1. Inside Out (2015)

"Crying helps me slow down and obsess over the weight of life's problems." - Sadness

Selecting a single film to stand out as the top of the decade is a pretty tricky choice. Of course, several films could vie for the top spot, but they had to settle for 2nd - 9th. So what is it about Inside Out, the one perfect film Pixar put out this decade, that made it stand head and shoulders above the rest?

With rewatch upon rewatch, my love for this film grew. It's the rare family film that is so emotionally intelligent that it can teach grown-ups as well as children. The film personifies five emotions inside a young girl's head: Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, and Fear. While there are of course a myriad more emotions we feel, these are a solid five representations, and as conveyed by Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling, and Bill Hader, they are given life and distinction from each other.

The film has no bad guys (if anything the protagonist, Joy, is the villain), but instead draws drama from something as simple yet as devastating as a cross country move for a 12-year-old girl. The film's climax is a bold, stunning sequence that teaches us the power of sadness, that it's ok to feel sad sometimes, for it is in sadness that those that care most will reach out to us and offer us comfort.

This is an obvious enough message, but it is so rare to see something so simple yet so powerful conveyed in our pop culture. Pixar was not the hitmaker this decade that they were in the 2000s, where their output included the likes of Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, and Up. Besides this film and Coco, I wouldn't consider their output this decade to come even close to matching the outstanding quality they released ten years before.

Still, we got this film, directed by Pete Doctor, and I am eternally grateful for it. The best cinematic experiences are ones that move us profoundly, that emotionally grab us and take us on incredible, fantastical journeys that we never thought possible. I adore this film, and it stands head and shoulders above the rest as my single favorite film from the decade spanning 2010-2019.

2. Holy Motors (2012)

"I miss the cameras. They used to be heavier than us. Then they became smaller than our heads. Now you can't see them at all." - Mr. Oscar

Holy Motors is one of those films where you are either in for the ride, or not having any of it. It's a perplexing journey, one that defies explanation and convention, that segues between different sections that shift the genres from comedy to drama to musical. The film follows Mr. Oscar (Denis Lavant) as he rides in a limo around the city, getting out as different personas and engaging in a mini-story. Really Holy Motors could be seen as simply a series of short stories a la Fantasia, were it not for in-between scenes featuring Mr. Oscar.

I love this movie so much because it is one of those films you can describe as "pure cinema." Watching the film is like going on an extended journey, and it takes you places you cannot possibly predict. Few films out there can truly surprise you, and this is one that you never know where it's going, ending inexplicably with limousines talking to one another.

What does it all mean? Hell if I know. To me, that's not the point, although I'm sure others out there have written dissertations on what everything means and claim to understand it. Sometimes I just enjoy a movie that entertains while also surprising me. I'm not always a fan of films that are ambiguous or hard to interpret, but sometimes a film comes along that hits the right spots, that can satisfy a craving for creative, adventurous, bold cinema. Director/writer Leos Carax and Lavant collaborate to create one of the most engaging and entertaining films I've ever seen.



Worst Film of the 2010s: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

He lied to me
He shot at me
He hates on me
He's using me
He's dead to me
The Spider-Man is my enemy
- "My Enemy" from the soundtrack

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 may not be everyone's least favorite film, and most of you have probably forgotten about it at this point. But boy or boy I can't think of a film I actively dislike from this decade as much as this one. Filled with terrible plotting and hammy dialogue, this film is a strong representation of superhero films that don't understand the Marvel formula. With no less than three villains with little connection, the film juggles multiple unrelated plots in an overstuffed, overlong, boring mess that fails every emotional beat, and delivers some of the worst villains in the Spider-man franchise (Rhino and Electro are both confusing, and the Green Goblin is a recycled mess). I have seen the film twice and besides likable leads, the film has no redeeming values. It's the reason Sony had to loan Spidey to the MCU, and next to Justice League is a prime example of how to kill your superhero series.

3. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

"I live. I die. I live again." - Nux

What really needs to be said about Mad Max: Fury Road that hasn't been said? It's the best action film of the decade, with stunning set pieces, killer cars, a great cast, beautiful cinematography, exciting editing, and a killer score that all merge together into a dynamite film experience that just becomes richer with repeat viewings.

Although the film is titled Mad Max the real star is Imperator Furiosa, played by Charlize Theron, with Tom Hardy and Nicholas Hoult turning in fantastic performances as well. One of the most memorable characters is Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), a grotesque figure with a terrifying mask and disposition. Most memorable though is the Doof Warrior (iOTA), an electric guitar playing rockstar that acts as a weird modern-day war drum for the attacking fleets.

Director George Miller has always been one of the more interesting directors; his career path started with Mad Max in the 70s before transitioning into family-friendly fare with the Babe and Happy Feet movies, before moving back to the franchise that made him. He's right at home here, with souped-up monster machines and a richly textured world that doesn't require over-explaining. Every time I return to this film I am rewarded with new details I didn't notice before or appreciate a different element or character in the film. If you had told me one of the best films of the decade would be a Mad Max film I would find that prediction preposterous, but here we are, and I can't wait for Miller to bring us back to this world.



2nd Worst: The Cobbler (2014)

"It's a privilege to walk in another man's shoes, Max, but it's also a responsibility." - Abraham Simkin

Adam Sandler could arguably take up a whole list of worst of the decade films; the Grown-Ups films, Jack and Jill, Blended, or any of his Netflix films have all been disasters. Yet one shining turd stands out above the rest, his 2014 drama-comedy The Cobbler. The premise involves Sandler as a cobbler who one day discovers that any shoes he cobbles with his long-missing father's secret cobbling machine, will somehow imbue those shoes with the ability to change him into the original wearer. A half-decent idea for a Twilight Zone episode, but this movie allows Sandler to pretend to be a woman's boyfriend and nearly sleep with her (only stopping because to have sex one must remove shoes, and the jig would be up), and disguise as his missing father to serenade his own mother (a creepy scene its own right). Top this off with one of the worst twists of the decade, and an Adam Sandler who seems downright miserable, and you've got the recipe for a disastrous effort.

4. Before Midnight (2013)

"If you want love, then this is it. This is real life. It's not perfect but it's real." - Jesse

In the discussions of great trilogies, you might here Star Wars or Lord of the Rings casually brought up and discussed. But I submit that there is one trilogy that doesn't get enough exposure, and is the rare trilogy that has improved with every film (although I'd argue every film is great in their own right). That trilogy is the Before trilogy.

Each film is a meditation on love and connection at various stages of life; each film plays out in long conversations held by the leads, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy). In Before Sunrise (1995), Jesse and Celine meet and spend a day together, eventually separating, but not before falling in love. Nine years later, they reunited in Before Sunset (2004), and then nine years after that, we got Before Midnight (2013), which sees them with children.

Before Midnight is a terrific meditation on relationships, how people can wear on each other, and what it takes to keep the spark of love alive. Linklater specializes in decade-spanning projects (his Boyhood (2014) is often cited as one of the best of the decade), but watching these actors age eighteen years, and inform the direction their characters take (Hawke and Delpy co-wrote this film with Linklater), giving these films a unique voice that you won't find in many other films. I adore these films and look forward to the next decade when hopefully, in 2022, we get yet another entry in the Before series.

5. Whiplash (2014)

"There are no two words in the English language more harmful than 'good job.'" - Terence Fletcher

There are so few artists that reach amazing heights, who attain greatness in their fields and stand out as a paragon of excellence in their profession. Whiplash is about what it takes to reach such staggering heights, the grind and the pressure one can put themselves under to be the best that they can be.

Your mileage may vary on how well an approach like this works. But I think it's inarguable that if you want to be great, it takes a great deal of sweat, toil, and commitment. Few people are born naturally gifted geniuses. What Whiplash concerns, and details, is one man's obsession with discovering the next great musician, and the pupil he pushes to the brink of mental breakdown. For a film simply about drumming, it's one of the most suspenseful films I've ever seen, and one that, upon repeat viewing, maintains its intensity.

The film benefits from the central performance of J.K. Simmons as Terence Fletcher, the music teacher who oscillates between compassionate mentor and screaming drill instructor on a dime. The whole affair coalesces in a final ten minutes that I would submit as the single greatest ten minutes of film this decade, and one of the best in all of film history. It keeps you on the edge of your seat for its duration until in the end you are finally allowed to breathe and the tension of the film is released in a final, sustained, beautiful note. Seeing this film in theaters was one of the most memorable experiences for me, and one I won't ever forget.



3rd Worst: Wish Upon (2017)

Anyone who is a fan of Red Letter Media has probably heard of this film; in a 2017 movie re-cap, one of the hosts, Mike, spoke of this film and how delightfully awful it was. In checking it out, I agree. It's one of those films that are enjoyable to watch, in spite of its terribleness. The plot, in short, is about a young girl who discovers a wishing box, but in classic Horror terms, her wishes come with a price (usually the grisly death of someone she knows, sequences that play out in a demented Final Destination fashion). It's a fun film to watch, but what makes it awful it the annoying lead, and ridiculous plot machinations and contrivances. So basically a strong recommendation.

6. Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem (2014)

"Why are you making me run around in circles? Why your honor? Why?" - Viviane Amsalem

A gett, as it pertains to this story, is a ritual Jewish divorce. As portrayed in this film, it's a years-long experience for Viviane Amsalem (Ronit Elkabetz) who appeals to a Jewish court to obtain divorce documents. But in Jewish law, if neither party has violated the marriage contract, a divorce is not sanctioned.

I saw this film on a whim years ago, and the experience has stayed with me ever since. It's a harrowing portrayal of a restrictive court system that still exists in society today, where a woman restrictive rights in a patriarchal system. Directed by sibling duo Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz, the film is an oppressive experience, never leaving the sanitized, plain, white-walled courtrooms. We check in with Viviane over the years and years of battling for her case, each time revealing more about why she is so desperate to end her marriage.

One important role the movies can fill is to educate us on situations and events that we may be ignorant of; to showcase injustices or regressive practices, and make us empathize with the wronged. A film like Gett is important to me because not only is it a masterpiece, it's a learning experience, a film that broadens my understanding of the world while gripping me in an emotional story. It's perfectly fine to have more mindless fare (there certainly are some lighter films on my list), but I also value films that provide me with a new perspective, and I encourage all to check out this stellar film.

7. The Big Sick (2017)

"So...to fully know I love someone, I have to cheat on them?" - Kumail
"Out loud, it sounds stupid. Eh, it's... yeah, that's terrible advice." - Terry

In the 2010s the rom-com was largely a dead art form. Sure it still exists in some limited capacities, but after the Apatow films that dominated the late 2000s and early 2010s, the rom-com well was not an inspiring place to go. That is, until Kumail Nanjiani, co-star of Silicon Valley, and his wife Emily V. Gordon penned a screenplay about the remarkable story of how they met.

Revealing too many details would ruin the fun of experiencing the film for the first time, but the story is essentially about Kumail (Nanjiani playing an exaggerated version of himself) and Emily (Zoe Kazan), meeting, dating, and falling for each other, all while Kumail's traditional Pakistani family tries to set him up with a girl within his race.

What bolsters the film up is Nanjiani's witty presence, a sharp script that observes relationships and what makes them function, and plenty of poignant, emotional moments. I'm a big fan of Nanjiani, from his early work in online skits to his wonderful supporting role on Silicon Valley, to his Academy Award-nominated screenplay, co-authored with his wife. Not to mention the direction of Michael Showalter, and fantastic supporting performances by Ray Romano and Holly Hunter that round out the emotional landscape of this film. It's really one of the best times I had at the movies this year; it made me laugh, it made me cry, it made me reflect on my own relationship and appreciate, more then ever, what I have.



4th Worst: Serenity (2019)

Serenity came out of nowhere and quickly became film Twitter's most beloved film of January 2019. It's a film you really must experience to fully appreciate the weird twists and turns the plot takes. Starring A-listers like Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Diane Lane, and Jason Clarke, the film concerns a fishing boat captain chasing a giant Tuna named Justice, which is one of many things that will make sense and will be baffling by film's end. His old flame (Hathaway) finds him and wants to recruit him to murder her current husband (Clarke). I'm not sure what drew all these actors to this terrible script, but suffice to say it contains a twist I dare not spoil and you should really just experience for yourself (it's currently available on Amazon Prime as of the publishing of this post). It's an A-plus experience of an F grade flick.

8. The Social Network (2010)

"We lived on farms, then we lived in cities, and now we're going to live on the internet!" - Sean Parker

Of all the films on this list, most in need of a sequel, The Social Network sits pretty high on my list. So much has happened with Facebook in the past ten years that some of it could be distilled into another equally entertaining, incisive take on our social media culture. When news came out a movie was being made about the founding of Facebook, many of us, myself including, scoffed at the idea. What is there to tell about the founding of Facebook? It's just a place where I post pictures, my thoughts, share these reviews, and see what everyone else in my life is up to.

Yet thanks to the winning combination of Aaron Sorkin's writing and David Fincher's direction, what we receive is a fascinating tale of legal litigations and start-up culture. Chronicling Mark Zuckerberg's life from 2003 to a couple of years later, the film details that ideas that lead to Facebook's inception, and the ensuing legal battles from people who either felt like they owned the idea, or were screwed by the company's public stock options.

All of this is conveyed through razor-sharp, signature Sorkin dialogue, where everyone is either a witty genius with words or an ignoramus who can't operate on the intellectual level of others. Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, and Rooney Mara make up part of the terrific cast that round this tale of loneliness out. The Social Network now reminds us of a simpler time in social media, before the President of the United States conveyed his unfiltered thoughts through it, and of the small steps taken that would drastically reshape our culture.

9. Parasite (2019)

"They are rich but still nice." - Ki-taek
"They are nice because they are rich." - Chung-sook

The problem with reflecting on the past decade is that it is hard to accurately measure how much you like a film that recently came out. Most of my list is comprised of films that came out 4 or more years ago, and I fully acknowledge that it is likely because they have had time to stew, to marinate, to grow in favor in my mind.

With all that said, I have no qualms listing this year's Palme d'Or winner, Parasite, as number 9 on my list. One of a few films this year alone that deals with class warfare, Parasite is a delightful, gripping tale of a low-income family in South Korea that slowly infiltrate the various servant roles in an upper-class family they gain access too. The film is a brilliant mash-up of genres, from comedy to drama, to thriller, and everything in between.

Director Bong Joon-Ho brilliantly pulls off this magic act, and as the story takes unexpected twists and turns it arrives at a solemn, yet hopeful coda that the film brilliantly sets up. The film itself is like a magic act, unfolding before your eyes, and you blink and wonder how you didn't notice what was right in front of your eyes. It's a film I highly recommend, and one I feel assured in saying will stand the test of time. I can't wait to give this film another watch and spend more time in the amazing world Bong Joon-Ho has built.



5th Worst: Suicide Squad (2016)

"This is Katana. She's got my back. She can cut all of you in half with one sword stroke, just like mowing the lawn. I would advise not getting killed by her. Her sword traps the souls of its victims." - Rick Flag

Of course, with my best of I will occasionally mention the worst of the decade as well. And for number five, I've deemed Suicide Squad to be one of the very worst films I had the displeasure of viewing this decade. A disaster on almost every level, it's hard to see how this could've been good. The editing certainly doesn't help, as the film sets up "heroes" Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) and Deadshot (Will Smith), then sets them again two minutes later. The film hamfistedly introduces characters midway through the film with clunky exposition and offs other characters in the blink of an eye. Add in the worst Joker portrayal on the big screen, and you've got the perfect recipe for a big-budget Hollywood disaster.

10. Life Itself (2014)

"In the past 25 years, I have probably seen 10,000 movies and reviewed 6,000 of them. I have forgotten most of them, I hope, but I remember those worth remembering, and they all are on the same shelf in my mind." - Roger Ebert

One of the most important notes of the decade was the loss of Roger Ebert in 2013. A towering figure in film criticism, you would be hard-pressed to find someone who wasn't impressed or inspired by Ebert's film writing. Candid, yet insightful, sharp, yet accessible, Ebert was the kind of writer who championed and revealed little-known films and could eviscerate with barbed, vicious reviews.

The film, directed by Steve James, is not only a loving insight into Ebert's career and how he reshaped our perception of film criticism (some would save even dumbing it down) but a tender portrait of a man at death's door. Filmed in the months leading up to Ebert's passing, we see a man, beaten down by cancer and various treatments that have rendered him speechless, yet one whose passion for writing and expressing himself never wavered.

I include this film among my 10 best because it represents an important moment for me this decade. Ebert's work had a profound effect on me, and I miss his writing to this day (what would he have thought of the MCU? Where would he come down in the Scorsese debate). It is also a wonderfully well-made film; James was clearly a good friend of Eberts, and there are some emotional, raw moments in the film, including Ebert's declining health and rapidly deteriorating state.

Life Itself is a wonderful documentary; it may not be the best of the decade (that would be a list all it's own), but it was the one that resonated with me the most, and one I will be returning too for years to come.

Announcing My Top 10 Films of the Decade (2010s)

Another 10 years has come and gone. And with these 10 years it is customary for us to look back over the decade, over an enormous amount of media that we have collectively consumed, and begin naming the content that most impacted us, that stood the test of time. For me, that media is film, a landscape that has seen a great change in the last 10 years. This decade saw the lion's share of the MCU films, the Disney acquisition of Lucasfilm and the return of Star Wars, and the takeover of endless reboots and remakes. Moviepass appeared like a firestorm, introducing subscription ticketing to movie chains in the US, and revolutionizing our system for the better. It has since died, but in its place we have the AMC A-List and Regal subscription service, which for avid movie goers such as myself have provided a huge money saver.

The 2020s are sure to bring even bigger changes. The rise of Netflix and streaming services have culminated with the big dog themselves, Disney, entering the game. Netflix in the past two years alone has produced some stellar original films from Alfonso Cuaron, Martin Scorsese, and Noah Baumbach, to name a few. The movie theater experience is a fast dying commodity, and while I'm sure they will still be around when we reflect back in 2029, the landscape will have been greatly changed.

It's almost near impossible to compile a list of everything I saw, even more so to narrow that done to only 10 films. But I have taken on the task, and produced a list of films that contain some of the most moving films I saw, the most entertaining, or some where the experience of seeing it for the first time is a moment I'll never forget.

Over the next 10 days I will be publishing one entry in my top 10 with a review of sorts. Additionally, with every odd number on the list, I will be announcing one of my bottom five films of the year. To kick things off however, I will list the 10 films that almost made the cut, but didn't quite. Below, are the 10 runner ups that would round out my top 10, in alphabetical order.

Another Year (2010)
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Don't Think Twice (2016)
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)
Logan (2017)
A Separation (2011)
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)
Skyfall (2012)
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
Your Name. (2016)

Maiden (2018)

I've been reviewing the biggest box office blockbusters recently, mostly because I feel like I have something to say about them, and also because they're fairly accessible. With an AMC A-list subscription and three AMC theaters readily in my area, many films require little to no effort to get to.

But what about independent cinema? What about those little films that don't get exposure, that aren't on the top of a lot of peoples' list of films to see in theaters? I've seen my fair share of lesser known films, from Midsommar, Booksmart, The Farewell, and The Art of Self-Defense. But the film I really recommend people see, and one that may be a little tough to access, is Maiden, a documentary about the first all-female crew to sail in the Whitbread Round the World Race in 1989.

There's nothing particularly innovative about the way the film is made; plentiful talking head interviews intercut with footage of the race does a serviceable enough job of telling the story. Luckily, these women are expert storytellers, and their interviews are woven together to tell the fascinating tale of how they came together, and especially about their skipper and navigator, Tracy Edwards.

Of course the female crew is met with the usual challenges women face when trying to prove they can equal men. They are ridiculed, they are written off as not being able to even accomplish one leg of the race, and they face challenges including finding the sponsorship to even enter the race. What fragile egos men have; when our masculinity is threatened, we lash out at the very idea that we could be beaten by a gender perceived as weaker, less able.

Times are thankfully changing in that regard, yet witnessing Edwards and her crew's struggles and triumphs is inspiring and moving. It's an incredible story, one that would make one hell of a feature film (or miniseries for that matter), and I highly recommend and encourage everyone to seek out this incredible story for themselves.

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw

The last time I saw one of these Fast and Furious movies, they still had "the" in the title. The Fast and the Furious (2001) now seems like a laborious title, and thank goodness they stripped unnecessary articles out or else this would've been called The Fast and the Furious Presents: The Hobbs and the Shaw. That first film, one of the most unlikely franchise starters, was about a simple street racing crew, the crimes they committed, and the LAPD officer who infiltrated them and became enamored with their lifestyle.

Now these films have exploded into James Bond-level action thrillers, with globe trotting, sexy women, and of course, fast cars. Hobbs & Shaw combines two characters who, as far as I understand, were introduced into the franchise as antagonists but have since evolved past that point to be heroes in their own spinoff franchise. There's Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), a bald hot head who works alone, and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), a bald hothead who works alone. Shaw's mum (a wasted Helen Mirren) is in the slammer, and Hobbs is estranged from his Samoan family, as he carefully outlines for his daughter early on, just so we know there will be some family reconciliation later on.

The plot kicks into gear when Hattie (Vanessa Kirby, playing Shaw's sister despite being 21 years younger than Statham) injects herself with a virus to prevent it from falling into the hands of Brixton (Idris Elba), a superhuman modified by robot parts whose eyes glow orange whenever people attack him to signal his robot brain is detecting the incoming attacks (he describes himself as Black Superman).

Hobbs & Shaw are called onto the case when it appears Hattie has murdered her whole team for the virus, a silly accusation that I feel could've been cleared up if she had reached out for help. She works for MI6 after all. And later Hobbs & Shaw are framed for an attack on CIA agents, although they stand out in the open watching their faces displayed on giant screens to no consequence (not one passersby seems to notice them, despite Hobbs being as incognito as herpes).

Events more or less unfold in a predictable pattern of loud, over the top action scenes followed by character moments that mainly consist of Hobbs & Shaw measuring their dicks (the size of their dicks and balls are mentioned quite endlessly in this film). You see, they don't like each other very much, and spend the majority of their screen time bickering. This is meant to be endearing, the way an old married couple might bicker, but the dialogue is never clever or varied enough to make these scenes funny past the first encounter they have.

The film is directed by David Leitch, who helmed Deadpool 2 (which explains Ryan Reynolds' cameo appearance) and Atomic Blonde, as well as co-directing the first John Wick. As far as action scenes go, he's fairly proficient at staging mayhem to a degree that you can follow what is going on, although just barely. The action scenes are quite unimaginative, and despite having the resources to dream up whatever they want, the film recycles the sports car drifting under a semi-truck stunt I've seen in other Fast and Furious trailers. It isn't until the final action sequence, when four cars latch onto each other to prevent themselves being lifted up by a helicopter, that the film achieves the imaginative lunacy I was hoping for throughout the rest of the film.

Because, let's face it, this is not a subtle movie. When Elba's villain first appears in the film, a character asks who he is, to which he responds, "Don't you know? I'm the bad guy." Kirby's character has a virus in her system that will release itself into her bloodstream in 72 hours, and I'm pretty sure the film spans more than that amount of time. Probably the most egregious error is when the final confrontation starts: at dawn the characters say, yet it's pitch black out. One edit later and suddenly it's so bright out you would think it's midday. "Maybe they are communicating the passage of time and that they've been fighting awhile," I thought but no, a ticking clock element reveals only 9 minutes have passed in the movie's time.

CGI should enhance scenes instead of overpower them. Much of the action is deflated because it's weightless, the characters don't feel the impact of the action, and most of it would be improbable. Compare that to last summer's Mission: Impossible - Fallout which doesn't have the greatest plot, but constructs some thrilling as hell action scenes to hold up its very weighty runtime. It certainly helps that a lot of what you're seeing is also being done.

I guess I wouldn't mind Hobbs & Shaw so much if it were a little shorter. At 135 minutes it is a very long film, and wears you down by the time it's over. What happened to nice, tight films that fell under 100 minutes? Rewatching Men in Black recently in preparation for its sequel I was impressed how economical the film is at setting up its characters and universe, a conflict, and resolving it all.  If Hobbs & Shaw could've met a similar time threshold, I think it would've been a hell of a lot more fun.

The Lion King (2019)

"The original loomed very large throughout the entire process of this. And so we always had the original standing by, sometimes [when] we're approving sequences, visual effects shots...we always had the old one available, let's just see what they did."
Jon Favreau, IMDb On the Scene

The above quote quite nicely summarizes the entire experience of The Lion King (2019), a remake of one of the top tier films in Disney's entire catalogue, a film so beloved that when it was re-released in theaters in 2011, it topped the box office for two weeks in a row, beating out it's competition of newly released films. Essentially it's a juggernaut, and as Disney has been remaking its animated classics into live action fare, Lion King was always a possibility. Of course, The Lion King is one of the few films of Disney's that feature no humans, so a new version would have to be completely animated anyway.

So Disney has come, guns ablazing, with one of the most gorgeously animated films ever conceived, with animation so photorealistic its a wonder to behold (the animals don't always feel natural in movement, but still images could be mistaken for photos of real wildlife). The opening scene, an almost shot for shot recreation of the original's Circle of Life, is quite stunning, to say the least.

And then the rest of the film happens. If you've seen the original, you know the story. Simba (JD McCrary as a kid, Donald Glover as an adult) is destined to rule the pride lands but his Uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is hungry for the throne and kills Simba's dad Mufasa (James Earl Jones, back from the first film), and convinces Simba he is to blame, sending him to exile.

Much of the film is beat for beat the same thing, scene for scene. Of course, things are slightly different, and some sequences are extended for no conceivable reason. Remember that mouse Scar soliloquizes to after the first song? Now you get about 2 minutes of that mouse running around before it crosses Scar. And remember when a grown Simba lays down after reflecting on his past, and cloud of dust travels inexplicably to Rafiki (John Kani in the new film) alerting him that Simba is alive? Well now that's an extended sequence of Simba's fur traveling through the wind until it's eaten and then pooped out by a giraffe (yes this actually happens), and then carried by ants to Rafiki. See, it's these little things that really flesh out the world and add texture the environment sorely missing from the original.

There are some positive elements in this film though, before I continue being sarcastic. The comic relief characters, including the Hyenas (Florence Kasumba, Keegan-Michael Key, and Eric André), Timon (Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), all shine because they are allowed to ad lib and add some funny new moments to the film. Similar to the recent Aladdin remake, Will Smith's Genie was at his best when he was being his own thing and not imitating Robin Williams. And here it is the same; when the actors make the characters their own, this feels like a fun new interpretation, not a rote, repeated sightseeing tour of stuff I know, done prettier.

But translating this film into realistic CGI means all the expressiveness of the original animation is lost. Gone is the wonderful color palette of the original, replaced by a gold hue that evokes the African plains, but doesn't tickle the imagination. And gone are the emotions exhibited by the characters; animals can only say so much with their face, and while I hear emotion from the performances, it rarely comes through in the animation of the characters (only Timon gets expressive). The original looms large, and the film seems to be relying on your memory of how the animated characters felt to inform what's going on in front of you.

Gone too are the inventive musical numbers; I mean, they're still there, but instead of transitioning into a fantastical setting for the likes Can't Wait to Be King or Be Prepared, it keeps things literal, grounded in reality. The songs are still fun to listen too, but not very much fun to watch (I also feel sorry for any kids whose definitive Hakuna Matata is sung by Seth Rogen). And Can You Feel the Love Tonight is staged during daylight (I'm sure you'll see this primary criticism all over the internet on this point).

I guess what angers me most about all these remakes is that they're boring. There's nothing interesting or exciting about them, they bring nothing new to the table, and any perceived plot holes are given an unnecessary amount of time to fill in. Do something different with the material! Maleficent (2014) set out to tell the story from a new perspective, and Favreau (who directed this film) brought fun new energy to his The Jungle Book (2016), making a film that is reminiscent of the original but also very, very different. There's even some Disney films I'd love to see a remake of. Pinocchio (1940), one of the best films Disney's made, is based on a very bizarre book and a new interpretation would be fascinating to see. Or The Black Cauldron (1985), one of Disney's great failures based on a fairly beloved series that deserves a second chance. Besides The Little Mermaid, Disney is at the end of its Renaissance era films to pillage. Let's just hope they don't decide to make a live action Toy Story.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)

It's been awhile since I've reviewed anything from the MCU. The franchise is a behemoth that even, after 23 films, shows no signs of losing steam, with this summer's Avengers: Endgame shattering almost every box office record (#1 domestic and worldwide seem to be out of its reach though, which may speak to the rewatchability of that film vs. the front-loaded hype leading into it). Spider-Man: Far From Home reportedly brings a close to the longest of Marvel's phases, the 10-film long Phase Three that kicked off in 2016 with Captain America: Civil War (which also happened to be Spidey's debut into the framework of the MCU).

Because this is an MCU film it is also audience's first chance to see the aftermath of events of Endgame (I should also note from here on out there will be Endgame spoilers as the fundamental plot is near impossible to discuss without referencing. So consider this your warning). With half the population restored after Thanos' mighty snap, the film reckons with the impact this cataclysmic happening would have on the general populous. Which is to say it's treated pretty humorously. In a great intro, a school news report details a school game where half the participants vanished, and then footage of those people reappearing in the middle of another game 5 years in the future.

Perhaps the real weight of what it means to have disappeared for 5 years, only to be thrust back into existence, will be handled in a more serious film. Here the biggest upset is a classmate that our heroes knew as a puny freshman has grown into a handsome upperclassmen, technically younger than they but physically their equal.

Far From Home concerns Spider-Man's (Tom Holland) class trip to Europe, while dealing with the death of Tony Stark, which looms large over the world in various murals that remind Spidey of the shadow he lives in. During the class trip, elemental beings begin terrorizing the various locations the class visits, and a new character named Mysetrio (Jake Gyllenhaal) emerges to battle these new beasts. There's also Peter's fascination with MJ (Zendaya), whose name is Michelle because the fact that she was MJ was a reveal in the last Spider-Man movie for some reason, and they couldn't call her Mary because that would've been too obvious. His attempt at courtship is sidelined by every turn as Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) shows up to hijack Peter's trip so he can help battle these earth-ending elementals.

Most of the film is great fun, as Peter deals with these beasts in various locations, from Venice to Prague to London. It's fun to see Spider-Man out of New York, although this also means the film is robbed of what makes Spider-Man movies so thrilling: the swinging through towering skyscrapers. Spider-Man is not well equipped to handle evil doers outside of the big apple, which is readily apparent here.

The film is a special-effects bonanza, which is to be expected, but it also has some great surreal sequences that come close to matching the more bizarre elements of Doctor Strange (2016). Not to mention the villain this time around is a better villain than your average MCU heavy, simply because they are not just the "evil version" of our hero (see: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Ant-Man, and Doctor Strange for a sampling of villains that are just the heroes but evil).

Whether this will satisfy Spider-Man fans is a different story; we're too deep into the mythology of the MCU for these films to exist on their own now, unless they take off to space where they can ignore the events of Endgame. That movie was too cataclysmic that any earthbound MCU film for the next couple years will have to revolve around it in some way. It takes until the mid-credits scene for Spider-Man's status quo to be fully set up, and while I've enjoyed this spin on the origin story (indeed the past 3 years of films have been one long origin story for Spidey), I'm ready for Spider-Man to shed the weight of Iron Man and the MCU and start doing his own thing. Being a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

Toy Story 4 (2019)

We are in the middle of a summer of endless sequels, each week bringing a new entry in a different franchise. This is nothing new for summer; sequels have been a given at this point for almost every piece of media that exists, and it seems that studios won't make a big investment if they can't milk the property over several films. But this summer in particular has been delivering some real duds; besides Avengers: Endgame and John Wick Chapter 3, the sequels have been lifeless, uninspired cash grabs that have also largely failed to capture audience interest.

When Toy Story 4 was announced several years ago, I was staunchly opposed to its existence. After all, Toy Story 3 (2010), while an imperfect film, delivered a satisfying and touching conclusion, passing the toys on from owner Andy to a new girl, Bonnie. It made Toy Story a great trilogy that dealt with existential crises surrounding the nature of no longer being useful.

So I am happy to admit that Toy Story 4 satisfyingly carries on the story. Picking up soon after Toy Story 3 (it seems, Bonnie is basically the same as she was in the last film), Woody (Tom Hanks) and the gang are integrating into their new environment well, save that Woody is not necessarily Bonnie's (Madeleine McGraw) first choice for playtime. Never one to let rejection hold him down, Woody sneaks into Kindergarten for Bonnie's first day, and it is there Bonnie constructs Forky (Tony Hale), a plastic spork with googly eyes, pipe cleaner for arms, and popsicle sticks for feet. Amazingly, he springs to life, bringing up for the first time the question of what does bring these toys life.

This moment isn't really explained (nor does it really need to be), and the movie proceeds with Forky continuously trying to throw himself away because he came from trash. Eventually Bonnie's family goes on a road trip, and before long the plot spirals out of control as Bo Peep (Annie Potts) re-enters the picture (she was absent from 3), as Forky gets trapped in an antique store. Several colorful other characters enter the fray, including a talking doll named Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) who wants Woody's voice box, two carnival stuffed animals voiced by Key & Peele, and Duke Caboom (Keanu Reeves), arguably the best new character of the bunch.

The plot hurdles along at a breakneck pace, moving from problem to problem and scene to scene. Many of the toys that supported Woody and Buzz (Tim Allen) in previous films are mostly sidelined here, and even Buzz is given pretty short shrift. Woody has always been the star of Toy Story but Buzz usually gets a strong second billing. The film has no less than 8 credited story writers, including John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Rashida Jones, as well as screenplay credit to Stanton & Stephany Folsom. The film's pace reminded me a lot of the recent Finding Dory (2016), which given Stanton's involvement here (he directed Dory), is not too surprising. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the other Story films were a tad more focused, and this one is a bit more scattered.

Like Toy Story 3, the film lands its ending and elevates the film for me. Without spoiling too much, the film isn't afraid to change the status quo, to move the story forward in a logical direction. Pixar usually isn't risk-adverse (they did put the toys in an incinerator last film, one of the most terrifying moments in children's animation), and I was satisfied that the film moved things forward. I wouldn't be surprised by a Toy Story 5 one day, although I will face that one with the same reservation I did this.

I guess I was so opposed to this film not only because I felt the story was already concluded, but because Pixar has not been up to the gold standard this past decade that they were from Toy Story (1995) through Toy Story 3. Almost every film in that run was stellar, and since then only Inside Out (2015) has managed to enter the upper echelon. Finding Dory and Incredibles II (2018) have not satisfied me, and while both were good, both did not live up to the bar set by their predecessors or by Pixar.

Toy Story 4 comes the closest to reaching that bar again. I'm not entirely set on this, of course, and only time and more rewatches will cement this films' place. But as someone who has highly skeptical of the film, it exceeded my expectations. It's funny, heartfelt, and surprising. It's worthy of the Toy Story name.

Men in Black: International (2019)

Sony is obsessed with making sequels and reboots out of properties that ran out of steam after the first film. 3 years ago a Ghostbusters soft reboot was attempted to mild success, and another Ghostbusters (sequel to the 80s films, not the new one) is set for the not-too-distant future. Problem is, none of the films past the first have ever been able to recapture the spirit and magic of the original. It was a weird mix of the perfect ingredients that shouldn't have worked as well as it did.

I only mention this because the Men in Black series follows this trend closely. The first film from 1997 is a weird action-comedy that blends two great leads with a funny script and creative direction to make one of the best Hollywood films of the 90s. The follow-ups, on the other hand, couldn't figure out how to recreate the alchemy that made the first so good, although Men in Black 3 (2012) was a solid effort.

So here's Sony, hoping name recognition will sell seats along with some solid casting in the leads and supporting roles. Men in Black: International sheds Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, and introduces us to a new pair of agents, M (Tessa Thompson) and H (Chris Hemsworth). M is a new recruit, a go-getter that had an alien encounter as a child and dodged memory-erasure, and has pursued the mysterious agency ever since. H is "the best agent there is," although he seems like a bit of a loose canon, one of those rogue types that gets by on his charms and looks more then his smarts.

The two are paired when M is sent, as a probationary agent, to London to investigate her superior's (Emma Thompson) suspicion that something is awry. Indeed before long it is discovered a mole has entered MiB, and M isn't sure who she can trust in a world where lying is the status quo.

There's a lot of good ingredients here: Thompson and Hemsworth, who were great together in Thor: Ragnarok, are equally well-paired in this film. Kumail Nanjiani is a little alien named Pawny that enters their service; and Liam Neeson is the gruff High T, leader of MiB London. There's also several fun creature designs, a couple fun gadgets, and even a decent action scene here or there.

However, the film simply doesn't work. The script, by Matt Holloway & Art Marcum, is predictable, full of clichés and boring characters. MiB, once full of cool agents who never broke a sweat, even with the imminent destruction of earth always on the horizon, has now been replaced by screw-ups (H) and inner-agency rivalries (a character named C played by Rafe Spall is particularly grating). MiB is, in the words of the over-eager recruit in the first film, the best-of-the-best-of-the-best. MiB is almost dismissive of humanity as a whole because they can't see the bigger picture, and it seems in the 22 years since the first film the agency itself has lost sight of that.

The film is also painfully unfunny. Only Nanjiani as the little alien sidekick was able to garner any laughs in my theater. And as likable as Hemsworth and Thompson are, they just aren't supported by good material. H is talked up as being a great agent, first in line to become head of the London branch, but in this film he is a screw-up, constantly drunk, and frankly an idiot. How he is qualified for his job stretches believability in a film where giant guns appear out of exhaust pipes. Thompson is smarter than him in every way, yet she's the one on the job learning. The film ham-fistedly sets up a reason for H's sloppy performance, but it doesn't really register.

Annoying sequences and moments to make the film "hip" also permeate. Early on, as M is getting her wares, the film suddenly becomes an erratically edited music video as she puts on the same suit and sunglasses every other MiB member wears (there's also some weird mocking of the noisy cricket, which we know is a weapon never to be estimated).f

Ultimately, the film is enjoyable, but forgettable. Sony lined up all the pieces that should've produced a fun, even exciting update to the Men in Black series. But the thing Sony just can't seem to figure out is that all the good ideas were used up in the first film. Sure the others have branched out into some interesting places (Michael Stuhlbarg's character in 3 comes to mind), but these films have nothing to say, nothing to add, no reason to exist outside of reminding people Men in Black was a movie people enjoyed two decades ago.

The Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019)

The Secret Life of Pets 2 plays less like a film and more like a very long TV episode; the film contains an A, B, and C story following our main characters through stories that are loosely connected through some light thematic elements, culminating in an intersection at the climax. However, unlike many skilled TV shows, once all the plots converge, it feels forced and disjointed.

The film is a follow-up to 2016's smash hit, The Secret Life of Pets, which I did not see. I went into this film pretty cold and it seemed to work in isolation. I'm sure there are things I'm missing from the first film, but it doesn't seem like there's any reference to the past film's stories here. Which worked for me, but as I read the wikipedia entry on the first film's plot, I was mighty surprised how many relationships in this film that were established in the prior film which aren't even mentioned or brought up in this one.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Secret Life of Pets 2 hurdles through several plots, starting with Patton Oswalt-dog (replacing Louis C.K.) worrying about the arrival of a new human baby in his life. The opening flies through Oswalt-dog's owner's meeting with her new beau, and suddenly a baby is on the way. Then the baby is here and I thought "so this is gonna be an updated Lady and the Tramp sort of? Ok, sounds good," but before long Oswalt-dog learned to love the new baby and eventually becomes over protective of him to the point of chronic anxiety.

So that's the first five or so minutes of the film. The timeline slows down a bit for the remainder, with Oswalt-dog and his buddy Eric Stonestreet-dog traveling with their owners to a farm, where they meet Harrison Ford-dog. Meanwhile, Jenny Slate-dog has been tasked with watching Oswalt-dog's favorite toy, which she loses to a crazy cat lady's apartment. And Kevin Hart-bunny, who dreams of being a superhero, is enlisted by Tiffany Haddish-dog to save a siberian tiger imprisoned by a traveling circus.

All these various plots play out separately and are intercut fairly randomly. There's not much thematically that links these plots, besides I guess little animals overcoming fears. The more interesting parts take place on the farm, with Ford-dog criticizing Oswalt-dog's overbearing nature (perhaps a critique for parents today), while Slate-dog's misadventures with cats are amsuing. Hart-bunny's stuff is, for the most part, weird and grating.

What I find fascinating is the connection these characters shared in the first film seems completely forgotten in this one. Oswalt-dog's worry about being replaced is a plotline repeated wholesale from the first film, where he was worried about Stonestreet-dog replacing him. This prior conflict is never mentioned. And Hart-bunny was apparently a villain in the previous film, yet here is trying to be a superhero and never mentions the contrast between his prior life and current one. The film doesn't need to completely tie-in to the first one, and I admire it for mostly seeming to stand alone; but there also seems to be no reason here for this sequel to even be about the same set of animals. In Toy Story 2, you don't necessarily need to have seen the first, but the conflict and journey Woody and Buzz go through resonates and is present in the second film. In a pivotal moment late in that film, their prior relationship is brought up and is impactful. I feel the same could've been done here, its just that the filmmakers don't seem to care.

The film is essentially a fun cartoon. There are some moments that'll make you smile, but unless you're a kid, there's not much here that you'll find amusing. The film renders pets fairly well, from their habits and proclivities. However the film mostly feels like a bunch of random scenarios loosely connected. I'd say the whole movie is summed up in the final moments, after the story ends. Hart-bunny is left alone in his owner's room, and for no explicable reason I can surmise, launches into a sanitized parody of Desiigner's Panda. The kids in the theater cackled with glee, but I was left sitting there scratching my head at what the hell just happened.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)

Where to even begin with this train wreck? I guess I'll start by saying I hated this movie, almost every minute of it. And I'll stop you now from saying "What were you expecting, it's a movie about monsters fighting, it's supposed to be dumb!" Because this movie is a failure on every front.

Opening during the climactic moments of 2014's Godzilla, the film inserts Mark and Dr. Emma Russell (Kyle Chandler and Vera Farmiga) into San Francisco, where they've just lost their son, yet still have their daughter, Madison (Millie Bobby Brown). Jump forward to 2019, where the pair have become estranged, with Emma and Madison researching these "titans' while Mark observes wolves.

Emma is working on a device known as ORCA which will allow humans to communicate with the giant monsters, which have been showing up at an alarming rate. In the first scenes, she uses it to quell the giant Mothra, right before an Eco-terrorist group (I can never say that with a straight face) led by Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) arrive to kidnap her and her daughter. So Mark is roped in to help find her, since he is the only one with knowledge of the ORCA.

The film is host to an impressive cast that includes Ken Watanabe, Bradley Whitford, Sally Hawkins, Thomas Middleditch, and David Strathairn, to name a few. Yet the film fails to give any of them anything interesting to do, besides stand around and spout off exposition while looking at screens. The film is also confusingly paced, and is so erratic that I didn't realize a pivotal character died until a picture of said character with big letters that said DECEASED appeared, and I didn't realize that Ziyi Zhang plays twins in the film. Not to mention a twist that I'll discuss below that really angered me and soured my whole attitude on the film.

But what about the Kaiju fights? This film is, after all, a Godzilla film, and you come to Godzilla to see giant monsters punch each other. Well, the film features a wide array of characters from the Toho films, including the aforementioned Mothra, as well as Rodan and King Ghidorah. All of the monsters are rendered well, and there are some truly impressive shots in the film showing the full scope of their power and height.

However, the film fails to deliver any good fight scenes. Almost every single event takes place either in a blizzard, in the ash of a volcano, or at night in the rain. You can't make out anything that is going on, and the film insists on keeping our perspective with the human characters. Except, like every Godzilla film, I don't care about the humans; I just want to see the monsters destroy each other! The fights are shoddily edited and filmed, and were the one thing I was hoping would really deliver here. After all, Pacific Rim is no masterpiece, and while it lacks interesting characters, it has some terrific fight scenes between Kaiju and giant robots.

What really soured the film for me though, was just how stupid it was. SPOILERS BELOW: It is revealed about halfway through the film that Emma is in cahoots with Jonah, and that she is using her device to awaken the titans because she believes they will bring balance to the earth, much like Thanos. This info is delivered in the most ham-fisted skype call, a call Emma has no reason to make. But what makes this even worse, is that when destruction is reigning down upon the earth, Emma suddenly has a change of heart, and says, "This isn't how it's supposed to happen," as if any form of genocide would go smoothly. The movie tries to play this as deep and complex, but really it's shallow and stupid.

Which is an apt description of this whole film: shallow and stupid. Director and co-writer Michael Dougherty has done some interesting films in the past (Krampus and Trick R Treat), but he seems buried and lost at sea with how to handle this film.  I can only hope his next venture is better.

The film is set in the "Monsterverse", and is tied to King Kong; Skull Island (2017), and will be followed up by King Kong vs Godzilla next year (the big guy is mentioned a lot in this film but never seen). So far it's been an underwhelming cinematic universe, and one can only hope future films deliver on the monster fights.

Rocketman (2019)

The musical biopic is a rote and tired genre, with the same beats being repeated over and over. Childhood with disapproving parents, playing in small venues, the big break, the rise to stardom, failed relationships, problems with drugs, and ultimately a redemption. Rocketman features all of these tropes, yet what it does differently from all the other biopics is embrace its subject matter fully, and is unapologetically a razzle dazzle, full on jukebox musical.

The film opens with a bedazzled Elton John (Taron Egerton), adorned in an orange sequined horned costume, entering rehab. Admitting himself for drug and alcohol abuse, Elton launches into the story of his life while in group therapy, and the movie almost immediately hits you with a musical number set to The Bitch is Back, transporting us back into Elton's childhood in Middlesex, where he just wants affection from his father and approval from his mother.

The film moves seamlessly through various songs and set pieces representing different parts of Elton's life, from his first signing, to his meeting with writing partner Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell), to his explosion up the charts and acceleration to stardom. The hits keep coming, and Egerton proves he has a perfectly capable voice to carry Elton's tunes.

The songs are staged as lavish musical numbers, with not only Elton singing but other members of the cast belting out into tune as well. The film is a hybrid of biopic via jukebox musical, and while this has been done on the stage before, it's not something we've seen too much on the big screen, much less in a film released by a major studio.

Speaking of things not often seen on the big screen, this film will be notable for featuring a gay sex scene that doesn't shy away from its more explicit elements (still safe enough for an R). The queer elements have already been reportedly edited out of versions of the film screened in countries like Russia (even Bohemian Rhapsody, which was criticized, rightly so, for playing down Freddie's sex life, was edited down for China). It's a short scene, but the fact that it's there should be noted; Elton insisted the film be rated R rather then a more box-office, family friendly PG-13.

One can't help but call to mind another recent biopic I just mentioned, Bohemian Rhapsody. For one, both are about iconic homosexual rockstars form the 70s and 80s, and both feature manager John Reid (played here by Richard Madden). And while both share a similar penchant for clichés, it's important to note what makes Rocketman work so much better than Bohemian Rhapsody. Rocketman fully embraces its high concept, running with the clichés, and scrambling the timeline with glee. Looking at articles about what's accurate and what's not, Rocketman clearly takes liberties, same as Bohemian Rhapsody.

But what's important to distinguish is that I don't feel like Rocketman is trying to tell me "this is the way things went down." There's several fantastical embellishments throughout, including a floating audience, a duet between Elton and his younger self at the bottom of a pool, and musical numbers segueing into Elton waking from a drug-crazed dream. In contrast, Bohemian Rhapsody presents itself as straight fact, as this is the way things played out, and even assassinates the character of Freddie Mercury by suggesting his hubris and partying broke up the band for a brief period of time before he comes crawling back to the band begging for forgiveness. Not to mention rearranging Freddie's AIDs diagnosis to before their Live Aid concert, giving character motivation. It's not important that a movie gets the details or even the order of events right in a person's life (after all, life does not lend itself to a nice 3-act structure). But it is important that the film feels honest the spirit of its subject, and Rocketman excels where Bohemian Rhapsody fails.

It's not a perfect movie, but it is a ton of fun. Egerton is mostly good as Elton, and the rest of the supporting cast fills out the film nicely (although Bryce Dallas Howard as Elton's mother is a constant distraction, mainly for her thick accent). Anyone who loves Elton's music will enjoy this film immensely, and anyone tired of biopic tropes will find it a more enjoyable journey than most of its ilk. It doesn't solve the biopic problem, but it becomes an infinitely more enjoyable experience than most.

Aladdin (2019)

The latest glut of Disney live-action remakes has me in a bit of a funk; Disney is, without shame, taking beloved childhood classics of mine and repurposing them for a new generation. This in and of itself is not a bad thing; new generations deserve the wonder that I had. But...the original movie still exists. It's there for you to take in and relive the magic of a, inarguably, far superior telling of the story (although it should be noted that as of this writing, Disney in its infinite wisdom has pulled all copies of Aladdin (1992) from everywhere. You can't find it for rental or purchase on any streaming service, and copies of the dvd/blu ray are very expensive).

Setting aside the fact that I find this film's very existence to be superfluous, how does it hold up as adaptation? Well, you could do a lot worse (see 2017's abysmal Beauty and the Beast remake). Aladdin, for all its faults, does manage to infuse this new telling with some fresh spirit, including a likable Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. The characters possess more personality, and seem more relatable and well defined than their animated counterparts.

The rest of the cast, however, is not serviced very well by this update. Characters that exploded with personality in animation are now fairly forgettable background characters. The Sultan has lost his charm, Razoul has been rewritten as a captain named Hakim, who gets a surprisingly pivotal moment late in the story, and worst of all, Jafar has been aged down significantly and lost all his menace in the process. Played by 36-year-old Marwen Kenzari, Jafar comes across as more whiny and entitled, and when he gains supreme power his seems more ridiculous then terrifying.

The animal sidekicks are also a mixed bag; Abu is rendered with photorealism, but loses that monkey charm the animated character conveyed so well; and Iago has been reduced to a literal parrot, doing not much more then repeat what others around him say. Raja, Jasmine's loyal tiger, is the only character I appreciated the update on. Raja is a menacing presence, protective, yet faithful.

Which brings us to the big kahuna, Genie, played by Will Smith. Credit where credit is due, Smith is a terrifically charismatic actor, and he brings his all to the role. No one could fill the large shoes of Robin Williams (voice of the character in the original film), mostly because that role was written with him specifically in mind. Animation was the only medium that could keep up with Williams' zany energy, and no working actor or comedian could hope to match that performance. Smith had the deck stacked against him and, for what it's worth, he did fine. Although anyone who was put off by his appearance in the trailers will not be assuaged; anytime he appears in blue it just looks odd.

The musical numbers, written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice are all present (although one notable reprise is omitted), along with a new song for Jasmine to belt out. The numbers are staged with great flair and choreography, with dazzling costumes and visuals mimicking the look of a Bollywood film. And there's some fun additions, including a dance between Aladdin and Jasmine that was particularly memorable.

But the movie feels too chained down to the story beats of the original film; I kept thinking "ok, this is going to happen next" as each scene unfolded, and the entire film was a comparison process in my head of how this scene played out in the original. When the film strayed I mostly enjoyed it because I was watching something I hadn't seen in the first one, and when it followed the template I anticipated many lines borrowed from the original. And these remakes are obsessed with addressing "plot holes" from the originals. In vain Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin try to explain the whereabouts of their heroine's mother, which results in Belle's mother dying of a plague, and an offhand comment about how Jasmine's mother was murdered. The latter is no more then a background mention, thank goodness (I was expected it to be revealed Jafar had murdered her).

In all of this I haven't even mentioned Guy Ritchie, a director known for putting his stamp on his films. There is some signature slow motion stuff throughout, but Ritchie is mostly an invisible presence here, his hand working mostly to serve the House of Mouse and make a decent paycheck for his work.

Of course, these Disney remakes show no signs of slowing down. We are getting a Lion King remake in a little more than a month from now, and a sequel to Maleficent this fall, and a Mulan and Little Mermaid remake in the future. I guess if there's one net positive from these remakes, it's the emphasis of casting more diversely for these films. Save Billy Magnusson as one of Jasmine's suitors, the cast of Aladdin is comprised completely of diverse faces, a problem the original Aladdin has with it's all-white voice cast and problematic caricature of Jafar. So if they have to exist, at least they exist to serve some good. But if Disney really wanted to be bold, they would have diversified the behind-the-scenes crew as well, instead of handing directing duties to another white guy.