Ralph Breaks the Internet - Review

 

This year, Walt Disney Pictures released two sequels years after the original films to two beloved modern classics. One was an interesting meditation on friendship and the toxicities that can creep into even the most well-intentioned people, and how that can lead to not only the friendship, but the entire world crumbling around that person. And the other was “Incredibles 2.”

That’s where “Ralph Breaks the Internet” pulls the rug out from underneath audiences. It’s a story about the internet and also about toxicity. It’s a story about social media and insecurities. These things are never directly linked together though. They’re merely sly inserted near each other, providing a subtle wink and nod to the dangers of modern-day technology, without ever making them the point of the film.

Rather the point is still smartly where it belongs: on the characters. Ralph and Vanelloppe don’t venture to the internet for no reason. The events that start them on their quest feel just as important to the story as the digital road they travel. When most movies would merely spend five minutes creating an event to catapult their characters into a new realm, co-writers/directors Rich Moore (“Wreck-It Ralph,” “Zootopia”) and Phil Johnston (“Wreck-It Ralph,” “Zootopia”) and writers Pamela Ribon (“Smurfs: The Lost Village,” “Moana”), Jim Reardon (“Zootopia,” “WALL·E”), and Josie Trinidad (“Zootopia,” “The Ballad of Nessie”) make sure that the original film’s events and world aren’t simply tossed out and forgotten to make room for this new adventure. It feels simple and natural, giving this sequel an easy jumping off point.

Ralph and Vanelloppe, voiced again by John C. Reilly (“Step Brothers,” “Chicago”) and Sarah Silverman (“School of Rock,” “The Sarah Silverman Program”), respectively, are still a great pair to hang out with, and their friendship and banter feels genuine and perfectly juvenile. New characters like dangerous racer Shank, voiced by Gal Gadot (“Wonder Woman,” “Fast & Furious (2009)”), hyper-intelligent search engine KnowsMore, voiced by Alan Tudyk (“A Knight’s Tale,” “Firefly”), and video sharing algorithm Yesss, voiced by Taraji P. Henson (“Empire,” “Hidden Figures”), all mange to be gentle parodies of their respective corners of the internet, as well as endearing characters in their own right.

“Internet” is without a doubt the sillier of the two films. It’s clear that the executives at Disney really let the creative team run wild, creating amusing sequences poking fun at the internet as a whole, Disney’s lucrative licenses and even dipping into some of the weirder and darker elements of modern-day technology.

Comparisons to last year’s cinematic travesty “The Emoji Movie” are inevitable, but there’s an easy difference. Besides the fact that “Internet” has heart and soul inside of it, it never lets the brands or sites its riffing on takeover. eBay may be a part of the plot, but its still made fun of extensively, and every other major brand is reduced to window dressings and jokes. It manages to be fun and funny while taking place within the Internet without feeling like it becomes a shill to the brands that populate it.

Speaking of jokes, “Internet” may very well be funnier than its predecessor. Without a doubt its sillier and contains more belly laughs than before. This even extends to the credits, where the fun-poking and satire continue as jokes about the movie making process keep flowing until the very last frame of film. Even a pop song cover of the movie’s Alan Menken penned original song manages to maintain is amusingness, as the satirical lyrics paired with serious vocals just emphasize the joke.

All jokes aside, if “Internet” was merely a funny film with a new story, it likely would’ve been perfectly fine. However, with their first direct sequel in eighteen years, Disney Animation Studios has stepped it up a notch in one area in particular: the film’s central message.

There’s a deep underlying theme of insecurity and self worth to this film, with Vanelloppe’s frequent glitching moments clear parallels to anxiety attacks and even computer viruses being called “Insecurity Viruses.” Friendship is also mentioned, although instead of being about the unending power of friends, the film shifts its focus to being about friends who are apart.

There are much deeper themes contained in “Internet,” including self-worth, toxic friendships and being bad friends versus not being a friend at all. It’s seemingly heavy stuff, although delivered with the same sly smile that fills the rest of the film’s silliest antics, allowing everything to have a warm appeal even as things turn dark.

A few hiccups are present, like a subplot in the arcade that’s seems to have been forgotten about until the end, but you’d be hard pressed to notice it in the moment. “Ralph Breaks the Internet” keeps so many silly moments and intriguing meditations at its center, that any flaws seem to melt away while watching. It’s a brightly colored blast of satirical fun and whimsy, with its darker moments being cherries on top. It may even be better than the first film. 4.5/5

Widows (2018) - Review

 

Steve McQueen may very well be the most underrated filmmaker currently working. That sounds like his films receive little to no press, but quite the contrary. His past three films, “Hunger,” “Shame” and “12 Years A Slave” have all received critical praise and awards recognition. Even that adoration isn’t enough to fully communicate how talented of a filmmaker he is, and now with “Widows” he has teamed up with writer Gillian Flynn (“Gone Girl,” “Sharp Objects”) to create something truly special.

At its core, “Widows” is a heist thriller that follows a long-established template of the genre. Job goes bad, character wants revenge, characters tries job on their own terms, gets a crew and executes job. However, Flynn and McQueen take their characters deeper than that. This isn’t just the thrill of the job, there are reasons that they actually need the money.

It’s the series of layers that are slowly introduced that allow McQueen and Flynn to create characters that are more than just bodies for cool heist sequences. There’s a seriousness rarely seen in modern day heist films that feels utterly refreshing. They aren’t indestructible, and things need to be planned out slowly.

It removes the “turn off your brain” nature prevalent in most heist films and allows a sense of realism to be brought to the table. The fact that the final heist seems logical and like it could probably be pulled off speaks volumes about the world created for this film.

The four women at the center are excellent, and the supporting cast holds their own as well. Viola Davis (“How to Get Away with Murder,” “Doubt”) continues to show why she’s one of the greatest actresses working today. Cynthia Erivo proves that “Bad Times at the El Royale” wasn’t a fluke and that she has a long career ahead of her, and Michelle Rodriguez (“Avatar,” “Girlfight”) shows that she can act just as well as she can drive.

Elizabeth Debicki (“The Great Gatsby (2013),” “The Night Manager”) stands out the most though. Her and Davis are the film’s emotional anchors, and while both are excellent, Davis’s excellence is almost expected given her track record. Debicki surprises with her skills, blowing her past works out of the water to deliver a career best performance.

Rounding out the cast is Colin Farrell (“Horrible Bosses,” “The Lobster”), Brian Tyree Henry (“Atlanta,” “White Boy Rick”), Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out”), Robert Duvall (“Get Low,” “True Grit (1969)”), Liam Neeson (“Taken”) and Garret Dillahunt (“Burn Notice,” “Raising Hope”). Liam Neeson stands out from the supporting cast though, getting to stretch his true acting chops more than his muscles for once, with wonderful results.

Shot expertly by cinematographer Sean Bobbitt (“The Place Beyond the Pines,” “12 Years A Slave”), McQueen and Flynn’s heist thriller moves slowly through each sequence, with a camera that’s not afraid to let shots linger or glide through scenes, instead of hard cutting away. It gives the world a slightly playful feeling, allowing them to nail a distinct tonal balance that never feels too somber or too playful.

Even when filling the characters and their motivations with backstories and themes that are timely and dark, the lightness is never lost. Despite having racism, gang violence, sexism and abuse all coming into play, the lightness is never lost, thanks to the care the writers, and by extension the audience, has for these characters.

That balance seemingly comes into question once the twists start flying forth, but even then, the razor thin wire they walk holds tight. This is a masterfully shot, written, acted and crafted film. The most fun a drama has been in years. Make no mistake, “Widows” shouldn’t be and isn’t a light-hearted affair. But because these characters are so grounded and expertly established, it allows the overbearing dreariness associated with the genre to be shaken off. “Widows” may just be a gamechanger, and even if it isn’t, its still a damn good film. 5/5

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald - Review

 

Credit where credit is due, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” accomplishes a feat that no prior “Wizarding World” film has been able to do: be a bad film. Even with that, the film faces a fate closely comparable to other blockbuster films, regardless of the quality, fans will still flock to the theatres and it will still make an abundance of money.

That being said, things aren’t completely dismal in this magical version of the 1920’s. Newt Scamander is still a wonderfully tame soul played with effortless charm by Eddie Redmayne (“The Theory of Everything,” “Les Misérables (2012)”). Despite a smaller than initially thought amount of screen time, Jude Law (“The Talented Mr. Ripley,” “Sherlock Holmes (2009)”) is also charming as a younger Dumbledore, working a smug smile into the powerful wizard’s repertoire of quips and misdirections.

That’s where the casts skills seem to end though, because the rest of them, even those reprising their roles from the first “Beasts” movie, seem to be floundering. Johnny Depp (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”) seems bored as he prances around as Grindelwald, and most of Newt’s friends seem like they’ve had the life sucked out of them. There’s also a steady flow of side characters that keep being slowly introduced, most of them without any real purpose. That doesn’t seem entirely their fault though.

It something seemingly thought impossible, but the script and writing is by far the film’s weakest link. Despite her pedigree, J.K. Rowling has delivered a chapter in her world that just seems overcomplicated and boring. She’s choked this outing full of subplots that either don’t conclude or are just funneled in to conclude in the next film. Director David Yates (“State of Play (2004),” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) doesn’t seem to be helping much, merely acting as an autopilot, funneling viewers through a series of gray set-pieces until things build enough to call it an ending while still leaving plenty unexplained for the next film.

It at least maintains the distinct visual quality set by the previous Wizarding World films. Sets are mostly practical, blending real effects with CGI in a way that maintains a clean and solid look. A few moments of bad green screen stick out though, and the entire film just looks very dark and black.

It’s a film that spends so much time meandering in its plot, that by the time things actually start to move along, it’s in the third act. Most of it also just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Newt seems to have a semi-decent relationship with his brother, until the plot dictates they must give chase. It just feels like things are being made up on the spot to dictate the plot, pre-established lore be damned.

For a small example, Professor McGonagall pops up for a split second in the background. She’s addressed by name by Dumbledore, and leaves. She’s on screen for a total of 60 seconds. Sounds fine. Except, according to pre-established lore that Rowling herself wrote, McGonagall isn’t born, yet alone old enough to be a professor at Hogwarts. The film clearly takes place in 1927, and McGonagall isn’t born until 1935.

Which is bizarre. As much as the movie throws out and contradicts key pieces of Potter lore, it also tries to capitalize on it. Characters from deep cut Wizarding lore and dragged into the plot for mere moments, simply to say their names, and leave. It’s just as bad as any other cash grabbing nostalgia-bait film, but somehow worse. How a film manages to be a cash-grab, meant to capitalize on die hard fans, and yet get lore that those fans would know by heart wrong is kind of impressive.

Even if lore is thrown out the window, the result is a movie that’s just plain boring. Sure, there are a handful of amusingly entertaining sequences. Newt gets some good beastly moments, just like before, and they’re undoubtedly the highlight. The same goes for Law’s version of Dumbledore, and when Newt and the Professor are onscreen at once, then the film actually seems to be building to something great.

Even if its boring for most of its runtime, things really start to go downhill once the third act twists start being thrown out. The worst part is, in reality there’s probably only two or three big third act revelations. But because of how poorly this plot conveys any information to the audience, it feels closer to five or six plot twists. None of them are earned, especially not the one at the film’s very end, which manages to be simply confusing and illogical.

By the time everything comes to a head, it feels like this film is the middle chapter of three. The “Deathly Hallows Part 1” of this series, like it exists to fill in lore before the final installment. Except, not only does that lore feel so out of place and poorly constructed that its hard to tell what matters and what’s merely worldbuilding, but also that this is the second film OUT OF FIVE.

Even with the actors doing their best, solid visuals and a good musical score, “Crimes of Grindelwald” feels just like its title. It’s a crime to Wizarding fans, a crime to coherence, a crime to those who’ve spent time loving this franchise. It truly feels like Rowling doesn’t care, like she’s throwing characters and plots in to just create a film and collect a paycheck. This isn’t the Wizarding World we once knew. It’s bad, and quite worse, it’s boring. 2/5

Overlord (2018) - Review

 

You are not prepared for “Overlord.” No matter what the trailers have shown you, the posters have promised, or what other reviews have said. Know this right here and right now: this film is a shock to every sense and a visceral powerhouse of terror, violence, and pulse pounding thrills. And it accomplishes everything it sets out to do in the most unexpected and satisfying of ways.

Following a group of soldiers assigned with taking out a communication jamming tower mere hours before D-Day, “Overlord” jumps right into the business of grabbing audiences by their shoulders and shaking them up. The opening ten minutes deliver a wonderfully pulpy sense of atmosphere before throwing characters straight into hell.

What glorious hell it is too. Every crackle and pop from gunfire and explosions sizzles with raw power. Sound effects and design are absolutely top notch, especially in the later half of the film, when things start to bend and crack in ways they were never meant to.

Cinematographers Laurie Rose (“Free Fire,” “High-Rise”) and Fabien Wagner (“Justice League”) turn the dank and decrypt halls of Nazi labs and a crumbling small French town into live wire fright scenarios. Thanks to subtle camera tricks, with angles bent just enough to cause anxiety without ever setting it off, the pair make even the quieter moments incredibly tense.

The entire cast is excellent, keeping the same composure and characterizations consistent, even as the weird hits the fan. Wyatt Russell (“Black Mirror,” “Everybody Wants Some!!”) and Jovan Adepo (“Fences (2016),” “mother!”) play off each other beautifully. John Magaro (“The Big Short”) and Dominic Applewhite (“The Inbetweeners”) are both charming and surprising in their smaller roles. Iain De Caestecker (“Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”) gets bonus points for one scene in particular, about halfway through the film. You’ll know it when you see it.

“Overlord” is an incredibly hard film to write about. Every moment or item discussed risks giving something else away. That’s because everything in this film is wound so tightly, every moment so razor sharp, that even saying one detail about one event threatens to send the whole thing tumbling down.

Most miraculously of all though, director Julius Avery (“Son of a Gun”) and writers Billy Ray (“The Hunger Games,” “Captain Phillips”) and Mark L. Smith (“The Hole”) manage to keep the tonal balance rock solid throughout. Even when things barrel past the hour mark and things start to go from bad to buck-wild in an instant, it all feels solidly established, avoiding any sort of bizarre tone shift that a film like this could easily create.

However, if there’s one big thing worth mentioning above all else, its that this film is R rated with a capital “Gore.” This movie is the definition of body horror. Blood and guts spew quite a bit, and the crew isn’t afraid to let a smashed in head or exploding brain be seen in all its glory. This is war, after all.

Most impressively though, some of the sequences later in the film combine physical effects, prosthetics, animatronics and CGI in such ingenious and baffling ways. Its worth watching purely to see what kind of scenario is thrown out next, and how the crew will accomplish it from a technical standpoint.

This is not a film for the weak hearted or weak stomached. And its far darker and bloodier than even its own trailer seemed. It’s also best experienced with an audience, that way everyone can cry out, wince and shield their eyes all together.

“Overlord” is absolutely crazy. From frame one it throws audiences headfirst into the kind of action, horror, sci-fi, World War II mutation extravaganza that has to be seen to be believed. Every twist and turn feel expertly planned and intentional. The world and its tone are rock solid, with performances that catapult the film from pulpy fun into the realm of the sublime. Its gore is impressive and excessive, maybe to a fault. Regardless, “Overlord” is buck-wild and bonkers. That’s all there is to it. 4.5/5

The Grinch (2018) - Review

 

There’s quite a bit of bizarre pop culture trivia based around Illumination’s version of The Grinch. There was a huge leak, later proved false, for the upcoming Super Smash Brothers game that was supposedly confirmed thanks to a piece of Grinch advertising material in the background of the leak. This was also the last Seuss movie Universal made before Audrey Geisel, Seuss’ widow, jumped ship to Warner Animation Group. It even has a set of original songs by musician Tyler, The Creator. This latest Grinch is a weird one, and it doesn’t end there.

Because at the end of the day there’s a fair amount this film doesn’t do very well. Most of its narration and rhyming techniques feel like they’re being used just to pay lip service to the original material. Despite being heavily featured in advertising, the original songs are only used twice; once during the Grinch’s introduction and again during the credits. For a property that has such a specific musical identity, it’s underwhelming.

There’s also a general blandness to the film’s sets and characters, feeling like a cheap imitation of Seuss’ drawings that stopped at “good enough.” The Grinch himself looks fine and well designed, and his dog Max is just too adorable for words. But the Who’s and their Whoville are so cookie cutter “creative” that it becomes blah by only twenty minutes in.

Illumination’s animation continues to be solid, despite the general lack of imagination put into the designs. The sense of physical humor continues to shine here, as well as the quirky cartoony exaggeration. The Grinch’s style of inventions makes for some good visual showcases, and there’s an amusing West Side Story-style Caroler scene early on. The third act robbery sequence is a visual highlight especially., with the Grinch’s smile reflecting the audiences’ as he creatively snags all of the Whos various trinkets.

Speaking of the Whos, the subplot involving Cindy Lo Who, played by Cameron Seely (“The Greatest Showman,” “The Jim Gaffigan Show”) and her mother, played by Rashida Jones (“Parks and Recreation,” “The Social Network”), is just boring and bland. A variation on it has been done in just about every other Christmas film released (including the Jim Carey “Grinch” film) and it just doesn’t stand out.

Despite being fairly bland, there’s a weird sense of inaccuracies within the film. It’s odd to point out, but there are moments wherein geometrical logic seems to have gone out the window. At one-point, young Cindy Lo Who slides down a massive snowy slide, and ten minutes later, that slide just disappears from the front of her house? Keep an eye on where Whoville is located during the film’s third act mountain scene for another geometrical oddity.

Illumination does smartly tone down its somewhat annoying humor here, though not by much. While the overall affair is less hyperactive and crude than in the “Despicable Me” or “Secret Life of Pets” films, it isn’t completely gone. Grinch’s reindeer Fred is just…kind of there for no reason. And the screaming goat meme pops up three times because…it’s a meme? At least these moments of pandering humor are less than other Illumination productions.

Benedict Cumberbatch (“The Imitation Game,” “Doctor Strange”) is the star of the show here. Rightly so, given he plays the title character, and his slightly grated, wry vocal fry gives his version of the green grump a distinct tone. He is the film’s best asset and the filmmakers know exactly when to pivot away from the boring subplots and back to him.

It’s easy to be cynical about this latest Grinch film, and there’s a lot to complain about within it. But then something happens. Two thirds of the way through, after the Grinch has carried out his plan and is starring down at Whoville, something breaks inside him.

Herein lies the film’s biggest and smartest decision: they don’t give the Grinch a distinct reason to be angry. While that may seem like a downside, it adds so much to this film’s version of this yuletide meanie. Because his reason for hating the season isn’t the direct fault of anyone else, it invites a kind of challenge to the audience. It points out the Grinch within all of us and does so in a remarkably grounded way.

It directly challenges the ideas of seasonal cynicism, and even pointing fingers directly at audience members who may have gone into the film rolling their eyes. It’s smart and adds a lot to Illumination’s version of Seuss’s Christmas curmudgeon, helped along by Cumberbatch’s voicework and the general low stakes nature of his pre-Christmas Eve antics to make this Grinch more relatable in his antagonistic ways.

Sure, even taking the initial cynicism out of it, it still isn’t anything groundbreaking. But its fun, colorful, with a great performance from Cumberbatch and a generally unique take on the Grinch’s ideals. It’s not the greatest Seuss adaptation around, but its sweet enough for a theatre viewing and charming enough to watch during the holidays. At the very least, its leagues ahead of “The Lorax.” 3/5

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs - Review

 

Some filmmakers have put so much effort into their craft and turned out such quality work, that every time a film from them is announced, it’s a celebratory occasion. Even when that film is a Netflix movie. Thus, is the case here, as “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” is written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, also known as The Coen Brothers, the creators of “The Big Lebowski,” “Fargo,” “No Country for Old Men,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “Burn After Reading.”

As always, the script and overall writing is excellent. Just like previous Coen features, the dialogue is ripe with instantly quotable lines and wry dark humor. Even some of the very concepts of the stories within the film, like a super nice guy who’s okay with point blank murdering random people, practically ooze black comedy from their very pores.

However, within the film’s basic concept lies its biggest flaw. When it was originally announced, this wasn’t supposed to be one film. It was originally announced to be a six-part anthology series. Despite being reworked into one film, the six-part nature remains, and it ends up hurting the overall product.

Some stories, like the titular “Ballad of Buster Scruggs” are amusing and ripe with possibilities but are over in less than 10 minutes. Meanwhile others, like “All Gold Canyon” are at the perfect length. Yet some even seem like their equipped to last longer than their short story nature, like “The Gal Who Got Rattled.”

It just ends up throwing cohesiveness out the window for a series of amusing short stories. It begs the question, why stitch it into one film? It doesn’t do anything for the overall film, except make it feel like something’s missing. None of the characters even cross over in any way, and given the film’s overarching theme of death, its easy to see a few simple ways that they could have.

Even with that, the writing is still excellent, and the performances are as well. This is surprising, given the ensemble nature of the piece, but even with so many players, everyone maintains a surprisingly high level of quality.

Tim Blake Nelson ("Holes," "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), Tom Waits (Seven Psychopaths," "The Book of Eli") and Zoe Kazan ("Ruby Sparks," "The Big Sick") all standout though, even among the rest of the cast’s excellence. Nelson’s bizarrely nice Buster Scruggs is such a fascinating anomaly, and Kazan and Waits deliver such wholesome and lovable performances, bringing their esoteric characters to life.

The decision to push all of these stories into one film does some good though. It allows for some much more somber stories, like “Meal Ticket” to be balanced out by the more cartoony nature of some of the others. However, others like “Near Algodones” just feel pointless in comparison. Not bad, as they’re still fun to watch good actors say good dialogue, but just pointless.

Because look at any of their past films, and it’ll become quite apparent that the Coen brothers can write extremely funny and intricate plots. “The Big Lebowski” was praised for being a film that is about nothing, despite creating tons of different story threads within it. Even with the high quality of the writing within each story, it’s saddening to imagine what more could have been done had this been approached as a full film first, instead of a short series stitched into a film later.

It is possible to look past all of that while watching. Because even with their frustratingly separated nature, the stories that are told, though not all equal, are all so interesting and well executed that any flaws thought of in the moment are easily ignorable.

Which is the struggle when presented with a film like this. Because it really isn’t a film. It’s a collection of six short films, smushed into a two-hour-and-twenty-minute movie. If they were all judged on their own, that would be different. But as it stands, “Buster Scruggs” is an amusingly dark, instantly quotable and flawed good time. 3.5/5

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms - Review

 

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” could have easily been called “The Four Realms.” Or ‘The Four Realms of Christmas.” Or anything other than “The Nutcracker.” Because it isn’t about the Nutcracker or the story of the Nutcracker. It loosely references past events, but not even in a cohesive way. It has ballet on display for five minutes, but it seems to be using the name simply for popularity points. Because if there’s a pop culture property that is guaranteed to be popular in 2018, it’s the Nutcracker.

Really, what lies at the center of “Four Realms” is nothing short of inane. It’s a boring story that plods along, constantly switching between themes and motifs like a hyperactive child. Throughout the film, ideas are brought up that all seem like they’re fighting for control over the main plot. Themes of letting go, believing in yourself, believing in your intelligence, kindness, etc. They all jostle for the spotlight and fill an already convoluted story with unnecessary gibberish.

While some elements of the story are serviceable, they’re brought down lower simply because of the film’s self-aggrandizing view of itself. Spend just fifteen minutes with “Four Realms” and it immediately becomes clear that directors Joe Johnston (“Captain America: The First Avenger,” The Rocketeer”) and Lasse Hallström (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” “Chocolat”) and writer Ashleigh Powell think they’re geniuses.

There’s an air of self-importance that the film tries to glide on throughout, that only make its numerous plot contrivances more irritating. In the second act, a twist occurs that is a bizarre combination of completely predictable, and yet so out of character that it feels otherworldly.

Not even remotely because the twist is clever. Not in the slightest. It’s just that the rest of the film is populated with so many boring and insufferable characters and moments that, not only is the audience to bored to notice the obvious nature of the twist, but the idea that the writes would care enough to put a twist into the film is almost laughable.

At least the film looks nice, but even that is a double-edged sword. While the real world looks appropriately magical, with a good amount of quality production and costume design, things fall apart when entering the Four Realms. Everything goes from subtle and downplayed to overblown and garish in an instant.

Colors that once were vibrant and nice become eyesores by the end of the film, and some of the makeup effects are positively ugly. Even the greenscreen that’s used for a large majority of the film’s shooting, (see Tim Burton’s 2010 “Alice in Wonderland”) comes off as surprisingly cheap looking, with the CGI effects that pad out most of the film’s visuals reek of desperation.

It’s a film that’s written and shot like a soulless cash grab, but using a property that is nowhere near a guaranteed money source. So instead of providing a film with enjoyable or charming characters trapped in a dull world and story, like most cash grabs do, this films just leaves a lack of anything significant.

The actors are fine. No one does a bad job; Mackenzie Foy (“The Little Prince (2015),” “The Conjuring”) is fine as Princess Clara, and her nutcracker Captain, played by Jayden Fowora-Knight is also serviceable. Helen Mirren (“The Queen,” “Hitchcock”) fares the best out of any of the actors, mostly because she’s Helen Mirren, turning the poorly written and underdeveloped Mother Ginger into the film’s only true bright spot.

And then there’s Keira Knightly (“Bend It Like Beckham,” “The Imitation Game”). Where to begin with her Sugar Plum Fairy. Initially, she seems to be doubling down on a character of innocence, one who imply sits back and cheers because she’s too adorable to fight or get into any mischief. However, a late second act shift turns this innocent bystander Fairy into a bizarre sudo-sexual portrayal of a house wife going into a dry spell, spitting out lines with such intensely sexualized delivery that it simply becomes uncomfortable.

Mostly because it just doesn’t make any sense. That’s the most remarkable thing about “Four Realms.” From the story to the characterizations to even the film’s conception, its just lacks any kind of logic. Even any internal logic.

At one point, Princess Clara complains that upon opening an item she should have been given the answer she was looking for. However, upon hearing this, it’s worth noting that the audience has no idea what question she needs answered. Because there never was one. Because the film was too lazy to try and create one, simply throwing in this late second act annoyance to fill time.

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” is a film so bad it’s incredible. Because not only is it bad, it’s clear while watching it that it thinks it’s the next big thing. But not even Helen Mirren can make this pure weirdness Disney CGI fantasy watchable. There is almost a charm to its oddball nature that makes it intriguing. You want to keep watching, if for no other reason than to see how much worse it’s going to get, and in how weird of a direction it’s going to go. 1/5

Bohemian Rhapsody - Review

 

At one point about a third of the way through “Bohemian Rhapsody,” the new biopic about Freddie Mercury and Queen, a record producer, upset at the band trying to push the film’s title track states “Mark my words, no one will play Queen!” Now this is a line that the producer probably didn’t say, put into the film to give a fun winking nod to the audience. And it’s a perfect way to encapsulate the film as a whole.

This is a movie not particularly enamored with telling a deep and exquisitely detailed story of the life and success of the eponymous rock band Queen, and its equally eponymous lead singer Freddie Mercury. Some moments are clearly truncated to fit the constraints of a two-hour film; Freddie’s first introduction to his future bandmates also conveniently explains their backstories because Freddie just happens to know them.

However, while it is a bit annoying for those looking to the film to learn, it allows the film to get the semantics out of the way as quickly as possible and pursue the real goal: tell how some of the band’s iconic songs were made and tell the story of Mr. Mercury in all his flamboyant glory, while having as much rock and roll fun as possible.

That’s where “Rhapsody” finds the most success. Its inherently a film that just wants to celebrate Queen. Audiences won’t walk away with a particularly deep understanding of the band, but they will walk way with the songs in their heads and on their tongues, and the simple thought of “Man, Queen really is a good band.”

So then, if the film’s goal is just to have a good time, does it succeed in that aspect? Well, yes, kind of. If there’s anything that has clearly affected the film’s quality, it’s the behind the scenes shenanigans that affected its shooting and post-production.

To mention it briefly, former director Bryan Singer was fired in Dec. of 2017 after failing to show up to set during shooting, and shortly after this was accused of sexual assault of minors in what many dubbed to be an after effect of the accusations of Harvey Weinstein. Dexter Fletcher (“Eddie the Eagle”) was hired to finish shooting and work through post-production. Per Director’s Guild of America rules though, Singer retained a sole Director’s credit.

This behind the scenes turmoil does show in some elements of the film. It’s first act is sloppily edited and feels as though it condenses too much into too little time, leading to a generally rushed feeling. This is further exacerbated as the latter acts are much slower and better edited and paced. The first act and the last two are so different that it almost feels like whiplash.

Musically, the film is golden. Keep an eye out for the sound editing Oscar come next year, because every performance is pure musical delight. Rami Malek (“Mr. Robot”) is clearly having the time of his life gyrating around the stage as Mercury, with the rest of the cast (Gwilym Lee, Ben Hardy, Joseph Mazzello, Aidan Gillen, and Tom Hollander) performing with charisma and glee.

They’re nothing compared to Malek though. His performance as Freddie is simply astonishing. It isn’t method acting, as he doesn’t embody Freddie like he’s copying recordings or photographs. Instead, it feels as though he’s captured the spirit and energy of the rock star and channeled into a vision of the singer that is entrancing to watch.

By the time everything wraps up, its all been done in such a nice neat bow that is seems almost Hallmark Channel-esque. While it doesn’t harm the film’s quality, it does further embolden the movie’s generally clean feel, which is ironic for a star who was anything but.

It also feels as though Mercury gets the most focus so that nothing ill comes out against the other members or so that they aren’t portrayed unfavorably. They always seem to come out of arguments and fights with the upper hand, or at the very least with no one within the band to blame. That may have something to do with actual band members Roger Taylor and Bryan May serving as Creative Consultants, as well as former Queen manager Jim Beach serving as a producer. But that’s probably just a coincidence.

By the time the third act rolls around, and the final twenty-minute-long sequence begins to play, none of the other details matter. In that moment, the plot issues, historical inaccuracies, editing mishaps, and pacing problems all fade away. In that moment, its just Queen and their audience. And its glorious to behold.

Overall, “Bohemian Rhapsody” is an average look at one of the most beloved bands in the world. It’s musically satisfying, and has plenty of rocky pacing and editing. It doesn’t feel particularly extensive in its want to detail the bands history. It’s closer to a summary in a book jacket than an actual detailed description, carried by an incredible performance. It practically screams “Hey, we love Queen. Come take a ride with us and talk about how much we love Queen.” It’s not a biography, more like a celebration. Too bad they skimped on the cake and balloons. 2.5/5