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.
Friday, June 28, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
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.
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.
Thursday, June 13, 2019
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.
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.
Friday, June 7, 2019
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.
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.
Sunday, June 2, 2019
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.
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.
Saturday, June 1, 2019
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)