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?