say the hand-drawn animation on some characters was a bit iffy for me at times, specifically Chip and Sweet Pete. I chop it up to 2D designs being brought into a 3D world so there's a bit of "transition period", and I could say the opposite for CGI Dale (But man that surgery bit is too good).

On paper, you wouldn't expect the voices of John Mulaney and Andy Samberg to work for classic characters like Chip n' Dale, but they really do here. They still capture the spirit and dynamic of the duo, with a modern twist, and their high-pitched voices are their "stage voices" here (Think Baby Herman). It's another fun bit. JK Simmons is amazing as Officer Putty. Will Arnett perfectly captures the spirit of Sweet Pete, who if you couldn't tell by the marketing is a bitter, aged-up Peter Pan. Kiki Layne is fine as Detective Ellie Stickler. She doesn't really add much to the film, and is sort of like the stand-in for the audience.

As much as I enjoyed this film...there are two things that just don't sit well with me. If you want to avoid any hint of spoilers I suggest you skip this next paragraph...

First, Sweet Pete's backstory is nearly identical to the real life story of child-star and original voice of Peter Pan, Bobby Driscoll. I say do your own research but, it's not exactly the nicest chapter in Disney history. This was either a very unfortunate coincidence or a very dark bit of parody. I'm not sure will ever know which. Second, while this is Chip n' Dale's films, it is sort of sad that the original supporting cast of the show is put on the back burner, and what they did story-wise with two of them...I'm not sure I'll ever recover from the trauma. If you know, you know...

Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers is not only a spiritual successor to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, it's Disney answer to the 21 Jump Street films. It's a very clever, fun, and heartwarming watch. Perhaps the biggest surprise of the year. It's an easy film to recommend, and I hope Disney, animation, and comedy fans alike give it the attention it deserves. Head on over to Disney Plus and add it to your watchlist (I wonder if they're kicking themselves for not putting it in theaters...)

...Now can we get a Darkwing Duck film please??

 

Film Review - "Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness"

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness

Directed by Sam Raimi

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Xochitl Gomez, and Elizabeth Olsen

It's been six years since Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange made his MCU debut in the film of the same name. He's become a constant ever since, from being a key player in the last two Avengers films, to having supporting roles in Thor: Ragnarok and Spider-Man: No Way Home. Needless to say, the character has been through a lot, and there's no way in The Multiverse of Madness he's going to catch a break anytime soon.

As Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) attends the wedding of his former flame Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams), a young girl named America Chavez (Gomez) falls into New York City, being chased by a demon part-cyclops and part-octopus. After being rescued by Strange, and his mentor/friend/Sorcerer Supreme Wong (Benedict Wong), Chavez explains she is being hunted for her power to travel the multiverse. Strange's decision to help Chavez leads him to seek help from Wanda Maximoff aka The Scarlet Witch (Olsen). This brings Strange down a path to learn much more about the multiverse and himself.

The film is a wild ride, and one of the most unique chapters of the MCU. That is no small credit to Director Sam Raimi, whose history with horror films is clearly on display here. This is almost the first MCU horror film, complete with jump scares and ghoulish sights. The film also has a bit of gore, and quite an impressive body count...If you're not big on horror this might not be your cup of tea, and parents might want to have younger MCU fans hold off or skip this one. 

While the film has the thrills and chills turned up to eleven, it's also very restrained in its multiverse madness. Don't expect hundreds of cameos peppered throughout the film, although there are plenty of surprises. The story is much more concerned with servicing its two primary characters, Stephen Strange and Wanda Maximoff, which is a good thing because that's what the film needs to do.

Everything each character has been through has led to this, especially Wanda, who practically steals the whole film. She outshines our lead hero for a fair amount of time, but that isn't to say Doctor Strange gets the short end of the stick. He gets some much-needed character work in this film beyond being the guy who knows everything (or at least thinks he does), and it builds off not just what he went through in the first Doctor Strange film, but in Infinity War and Endgame as well. He becomes a much more sympathetic and vulnerable character.

Despite all the good work the film does for The Scarlet Witch and would-be Sorcerer Supreme, the screenplay does lack a little focus, and pacing does become an issue. The film comes out guns blazing, then hits some speed bumps as it transitions from act-to-act. Though like I said, the film is a wild ride, and incredibly entertaining. There are some really distinct visuals in and out of the multiverse, and the creative styling of the magic users' powers are a sight to see. A highlight is a battle that uses notes off of sheet music. Speaking of music, props to Danny Elfman as this is probably one of his more unique scores for a film, meaning I didn't even recognize his typical style throughout the film (maybe he saves that for Tim Burton...)

Benedict Cumberbatch remains a perfect Doctor Strange, again getting to go more in-depth and personal with the character. Elizabeth Olsen, as always, is amazing as Wanda. Her performance is both a treat and terrifying, and just in case you're worried your lack of a Disney Plus subscription will leave you in the dark, this film gives you enough of a clue to what happened in WandaVision (but you should still watch it because it's great). Xochitl Gomez makes her MCU debut as America Chavez and holds her own well against the likes of Cumberbatch and Olsen, but isn't given that much to do. Hopefully we'll see her again soon. Rachel McAdams is given significantly more to do this time as Christine Palmer. She gets to play to her strengths of portraying a character that's equally sweet and snarky, and her chemistry with Cumberbatch is put to much better use. Benedict Wong as...Wong, once again proves he's one of the best supporting players in the MCU, perfectly weaving between the role of stoic moral compass and dry-witted comic relief. 

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness has its shortcomings, but is still one of the most unique MCU films to date. It's highly entertaining, though viewers with a low threshold for horror films should err on the side of caution. It's full of unique visuals, wonderful performances, and plenty of crowd-pleasing moments. I definitely can't wait to see it again, and see where the MCU takes us next in this vast multiverse.

Film Review - "Turning Red"

Turning Red

Directed by Domee Shi

Starring Rosalie Chiang and Sandra Oh

There seems to be a Civil War of sorts going on in Hollywood right now, and it's between Disney and Pixar. Over the past year or so, many Pixar employees have go on record over how the studio's recent films have been treated by The Mouse. 

Their last three films have had their theatrical releases cancelled, only to be unceremoniously uploaded to Disney Plus, without the $30 Premier Access paywall Disney laid in front of the likes of Black Widow, Raya & The Last Dragon, and the live-action remake of Mulan. Even Encanto, the company's last in-house animated feature was granted a theatrical release before moving to the streaming service. There are also recent reports of Disney censoring important moments of representation in Pixar films, which is awful.

It doesn't sit right when you remember before Marvel Studios, LucasFilm, and even The Muppets, Pixar was the only thing keeping Disney afloat at the start of the millennium. While their own animation studio was starting to flounder, Pixar really started hitting their stride. Disney was giving us Brother Bear and Home on The Range, while Pixar gave us Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.

(By the way I'm not saying any of the Disney films from this era are bad, all entertainment is subjective, but in the grand library of animated classics these ones pale in comparison to say Beauty & The Beast or The Lion King.) 

Sure Pixar has had some missteps in the past with Cars sequels or mediocre dinosaurs but for most of the time they've been the gold standard for animated films, sometimes overshadowing the animated films of their parent company. Since 2001, when the category for Best Animated Feature was first instated at the Oscars, Pixar has literally taken home fifty percent of the trophies (The Academy might not give a damn about this category or respect animated films these days but that's another story...)

Anyway it just seems like Disney's "first born property" has become lost in the shuffle, and is now treated like a cliché red-headed (See what I did there?) stepchild. Which again, is a real shame because this decade has started out very strong for Pixar, with Onward, Soul, Luca, and now Turning Red (Yes I know. 'Finally he's going to get to the review...')

Turning Red follows Meilin "Mei" Lee (Chiang), a 13-year-old Chinese-Canadian student growing up in 2002 Toronto. Mei works hard at school and home to make her mother Ming (Oh) proud, but also loves chilling out with her friends and obsessing over their favorite boy-band 4*Town.

One evening an ancient family curse befalls Mei, causing her tontransform into a giant red panda whenever her emotions run high (Like the Hulk but fuzzier). Naturally Mei is a bit shocked by these changes, and her overbearing mother dives headfirst into helping her through this process. Unfortunately, Ming forbids Mei from doing much of anything until the panda is under control, and that includes going to the upcoming 4*Town concert (I suppose a boy-band concert would invoke strong emotions in a young girl...) What follows is Mei's struggle to balance her own wants while still trying to please her mother, and keep her inner panda under control.

The best way I can describe Turning Red is if Pixar did a Disney Channel Original Movie, and I think if you were a big fan of DCOMs you'll really like this film. But it's also much more than that. It's a charming coming-of-age story that will resonate with anyone that's ever been a teenage girl, or just anyone who's tried to honor their parents and true selves simulatenously. For me it was much more the latter.

Mei's arc throughout the film is a very personal journey, and this a very unique Pixar film in so many ways. The film does a great job at characterizing young girls at the age (dorky, rebellious, awkward, obsessed with crushes, all that stuff). It also perfectly illustrates the relationship of a mother and daughter at this stage in life. I was sort of reminded of A Goofy Movie, as in both parent and child are being embarrassing to the other, but neither are necessarily in the wrong.

I think Pixar does a great job of finding great voice actors to play their child protagonists, and Rosalie Chang continues that trend. She just puts so much passion and humor into it. It's another iconic Pixar performance. All the young actresses playing her friends do great as well, and the dynamic of the group is spot-on. You can tell Sandra Oh was having a lot of fun playing her mother Ming. She embodies the archetype of an over-bearing mother, but also makes her very sympathetic and comical. Again, another high-energy performance in a film with a lot of energy. 

The animation is also great, and super expressive, sort of like if Pixar did an anime. It's also one of their funniest films. They really lean into the comedy. The animation definitely helps with the comedy too. I think the songs for  4*Town written by Billie Eilish were perfect, like they were ripped right out of the boy-band era of the early 2000's. I'd be lying if I said one or two of them haven't gotten stuck in my head...

I didn't find the film to be perfect though. It's a bit of a struggle to get invested in the first third of the film, as it is mostly just awkward teen humor, and establishing the fact Mei is embarrassed by her mother. Personally, it could be the fact I first watched the film with my mother and I was getting second-hand embarrassment, or that coming-of-age teen films have never been my favorite, but once we got to the "turning red" of it all, I was on board. Although in many ways you can predict where the film is going with the plot, that doesn't make it any less enjoyable. It's the journey, not the destination. This final point is not so much a criticism as much as an observation, and a bit of a spoiler but...the final act borrows from the superhero film playbook...make of that what you will.

Overall, I enjoyed Turning Red. It's one of Pixar's most unique, and personal films. I think it will become a lot of people's favorites, and I think anyone can connect with it on some level. Even the boys! (That's a joke. If you know, if you know.) Again, Pixar's on a serious hot streak these last two years, and I hope the public recognizes that, and I certainly hope Disney does too. The creators of Toy Story, Monsters Inc, and countless other classics deserve better. Fingers crossed they don't pull the rug out from Lightyear and make it another Disney Plus Original...

"Atlantis" & "Treasure Planet" - Disney's Unjust Failures

Last year I made the decision to rewatch all of the films produced by Walt Disney's Animation Studio, chronologically from beginning to end. So that means starting from Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs, and then going all the way to Raya & The Last Dragon Encanto. Yeah it's taken a bit longer than I expected...life, what can I say?

However I am approaching the end. So you're probably thinking "Oh so now he's going to rank them all." Lord no. That's sixty films, my guy. Some of the studio's earlier films I haven't watched in over year. Not a challenge I have the time and mental capacity for right now. 

No instead I've decided to write a couple think pieces, each focusing on a specific film or films. While I've seen many of these films numerous times, others I was watching for the first time in years, or believe it or not, for the first time ever.

Last week this House of Mouse Marathon brought me back to two films from The Experimental Era of Disney Animation (1999-2008), Atlantis - The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet. These two films are quite similar. They're both sci-fi adventure films, that blend hand-drawn and computer animation, and believe it or not, each feature a cast member from Frasier. Both films are products of their time, and in many cases are victims of it.

At the time of their respective releases, each received average-to-poor reviews from critics (Critics were nicer to Treasure than Atlantis), and turned out to be box office failures. Atlantis made very little profit, and Treasure didn't even break even. Fast forward to present day and many see both films as cult classics. 

So...what happened?

I think a lot factored into the unjust failures of Atlantis and Treasure Planet. Atlantis was released in June of 2001 and Treasure in late November of 2002, over the Thanksgiving holiday. They were some of the first films released by Disney Animation in the new millennium, and after the hot streak that would become known as The Disney Renaissance (1989-1999, so The Little Mermaid through Tarzan).

On paper, there are a lot of consistent threads throughout the films of The Disney Renaissance. They're all based on either fairy tales or classic literature, musicals, and family friendly (for the most part). Atlantis...is none of those things. It is Indiana Jones meets 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, and a lot (A LOT) of people die in the action sequences. To be a background character in Atlantis is the Disney equivalent of being a red-shirt in Star Trek or a Stormtrooper in Star Wars. Treasure Planet is based on Robert Louis Stevensons's Treasure Island (Which Disney previously adapted in live-action in 1950), but like Atlantis is much more mature and heavy in its action.

Suffice it to say, these films were a stark contrast from the ones Disney released in the prior decade. Gone were the singing teapots, magic genies, and talking lions of the nineties. Atlantis and Treasure were weren't exactly what audiences had come to expect from Disney Animation, and could be seen as unconventional choices for the studio. But then again, so were Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, and Lilo & Stitch which also came out in the same three-year period. This was a time when the studio was moving away from the animated musical formula, and trying new things (Hence the name The Experimental Era).

Atlantis and Treasure were definitely the most adult-oriented films that came out during this period, and I say that well aware of the fact there is an alien in Treasure Planet that speaks in fart ("Flatua" if you wanna get technical). Animation is not specifically for kids though (Say it again with me...ANIMATION IS NOT JUST FOR KIDS. Stupid Oscars.) Disney was already experimenting with more mature themes and ideas in their animated films prior to the 2000's, see The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tarzan, and I guess Pocahontas. This was also a time when traditional hand-drawn animation was starting to decline in popularity, and computer-animation was on the rise. Disney for the longest time had become synonymous with traditional animation. As audiences became less interested in the medium, they became overshadowed by the likes of Pixar and bold new offerings like Shrek from Dreamworks, and Ice Age from Blue Sky. It is worth noting that Atlantis and Treasure both have great traditional animation that combines CGI elements beautifully. Atlantis does the blend flawlessly, while Treasure definitely has some shots where the tech hasn't aged well.

Atlantis came out the first year the Academy Awards decided to instate the Best Animated Feature category. Shrek would go on to win the Oscar, while Atlantis wasn't even get nominated. Treasure would secure a nomination alongside Lilo & Stitch, Ice Age, and Spirit - Stallion of The Cimarron, but the Oscar went to Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away, which is traditionally animated in the Japanese style. 

By that class of nominees alone you can see that there was still an audience for hand-drawn animation, although I wouldn't use the Oscars as the best example of it. In future years the Academy would nominate the likes of Shark Tale and...The Boss Baby.

At the box office, these two films were failures. Atlantis was released on June 3rd 2001, which sounds like a perfect release date for a film like it. Schools were getting ready to close for summer vacation, and it being a sci-fi adventure, it should have fit perfectly into the traditional blockbuster season. It came out the same weekend as Lara Croft: Tomb Raider starring Angelina Jolie, and came in second place to it. It wouldn't be fair to say they were competing for the same audience, although they are both adventure films. Atlantis also had to deal with the fact that Shrek had come out less than a month ago.Why would parents take their kids to see "another Disney cartoon" when all they've heard lately is how good Shrek is? Atlantis wouldn't have a chance to make up for lost profit over the summer, when films like Dr. Dolitte 2, The Fast & The Furious, Jurassic Park III, and Planet of the Apes came out in the following weeks. Ultimately it ended up in fifteenth place at the overall 2001 summer box office.

Now Treasure Planet...this film was set-up to fail. It released over the same Thanksgiving weekend as Die Another Day, the fourth and final film to star Pierce Brosnan. Not exactly a film it would be in direct competition with. It also had to go against another Disney film, The Santa Clause 2, which had already been out for a few weeks, delivered holiday cheer for the season, and already had an established audience because like Die Another Day it was a sequel. Speaking of sequels, what also came out earlier that month...was Harry Potter & The Chamber of Secrets...Treasure Planet had no chance.

What kills me is Disney didn't learn from this mistake and made a far worse decision nine years later when they released a new Winnie the Pooh film on the same day Deathly Hallows Part 2. But "oh no hand-drawn animation is dead! It's not our poor business decisions..."

Treasure Planet, also a sci-fi adventure like Atlantis, could've benefited from a release during summer blockbuster season. Of course these days blockbuster films get released all year round. Unfortunately, Disney also released Lilo & Stitch that year and gave it a June release. You could argue that because Lilo & Stitch came out a few months before, families might have had their fill of Disney Animation for the year. Why did they decide to release both in the same year? Who knows. Apparently Disney didn't do a lot of marketing for Treasure Planet either, which is sad when you remember the superb marketing for Lilo & Stitch. Those trailers where Stitch invaded iconic moments in other Disney films? Genius.

Did Disney even care about Treasure Planet? The story goes that legendary animation directing team Ron Musker and Jon Clements pitched the idea to Jeffrey Katzenberg after The Great Mouse Detective got the studio back on solid ground. Katzenberg pretty much went "Nah I don't care for it". Katenzberg is a sourpuss and a jerk, though to be fair Disney Animation was struggling back then, especially after the colossal failure of The Black Cauldron. Treasure Planet was probably seen of too much of a risk at the time (ironically, the film probably would have thrived in the eighties).

Over the next few years a pattern unfolded that pretty much went like this:

"Can we make Treasure Planet now?"

"No make The Little Mermaid."

*The Little Mermaid is a hit*

"Can we make Treasure Planet now??"

"No make Aladdin"

*Aladdin is also a hit*

"Can we make Treasure Planet now???"

"No BUT, if you make one more successful film (Hercules), then you can."

*Hercules does alright"

"Can we make Treasure Planet now????"

*Jeffrey Katzenberg has left the chat*

Although Katzenberg was long gone as chairman by the time Treasure Planet was made (He left in 1994, the film was released in 2002!!!), he and the studio honored his word, and Musker and Clements were finally allowed to make their passion project. We already know how it turned out. 

The fact that the man who allowed Treasure Planet to be made had already flown the coop well before its release gives you some sort of idea of how much the studio was invested in it...or does it? I mean Musker and Clements were clearly well-known and well-liked at Disney or they wouldn't have gotten this far. They even went on to make Princess & The Frog and Moana after this. Not to mention a sequel was in pre-production, and there were talks of a franchise. Willem DaFoe set to play the villain. These plans were scrapped when the film had a poor box office performance.

The crazy thing is, Disney also had similar plans for Atlantis that were canceled as well (No I didn't forget about Atlantis). A television series titled Team Atlantis was in the works, but was scrapped due to the film's poor performance. The few episodes that were produced were repurposed into a direct-to-video sequel Atlantis: Milo's Return. Here's a fun fact...both films were considered for the rebranding of the Submarine Voyage ride at Disneyland. Eventually they did find a film to rebrand it with, Finding Nemo, which seems more appropriate anyway. So Disney definitely saw franchise potential in both Atlantis and Treasure, and frankly why wouldn't they?

I've already mentioned who directed Treasure Planet and their body of work at length. They also wrote it alongside Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, who together wrote Aladdin, Shrek, and rather fittingly, the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Atlantis was directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, another iconic Disney duo. Together, Trousdale and Wise helmed Beauty & The Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and they also wrote the script with Joss Whedon (*Before* we knew he was garbage). Combine all this with the stellar animation and voice casts, each of these films had all the makings to be Disney classics, but sadly it wasn't meant to be.

Now I don't have a lot of memories of watching these films. I didn't see either of them in theaters. I was gifted Atlantis on VHS, and watched it a fair amount. Treasure Planet I didn't see until years later when kids I was babysitting had it on DVD and requested a viewing. Neither film really stuck with me through the years. Have my opinions on them changed with recent rewatches? Yes and no.

Atlantis has great animation, stellar action sequences, and a wonderful ensemble of characters. The protagonist, Milo Thatch (Micheal J. Fox), can be a little annoying at times, and Mole (Corey Burton)...he's just there for the kids I guess. Man though is Vinny (Don Novello) a riot. The voice cast is great, featuring Fox, Novello, James Garner, Cree Summer, and many more. The amount of detail that went into crafting the Atlantean culture is really impressive. I will say though that the plot and the villains, are a little cliche and predictable. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad film, but it does make it a bit less substantial. That, and like Trousdale and Wise's previous film Hunchback of Notre Dame, there's a bit of an uneven tone. It's not as bad as like the slapstick of the Gargoyles, but there is an imbalance. It's almost like how people complain when MCU films undercut a lot of serious moments with one line-OH MY GOD I FORGOT THIS FILM WAS WRITTEN BY JOSS WHEDON...Anyway, despite its flaws I think Atlantis is a solid viewing.

I never really went for Treasure Planet's "steam-punk gimmick". It's old, it's futuristic, just make up your mind. Now, I think it's pretty creative. You have to admire the detail that went into the world-building. The animation is also spectacular here, but like I said a bit dated in some shots. Some of the designs of the aliens are a little too off for me. Some are cute, some are ugly (I remind you of the one that speaks in fart), they cover all their bases. Thankfully the designs of all the main cast are appealing, and again this a wonderful ensemble of characters with a great voice cast. Young Joseph Gordon Levitt is great in the lead role of Jim Hawkins. Brian Murray is iconic as Silver. David Hyde Pierce, Emma Thompson, Laurie Metcalf are superb in their supporting roles. I hate to say it, but Martin Short as the robot B.E.N. is awful, and it's not his fault! The character just does nothing but yell and panic. It's a waste of Short's talents to cast him as Disney's version of Jar Jar Banks (Is that too harsh?). Other than that, my only real problem with Treasure Planet is the use of modern pop songs in the montage where Jim and Silver grow close, and the final scene. They just don't mesh with the rest of the film, and using "I'm Still Here" by John Rzeznik in the montage just helps gloss over important character development. It's not a non-traditional musical like Tarzan where there are songs throughout not sung by the characters. It's this one, isolated musical moment in a film that's not musical. That said, the music composed by James Newton Howard is amazing and I love the main theme.

So yeah, it took me a few years but I do enjoy and appreciate Atlantis and Treasure Planet. It took a lot of people a few years to appreciate them. Thankfully both are now part of the massive Disney Plus library, where they can find new audiences, and their part in the Disney Legacy can carry on. Do they have their flaws? Yes. Are they bad films? No, and Disney has made much worse. Forgive me for saying this but, these two are some of the very few Disney animated films that could *benefit* from a live-action remake.  

Atlantis - The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet had a lot working against them. Changes of taste in both audiences and filmmakers, poor release strategies, but it can all be summed up in one phrase: Bad Timing. They shouldn't be looked at as terrible failures of Disney, because they came out during a period when nothing that was coming out of their animation studio was really succeeding (except for Lilo & Stitch). Timing can be a B-word, but time can also have a way of working things out. Atlantis, Treasure Planet, and other Disney films from this era have thrived since their initial releases, been given second chances by audiences and achieving cult-classic status.

I wouldn't call either of these film failures...maybe just late bloomers, and as The Emperor in Mulan said "the flower that blooms in adversity, is the rarest and most beautiful of all"

...That's probably overselling it but you get it.

Film Review - "The Batman"

The Batman

Directed by Matt Reeves

Starring Robert Pattinson, Paul Dano, Zoe Kravitz, etc.

I don't think I'm out of line when I say we've seen a lot of Batman films in our time. Much like Spider-Man, and I suppose Superman at one point (Can we please get Henry Cavill in a proper Man of Steel sequel?) The Caped Crusader is a hero audiences will always be drawn to see on the silver screen. Matt Reeves' continues the legacy with The Batman, the newest and one of the more unique, albeit not perfect Bat-Films to date.

While not a rehash of the classic origin story, The Batman takes place at a time when Bruce Wayne (Pattinson) has been operating in the shadows as the titular masked vigilante for only two years. The film follows Bruce as he tracks down a sinister serial killer known as The Riddler (Dano), who is targeting high-profile citizens across Gotham. Helping him with his investigation is Lieutenant James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright) of the Gotham City Police, and cat burglar Selina Kyle (Kravitz). As Batman follows The Riddler's trail, he discovers more about his family's past, which will ultimately help shape him into the hero he's destined to become.

As I said, The Batman is not the typical origin story of the character but in many ways it still operates as an origin story. The film takes inspiration from the graphic novels The Long Halloween and Year One (Two of the very first graphic novels I ever read), showing how he operated in his early years. He's still learning the ropes on how to be Batman, and in some respects, Bruce Wayne. So the version of the character we see here is still green, and lacking experience. It's important to keep that in mind, because this Batman is not the smoothest operator. His crime-fighting is a bit more rugged, and his detective skills need a bit more finesse. That said there are some unintentionally silly moments here that sort of throw off the tone of the film. But again, Young Bruce Wayne/Batman, he's still growing. Once you come to terms with that fact, it's all a little easier to accept. 

The direction taken here is great, as it really dives into the detective side of Batman, giving us a noir-driven mystery, wrapped inside a superhero film. The mystery is compelling and keeps you guessing where it's all going. The production quality is quite possibly the best ever seen in a Batman film. It really does look like those aforementioned graphic novels come to life, perfectly capturing the bleak and gritty atmosphere, giving Gotham City its most signature appearance yet. The lighting and camera work are top-notch too. There are a lot of iconic shots throughout the film. 

Robert Pattinson shows a lot of promise as cinema's new Batman. He definitely nails the cold, calculating, brooding side of the character. He does do a lot better as Batman than as Bruce Wayne, or at least the Bruce Wayne many come to expect (Again, remember, Young Batman). There's a lot more room to grow and I'm interested to see where Pattinson and Reeves go next. Zoe Kravitz is a real standout as Selina Kyle, nailing the seductive and morally grey aspects of the classic Catwoman, and you almost wish she was in more of the film. Jeffrey Wright is great as James Gordon, and is the perfect partner-in-solving crime to Pattinson's Batman. I would even go as far to say Wright has more chemistry with Pattinson than Kravitz does!

Paul Dano is...Paul Dano as The Riddler. Look I'm not a big Paul Dano fan. He's good at what he does, and he's just playing to his creepy, off-putting, human punching-bag strengths here. Colin Farrell is literally unrecognizable as Oswald Cobblepot/Penguin and steals almost every scene he's in. John Turturro is also unrecognizable (though obviously not as much as Farrell) as crime boss Carmine Falcone, giving a very subtle and menacing performance. Fans of Andy Serkis might be a bit disappointed that Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce Wayne's trusted butler and confidant, takes a backseat in this film. What we do get is nice though, so let's hope we get more of him in the sequel.

I would say that The Batman's biggest problem is pacing. This film did not need to be three hours long, and there are times you really feel its length. The car chase with Batman and The Penguin seen frequently in the trailers, in the grand scheme of things ends up being more sizzle than steak. The film's climax is rather...anticlimactic, a little bit clunky...and somehow fitting? Can you tell I have conflicting feelings about this film? Composer Micheal Giacchino delivers another fire film score, and his Batman theme is legendary. Lastly I wanted to say I loved the Batsuit in this film, particularly the cowl. Something about the white of his eyes coming through the mask just look so good. Pattinson seemed to take advantage of it, because you can see so much is going on behind the eyes, and I guess Reeves could see it too because there are a lot of long close-ups on him.

So I did like The Batman but I don't think it's perfect. Not many films are. I will say it's been a week since seeing it and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. I think that's a good sign when a film can do that to audiences. But its amazing visuals, compelling story, and top-notch cast making it a real standout in the library of Bat-Films. There are also reports that Matt Reeves is planning to make a trilogy so this might just be one piece of the puzzle. This could be to Batman what the Homecoming trilogy was for Spider-Man, where a series of films might operate as a larger, non-traditional origin story for this version of the character. Who knows? Time will tell, but I think a lot of people are going to be talking about The Batman in the years to come.