"Hercules" - Disney's Superman

A quick Google search just told me that I am far from the first person to talk about this, but I'm going to still go for it. Maybe I can add something new to the conversation, or at least reignite it.

Sometimes you really have to sit back and admire the pipeline of Disney Animation in the nineties. The studio went from a French fairy-tale (Beauty & The Beast), to an Arabian fairy-tale (Aladdin), to Shakespeare's Hamlet with talking lions (The Lion King), to a fictitious dramatization of American history (Pocahontas), to a family-friendly but somehow still-faithful adaptation of a Victor Hugo novel (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) and then...Hercules. What range.

What is Hercules? You're probably saying "Well obviously Chris, it's an adaptation of Greek mythology." and you would be right...in a way. As I learned long ago in my high school Mythology class, Disney's Hercules is an adaptation disconnected to its source material even more so then Hunchback...but maybe not as much as Pocahontas. Seriously there's "Pocahontas & John Smith are the same age and romantically involved" inaccurate, and then there's "Zeus is a loving and loyal father figure" inaccurate...also Hades wasn't evil, Hera wasn't Hercules's mother, Hera killed Meg and Hercules' children, Hercules was born a demigod first because Zeus slept with a mortal woman, there was no Phil, the protagonist's real name isn't even Hercules. It's Heracles, but I digress...

Alright so if Hercules isn't a Greek mythology film then what is it? Easy my friends. It's a superhero film.

Obviously the film is inarguably saturated with Greek mythology. I'm not trying to do this Disney-Adult version of gaslighting on you. But when you look at the story in its base form, Hercules has more align with a classic superhero origin story. Specifically one superhero origin story in particular.

That film being Richard Donner's 1978 film, Superman, starring the late Christopher Reeve. A film that has recently come back to the forefront of my mind, thanks to a recent screening of the documentary Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story I attended (Great film by the way. Reeve really was Superman. Bring tissues.) 

It's weird how the mind works sometimes. Listening to Christopher Reeve talk in the documentary, something inside me said "His voice has a similar cadence to Tate Donovan. I think if they ever did a biopic Tate Donovan might play a good Christopher Reeve." Then I remembered Tate Donovan voiced Hercules. As Kronk in The Emperor's New Groove would say "Oh yeah. It's all coming together..."

Hercules's story starts out almost identical to Superman's. He is the descendant of these beings from another world with godlike strength, and due to unfortunate circumstances, he is left alone as a baby on Earth, and lo and behold adopted by farmers.

When Hercules and Clark Kent both start to feel like outcasts due to their extraordinary abilities, they leave home searching answers. This leads Clark to the Fortress of Solitude, and for Hercules that is the Temple of Zeus. Whereas a projection of his late father Jor-El comes to Clark/Kal-El, a projection of Zeus comes to Hercules.

Both heroes start to gain fame and notoriety through public acts of heroism, and they're is a cynical, female love-interest there to witness it all (Megara for Hercules, Lois Lane for Superman). There's not much of a comparison between Lex Luthor and Hades (They do both have cartoonishly large maps of the worlds they wish to conquer though). If anything, I'd say Pain and Panic and Otis have more in common.

The true parallel comes in the final act(s). Megara lays dying as Hercules fights to save Olympus from Hades and The Titans. Lois Lane gets trapped in her car during an earthquake, as Superman works to prevent other natural disasters. Neither hero is able to save both the world and their love...or are they?

Both Hercules and Superman defy fate to save their loves. Hercules rescues Megara from the underworld, risking his own life. Superman goes against Jor-El's teachings, and uses his powers to turn back time and save Lois. This is a critical moment for both. Hercules learns that his heart, his humanity, is what makes him a true hero. Not his godlike powers. 

Conversely, Kal-El had been instructed by his father to only inspire humans, and not to interfere with them. He even says to his son that he will be like a light to them to show them the way, almost like a God. But when the woman he loves dies, Kal-El chooses humanity over divinity, and that is what makes him a true hero. And similar to how Kal-El continues to live among humans in the guise of Clark Kent, Hercules decides to remain on Earth with Megara, declaring it's where he belongs.

Maybe it's just a bizarre coincidence that Tate Donovan was cast as Hercules, and it wasn't because the directors were looking for a "Christopher Reeve-type" to voice the character. Maybe I'm the only one who hears the similarities in the two actors' voices. But it got me here. Down this rabbit hole. A place where many others have been before. The place where we all know Hercules is Disney's Superman.

...Maybe I should do those Top Films of 2022 & 2023 now...or just go to bed...

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 - "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?

  

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 - "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 - "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 - "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 - "Cruella"

I bet you're expecting me to hate this film like I hated Maleficent. Well, guess what?!?

Cruella

Directed by Craig Gillespie

Starring Emma Stone, Emma Thompson, Joel Fry, and Paul Walter Hauser

I mean I wasn't exactly excited to see this film, despite loving the lead actress and the director's last film (I, Tonya). The reviews ended up being overall pretty positive, but a lot of people liked Maleficent too...and gave it a sequel. Regardless, I had every intention of giving Cruella a chance, and I finally caught it on Disney Plus last week. You know what? I had a pretty good time with it.

The film opens on young Estella having a gift for fashion, and causing trouble. Her mother pulls her out of school and moves to London to keep her out of trouble, but tragedy strikes leaving Estella an orphan. She makes friends with two con-artists/street urchins Jasper and Horace. Ten years later, Estella (Stone), Jasper (Fry), and Horace (Hauser) spend their days pulling schemes throughout the streets of London. 

On her birthday, Jasper and Horace give Estella a job at a prestigious department store...as a janitor. One night Estella drunkenly redecorates a window display in the store, and attracts the attention of prolific designer Baroness von Hellman (Thompson). The Baroness recognizes Estella's talent and offers her a job at her studio. As she grows closer to The Baroness, Estella uncovers a startling connection between them. This revelation sets her down a dark and immoral path that will turn Estella into Cruella.

First off I appreciate them trying to give Cruella de Vil a fully-fledged backstory, and an original one at that. They're not doing some revisionist history of 101 Dalmatians here. There was one questionable story choice that didn't sit with me, but I was able to get past it. Cruella was actually surprising and I wasn't sure where it was going to go. You're rooting for Estella but also not, if that makes sense. She's a likable character and you almost don't want to see her become Cruella de Vil. She's very much an anti-hero, and I dig that.

The film rests on Emma Stone's shoulders, and she carries it with ease. You can tell she's having a ton of fun with this role, and she flips between the light and the dark (the white and the black. Dalmatians!) of Estella/Cruella. Emma Thompson goes toe-to-toe with her as The Baroness. Thompson does great playing a dry, malicious antagonist. She probably could play Cruella de Vil herself if she wanted to. Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser are a great pair as Jasper and Horace. Fry brings a lot of heart to the film, which is surprising considering what Jasper was in 101 Dalmatians, but that's fine Jasper is Cruella's moral compass now I guess. Paul Walter Hauser steals every scene he's in as Horace. One of the best castings in a Disney live-action remake??

I liked the look of the film, bringing retro London to life. It fits right in with the style of the original animated 101 Dalmatians. There was some shoddy CGI in some scenes but it was minimal. What I didn't like is the film's soundtrack. It's like someone was skipping through a CD of "Now That's What I Call 70's", playing the most popular songs from the era. Don't get me wrong I like all the songs they used, and some of them worked, but some of them are so overused in film/television, they take you out of the viewing experience. Whatever happened to using original music to set a scene? Not as bad as the soundtrack in the original Suicide Squad, but just as noticeable.

So, why do I like this film and not Maleficent? Well while Maleficent tried to "redeem" its titular character, and as a result tare down a Disney classic, Cruella actually respects the source material. I mean, it does make a popular Disney villain a bit more sympathetic but she's still not a good person. Again, anti-hero. Again, Cruella doesn't fold into a retelling 101 Dalmatians halfway through. It does something original. 

*Mild spoilers* It doesn't take us right to the point where Cruella decides to kill puppies for fur coats, but it puts her in the right (or wrong) direction. It treads that line and I respect that. "Shockingly", there will be a sequel, and we'll have to wait and see what story that film tells (I think the credits scene can give us some hints) but for now, I'll remain cautiously optimistic.

Cruella is not without its flaws but it's a pleasant surprise regardless. It's a fun film with a strong lead performance. I had a good time with it. But Disney you're 1-1 on villain origin films. Let's not push it by trying to dive into the untold stories of Jafar or Gaston-oh no wait they are doing that one just as a miniseries on Disney Plus...anyway...

Film Review - “Black Widow”

Black Widow

Directed by Cate Shortland

Starring Scarlett Johansson, Florence Pugh, and David Harbour

To say Scarlett Johansson’s first solo outing as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) was long over-due feels like a bad joke now. Frankly, it was overdue long before the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its release for over a year. Ever since the character first appeared in Iron Man 2 fans have wanted her to have her own solo film. When it was finally announced Black Widow was going to be made, it couldn’t help but feel a bit bittersweet.

Learning it was going to be a prequel, and then watching her death in Avengers: Endgame (Still say it should’ve been Hawkeye) made Black Widow feel somewhat like an afterthought, and a squandering of potential. Johansson has always been great as Natasha, and has had plenty of screen time across the MCU. But it feels like so much more could’ve been done with the character, and now we’re just left to wonder “What If?” Pun absolutely intended.

But finally last month Black Widow was released in theaters and on Disney Plus Premier Access (For better or worse). Despite external circumstances, I found it to be a very enjoyable entry in the MCU, however not without its flaws.

Set after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Natasha (Johansson) is on the run form Secretary Ross (William Hurt) and the US military after violating the Sokovia Accords. Life in hiding is peaceful for all of five minutes until her surrogate sister Yelena Bologna (Pugh) sends her a package that puts her in the crosshairs of Taskmaster, a mercenary of the Red Room trained to mimic the fighting styles of The Avengers. 

The package contains an antidote to the mind-controlling agent used on all female operatives in the Black Widow program. Natasha reunites with Yelena, who tells her that the Red Room is still active, and Dreykov (Ray Winstone) the man in charge, is still alive. Natasha and Yelena set out to find the Red Room and stop Dreykov once and for all, while reuniting with their surrogate parents Alexei Shostakov/The Red Guardian (Harbour) and Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz), who also went through the Red Room’s training.

The film does a great job of providing us with the origins of Natasha without making it a straight origin story. The opening sequence, a flashback to the undercover life of “The Widow Family” in Ohio 1995, sets up the rest of the film perfectly. The overall tone and themes of this film make it one of the more intense and darker chapters in the MCU. Viewers can certainly resonate with what the film has to say about the treatment of women and how society values them. This is all fitting for a character with a history like Black Widow’s. Natasha has been a character constantly haunted by her past, and determined to “wipe the red out of her ledger” as she told Tom Hiddelston’s Loki in the original Avengers, and this story is built to service that arc.

Every MCU film feels in some way different than the others, and Black Widow feels like a real espionage adventure. The action scenes in this film are intense, exhilarating, and harken back to those from Captain America: The Winter Solider and Civil War. A few in the film’s third act are some of its best. But the film’s real strengths are the dynamics between its characters. The Widow Family work together really well, and you really believe they are a family. They poke fun at each other, they hate each other, and they love each other. It’s a perfectly written family dynamic, warts and all. This is in no small part due to the performances.

Scarlett Johansson has always been great as Natasha, and in this film we see why we fell in love with the character. The charm, the heart and the wit she has poured into the character for the past decade is all on display here. Unfortunately she sorts of falls into the same situation of the late Chadwick Boseman in Black Panther, where her supporting cast can outshine her. Florence Pugh establishes herself as a new MVP of the MCU. She brings a lot of heart and humor to the table as Yelena, and her chemistry with Johansson is incredible (Really sad it might be the only time we see them together). David Harbour is incredible as the Red Guardian. He was my favorite part of the film, playing this perfect goofy superhero dad with a misplaced ego. Rachel Weisz has a lot of good moments as Melina, but sadly I feel like the script didn’t give her enough opportunity to shine.

OT Fagbenle and William Hurt are fine as Rick Mason and Secretary Ross, but they’re just kind of there to help the plot along, and connect this to Phase Three’s narrative. Ray Winstone as Dreykov is…ok. He’s a talented actor but the script also does him no favors, and he turns out to be one of the weaker villains of the franchise. It’s is unfortunate because the film spends a lot of time building him up as this monster, but it’s a lot of tell and no show. Now is probably a good point to transition into what I thought didn’t work in the film.

I think the best way to sum up Black Widow’s shortcomings is it could’ve been so much more. I don’t necessarily mean “It could take place in present day post-Endgame with Natasha still alive” You can have this film set in the past and it’d still be effective. But the problem of “show, not tell” does not just pertain to Ray Winstone’s Dreykov. There are a lot of conversations between characters about things, really interesting, harrowing things we really should’ve seen as viewers. The pacing of the film sort of suffers as a result of this. I understand the whole film can’t be action sequences, but when this is the long overdue solo story of an OG Avenger, and possibly the last time we'll see her, you kinda want to give us all you got. We understand to a degree what Natasha has been through because we’ve had six films with her already, but that’s not a free pass to skimp on character work in this film.

It’s interesting how Dreykov is the film’s primary antagonist, when all the marketing had propped Taskmaster up in that position. Unfortunately, Taskmaster is probably as equally underdeveloped. Now avoiding spoilers here, but I don’t subscribe to the “#NotMyTaskmaster campaign” circling the internet right now. I enjoyed the portrayal of him in this film, even if it’s not what everyone expected given the character’s history. I thought he worked really well to service Natasha’s story, but we needed more time with the character to understand him better.

Black Widow may fall short of becoming one of the MCU’s greatest, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth your time. It’s thrilling, emotional, and a good time at the movies, which is what we all need right now, and what we expect from Marvel. Pandemic aside, it is sadly a bit of a victim of circumstance, but within the parameters set for her, director Cate Shortland crafts a entertaining adventure for Natasha Romanoff that beautifully serves this beloved character.

I like many hope this is not the last we see of the Black Widow (although a certain lawsuit might be dwindling those chances as we speak), but I also hope this film stands as a touching tribute to original female Avenger and her importance to this powerhouse franchise…and it still should’ve been Hawkeye.

Film Review Throwback - "Noelle"

Noelle

Directed by Marc Lawrence

Starring Anna Kendrick, Bill Hader, and Shirley MacLaine

I suppose in a way, Christmas films are a dime-a-dozen. Quantity over quality, at least in the case of the Hallmark Channel. Netflix seems to be following suit nowadays, but I’ve heard good things about The Christmas Chronicles duology, and as I’ve said before Klaus is brilliant. 

Major theatrically-released Christmas films seem to be a thing of the past nowadays. And I’m not just saying that because movie theaters are on life-support right now. No, the last Christmas film that I can recall that was heading for theaters was Noelle, before Disney decided to make it an exclusive on their fancy new streaming service last year. Noelle received mixed reviews from critics, and sort of got lost in the shuffle in the first days of Disney Plus, overshadowed by Mandalorians, Goldblums, and High School Musicals. A year later, I was finally able to watch Noelle and I found it to be a simple and enjoyable holiday offering, that doesn’t completely live up to its potential.

Noelle (Kendrick) is the Christmas-loving daughter of Santa Claus (Jay Brazeau) who wants to be just like her father. Alas tradition dictates her older brother Nick (Hader) follow in his father’s footsteps. Flash forward to present-ish day and with their father passed away (Yeah Santa passes away in this film. Bold move, Cotton) Noelle helps her brother prepare for his first Christmas as Santa. Nick’s anxious and his training isn’t going super well, so Noelle suggests he take a weekend to breathe and relax. Instead, Nick vanishes a week before Christmas, and all of the North Pole blames Noelle (Because conflict?).

Disgraced, Noelle ventures outside the North Pole with her childhood nanny Polly (McLaine) to find her brother and bring him home. Along the way she befriends a private-investigator (Jake Hapman) and his son (Maceo Smedley), and learns a bit more about the true meaning of Christmas, and her own special gifts. Meanwhile, with Nick gone, their cousin Gabe (Billy Eichner) is nominated as the next Santa, but threatens to doom the holiday with modern technology and tighter “naughty and nice” guidelines.

Although I’m sure there’s some Hallmark or Lifetime film out there that’s tackled this idea to a lesser quality, I think the idea of a female, Santa’s daughter, taking over his job to be a rather unique concept we haven’t seen much of. I imagine if this film was released theatrically it would’ve been a modest hit. But release-methods aside, the film doesn’t seem very concerned with exploring that concept. 

Instead the film spends more time on searching for Nick, and going through the “fish-out-of water” routine with its protagonist as she explores the regular world, something that we’ve seen in film many times before. This makes Noelle a sort of Santa Clause/gender-swapped Elf hybrid. There are some genuine funny moments that come from this routine though. Additionally, there are some really nice scenes where Noelle is discovering her “Santa powers” for lack of a better phrase. A highlight in the film is where she meets a little girl who cannot speak and starts to sign with her, despite never knowing how to sign before (Santa can speak all languages and communicate in many ways with children apparently. It’s sweet.)

The character arc is so clear here. Noelle wants to get her brother home to restore the natural order of Christmas, but she needs to embrace who she is and take on the role as Santa. If the film was more concerned with following that path then silly side-quests, or focused more on the concept of a female Santa, Noelle could have gone from “good” to “great”.

What really sells the film is Kendrick in the titular role. She’s giving it her all. She’s funny, she’s charming, she’s full of heart. This is kind of a perfect character for her. Bill Hader has some enjoyable moments as Nick. I miss seeing him on a weekly basis. He plays the reluctant Santa with a nice balance of awkward and goofy. Shirley McLaine has a lot of nice moments as Polly. Billy Eichner is surprisingly subtle as Gabe Kringle, and a bit underutilized when you know what he’s capable of.

The visuals I would say are as nice as any you would see in any other live-action Christmas film. The North Pole sets are quaint, but you’ve seen better in say, The Santa Clause films. As a human with an affinity for elf culture, I must say the costume work in Noelle was very tasteful and festive.

Something that I wondered while watching was, is Noelle supposed to be a princess/Disney princess? Polly and other characters refer to her as “Princess”, but The Kringle’s aren’t royalty, but they get “family discounts” and there’s some old charter that says the oldest sibling must take over the role of Santa. She has a cute CGI reindeer sidekick named Snowcone, who probably was supposed to be plushy and covering shelves at the local Disney Store (The CGI on him was decent by the way). Anyway, just something the film left unclear.

 

Noelle is a sweet Christmas film that satisfies but leaves you wanting more than what it offers. But what we have is a reasonably entertaining film with a compelling premise and a wonderful lead performance. There are a lot worse films you can waste your holiday season watching, so I say give this one a chance before watching your 17th Hallmark film of the month...but also it’s good to support those films because they provide a lot of work for people in the industry. *The More You Know*