A Double 'Christmas Carol' Review

A Christmas Carol. Who doesn't know Charles Dickens' classic tale that was first published 180 years ago? No doubt it stays fresh in the minds of many at this time of year. Mostly because throughout history, this story has been adapted hundreds of times for the screen both large and small. Everyone from Mickey Mouse to The Flinstones have their version. Ebenezer Scrooge has been portrayed by dozens of actors, from Albert Finney to Jim Carrey.

I don't think there's many bad adaptations of A Christmas Carol, but some adaptations do things stronger or weaker than others. You know it's like momma always said, life's like a box of Christmas Carol adaptations. You never know what you're going to get. That's the line from Forrest Gump, right?

(Hey while we're on this Robert Zemeckis-directed tangent let me just put it on record that there's only one motion captured holiday film of his you should give attention to, and it's not The Polar Express. I said what I said.)

Two new adaptations of Dickens' most famous work were released to audiences via streaming last year. One a more modern adaptation, and the other more traditional. The former in live-action, and the latter animated BUT, both are musicals! They already have that working for them in my book. Let's dive in. First up...

Spirited

Directed by Sean Anders

Starring Will Ferrell, Ryan Reynolds, and Octavia Spencer

Spirited shows us that for nearly two centuries (OH I GET IT. Because A Christmas Carol is almost 200 years-) Jacob Marley (Patrick Page) and The Ghosts of Christmas have haunted one person every year on Christmas Eve in the hopes of making them go through real change like Scrooge did. One particular year, The Ghost of Christmas Present (Ferrell) pitches the idea of controversial media consultant Clint Briggs (Reynolds) for their target, but Marley is hesitant as he deems Clint "unredeemable".

Eventually, Present convinces Marley and when Christmas Eve comes they begin the haunt. But Clint proves to not be your typical haunt, questioning Marley, seducing the Ghost of Christmas Past (Sunita Mani), and forcing Present to turn the lense back on his own life. As the night goes on both Present and Clint get the chance to look at their lives differently, and understand what it really means to change.

Right off the bat, I like the premise of Jacob Marley & The Ghosts of Christmas turning their original plight into an annual routine/business. Initially the film comes off like a modern adaptation in the vein of Billy Murray's Scrooged (Which I admit I haven't seen yet. Get off my back, I'll get to it.) but halfway through there's a revelation about Will Ferrell's character, and that's where things really start to click. 

*Editor's Note: Friends that have watched the film have said they caught on to the twist of The Ghost of Christmas Present early on. Upon further rewatches, I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention.*

Ferrell really is the star here, while Reynolds is just playing his usual shtick. That's not to say his usual shtick is bad by any means. It's effective here. However both deserve huge praise for neither being trained singers or dancers, yet still bringing their A-game to this. Speaking of music, the songs are composed by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, the same team behind the infectious soundtracks of La La Land and The Greatest Showman. The songs really are great, particularly the opening number and Will Ferrell's "Unredeemable", which again, is a true showing of his talent and commitment to the film. Octavia Spencer also deserves some recognition for her supporting role Kimberly. However, she becomes a romantic interest for Ferrell and I just thought they lacked the chemistry.

Spirited is a fun, light-hearted update on the classic tale, with some great music and surprise performances from its two leads. It's now streaming on Apple TV+

And now let's take a look at...

Scrooge: A Christmas Carol

Directed by Stephen Donnelly

Starring Luke Evans, Olivia Colman, and Jessie Buckley

Scrooge takes the more traditional route in bringing the story to life. It is also allegedly an animated remake of the 1970 version starring Albert Finney, but the only real connections are its use of most of the same songs, with a mix of some original tunes, and Scrooge's nephew is named Harry here instead of Fred.

This version always leaves me feeling conflicted. There are plenty of highs, but a fair amount of lows. The animation is gorgeous, but at the same time also feels cheap? The use of color in certain scenes and sequences is dazzling, but many of the character designs, with the exception of a few, feel very "direct-to-streaming" generic. I do like how with the animation they play up the spectacle of the supernatural, and tap into the science-fiction and time-travel aspects of Scrooge's journey. 

The covers of the songs from the 1970 version are all spectacular, particularly "Thank You Very Much" and "I Like Life" and Luke Evans's rendition of "Begin Again" brings a tear to my eye. The new songs are equally good. The opening song "I Love Christmas" has been an ear worm that has yet to escape my ears (Expect a lip-dub in the future), and if you've been on TikTok at all you've heard everyone and their mother swoon over "Later Never Comes". Back on the animation, and this is very personal criticism, I found the choreography in the musical numbers to be very wooden, from how they are shot, to how the characters move. I know it's weird to criticize the dance moves of animated characters, but when the visuals and colors are so flashy, they go to waste on these lifeless dance routines.

I find it hard to put into words this specific criticism, but at times the script just feels "too modern". Some of the dialogue lacks subtlety. Characters just spill out exposition in drawn out monologues. Scrooge (Evans) has a dog that goes on his journey with him, and The Ghost of Christmas Present has his own army of holiday-like Minions. Those two definitely feel like a product of the times, and an attempt to appeal to younger audiences more. 

Speaking of Scrooge, he's definitely less grumpy, and more smug, cynical, and at times an over-the-top cartoon villain. He tells Bob Cratchit (Johnny Flynn) that Tiny Tim's (Rupert Turnbull) health is not his concern (which feels like something he shouldn't learn about until later) and he verbally berates his nephew (Fra Fee) for "taking the place" of his late sister, who died during childbirth. On Christmas...it's like getting slapped in the face with a 2x4 that has the word "Subtlety" written on it.

(Side note: I know Scrooge's sister died in the past, but I'm not sure if in the original book it was during childbirth (and on Christmas). I'm seeing conflicting reports.)

Also, not to get into spoilers but there's a reveal connecting Scrooge and Cratchit's past, and while it definitely feels like something a Once Upon A Time version of A Christmas Carol would do, I would appreciate it more if it played more into the story. But it's forgotten about rather quickly.

How are the performances? Well Luke Evans is an absolutely perfect Scrooge, and his singing talent is unmatched. Almost makes you think the Beauty & The Beast remake wasted him. Rightfully so, he is the true standout of the film. Everyone else is fine. Nothing special. But Olivia Colman as The Ghost of Christmas Past is absolutely unbearable. Every single joke of hers falls flat, and it comes off like they're trying to do a Dickensian version of Robin Williams in Aladdin. I'm sure the kids found her funny, though.

So Scrooge is definitely a mixed bag but as you can see, there's plenty to enjoy here. At the end of the day it is still a very faithful adaptation, with wonderful music, (mostly) stunning visuals, and a remarkable lead performance. I haven't seen many people (outside of TikTok thirsting over Luke Evans' singing in "Later Never Comes") comment on this one but if you've seen it let me know. Let's chat. It's now streaming on Netflix.

Also what's your favorite adaptation(s) of A Christmas Carol? There's plenty to pick from, and if you'd like in my latest episode of my podcast Movies That Matter, local author and historian Alan Foulds and I discuss on a bunch of our favorite versions. Give a listen, and God Bless Us Everyone.

Film Review - "The Marvels"

The Marvels

Directed by Nia DaCosta

Starring Brie Larson, Teyonah Parris, and Iman Vellani

I'm tired. I'm tired of the discourse surrounding the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) and where it stands today. I don't want to listen to the haters, deflectors, and trolls anymore, calling for the end of the franchise, while at the same time I've grown weary defending it. Don't get me wrong, I loved 90% of Phase Four, but Phase Five...beyond Guardians Vol. 3 (Which I will eventually talk about) and the second season of Loki, I can't deny these are tough times. I mean I never even finished Secret Invasion.

Nevertheless, here we are with The Marvels. The thirty-third film of The MCU that (surprise) has left audiences split right down the middle. It is not the train wreck many are claiming it to be, but at the same time it's far from the best film of the franchise. It's fun, but it is flawed. (Do I want to write this?...I've come this far.)

The film is both a sequel to the original Captain Marvel film, and a follow-up to the events of the WandaVision and Ms. Marvel series. Carol Danvers (Larson) is out in space being a lone gunslinger, Monica Rambeau (Parris) now works with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) on the S.A.B.E.R. space station, and Kamala Kahn (Vellani) is enjoying life as a teenager and the hero of Jersey City. A bizarre phenomenon in the cosmos intertwines the powers of the three women, causing them to switch places whenever they use them at the same time. 

This leads them to join forces and figure out a way to control their "switch-powers" while also confronting the source of their troubles, which is a Kree Revolutionary named Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) who has a personal beef with Danvers, and is seeking to restore her now-dying homeworld, while destroying other planets in the process.

Right off the bat, our three leads are incredibly likable and they have immaculate chemistry. Larson gets a far better chance to shine here as Captain Marvel than she has so far in the MCU. She's tough but soft-hearted, comedic, charming, and easy to love, despite what the trolls say. Teyonah Parris also gets a chance to expand on her portrayal as Monica. Here we see a much more comedic side to her than we did in WandaVision, and she also gets to do a lot more heavy lifting in both the drama and action department. Iman Vellani charmed the world as she carried the Ms. Marvel series, and she's a real standout in The Marvels. You can tell she's having a lot of fun playing this character. I really want to see more of these three.

The supporting cast is also great. Honestly, Kamala's family got the biggest laughs out of me in the film, and Samuel L. Jackson continues to be the best as Nick Fury. Alas, Zawe Ashton's Dar-Ben falls into the category of Bad Marvel Villains. She does the best with the material she's given, but the character is incredibly underdeveloped, and comes off as a discount Ronan The Accuser from Guardians of The Galaxy.

While avoiding spoilers, Dar-Benn's whole arc (or lack thereof) in The Marvels make it feel like follow-up to a Captain Marvel 2 that we never got. There are exposition-filled moments that do their best to "fill in the gaps" but by the time we have all the pieces, the emotional disconnection between film and audience is too great. I found myself zoning out for a good portion of the film, which is something I don't think has ever happened between me and an MCU entry.

But what the film lacks in...plot, it makes up for in character work. Again, the three leads are incredible, and there are so many great scenes between them. A few moments between Larson and Parris stand out, that deal with the characters' history and fractured relationship. The action scenes in the film are a lot of fun, especially when the heroes are working together and switching powers. 

There are some...interesting set pieces in the film. There's a side-quest to a planet where the inhabitants can only communicate by singing, and then there's a bit involving Goose and his Cat-like species, set to the song "Memory" from the musical Cats (Cardinal sin. Don't remind me that exists.) To each their own but these didn't do anything for me.

The Marvels is flawed yes, but there's enough to enjoy here, and it's not devoid of heart. The characters in the film are endearing, and the performances carry this MCU entry to the finish line. If you like these characters, I imagine you will have a good time with this film. 

So...where do we go from here? Well, thanks to the WGA & SAG-AFTRA Strikes (Pay your creatives fairly), The MCU won't be around for a lot of 2024, at least in the movie theaters. Deadpool 3 will be the only film released from the franchise next year, and you know what? That might be a blessing in disguise.

Between COVID messing up their schedule, commercial and critical discourse post-Endgame, the death of Chadwick Bosemen, the allegations against Jonathan Majors, Jeremy Runner getting attacked by a snowplow, and the Sony/Spider-Man deal hanging by a thread, the MCU could afford to take a chance to breathe, and as Joe Byron would say "Build Back Better"

But if you enjoyed The Marvels, I'm glad you did. Who's to say that's wrong? As I say on my podcast Movies That Matter (shameless), entertainment is subjective and that's not a bad thing.

I don't want to say not every MCU film needs to be amazing or groundbreaking (because I've said that twice now and it's starting to get to me) but if anyone can walk out of theater having enjoyed themselves, then maybe this franchise is worth sticking around.

Film Review - "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes"

Listen for brevity's sake, I'm just going to refer to this film as Songbirds & Snakes going forward...

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Starring Tom Blyth, Rachel Zegler, and Viola Davis

I would never call myself a Hunger Games fan. I never read the books, but I hopped on the trend train, and saw all the films in theaters. I reasonably enjoyed them. It's never been a franchise I've had a serious desire to revisit, although I did rewatch them all in anticipation of this film. Needless to say, it feels about eight-ten years too late for a Hunger Games prequel doesn't it?

Well surprise, surprise, because Songbirds & Snakes is not only a very good film, it's arguably one of the best films of the franchise. Ironic, because one might say, the odds weren't ever in its favor...please don't go...

Set thirteen years after the Rebellion in the nation of Panem, a young Coriolanus Snow (Blyth) and his once wealthy family are now struggling to make ends meet in the Capitol. As the tenth annual Hunger Games approaches, the creator of the games, Dean Casca Highbottom (Peter Dinklage) seeks to make it more enticing, and entertaining for those watching. In doing so, Highbottom assigns Snow and other Capitol Academy students to be mentors to the tributes (What Haymitch was to Katniss and Peeta).

Snow is assigned to the female tribute from District 12, Lucy Gray Baird (Zegler). As the Hunger Games approach, Snow and Lucy grow closer, as he promises to keep her alive, while also scheming to restore glory to his family name. 

This film, this whole series could make for a fascinating study on how media is used as a tool in both politics and war. Songbirds & Snakes does wondrous world-building, showing The Hunger Games in its infancy. A time when it was raw, brutal, and just plain torture. Its gripping and gets your heart pumping. It's probably the most compelling the Hunger Games have ever been in...well, The Hunger Games.

We didn't need an origin story for President Snow but it's a damn good one, seeing what lines a character must cross to go from hero to villain. It's an emotional merry-go-round because you root for the guy...but in the end you know he's going to become President Snow. It's almost-Almost, like Arthur Fleck's journey in Joker, but significantly more nuanced.

This is in credit to both to the script, and actor Tom Blyth, who gives a great performance as young Snow. There's real charm in his performance, but you see the wickedness brewing beneath the surface. He has wonderful chemistry with Zegler's Lucy Gray, who is also incredibly charming in this film. You really rally behind both of them and believe in their relationship. Additionally, the supporting cast is filled with talent. Peter Dinklage is at his usual best as Dean Highbottom. Viola Davis is deliciously menacing and unhinged as Head Gamemaker Dr. Gaul. Josh Andres' Rivera gives it his all as Snow's classmate and friend Sejanis Plinth. Hunter Schafer is endearing, and a bright light in a dark world as Tigris Snow, Coriolanus's cousin (Who was the tiger lady in Mockingjay - Part 2. Who knew?). Finally, Jason Schwartzman is delightful as Lucky Flickerman.

One thing I've come to notice from this series is James Newton Howard's score for them is incredible, and Songbird and Snakes is no exception. One thing that unfortunately was not incredible in this film was the pacing when it comes to the third act (or Part 3 as the subtitles label them). The film is packed with such adrenaline, that when we enter this part of the film it almost grounds to a halt. Bizarrely, the climax also feels rushed, and not completely satisfying.

That said, Songbirds & Snakes is that rare prequel that lives up to its predecessors, and in this case even eclipses some of them. It's thrilling, thought-provoking, and filled with wonderful performances. It's one of the biggest surprises at the movie theaters this year. Again, what are the odds? (Please don't leave me.)

The "Frasier" Revival Gives Me A Tossed Salad & Scrambled Eggs of Emotions

 (Mild spoilers for the premiere of the Frasier reboot. If you've made it this far and that concerns you.)

I don't think it's a hot take when I say one of the most successful television series of all time was Cheers, and one of the most successful spinoffs of all time was its own spinoff, Frasier. 

I grew up loving both series, and I don't mean like somehow I've lied to you all and Im secretly twenty years older than I really am. No, I just did like any normal high-school male did, and binged the hell out of the reruns that were syndicated across various networks. I collected the Cheers DVD boxsets and received a few as gifts (I'm really dating myself here...) and made regular pilgrimages to the original pub and its sister location in Boston, which the series based its primary setting off of.

I really grew to love the world of Cheers and its characters, and that love spilled over into Frasier. At times I might say I enjoy the latter more than the former. Alas, like any beloved piece of media from the past, the money hungry powers of Hollywood finally came for it, and like Full House, Will & Grace, and Night Court before it,  Frasier became the next series to get revived.

A continuation of Frasier had been discussed for many years, particularly by its star Kelsey Grammer. Many like myself suspected those talks were going to cease when John Mahoney, who played Frasier's father Martin Crane, passed away in 2018. That was not the case however, obviously, or we wouldn't be here right now. But not only would Mahoney be absent, but none of the main cast was going to return either. 

(Full disclosure, I do not have Paramount Plus, and I was only able to watch the series premiere via the streaming service's Youtube.)

Seven into this ten-episode season, and so far Bebe Neuwirth has made one guest appearance as Frasier's ex-wife Lilith, and it has been announced that Peri Gilpin will make an appearance as Roz, but there's very little hope for an appearance of David Hyde Pierece's Niles, or Jane Leeves's Daphne. So the mainncast is 99% new faces, and then Grammer. Which on the surface level doesn't make this look any different than other (failed) attempts to repeat the sitcom success of his career (Harsh, but true).

But what's the premise of this new Frasier? Well set twenty years after the finale, Frasier (Grammer) has returned to Boston to check in on his now-grown son Freddy (Jack Cutmore-Scott). Martin (Mahoney) has passed prior to the start of the series, and Freddy missed the funeral. Now here's where I start feeling conflicted. I'm never quite sure where to side in this issue. If an actor dies, should their character die too? On one hand, Mahoney is Martin Crane. You could not recast him. You could make him a character that is mentioned but never seen, like Niles's ex-wife Maris, or Norm's wife Vera on Cheers. But then his prolonged absence starts to become a problem, which is probably at least partially why this series was set in Boston and not Seattle. In the end, I support the decision to kill off Martin Crane, but at the same time this is all feels very unnecessary, and if this series didn't exist, they wouldn't have to write him off in the first place. I digress.

Anyway, Martin's death is the catalyst for the pilot. Frasier wants to check-in on Freddy, but Freddy wants very little to do with his father. They're estranged because...we need conflict? I'm not saying Frasier was the best father in the world. Hell the whole spinoff happened because he moved halfway across the country from his son, but even in that spinoff Frasier always did his best to be a good father.

This is a cardinal sin of any sequel or follow-up, and that is to undo or undermine the good work and storytelling of its predecessor. See Mark Whalberg and Mila Kunis's characters getting a divorce in Ted 2. See Ralph Breaks The Internet opening with the 'Sugar Rush' video game getting shut down. See Frasier 2.0 opening with Frasier being estranged from his son...and also his relationship with Laura Linney's Charlotte also destroyed, which sucks, but Frasier having bad luck in love, I guess that's par for the course BUT HE WAS SO CLOS-alright...

Why are father and son estranged? Well turns out Freddy dropped out of Harvard to become a firefighter, much to Frasier's dismay...and for me, this is where it gets interesting. Father and son struggling to find a common ground due to their different vocations and views on life. Frasier's relationship with his son now mirrors his own with his father (Martin was a policeman, Frasier a psychiatrist). I really appreciate this parallel, and this definitely could make for a compelling premise. Unfortunately, it will never see its full potential because we don't have John Mahoney or Martin Crane in the story. That said this all comes to a boil in a very touching scene in tribute to the lost patriarch, and as someone who recently lost his father, it managed to strike a chord.

I won't give you a complete play-by-play of the first episode of Frasier 2.0, but it ends with Frasier taking a job in Boston to stay closer to Freddy. Which is nice, but opens up an even bigger can of worms. Again, it all goes back to Cheers. Frasier is going to live in Boston again, and we are just supposed to accept that he will never resist his old watering hole? He will never run into Woody Harrelson's Woody (Heh), George Wendt's Norm Peterson, or National Treasure Ted Danson's Sam Malone?? I know we shouldn't expect (or maybe we should...) them to sneak a backdoor pilot to a Cheers revival into this. (That would be trippy, Cheers leads to Frasier, and Frasier leads to Cheers), rebuild the old soundstage and throw buckets of money at all the sitcom alumni but...why tease us like this?? 

There is a line where Frasier says "[He] probably wasn't the best version of himself in Boston" which could make for an interesting storyline. I mean, he's not totally wrong. He had two failed marriages, hung out in a bar a lot, and almost threw himself off a building. Will the creatives behind the series tap into this? Who's to say?

In the end, I want to hate the Frasier revival, but I can't. There's a lot of promise in its premise. There are times I genuinely laughed out loud in the premiere. Kelsey Grammer is still great as this character, and the supporting cast definitely have their moments. Although most of them seem to just be trying to fill the void of the original cast. Nicholas Lyndhurst's Alan is filling the Niles role. Jess Salguerio's Eve has similarities to Roz. Anders Keith's David Crane, Frasier's nephew/Niles and Daphne's son...is somehow trying to fill the void of both his mother and father and failing? 

This all feels totally unnecessary, but in the Hollywood of 2023, I suppose it was inevitable. There is potential in this revival of Frasier, but since I don't have Paramount Plus, I personally might not be able to see it. If you have, should I add yet another streaming service to my library so I can watch Frasier? What else is good on Paramount Plus?

Anyway, as the doctor would say, thanks for listening.

Film Review - "Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey"

My first review in three months and it has to be this.

Amend Copyright Laws. Some properties need to stay out of the dark depths of the public domain, and to prove my point here is Exhibit A...

Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey

Directed by One Sick Bastard

Starring People Who Need To Learn Their Actions Have Consequences

So in January of 2022, Winnie the Pooh (The original books by A.A. Milne, not Disney's version) entered public domain, and immediately British filmmaker Rhys Frake-Waterfield went "Hey let me ruin that."

In this dark corner of the public-domain, Hundred-Acre Multiverse, Pooh and friends are not cute stuffed-animals but weird half-human creatures. Young Christopher Robin befriends them and takes care of them for many years, until he must leave for college. Winter arrives, the creatures are facing starvation, and in an act of desperation, Pooh decides they must-hold on, let me check my notes....ok-they must eat Eeyore in order to survive.

This gruesome acts turns them feral, and they renounce their humanity...we're off to a great start. Years later, Christopher Robin (Nikolai Leon) returns to the woods with his wife Mary (Paula Coiz), but things are not what they remember. Pooh (Craig David Dowsett) and Piglet (Chris Cordell) are now bloodthirsty murderers, and for about an hour and twenty-four minutes set out to terrorize Christopher and a group of college girls renting a cabin near the Hundred Acre Wood.

Films have the power to make us cheer, make us laugh, and make us cry. Not very often, at least in my experience, do I come across a film that makes me physically ill. Blood & Honey is filled to the top of the honey pot with gore, and if you're like me, there's only so much of it you can take in a single film. I'm sure that there must be some fanbase out there for this sub-genre of horror but I'm not part of it. It all feels especially grotesque when you attach the name "Winnie the Pooh" to it.

There's really no reason to call these characters Pooh and Piglet. They're just regular monsters with special names. Now I will play fair, and say you could, in some way, make a good Winnie the Pooh horror film. I am not sure that is what Waterfield set out to do here. He only seems intent to shock his audience while abusing the power of the public domain. Eventually though the shock wears off, it just starts getting stupid, and you want it to stop. 

There is hardly any plot whatsoever. Pretty much the entire premise loses any steam and novelty before the opening title appears. The group of college girls take the center focus away from Christopher Robin for most of the film, and they're all uninteresting cannon fodder for Pooh and Piglet. The main girl, Maria (Maria Taylor) has a scene where she recalls her backstory-I mean, experience dealing with a dangerous stalker. This has nothing to do with the rest of the film. Neither she or the other four, yes four, add any value to the story. They have no narrative connections or parallels to Pooh, or Christopher Robin, they're just victims. Red shirts in Star Trek. Keeping the focus on Christopher Robin could have helped this film. A little. I mean at least then, there would've at least been something of a story. I don't know call me crazy, but in the age of A Quiet Place, the 2020 Invisible Man, and the works of Jordan Peele I like my horror films to do something a little bit more than the barest minimum. 

Not sure what else there is to say. The cast isn't anything special. The cinematography leaves no impact. Everybody makes the cliche horror film mistakes ("Hey everybody! Give up your cellphones!" "Oh my God all I can do is sit and scream while my loved one is in mortal danger!" "Oh hey I just recently remembered I have a gun thirty minutes into this $h!t"). The way the "plot" progresses they definitely banked on this becoming a franchise (and damn it all they're getting it). Maybe I can say something good about this film...um, the animation in the opening prologue is unique? 

I'm sorry this is one of my shorter and less-coherent reviews, but let's be honest it's what this film deserves. There's no novelty or joy to be had in watching Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey. It's grotesque, cliche', and a waste of time. This could've worked. This could've been like a satirical horror-comedy that dived deep into the psychology and themes of the original books by A.A. Milne. Instead they went for "Haha children's characters in public domain let's f**k around with them". 

This isn't filmmaking. This is trolling at a torturous level, and the saddest part is the masses fell for it. There will be sequels, and there will be other characters turned into ravenous monsters, like Bambi, Cinderella, and The Grinch (Look them up, I'm not doing it for you. I won't be responsible for your nightmares.). You have to wonder if they this was a scheme like The Producers, you know? "Under the right circumstances, a bad movie could make more money than a good one"? 

Anyway, has anybody ever seen The Tigger Movie?

Film Review - "Indiana Jones & The Dial of Destiny"

Before we move forward...My current understanding is that reviewing movies does not count as crossing the picket line in ongoing the SAG-AFTRA/WGA Strike. That said films including but not limited to those I write reviews for, as well as television series, are not written and performed by corporations and executives. Passionate and driven writers and actors do, and they deserve to earn livable wages. This not about celebrities looking for more money. For every Brad Pitt and Meryl Streep, there are hundreds of creatives struggling to keep a roof over their head. They deserve to be able to afford the cost of living the same as any other profession does. That said, on with the regularly scheduled review.

Indiana Jones & The Dial of Destiny

Directed by James Mangold

Starring Harrison Ford, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, and Mads Mikkelsen

Long ago, before Chris Evans took on the mantle of The Star Spangled Man with A Plan, there was another onscreen hero that I called my favorite, and that was Indiana Jones. The Indiana Jones film series was the first franchise I became fully invested in. When I started making my own money, one of the first DVDs I bought was the box set of the original trilogy, I filmed a couple short-film parodies, and I even dressed up as Indy for Halloween one year in high school.

Here's a fun fact for you. Did you know Chip and Dale's outfits in Rescue Rangers are based on Indiana Jones and Tom Magnum, PI? Now you do.

I'm not going to pretend like Kingdom of The Crystal Skull doesn't exist, but I was very excited for a new Indiana Jones film to be released in my lifetime. Over the Fourth of July weekend I carved out some time to see The Dial of Destiny, and I left the theater with the biggest smile on my face.

The film opens with an extended sequence in 1944, where Indy (Ford) and fellow archaeologist Basil Shaw (Toby Jones) obtain one half of Archimedes' Dial during an escape from a Nazi-occupied castle in the French Alps. Twenty-five years later, an elderly Indy now lives in New York City and is on the cusp of retiring from teaching. Basil's daughter and Indy's goddaughter Helena (Waller-Bridge) arrives in the city looking for his help in researching the Dial. 

However, Helena's plans for the dial are a little more cynical than that of Indy's or her father's. Meanwhile, former Nazi astrophysicist turned NASA scientist Jürgen Voller (Mikkelsen), who Indy took the Dial from during the war, is hunting them down to retrieve it and use it to "correct Hitler's mistakes."

Dial of Destiny pulls the franchise back down to Earth, straying away from the aliens and fridge-nuking of Crystal Skull. It's "back to basics" with Nazi-punching, crazy chases, and an archeological mystery to solve. I'm not trying to knock Crystal Skull I'm just saying this film does a fine job of capturing that classic feel of the original trilogy (for the most part). Things take a pretty outrageous turn in the third act, but it's effective and fits properly into the grander narrative. The film doesn't reinvent the wheel, or necessarily breathe new life into the franchise, but that's not the point of it. It's a fitting conclusion to the franchise, and reminds us of all the fun we've had with this character for the past forty-two years.

Speaking of this character, Harrison Ford doesn't miss a beat returning to this iconic role. He is giving it his all. I think many of us expected to just get the typical, grumpy Harrison Ford personality fans have come to expect from the man, but just dressed as Indiana Jones. That is not the case here. Ford has been very passionate about this character from the very beginning. Once again as Indiana he's daring, comical, rough on the edges, but true blue all the way through.

Phoebe Waller-Bridge is a nice foil to Ford in this film, and they have excellent chemistry. She is very much the co-lead of this film, and proves herself worthy to share the screen with him. She's charming and comical, but to be honest I do think her character arc could have been better serviced. That unfortunately could be said for a lot of the supporting cast like Antonio Banderas, Boyd Holbrook, and Shaunette Renee Wilson who are all wonderful in their roles, but just aren't given enough development. Mads Mikkelsen, as always, is deliciously evil as Dr. Voller. 

Toby Jones is fun as Basil Shaw, giving a performance that is very reminiscent of the late Denholm Elliot's Dr. Marcus Brody. Someday I'm sure the internet (regrettably) will be in a feud over which child sidekick is better or worse, Ke Huy Quan's Short Round in Temple of Doom, or Ethan Isidore's Teddy in Dial of Destiny. That isn't to say Isidore's performance treads the line of being culturally offensive like Short Round, but like Short Round, he does take time to grow on you as a character. It's a cute performance regardless. Last note on the cast is it was such a joy to see John Rhys-Davies return as Salad, but again, like the rest of the supporting players, I wish they had more to do. At the end of the day though, this is Harrison Ford's time to shine.

One thing that will never be wrong with an Indiana Jones film is the music by John Williams. It is such a joy to hear that iconic theme playing on the big screen again. His music is such a big part of these films and help immerse the viewer into the world of Indiana Jones. 

Many have seen from the marketing glimpses of the CGI used to de-age Harrison Ford in the opening sequence. I'll say this, for the most part it looks awesome, but there is an adjustment period for sure. It's not terribly distracting or verging into The Uncanny Valley, but at times it's clear you're looking at special effects. I understand to an extent of why they did it, but on a whole I think the industry just needs to stop doing this type of thing. It could've been a lot worse, I mean did you hear what they did in The Flash?

Most Indiana Jones films clock in at two hours and change, where as Dial of Destiny is over two-and-a-half hours. The film doesn't drag on necessarily, but some action set-pieces maybe go on a little too long, and makes you wonder if it could've been time better spent on character development (I feel like I'm nitpicking on the development of the supporting characters and I don't know why) or if it was just the editing and style of the action sequences. This is the first time an Indiana Jones film is not directed by Stephen Spielberg, but that said Mangold certainly does a fine job of recapturing that Spielberg magic.

Indiana Jones and The Dial of Destiny might not be the next great summer blockbuster, or even the best film in the Indiana Jones series, but it doesn't need to be. This is a classical return to the globe-trotting adventures of old, and a touching sendoff to one of cinema's greatest heroes. There's plenty of wonderful performances, exciting action, and intriguing mystery, all set to great John Williams music that will keep you entertained for two and-a-half hours. Hearing that iconic theme for the first time in my life on the big screen, and possibly the final time, I left the theater with the biggest smile on my face.  If you're an Indiana Jones fan, if you grew up with these films like I did, you will genuinely enjoy Dial of Destiny. 

Well we're more than halfway through 2023, it might be a good time to finally tackle my Top 10 Films of 2021 and 2022 lists before I fall another year behind. So you'll just have to wait for those Barbie and Oppenheimer reviews...

Film Review - "Elemental"

Elemental

Directed by Peter Sohn

Starring Leah Lewis, Mamoudou Athie, and Ronnie del Carmen

Pixar has been going through a bit of a turbulent time the last few years (So has the rest of Hollywood but I digress). Onward opened at the start of the pandemic. Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were all unceremoniously dumped on Disney Plus. Lightyear was supposed to be Pixar's grand return to cinemas, and then it bombed. 

Many are saying Pixar have lost their touch for filmmaking, to which I say "Well if you actually took the time to watch any of these films you'll see that's not true." Three of these films were tossed into the sea of content on Disney Plus, and with everything on that streaming platform, it wouldn't be that surprising if they got lost in the shuffle, and faded from the public's memory. Hell, do you know how many Netflix Original Films have been collecting dust on my Watch-List for years because I'd rather watch Is It Cake or old episodes of Pokemon?

Lightyear is a separate issue, or rather two separate issues. First being the general public didn't seem to understand the "complex" concept (Let's say it again...it's about THE MAN, who INSPIRED the TOY...). Second is, regardless of the quality of the film, audiences have been trained to think "Well why pay theater prices when I know it's going to drop on Disney Plus in a few months?"

The pandemic has changed how we watch movies, for better or worse. This summer's box office is the most crowded it's been since 2019. It seems like every week the tabloids are reporting how films are opening below expectations, and are commercial failures, but that's just the market now. It's not the films. Which (finally) brings me to Pixar's latest endeavor, Elemental, which opened last month. 

Elemental had a pretty weak opening weekend (It released against The Flash, starring famous war-criminal Ezra Miller. And everyone saw that instead...I'm very disappointed in you.) but ever since then word-of-mouth has been spreading and it's been gaining momentum. I am here to do more of that "word-of-mouth" thing. Elemental is one of Pixar's greatest films in years and you should all be going to see it.

The film takes place in the fictional Element City, where personified citizens of earth, wind, fire, and water co-exist. Ember (Lewis) is the fire daughter of Bernie (del Carmen) and Cinder (Shila Ommi) who immigrated from their homeland to the city. Ember struggles to follow in her father's footsteps and take over their family store so he can retire. One day an accident in the store brings Wade (Athie), a water guy and city inspector into Ember's life. The store then becomes in danger of being shutdown by the city, but Wade decides to help Ember prevent that from happening. As the two work together to save the store, they grow closer, despite their obvious differences.

First of all, whoever was in charge of marketing this film should be fired. There is so much more here than "romantic comedy where opposites attract but it's cartoon fire and water". Yes, there is a romance at the center of it but there's also incredibly strong themes of xenophobia, immigration, generational trauma (Lot of that in animated films these days), and self-worth. The idea of sentient elements does come off as Pixar parodying itself, but the premise fits so well into these themes. It's not a gimmick.

Ember is one of Pixar's most compelling protagonists, and her journey is so relatable. The character work in the script is top-notch, from her own personal struggles, to her relationships with her father and Wade. Wade isn't really given as much development as Ember, but he is there to support her arc. The two of them are an adorable pairing. It's hard not to root for this couple. The way they both play off each other and work together is so endearing. I want these two to be plastered all over the Disney Valentine stuff alongside Wall-E and EVE, Rapunzel and Flynn, Aladdin and Jasmine, etc. and I want to see couples dress up as them for Halloween this year.

The animation in this film is gorgeous. The way the elements are portrayed you would swear you are watching actual water and fire onscreen. Each of the elements are characterized so uniquely, and the setting of the city is incredibly detailed and supports the story so well. It's built to service the likes of earth, water, and wind, but the fire citizens have to live on the outskirts of the city because it wasn't built with them in mind. Seeing Ember and other fire people navigate this environment is low-key harrowing. Honestly this film reminded me a lot of Zootopia, which is high praise. 

During a time where the cast of animated films are stacked with A-List celebrities, Elemental casts two relative unknowns as its leads, and that works to the film's advantage. Never once are you distracted by the voice work. Lewis and Athie are so good in these roles and have amazing chemistry. The emotion behind these performances give some live-action onscreen pairings a run for their money.  Again, this film is not a romantic comedy, but the love story in it is chef's kiss. Bring tissues.

Do not wait for this film to drop on Disney Plus. It's the summer. It's hot out. Go to theaters with your kids, your parents, and support this beautiful film. Elemental is a true return to form for Pixar, and arguably it's best since Coco. It's a heartwarming story that resonates on so many levels and deserves to be seen on the big screen. If the film continues to gain steam at the box office, this may be the start of a new renaissance for Pixar...or you know, you can just go see The Flash, and then we'll get Incredibles 3, Cars 4, and...Rata-TWO-ille?

  

Understanding Ted in The "Lasso" Finale

*Spoilers if you haven't finished Ted Lasso. Turn around and come back later*

Aside from some pieces on How I Met Your Mother and Community from almost a decade ago, I don't often talk about television on here. But I wanted to take a moment to discuss one of my favorite new shows in recent years, Ted Lasso.

Ted Lasso was an adrenaline shot of positivity that came into my life at just at the right time. Arguably I think it did the same thing for a lot of people. The series dropped on Apple TV+ in the middle of 2020, a time when we collectively were all at our low point. Saying Ted Lasso is a feel-good show is an understatement. This show taught its viewers so much about self-love, mental health, our obligation to our fellow man. Ted Lasso's (Jason Sudeikis) wisdom and teachings had just as much effect on its viewers as it did the other characters in the show. I would go so far as to say Ted changed lives on and off the screen.

Which is probably why it hit so hard on May 31, 2023 when Ted resigned as Head Coach from AFC Richmond and returned home to the states to be closer to his son in the series(?) finale. Full disclosure I ugly cried. Overall I really enjoyed the series (?) finale, although I took some issues with it, which I won't get into here. Like many television finales, Ted Lasso's seems to have divided its fanbase. Some liked it. Others didn't. One particular criticism of the finale I want to address is the notion that Ted himself was very cold and emotionless, and seemed rather unfazed by his leaving.

Now what I'm about to share with you is in no means a definitive explanation for it. This is just my own personal opinion and analysis of it. First of all, I want to take a look at Ted's final note to Trent Crimm (James Lance). For perspective, Trent was writing a book on AFC Richmond's season, and he gave a copy of the manuscript to Ted to look over before it went to the publishers. Ted's note to Trent reads "One small suggestion. I'd change the title. It's not about me. It never was."

It's not about me. It never was.

While Trent's book (and the series) may have been named after Coach Lasso, this story was never his. It was about the people whose lives he touched and changed forever. I've seen many comparisons of Ted Lasso to The Wizard of Oz online. Ted is essentially Dorothy, he's from Kansas, so naturally he returns to Kansas at the end of the series. Jamie (Phil Dunster) is The Scarecrow, no brain, Roy Kent (Brett Goldstein) is The Tin Man, no heart, a few characters could be The Cowardly Lion or a Witch, I digress. Feel free to look this up and come back here later. But I would like to draw comparison to a different film, and that is Mary Poppins.

For those of you that don't know (LOL), Mary Poppins is the story of a magical nanny who arrives in London to help take care of the two children of The Banks Family. Through her teachings, she not only helps the children, but she helps their father understand what's really important in life, and that's his family. By the end of the film the bond of The Banks Family is stronger than ever, and Mary Poppins takes her leave, rather unceremoniously, and without a big, heartfelt goodbye...maybe you see where I'm going with this.

At the start of the series, a bitter and cynical Rebecca (Hannah Waddingham) has taken over the club from her ex-husband Rupert (Anthony Head) with the intention of destroying the one thing he loved the most. To do that, she hires the worst possible person as head coach, Ted. Naturally it backfires on her, and not only does Ted improve the team, and eventually lead them to victory, he helps improves her own life. Ted also brings the team closer together, and makes them a found family. Jamie and Roy go from enemies to friends, as do Jamie and Sam (Toheeb Jimoh), and everyone comes to value Nate (Nick Mohammed). Plus let's talk about how they all celebrate Christmas together in one of the best holiday episodes in recent years. Ted very much is like AFC Richmond's own Mary Poppins. He flies in from God knows where, and helps them all to become better, and when they all do become better, it's time for him to leave.

Now I think in most finales, or episodes where a main character is leaving, it becomes like an "emotional road-trip" if you will, where they have a poignant final moment with every other major character. (See Frasier, see Michael Scott's last episode of The Office, etc.) Is this a nice thing to do? Yes. Is it a bit cliche'? Yes. Here's why I don't think Ted Lasso did it...because they were doing it every other episode. Ted was having important, emotional moments with the other characters from the very beginning. That was his deal. Helping everyone see the best version of themselves. He once told Dr. Sharon (Sarah Niles) that after his father's suicide, he would never let anyone get by him without understanding their worth and what they meant to him. So I think to do that all again with every character in the finale just would've been a bit redundant. To me Ted's final locker room speech to the team hit all the right notes.

But that still begs the question, why did he seem so cold in the finale? Well simply because his goal was to get back to his son. But let's get back to that Mary Poppins connection. As Mary (Julie Andrews) packs up her things, the Banks children, Jane and Micheal (Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber) plead with her to stay, and ask her "don't you love us?" to which Mary replies "And what would happen to me, may I ask, if I loved all the children I said goodbye to?"

Ted's goal was to never make AFC Richmond his new home. Like he told Trent Crimm long ago when they first went out to dinner, he loves coaching, and it was never about winning or losing but "helping these young fellas be the best version of themselves on and off the field." That's just what Ted did, and when the mission was complete, it was time for Teddy Loppins (Ugh...) to fly away, off to next people that needed him.

Mary Poppins may be the titular character, but it's not her story. The story is about a family learning to grow and be better together. Just like Ted Lasso may be the titular character, but as he told Trent in his note "It's not about me. It never was." Ted Lasso and Mary Poppins both focus on a person that comes into the lives of a group of troubled people, and by simply being themselves, make their world a better place.

Again, this is all just my own interpretation and couldn't amount to anything more than a crumbly box of biscuits....HOWEVER, I do think it's interesting that in the third episode of season 3, when the guys are sharing their favorite Julie Andrews performances, Ted agrees with Higgins (Jeremy Swift) and selects Mary Poppins. And maybe, just maybe this is why he wasn't totally breaking down at the team's performance of "So Long, Farewell" from The Sound of Music, because it's not his favorite Julie Andrews film (It is Roy's though).

Ted Lasso definitely left an impact on anyone who watched it. I haven't met anyone that hasn't resonated with the series. It's definitely something you can rewatch over and over and still get that feel-good feeling from...just like Mary Poppins.

Film Review - "The Little Mermaid" (2023)

The Little Mermaid

Directed by Rob Marshall

Starring Halle Bailey, John Hauer-King, and Melissa McCarthy

Somehow, the Disney live-action remakes continue to survive in this new decade. For a hot minute, it seemed like they were going the way of the Disney Direct-to-Video Sequels, and becoming the Disney Direct-to-Streaming Remakes. Thanks to a little something called COVID-19, theaters no longer became the safest nor most ideal way to watch new releases. Disney and other studios had to try new ways to get their major releases to audiences. 

While releasing three live-action remakes to theaters in 2019 (Dumbo, Aladdin, and The Lion King), they decided to have the next one, Lady & The Tramp, go to their new streaming service when it launched later that year. About a year's worth of COVID later, Disney scrapped the theatrical release of the Mulan remake in the states, and dropped it on Disney Plus via Premier Access ($30 on top of the monthly subscription fee).

As time went on, the world started to bounce back, and more films were being released to theaters again. However, Disney remakes such as Pinocchio and Peter Pan & Wendy were unceremoniously dropped on Disney Plus, with no Premier Access fee, and to critical backlash (Shocking, I know...)

It looked like the Disney remake was going to slip into a state of obscurity, until last month when Rob Marshall's new take on The Little Mermaid became the first Disney remake released to theaters in four years. The film has done fairly well with critics and audiences alike...

...Now you're probably expecting what comes next is I do the usual tearing this film to shreds, and get on my soapbox about how these remakes are the death of Disney and cinema as we know it...No, I actually enjoyed this...well, most of it.

You know the story. I know the story. But for the sake of formality, The Little Mermaid tells the story of a young mermaid named Ariel (Bailey), who is the youngest daughter of Triton (Javier Bardem), the king of the sea. Triton forbids any contact with the surface world, which is unfortunate because Ariel is fascinated with it, and that only increases when she rescues Prince Eric (Hayer-King) from a shipwreck. While Ariel strives to be "part of that world", Ursula the Sea Witch (McCarthy) sees this as an opportunity to seize power from Titron and take control of the seas.

The Little Mermaid doesn't stray too far from the blueprint of the original until about the second-act, which is when the film really starts to stand on its own two legs (Heh). The films spends more time building up the relationship between Ariel and Eric. There's much more depth (Ha) to Eric's character this time around. He has more wants, more motivation, and importantly more of a real connection with Ariel. That's pretty much all the new ground Mermaid 2023 covers. There's hints about what happened to Ariel's mother (Allusion to the direct-to-video prequel Ariel's Beginning?) and a deeper connection to  Triton and Ursula (Borrowed from the Broadway musical) but neither additions are explored too much to leave an impact. Also there's a rather confusing addition to Ursula's spell that turns Ariel human that ultimately serves no purpose.

Halle Bailey is absolutely amazing as Ariel. She carries this film, and nails every aspect of the character. The innate curiosity and radiant positivity of the titular mermaid are all on display here. There's more agency and maturity to the character this time around, which I can admire and respect. Bailey is also a powerhouse of a singer. I'm ashamed to admit that her rendition of "Part of Your World" brought a tear or two to my eye. She commands the attention of the audience every time she's on screen. This is a career-making performance.

Casting has never been a major problem for these Disney remakes. Melissa McCarthy is an absolute delight as Ursula, and you can tell she's having a ton of fun playing one of Disney's most bodacious villains. Her performance is both inspired by the original Ursula, Pat Caroll, and her own unique take.

Daveed Diggs is a very charming and comical Sebastian. He has great comedic timing with Akwafina's Scuttle, who is also quite funny in her own right. Jacob Tremblay makes a fine and cute Flounder, but his role is rather limited in this film. John Hauer-King is great as Prince Eric and has undeniable chemistry with Bailey. His performance is almost as commanding as hers. Unfortunately the only cast member that did not work for me was Javier Bardem as King Triton. His performance is very wooden and a little too subtle for a character that has unchecked rage and the burden of being a single father to seven. Maybe it was the CGI and wire-work that stunted him. 

Speaking of CGI, let's talk about it. The hyper-realistic CGI animals in these remakes has always been questionable. I don't know how they pulled it off in The Jungle Book, it didn't work in The Lion King, and I didn't see Lady & The Tramp. Here...it's not that bad. Scuttle is very expressive. Sebastian it's about 50-50. Flotsam and Jetsam (Ursula's pair of eels) are pretty creepy, and rightfully so, but I'm sorry to say to all the Flotsam and Jetsam fans out there, that they get the "Iago in Aladdin 2019" treatment. They don't talk, and are more of a plot device than actual characters.  The CGI doesn't work at all for hyper-realistic, Jacob Tremblay-voiced Flounder, which probably makes it a blessing that he's not in the film very much. 

That's a perfect segue into the underwater effects of the film. It's pretty hit and miss. Sometimes its rather pretty, other times it's a little distracting. There are times where it's pretty clear the actors are just floating in front of a green screen. Also, the design of the underwater kingdom is pretty unimaginative. It's just generic coral reef. Conversely, the visuals on the surface world are pretty spectacular, particularly the fiery shipwreck scene, and the "Kiss The Girl" sequence. The sets for Eric's kingdom are all very impressive, and give off a nice combination of tropical and classical vibes.

Now we have to talk about the music. This is (mostly) some of the best music a Disney remake has had in awhile. Which isn't that high of a compliment because it's just the classic work of Alan Menken and the late Howard Ashman rearranged, but damn is it effective here. Again, Halle crushes "Part of Your World". McCarthy's rendition of "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is infectiously catchy. "Under The Sea" is again a show-stopper, but the visuals don't quite match the song's energy. "Kiss The Girl" is one of my favorite Disney songs and I'm happy to say I wasn't disappointed with it. 

Lin-Manuel Miranda was brought in to compose some new songs. Prince Eric's new song "Wild Uncharted Waters" is like a gender-swapped, Disney Princess"I want song", with grand orchestrations and sweeping camera movements. It's like an Alan Menken version of "Bet On It" from High School Musical 2. "For The First Time" is a new song for Ariel to sing when she gets on land, and it's a low-key bop. Scuttle and Sebastian's new...rap..."The Scuttlebutt"...is incredibly out-of-place and stops the film dead in its tracks. Just because you got two rappers in your cast and Lin Manuel doing the music doesn't mean you should, guys. You girl-bossed too close to the sun...

I can confidently say that The Little Mermaid is the most I've enjoyed a Disney remake since the 2017 Beauty & The Beast. I look at it very much in the same light. It's not a perfect film, but it is a lovely tribute to the animated original, and a fine cornerstone in its legacy. It has enough to warrant your time, including wonderful performances and new renditions of beloved Disney tunes. 

This is arguably the new gold standard for Disney remakes, wether they go to theaters or Disney Plus (Sounds like it's going to be a film-by-film basis). We can only hope they can be as respectful and entertaining as The Little Mermaid.

 

Film Review - "The Super Mario Bros. Movie"

The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic

Starring Chris Pratt, Anya Taylor-Joy, Charlie Day, and Jack Black

I really don't understand movie critics sometimes. Why are we tearing down a film that's based off an over forty-year-old video-game franchise, where an Italian plumber, goes off to rescue a princess, from an evil turtle? A "thinly plotted animated adventure". Did you really expect to walk out of here forever changed, emotionally rocked to your core at the Pixar level? Anyway The Super Mario Bros. Movie is goddamn delightful and it gave me the biggest smile I've had in theaters for awhile.

Mario and Luigi (Pratt and Day) are two Italian-American brothers in Brooklyn struggling to get their plumbing business off the ground. One night when they go into the underground to fix a water leak, they get sucked down a Warp Pipe into another dimension. Mario lands in the Mushroom Kingdom, and Luigi in the Dark Lands, which are ruled by King Bowser (Black). Bowser is determined to marry Princess Peach (Taylor-Joy) and will destroy the Mushroom Kingdom if she refuses. Mario teams up with Peach to save his brother and the Mushroom Kingdom from Bowser and his army.

Simple but effective is the best way to describe this film. It knows its source material and speaks its truth. This was a Mario video-game come to life in the best way. The film wastes no time in explaining power-ups or Koopas or Rainbow Roads. It just goes "No. This is the world of a video-game. Deal with it. Let's-a-go." The animation is spectacular, and probably some of Illumination's best. They stay close to the style of the games and all the characters look amazing. The set pieces are gorgeous and filled with vibrant colors. It's a true feast for the eyes. 

There's so many Easter eggs and visual nods to the games. You have to watch this film in slow motion to catch them all. One particular scene where Mario and Luigi are rushing to a job-site and its framed like a level on the games is so much fun, the sequence where the characters drive on Rainbow Road triggered me in ways I didn't know possible (Mario Kart!!), and I won't spoil it but the ringtone on Luigi's cellphone put such a stupid smile on my face. 

I know I said this film is "simple but effective" and no one should expect a Pixar-level narrative here, but the film does have a lot of heart, especially when it comes to the relationship of Mario and Luigi. You really believe these two brothers love and care for one another. It's unfortunate that they're apart for most of the film. But at the same time you sympathize with Mario's own character journey. It's basic Joseph Campbell, hero-journey stuff. He dreams of a better life, he's called to action, and he's given the opportunity to be a part of something bigger, to be something greater. I might get shot for this but in some ways its structure isn't that different from the original Star Wars!

Really all the characters in the film are wonderful, and now's a good time to transition into the voice-acting. I think when this cast was announced a lot of people were worried, especially about Chris Pratt. Honestly though he was pretty good. We shouldn't be totally surprised this isn't his first animated film*. There's a lot of surprising subtly to his Mario. I completely understand them not going hard on the Italian accent. It's the same with John Mulaney and Andy Samberg voicing Chip and Dale. Hearing their original stylized voices over an extended period of time could get kind of grating.

Charlie Day was super fun as Luigi. Seth Rogen, despite giving his very distinctive voice to an animated character for like the twelfth time, is a really good Donkey Kong, and I love the reluctant friendship he has with Pratt's Mario here. They play off each other so well. Keegan-Micheal Key is a real scene-stealer as Toad. Anya Taylor-Joy is sweet and charming as Princess Peach. The real MVP of the film though is Jack Black as Bowser. This is one of the best villain performances in animation ever. You can tell he is just having so much fun behind the mic being completely over-the-top evil.

One thing that brought this film down for me was its jukebox soundtrack. It relies way too much on popular hits from the 70s and 80s, which is a shame because there's so much rich music from the video games they could've adapted (or in some cases did adapt and then cut in favor of using a popular song). I've said this before but one too many "needle drop" moments can really take you out of the viewing experience. Let's all agree to not use "Holding Out For A Hero" in film anymore. This was the second instance in one month. Don't use AC/DC you're just asking us to remember Iron Man. Also..."Take On Me" by A-Ha? Just compose your own music! 

Maybe the majority of the critics out there didn't play Mario video-games growing up, or just forgot to have fun with a film. The Super Mario Bros. Movie is a real treat for audiences young and old, no matter how much you did or didn't play the games. I was never a big gamer but this film brought me so much joy with its simple story, wonderful characters, and dazzling animation. This is another mark in the win column for Illumination as far as I'm concerned.

But please...can we just let the "Peaches" song go for a little bit? Before the Academy decides to have Jack Black perform it in costume at next year's Oscars?

*Do not come for me I wasn't originally sold on The Lego Movie and now I love it.

"Into The Woods" A Fine Film and Flawed Adaptation

I can say with confidence that my favorite musical is Stephen Sondheim's Into The Woods. Now I admit I haven't seen a ton of Broadway shows, in fact most of the ones I've seen have been adapted from Disney films. So there's some irony in that I was introduced to my favorite musical...through its film adaptation by Disney!

Long ago I placed Into The Woods sixth in my Top 10 Films of 2014, which I don't know if I would do again. Frankly I'm a little appalled at my past self for not including How To Train Your Dragon 2, and embarrassed for not seeing John Wick or Whiplash at the time (still haven't seen the latter). The point is, the more I've learned about Into The Woods the musical, the less I've enjoyed Into The Woods the film.

Before we go any further I'm just going to let everyone know I'm not here to trash James Corden...but I get it. Also this will contain spoilers so...don't go any further if you care about those.

For those that don't know, Into The Woods is what I describe as an "ensemble adaptation" that takes multiple fairy tales like Cinderella, Jack and The Beanstalk, and Red Riding Hood, and intertwines them into one narrative. At the center are the original characters of The Baker and his wife, who are cursed by their witch neighbor due to past misdeeds of The Baker's father, and preventing them from having a child. The witch tells them she can create a potion to lift the curse if they collect four specific ingredients in three day's time: the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slipper as pure as gold. These ingredients are where the other fairy tale characters come in. 

The Baker sets out into the titular woods to retrieve the items, while at the same time Cinderella, Jack, and Red also set out into the woods (Ahaha!) to achieve their specific goals (go to the ball, sell the cow, etc.) There's also Rapunzel, a couple of Prince Charming's, and an omniscient narrator. Now "Happily Ever After" does come for these fairy tale characters, but that is not where Into The Woods ends. That's just the first act.

Some time has passed, and as the narrator tells the audience, despite some minor inconveniences, the cast is still happy. Cinderella is bored with the princess life, meanwhile her Prince Charming (and his brother) are becoming unhappy with married life. Jack longs for more adventures atop the beanstalk. The Baker and his wife, now with their infant son, need more space in their home. But these characters keep singing they're "so happy" as if to convince the audience (and themselves) that they are living happily ever after.

The majority of the second act has the characters dealing with an attack from a second giant, who is the wife of the giant Jack killed. To make a long story short, this conflict leads to the deaths of Jack's mother, Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother, Rapunzel, and The Baker's wife (who falls to her death after having a brief fling with Cinderella's Prince. Interesting chain of events there, Sondheim...). Eventually this lady giant is defeated, and the story ends with Cinderella, Jack, and Little Red moving in with The Baker and his son. I'm really not doing the second act much justice with this summary but I'm trying not to waste too much time on the recap.

So, this sounds like a pretty bleak ending right? A bit bittersweet isn't it? Yes, but...that's kind of the point. Sondheim is making the point that "Happily Ever After" is a false construct. "The End" is not the end. There will always be more more giants, wolves, and witches. There will always be more obstacles, more consequences, and more hardships. That's life. People have to continue to grow, to learn, to go "into the woods". Pinning the blame on a fairy tale villain like a giant or an evil witch is not going to make your problems go away, nor is a magic slipper or bean going to make your life perfect. 

Through Into The Woods, Sondheim masterfully uses fairy tales to tell his audience, not to believe fairy tales. It's genius. But...is it cinema?

Translating a story from one medium to another is always going to present challenges. Creatives have to be willing to make changes to the source material in order for their adaptation to work. Into The Woods fits perfectly into a two-act play structure. The first act is the regular fairy tale, and the second is what happens after. Disney's 2014 film adaptation really stumbles here. Not counting the credits, it's an hour and fifty-seven minute film, but we don't get to the second act until an hour and fifteen minutes in. 

Now you're probably saying "Chris that's not that egregious." Well it is, and it isn't. On the stage, we get an intermission, and act two starts with a rearrangement of the opening song. Some time has passed for the characters, and they're not super content with their current situations. There is no intermission in a film, and the filmmakers decided to cut the time jump. Just as Cinderella and Rapunzel have married their princes, Mrs. Giant attacks and we're right back into the fray (or...woods).

Omitting songs from film adaptations is not a new practice, however, eliminating the time jump and the second-act prologue changes the message of Into The Woods for the film. The characters do not get the chance to lament their happily ever afters, much less enjoy them. Instead they find themselves having to continue to fight for them, and as I mentioned earlier, that comes at the cost of some lives. Suddenly the message isn't so much "There is no such thing as a happily ever after" as much as "Be careful what you wish for" which while that is still an important message, it is a very tired and cliche one.

Another song omission from act two really messes up the flow of the film, and that's the reprise of "Agony" (You know that upsets me...). The reprise has the two princes getting tired of their wives (Cinderella and Rapunzel) and becoming smitten with two other princesses (Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). Eliminating this song totally makes the Prince's fling with The Baker's Wife seem completely out of left field, and sort of makes it seems like the film is punishing her for cheating...because she dies immediately after? Yeah I'm still not sure what purpose her death serves if anyone wants to help me out here, please. Sure, earlier in the film (played by Chris Pine and Emily Blunt) they share a few moments but it's not enough for us to "ship it" as the kids say.

Side-note, the characterization of The Baker's Wife in the film misses the mark, too. In the musical she clearly wears the pants in the marriage and has to push The Baker to do more. In the film she's a much more gentle character and far more his biggest cheerleader. The musical makes it more believable for her to cheat. 

There is one more detail from the film I want to touch on, and that's how they handled The Narrator and The Baker's Father. They're played by the same actor on stage, but they're not the same character...at least that's how I interpreted it. Anyway, on stage The Narrator is an actual character that interacts with the audience, and in the second act, the other characters. When Mrs. Giant is hunting for Jack, the characters turn on him and offer him up as a sacrifice. The Narrator pleads with them to spare his life, because they'll be lost without him telling the story. It's very clever because once the Narrator is gone, that's when the characters have to start taking responsibility for their own actions, hence Princes and Wives having flings, the four main characters screaming at each other in a song called "Your Fault" etc.

The film has no narrator character. Instead The Baker (Corden) acts as narrator. Now that's kind of a nice change. It brings the film full circle when he tells the story to the baby at the end. But again, the message of the musical is lost. 

Now his father. His father is a supporting player in the first act, acting as an unnamed mysterious stranger helping the characters through the woods. When the curse is finally lifted, he passes away having paid for his misdeeds. In the second act, after his wife has died and the witch has abandoned the group, The Baker retreats and leaves his son with the others. It is then when a vision of his late father comes to him, and through the song "No More" (Mad the film cut this one), he realizes he hasn't learned anything, he is jus repeating the cycle, and it's time to take responsibility for his own life. The father doesn't appear in the first half of the film, save for a brief flashback in the prologue, but does show up in the second act. He appears as a vision to his son, but only through a brief pep talk does he tell his son to be "better than me". This just feels tacked on because the character was cut out of the rest of the film.

That's kind of the whole problem with how this film handles act two of the musical. It just tacks it on at the end and breezes through it (Was I trying to make that point with my quick recap of it earlier? I'll never tell!). Eliminating too much from this portion of the musical undercut the whole message and point of Into The Woods and thus the film fails at being a proper adaptation.

Now, I've bashed the film quite a lot here, and I could go on...but I really do enjoy it. The performances are great. The production design is top-notch, and the arrangements of the songs are really wonderful. I just came to this epiphany...in many ways this is the Disney live-action remake of Into The Woods. It takes a lot out of the source material, doesn't add much, but still enjoyable at the surface level because it's well casted and the new arrangements of the songs are good. 

Really how much you like the musical of Into The Woods will determine how much you like the film Into The Woods. As I've grown to love the musical more over time, I've lost interest in the film. Does that mean I hate it? No. I still enjoying watching the 2017 remake of Beauty & The Beast, but I'll never take it over the original 1991 classic. That's sort of how I look at Into The Woods the film. It's not perfect, but at times, it can satisfy.

Could another film adaptation of Into The Woods work? Perhaps, but it's not clear we'll ever see it in this lifetime, and maybe that's a good thing. As the film said, and not the musical, be careful what you wish for.