Wish (2023) - Review: Plenty of Other Stars in the Sky

 

Love them or hate them, there are few things more influential on the culture of the world than Disney. Even if you don’t watch movies or couldn’t tell Sleeping Beauty from Snow White, chances are you know who Mickey Mouse is, even if you don’t know he’s Mickey Mouse. Those three circles have founded a company as big as God, and now with its 100th anniversary this year, the house of mouse has crafted an animated film meant to embody all of its biggest and most iconic aspects, for better or for worse. 

The film, aptly titled “Wish,” takes its central concept from the wishing star featured in so many of Disney’s classic films. It follows Asha, voiced by Ariana Debose (“West Side Story (2022),” “Schmigadoon!”), a young girl who dreams of having her wish granted by King Magnifico, voiced by Chris Pine (“Star Trek (2009),” “Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves”), a magician king of the city of Rosas with the power to grant the wishes of his kingdom. However, after an anthropomorphic wishing star falls from the sky, she begins to question Magnifico’s power and magical hold over the people of her city. 

It’s a genuinely interesting concept, and the idea of crafting a film based around the concept of wishing and the wishing star is a far more compelling approach to an anniversary film than just doing a big Mickey Mouse animated film or a compilation movie. However, in trying to craft a film that feels so quintessentially Disney, directors and co-writers Chris Buck (“Tarzan (1999),” “Frozen”) and Fawn Veerasunthorn (“Raya and the Last Dragon”) and co-writers Jennifer Lee (“Frozen,” “Wreck-It Ralph”) and Allison Moore have instead tried to create a film made of magic first and foremost, instead of that Disney magic being the end product. 

What is here is a clear attempt to reverse engineer the kind of final product Disney magic that seems to so often be a near perfect accident. By approaching it like that, it ends up delivering a film where half of the time it feels like a sanded down product, devoid of any sense of identity other than “Disney fantasy film.” 

Luckily, the voice cast is doing surprisingly good work with the material they’ve been given. Debose manages to be a bright and energetic Disney heroine, leaping and laughing through the adventure. Her talking animal sidekick, Valentino the goat, is voiced by the always charming and excellent Alan Tudyk (“Firefly,” “Tucker and Dale vs. Evil”) to great effect, and while not as great as the main cast, the supporting group of Asha’s friends and family are charming, if not particularly memorable. Meanwhile, Pine is an absolute scene stealer. He’s clearly having a blast playing the bad guy, and every scene he’s in drips with overblown villainy and delight. 

The movie’s visual style is clearly an attempt at breaking up the more mundane, smooth, safe aesthetics of the past few Disney films, while also maintaining a link to Disney’s hand-painted past. However, it always hits a major stumbling block, because while it is a nice visual choice, when compared to other CGI animated films that experiment with their aesthetics, it feels woefully underwhelming. Simply put, it's an admirable goal but it feels like a complete afterthought alongside movies like “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse,” “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” and “Nimona.” 

As with most of Disney’s big animated films, this one is a musical, and unlike most of Disney’s big animated films, the music in “Wish” is largely mundane. “Welcome to Rosas,” “This Wish,” and Pine’s villain song “This is the Thanks I Get?” are all standouts, but the other tracks vary wildly. “At All Costs” sounds weirdly and overtly romantic for its place in the film and “I’m A Star” is the epitome of generic musical songwriting. Then you have tracks like “Knowing What I Know Now” which aren’t just bad but simply feel as though they don’t belong in the film. 

It seems easy to call the film a disappointment, but it is at least a credit to the basic levels of storytelling competence at the House of Mouse that “Wish” still manages to deliver a basic amount of enjoyment even with the film as a whole disappointing. It’s nothing incredible, but it’s serviceable, and those who are already hardcore Disney fans or who know the difference between Sleeping Beauty and Snow White will likely find something to enjoy. 

But for the centennial anniversary film for a studio with a history as illustrious as Disney’s, “Wish” is undoubtedly a disappointment. Its serviceable in many aspects and carried by its central voice cast, but the music is mostly forgettable or disappointing, the animation’s stylistic choices don’t go far enough, and it feels as though its checking boxes in the Disney aesthetic instead of creating those aspects organically. Maybe things will go better come the 200th anniversary. 2.5/5 

Maestro - Review: A Few Notes Short of a Symphony

 

As the world turns, so does another drama film about the life of a famous artist release right around the Oscars season. This time, we have “Maestro,” chronicling the life of Leonard Bernstein directed by, produced by, co-written by, and starring Bradley Cooper (“A Star is Born (2018),” “The Hangover”). 

The film follows, on a broad scale, Bernstein’s life and marriage to Felicia Montealegre, played by Carey Mulligan (“An Education,” “Promising Young Woman”), with Bernstein played by Cooper. Throughout the picture, we see the various states of their marriage, with Bernstein’s infidelities along with his alcohol and substance abuses putting a strain on their marriage, along with Felicia’s breast cancer, all bookended with an interview with an elderly Bernstein. 

As his second film as a director, one would expect Cooper would want to expand his talents and abilities further. Go big or go home, so to speak. However, with “Maestro” something quite interesting is going on. As the film progresses, it gets more interesting in its depictions of Bernstein (although even as its most interesting, it's still lacking a bit). But as the film gets more interesting, the complexity and styling of its technical aspects becomes more plain. 

The cinematography from Matthew Libatique (“Requiem For A Dream,” “Birds of Prey”) is excellent for about the first third of the film before it eventually turns into a far more traditional and flat technique of shooting a drama. The decision to use only Bernstein’s music throughout the film instead of any kind of a traditional score is a good one but does grow plain by the film’s end as well.  

Cooper does a fine job, but some of the best moments are simply him overacting, creating a weird tonal balance that sometimes has great nuance and sometimes has all the subtlety of an SNL impersonation. The makeup is also a double-edged sword, as sometimes it really works and brings an authenticity to his performance and the rest of the time it just looks like a big rubber nose hanging off of Cooper’s face. The good news is that Mulligan is absolutely exceptional. Her performance so eclipses Cooper’s that it almost feels like maybe the film was crafted to showcase her talents rather than his. She’s simply exceptional. 

It’s a fantastic looking film, not just from a cinematography standpoint. The costumes and set designs are fantastic, lending a great sense of authenticity and mood to the piece. Throughout Cooper also flips between various aspect ratios and color schemes to further enhance that period mood, and it's very effective. It’s a very moody, atmospheric, pretty film that unfortunately is betrayed by its slow crawl towards plainness and Cooper’s uneven performance. 

The script also doesn’t help either. Co-written by Cooper and Josh Singer (“First Man,” “Spotlight”), it boils a lot of Bernstein’s life down its barest building blocks, almost to a soap opera level of melodrama. While Cooper and Mulligan do the best they can, it does end up boiling a lot of Bernstein’s life down to a “gay man cheats on his wife but boy does he still love her” kind of cliche. Its best moments are ones that lean far more into the purely visual aspects, making use of Libatique’s cinematography, production design, and actor’s expressions more than the dialogue. 

In a genre as overstuffed as the music biopic, it is refreshing to see one as complicated as this. “Maestro” does manage to establish itself as a gorgeous film on multiple levels, led by two performances that captivate, even if one doesn’t hold up as well. There’s also something weirdly interesting to see a film like this focus on a composer instead of a rock star or more traditionally forward-facing musician. For all those interesting elements, it's a shame the film’s script and general “Oscar bait” vibe betray those otherwise interesting elements, leaving the film feeling weaker and limper than Cooper clearly desires. 3.5/5

Napoleon (2023) - Review: An Uneven Biopic That Leaves You Feeling Conquered

 

Never let it be said that Ridley Scott (“Alien,” “The Last Duel”) doesn’t want to go big. Most of his films have featured massive battles of some kind or adventures on a grand scale. While he has aimed for a few smaller tales, most of the time the larger the scope or the life of the character, the better. And there have been few figures in history with impacts and egos as big as that of Scott’s latest subject, “Napoleon.”

Expectedly, the film follows the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, played by Joaquin Pheonix (“Joker,” “Walk the Line”), from the beheading of Marie Antoinette through his military career and reign as king until his exile on the island of Saint Helena, heavily featuring his marriage, divorce, and extenuating relationship with his wife Joséphine, played by Vanessa Kirby (The Crown,” “Pieces of a Woman”).

Phoenix and Kirby definitely each bring their own approach to their characters for the film, to varying degrees of effectiveness. While they both fit the sense of what Scott has envisioned, they feel completely at odds with the tone of each other's portrayals. Phoenix plays Napoleon like a self-entitled incel, a manchild who feels entitled to everything around him in spite of his actual abilities. Meanwhile, Kirby plays Joséphine with grace and poise, slowly eroding into frustration and borderline madness due to Napoleon’s treatment of her.

That dichotomy is a great example of what is wrong with Scott’s historical epic at its core. The script from David Scarpa (“The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008),” “All the Money in the World”), and the film as a whole, feels like it has two different approaches to its story with varying degrees of effectiveness and substance. On the one hand, there’s an interesting idea in portraying one of history’s greatest commanders as a complaining manchild. Yet on the other hand, it also tries to still make him seem like a badass beloved by all and neither approach works with the other.

While the battle sequences are epic to behold, and the production design is routinely excellent, a lot of it falls flat due to the poor execution of the story on display. It just feels like a pretty way of putting on a boring story. The cinematography from Dariusz Wolski (“Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” “The Martian”) does help in dressing up the film, as does the music from composer Martin Phipps (“The Aftermath,” “The Flying Scotsman”), but it often times just feels like a well put on farce given the portrayals of Napoleon and his achievements. For example, one moment when Napoleon returns to France after being exiled feels particularly silly as he encounters a barrage of French troops at gunpoint, who then break down after confessing that they miss him and then all run up to hug him. It’s fascinating but also feels wildly off from the tone the film is aiming for.

Scott is clearly trying to create a grand historical epic while also infusing it with plenty of coolness, but it's in that historical nature where the film really falters. Yes, most biopics of this kind, especially of subjects this old, do play fast and loose with the truth. However, it feels particularly egregious here given the subject. The film feels remarkably one sided, aligning with the British portrayal of Napoleon in displaying him as a brutish idiot. Yet, even besides that, there are moments that seem purely bizarre, such as watching Napoleon fire cannons on the Pyramids of Giza, structures he’s famously held in high esteem. It once again feels like Scott is simply prioritizing a cool visual moment for one that works to either strengthen the film’s historical accuracy or its depiction of Napoleon.

What you’re left with is a truly bizarre kind of bad film. It’s gorgeous but also weirdly shallow in its attempt to deliver a twisted and somewhat falsified portrayal of this man. Its two lead performances make for a wild balancing act against its fantastic production design, and it leads to a film that’s just plain messy. It’s certainly never boring to watch, but it feels like a beast of a film from a man confused about what exactly he wants to say. 2.5/5

Leo (2023) - Review: An Old Lizard Can Teach New Tricks

Given how many of his films are silly, over the top, gross out, juvenile comedies, it’s surprising that Adam Sandler’s (“Uncut Gems,” “Happy Gilmore”) production company has only ever made one animated film before. Yes, he’s been a voice in plenty of others, but in terms of one he’s been directly involved in the making of, it’s either the abysmal “Eight Crazy Nights” or the surprisingly sincere, sweet, and still silly musical comedy “Leo (2023).” 

The film stars Sandler as Leo, a classroom lizard facing an end-of-life crisis after he realizes that his death might be just around the corner. He then finds a new purpose in life after he begins talking to and giving life advice to the elementary students in his classroom, much to the chagrin of the suspicious, strict substitute teacher Ms. Malkin, voiced by Cecily Strong (“The Awesomes,” “Schmigadoon!”), and his fellow classroom pet Squirtle, voiced by Bill Burr (“F is For Family,” “The King of Staten Island”). 

Even for the ilk that Sandler’s brood have typically turned out, “Leo” can get exceptionally weird as it goes on. And yet, it gets weird in an endearing and extremely fun way. Sadler is laying on a very thick and very silly voice, but it works because it's never played as a joke. This is just how Leo is, and Sandler commits to giving him a legitimately emotional and sincere performance when needed. The rest of the voice cast is acceptable, but still fun. No one else is really giving it their all like Sandler is, but they’re still doing a good job, with Burr and Strong coming the closest to Sandler’s efforts. 

Given that this is animated by Animal Logic, the studio behind the likes of “The LEGO Movie” franchise, “Storks,” and “Happy Feet”, the expectations are high for the quality of said visuals and animation. This is one of the aspects where the film falters, as despite the pedigree of the studio, the animation leaves something to be desired. Some of the scenes and shots are absolutely gorgeous, while others feel unfinished or just uncanny. While this can be attributed to the movie’s more lumpy and slightly ugly aesthetic, not all of it can. 

Musically, it's the same circumstance as the visuals. Quite a few of the songs are excellently written and make for toe-tapping good times, but there are also a few that feel more like some of Sandler’s SNL songs but played completely straight. Co-director/co-writer/songwriter Robert Smigel (“Hotel Transylvania,” “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan”) crafts plenty of witty lines, but they only sometimes acquiesce into actually decent musical tunes. The songs, regardless of quality, do at least fit in the film, and co-directors/writers Robert Marianetti (“Stroker and Hoop”), David Wachtenheim (“Stroker and Hoop”), and Smigel and co-writers Paul Sado (“The Cobbler,” “Sandy Wexler”) and Sandler do manage to craft a world where it all does feel believable, as believable as a world this weird can. 

Speaking of, there is a prevailing sense of weirdness throughout the entire film that truly extends into the uncanny and bizarre. While there is the normal level of animated movie silliness, there are talking animals after all, there’s also some purely bonkers elements, such as a bunch of singing, dancing clocks that are not people in suits, but actual anthropomorphic clocks that go completely unexplained. Talking animals are weird in this world, but apparently singing and dancing clocks are on the payroll for a musical number. There are also shots that look as if they’re meant to be silly or weird for a moment or two that leap far into the uncanny valley and become something almost offputtingly ugly. 

The film spends most of its runtime coasting along on its charms and weirdness, but there is a sense of genuine sincerity that makes the film far better than expected. It does still reek of a corporate/old man “is this what the kids like” attitude, but that sincerity really goes a long was to endear you to the characters and film as a whole, almost in spite of everything else. 

“Leo” is silly, lighthearted, and weird, and it certainly isn’t perfect, but there’s enough genuine heart and oddness going on to be a distracting little adventure for young and old. Sandler is legitimately putting some great effort into his vocal performance and the songs have enough kick and rhythm to keep this adventure of an ageing little lizard afloat for a sleepover or evening with the kids. 3.5/5 

Saltburn - Review: We're All About to Go Insane

 

After her debut film in 2020, writer/director Emerald Fennell (“Promising Young Woman”) is back with another feature that seems tailor made to create absolute havoc in its subject matter and stylistic choices. “Saltburn” is an acid-soaked modern rendition of “The Talented Mr. Ripley” in a way only a madwoman like Fennell could give us. 

Set in 2006, the film follows Oliver Quick, played by Barry Keogan (“Eternals,” “The Banshees of Inisherin”), an awkward Oxford student who befriends popular preppy boy Felix Catton, played by Jacob Elordi (“euphoria,” “The Kissing Booth”), who invites him to spend the holiday at his family’s estate, the titular Saltburn manor. While there, Oliver quickly falls into favor with Felix’s family consisting of his mother Lady Elspeth, played by Rosamund Pike (“Gone Girl,” “Pride and Prejudice (2005)”), his father Sir James, played by Richard E. Grant (“Withnail and I,” “Can You Ever Forgive Me?”), his sister Venetia, played by Alison Oliver (“Conversations with Friends,” “Best Interests”), his cousin Farleigh, played by Archie Madekwe (“See,” “Gran Turismo”), and family friend “poor Dear” Pamela, played by Carey Mulligan (“Promising Young Woman,” “The Great Gatsby (2013)”), all observed by loyal stoic butler Duncan, played by Paul Rhys (“Chaplin,” “A Discovery of Witches). Slowly through the stay though, Oliver begins to set each member against one another, causing them all to slowly start losing their minds. 

First things first, this is a truly insane film on multiple levels. Fennell has crafted an unhinged piece of psychological cinema that will have you on the edge of your seat and jaw on the floor for a good two-thirds of the runtime. She crafts moments that not only escalate in logically illogical ways, but that still track with Oliver’s decisions and the maddening heat of the summer holiday. It’s an impeccably crafted script, fleshed out to its fullest potential thanks to its fully game cast and sense of insane direction. 

Keogan and Elordi have a fantastic balance, a back and forth that leaves you constantly questioning the extent of their friendship and feelings for each other. Keogan rides the line between pathetic coward and sinister plotter to excellent results, and Elordi perfectly plays the popularity king role. Felix’ family are also great, set up as comical symbols of excess before being slowly torn down and tossed in front of the viewer as limp shells of their former selves. Pike in particular plays the role of self-serious rich mother so insanely well, you’d think the character was just herself and only happened to be filmed. 

Shot in full screen “academy ratio”, Fennell and cinematographer Linus Sandgren (“La La Land,” “No Time to Die”) frames each moment with a claustrophobic sense of excess. Saltburn manor is cluttered but also so massive it gives one the sense of being smothered in a sense of emptiness. It's a great display of the production design as well, which is choked full of beautiful excess smothered with dirty laundry and modern conveniences. There’s a shot early on in the film of the family watching “Superbad” on a medium sized plasma TV in the midst of a giant ornate room that perfectly summarizes the visual identity of the entire film. 

With a jukebox of early 2000s hits playing alongside a great score from Anthony Willis (“Promising Young Woman,” “M3GAN”), the time period ends up having a huge influence on the vibes and energy of the film as a whole. More than most other movies set in recent years, the chaos of the early 2000s fits Oliver’s vibe and mission to an expert level. There’s just something about the idea that Fennell has set this insane tale in 2006, the same year that Google bought YouTube and “Hannah Montana” premiered on TV, that adds to the madness and haze of it all. 

“Saltburn” is not for everyone and will likely be hugely derided by most. But for those who can get on its wavelength, this is a hugely enjoyable, wildly sexy, debaucherous tale. Fennell fills this world of excess and claustrophobic emptiness with precision and a haze of early 2000s nostalgia and needle drops, danced through by her cast of completely game entertainers. It’s a wild tale of a house full of bad people slowly losing their minds. 5/5

May December - Review: A Tightrope of Happy Lives and Happy Wives

 

It takes a delicate and bold hand to delve into a circumstance as tricky as a student-teacher relationship and given that the last major Hollywood film made that touched on that idea was “That’s My Boy,” it’s not exactly one most want to try their hand at. Todd Haynes (“Velvet Goldmine,” “Carol”) is not your average director, and as one who’s delved into plenty of melodrama and camp elements, he and writers Sam Burch and Alex Mechanik dive headfirst into this sticky situation that pokes at multiple aspects of the story, past and present. 

The film follows actress Elizabeth, played by Natalie Portman (“Léon: The Professional,” “Black Swan”), who travels to Savannah, Georgia to shadow Gracie, played by Julianne Moore (“Nine Months,” “Magnolia”), after being cast to play her in a film. based around Gracie sleeping with her at the time thirteen-year-old student Joe, played as an adult by Charles Melton (“The Sun is Also a Star,” “Heart of Champions”), whom she then married and has been living happily with for the past twenty-three years. Elizabeth’s arrival throws their relationship and lives into chaos and has them and herself reevaluating many elements of their lives. 

As with most of Haynes’ previous films, there’s a heavy focus on domestic life and melodrama in the events of the film. It doesn’t feel overblown, but just slightly exaggerated in the way that real life often is. Portman and Moore ride this line beautifully, straddling the differences between the two women. It is fascinating to watch a person studying another so they can be that person, and the dynamic this adds to their interactions is expertly displayed. 

But Melton is the runaway star here. His interplay between Moore and Portman, alone with them and with others, is nothing short of phenomenal, and the pain he manages to convey in numerous different situations is increasingly fascinating. The film is at its core really a character study of him and how his life is still controlled and centered around this moment from his childhood, and to watch Melton shape an entire performance around that idea is nothing short of astonishing. 

The dynamic between the film’s quaint and quiet town and its bombastic score by Marcelo Zarvos (“Hollywoodland,” “Dark Water”) and voyeuristic cinematography from Christopher Blauvelt (“mid90s,” “Showing Up”) work to set the two worlds apart. Elizabeth’s world of details and closely examined nitpicking is contrasted using these elements to not only show the difference between them, but also in how despite those differences, they’re still all examining Joe to the same extent. 

It’s a fascinating film on how it works to examine the ay we process stories and information like this, but it does take somewhat of a disappointing easy way out by the end of things. There is something to be said for tying in the film’s own perspective and results with the somewhat “easy way out” ending itself, but that doesn’t take away from its somewhat disappointing end result. 

“May December” is a great showcase for its two main leads, an even greater showcase for Charles Melton, and has a lot to say about its subject material with both its production and text of the film itself. Given the examinations it makes, it does mean that the end result leaves a bit to be desired, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t a fun, melodramatic, well-acted trip to get there. 4/5

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes - Review: A Bit More Juice Left in this Dystopia

 

Where there’s a franchise, there’s a way, and Lionsgate is continuing to turn “The Hunger Games” into their Harry Potter scale mainstay with an adaptation of Suzzane Collins’ latest book with director Francis Lawrence (“I Am Legend,” “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”) returning too, and it’s a prequel no less. “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” is a fascinating film as it seeks to tell the origin story of the main series’ most devilish and hated antagonists: President Coriolanus Snow. 

Set almost 65 years before the events of the first book and film, it follows Snow, played by Tom Blyth (“Benediction,” “Billy the Kid”) as he is selected to train a tribute for the upcoming 10th annual Hunger Games. He and his tribute from District 12 Lucy Gray Baird, played by Rachel Zegler (“West Side Story (2021),” “Shazam! Fury of the Gods”), slowly begin to form a romance as the Hunger Games play out, eventually leading to far greater consequences than either of them had anticipated. 

The rest of the ensemble cast consists of Jason Schwartzman (“Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World”) as Lucretius Flickerman, the host of the Hunger Games’ broadcast, Viola Davis (“The Woman King,” “Widows”) as Dr. Volumnia Gaul, the head Gamemaker for the 10th annual games and their original creator, Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “The Station Agent”) as Casca Highbottom, the dean of the academy Snow attends, Hunter Schafer (“euphoria,” “Belle”) as Tigris Snow, fashion designer and sister to Coriolanus, and Josh Andrés Rivera (“West Side Story (2021),” “Cat Person”) as Sejanus Plinth, friend to Coriolanus and fellow mentor to a tribute from District 2. 

As a prequel, there are immediately a lot of individual fascinating elements to the film’s tale that make it far more than just a retread of a character’s life. Screenwriters Michael Lesslie (“Macbeth (2015),” “Assassin’s Creed”) and Michael Arndt (“Little Miss Sunshine,” “Toy Story 3”) and original novelist Suzzane Collins have worked to make this an increasingly interesting take on the evolution of a villain. Their approach to the concept isn’t one of pity or whimsy, but a slow evolution. Blyth performance combines with this exceptionally well, and his slow crawl to his inevitable evil end is exceptionally fascinating to watch. 

Equally fascinating is Zegler’s performance. While the film is centered around Snow, it isn’t from his perspective, but the way Baird is portrayed and played makes it seem as if we’re seeing her through his eyes entirely. She has an enigmatic, ethereal, almost otherworldly quality to her. We see Snow view her almost as a creature from a different land, and this further influences and enhances her arc through the story, creating a truly fascinating romantic tale. 

Each other cast member is also good, but their characters don’t prove to be as multi-layered as Snow or Baird. Davis is clearly having a lot of fun playing the big bad, chewing through the scenery and Dinklage plays the old, regretful, soulful drunk well. Schafer meanwhile, is doing a lot with a lesser role, infusing a humanity and pain to lay the groundwork for a character who eventually becomes something far more mutilated and haunting in the main trilogy. Rivera also does a great job and helps to craft what could have been a far more predictable “best friend” kind of role into something more nuanced and complicated. 

It’s nice to see the extensive sets and costumes return with flair and flourishes, showcasing some fantastic practical effects work as well. While there are more computer-generated effects than before (for context, the budget for the first Hunger Games film was $20 million less than this one), those real locations help to seal the downtrodden feeling this world requires to make its central conceit work. 

There is one major negative against the film that unfortunately hurts the entire end result and that’s its length. It’s not that it's an overly long film, because while it is, it isn’t poorly paced or full of useless scenes that drag on. So it doesn’t have the effect of dragging on or overstaying its welcome. The problem is the film is overstuffed. There’s enough plot here to be two separate films, and it feels like that was the original plan, but the end product is those two films spliced together into one. It is, quite simply, too much movie. Even if it was a flawless work, there’s a difference between one story that’s told over a long period of time and two stories shoved into one film where one gets shortchanged, making it feel way longer than it already is. 

“The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” is a really good movie, but not a great one. It’s a fantastic drama that gets back into the meaty groundwork of what makes the Hunger Games interesting, with a great pair of lead performances that carry a film that dares to show the origin of its main series’ fascist madman. But it's also an overstuffed, overlong movie, with way too much plot for one tale that leaves it feeling like too much of a good, but not great, thing. 3.5/5

Trolls Band Together - Review: More Like Bland Together

 

Every so often in the film industry, happy accidents seem to occur. One such accident came in 2020 when, after the middling success of the first “Trolls” film in 2016, DreamWorks made a second, the surprisingly good “Trolls World Tour.” And now with the third film just released, it feels as though the people behind that second film saw its surprise success and praise and said to themselves, “well, let’s make sure we never do that again.”

“Trolls Band Together” finds Poppy and Branch, again voiced by Anna Kendrick (“Pitch Perfect,” “A Simple Favor”) and Justin Timberlake (“Palmer,” “The Social Network”), respectively, on a quest to rescue one of Branch’s brothers Floyd, voiced by Troye Sivan (“Boy Erased,” “Three Months”), who’s been kidnapped by a sibling pop-duo Velvet and Veneer, voiced by Amy Schumer (“Trainwreck,” “I Feel Pretty”) and Andrew Rannells (“The Boys in the Band (2020),” “The Prom”), respectively, who wish to drain him of his talent for themselves. So Poppy and Branch, along with Branch’s brother John Dory, voiced by Eric André (“Man Seeking Woman,” “Disenchantment”), go on a quest to round up the rest of Branch’s brothers, Spruce and Clay, voiced by Daveed Diggs (“Snowpiercer (2020),” “Hamilton”) and Kid Cudi (“Bill & Ted Face the Music,” “X”), respectively, to reunite as their brotherly childhood boy band BroZone to save Floyd.

It's an almost inanely routine plot, providing nothing but easily resolved sibling conflict and an excuse to see more of the various lands this Trolls-centric world has to offer. There’s nothing else going on under the surface, and even then, the surface level stuff is just plenty of what we’ve already seen before, either in this series or in other family-friendly-animated-franchises. Even the boy band gimmick is wasted, given that it amounts to little more than a few jokes referencing famous groups (“We’re no longer in sync. We’ve gone from boys to men.”). What executive thought what 9-year-old kids want from their third Trolls movie was an *NSYNC reunion?

Timberlake and Kendrick are perfectly fine, but they can practically sleepwalk through a movie like this by this point. André does a good job injecting some antagonistic “older brother in charge” vibes to the film, and the supporting characters are still amusing (Somehow Kenan Thompson’s (“Good Burger,” “Kenan and Kel”) Tiny Diamond is still the highlight of the film). But it’s the prime example of the kind of movie you put on and just forget about as you leave the theatre. It might share screenwriter Elizabeth Tippett (“Wilfred,” “Life in Pieces”) and director Walt Dohrn (“Shrek Forever After,” “Trolls”) with “World Tour” but it lacks any of that films worldbuilding or thought, accidental or otherwise.

Visually, just like the previous two films, it’s an absolute treat. The “Trolls” world where everything is made of felt and craft supplies looks as vibrant as ever. The new locations featured, like a tropical island inhabited entirely by “legally distinct Muppet” people is a treat, and the land of Mount Rageous where Velvet and Veneer live is covered in shiny vinyl plastic and reflective surfaces. Even Velvet and Veneer themselves, along with the rest of the inhabitants of Rageous, are clearly meant to be long limbed early 2000s toys like Betty Spaghetti.

It seems like nowadays, DreamWorks only ever puts out two kinds of movies: the surprisingly good kind that take everyone for a loop and the lazy, cash grab that harken back to the studio’s heyday with movies like “Shark Tale.” Less than twelve months after “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish” and this is what they have to offer? “Trolls Band Together” is a routine, mediocre entry in a series with a less than stellar track record to begin with. Yes, it is utterly gorgeous and visually inventive, and there’s certainly worse stuff out there, but it’s hardly anything you or your nine-year-old will remember after the drive home from the theatre. 2/5

Scott Pilgrim Takes Off - Review: Taking It to the Next Level

Wind the clocks back to the mid-2000s and ask any nerd on the street, chances are they’d either read or had at least heard of the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels. By 2010, the series had gotten a live-action film adaptation directed by Edgar Wright, a beat-‘em-up video game, and numerous pieces of fan art, music, merch, and re-evaluations. Yes, in the almost two decades since the first volume was published, the world has fallen in love with Scott Pilgrim, Ramona Flowers, Wallace Wells, and the rest of the world created by Bryan Lee O’Malley. However, there’s also been a healthy amount of exanimation of the series and its characters since it was released. The new anime adaptation developed by O’Malley and released by Netflix feels like a reaction to that: a creator looking at what others have said about his magnum opus and how he might also have changed since it was released and imagining what could have been. And it is fantastic.

With the entire cast of the live-action film vocally reprising their roles, the film follows Scott Pilgrim, voiced by Michael Cera (“Arrested Development,” “Superbad”), a 23-year-old bassist living in Toronto with his friend and roommate Wallace Wells, voiced by Kieran Culkin (“Succession,” “Igby Goes Down”). He’s in a band with his friends Stephen Stills, voiced by Mark Webber (“Laggies,” “Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot”), his high-school ex-girlfriend Kim Pine, voiced by Allison Pill (“The Newsroom,” “Star Trek: Picard”), and their groupie friend Young Neil, voiced by Johnny Simmons (“The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” “Jennifer’s Body”). He’s also “dating” a 17-year-old high schooler Knives Chau, voiced by Ellen Wong (“The Carrie Diaries,” “GLOW”), although they’ve only ever held hands. But his life comes to a head when he meets Ramona Flowers, voiced by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (“10 Cloverfield Lane,” “The Spectacular Now”), the “girl of his dreams” whom he wants to date. However, before doing so, he must defeat her seven evil exes lead by Gideon Graves, voiced by Jason Schwartzman (“Asteroid City,” “Mozart in the Jungle”).

That’s how the comics and the film go at least and consider this a healthy spoiler warning. In order to properly discuss the series, we need to go into what happens after the first episode, so if you’d like to remain spoiler-free, jump ahead to the last paragraph.

SPOLIER WARNING

That’s how the comics and film go because at the end of the first episode something major changes. Scott, whilst fighting Ramona’s first ex, Matthew Patel, voiced by Satya Bhabha (“Midnight’s Children”), loses the fight and dies. From there, the show becomes a re-examination of virtually every character in its cast, from the major to the minor, whilst Ramona tries to figure out if Scott is actually dead or if something more is at play.

Fans of the series will likely need to pick their jaws off the floor after the first episode, and this major shift results in a far more emotionally rich and engaging tale than has ever come before. The movie, as beloved as it is, got some flack for watering the morals down and breezing over Scott’s own shitty behavior. The series not only addresses that, but also the thinly written exes and Ramona herself. Gone is the “manic pixie dream girl” wish fulfillment kind of girl that made life hell for so many alt-girls with colored hair in the 2010s.

Winstead absolutely kills it as Ramona, delivering what can only be described as the best performance of her career, live action or animated. She gives Ramona a sense of power and agency that simply wasn’t there originally. O’Malley and co-writer BenDavid Grabinski (“Happily,” “Are You Afraid of the Dark? (2019)” take time to flesh out every character, jumping into various genres throughout each of the eight episodes to do so. There are even times when seemingly major characters don’t even appear for an episode or two, just to everything has time to gestate and flourish.

The entire cast is excellent, and to list them all here would simply take up too much time. But each and every one of them, regardless of the careers they’ve had since, slows so perfectly back into these roles and personas. Science Saru, the Japanese studio behind anime like Space Dandy, Devilman Crybaby, and Keep Your Hands Off Eizouken, and director Abel Góngora (“Star Wars Visions: T0-B1”) bring so much style and energy to the series, but also balancing it perfectly with the quiet moments required for something like this to have the emotional weight it does.

With killer music and animation, vocal performances, a fantastic script, and still maintain the unique vibes “Scott Pilgrim” has always had, the series would be an easy recommendation already even if it didn’t go beyond all of that thanks to O’Malley’s own self-reflections. He created a series about a 23-year-old guy meeting and fighting (literally) for the perfect girl of his dreams when he himself was just 25. So of course, going back to these characters and story now in his 40s, there would be plenty of changes and reflections made.

What results from this is a more open, honest, emotional, and endearing adventure. These are no longer characters who could be seen as stand-ins for other archetypes or idealized versions of what someone might want. They’ve become real people simply by the act of growing and changing.

END OF SPOILERS

“Scott Pilgrim Takes Off” is easily the best thing to come out of the series, possibly even eclipsing the original graphic novels themselves. It’s just as smart and funny as the series has ever been, maintaining the same excellent acting talent to bring its characters to life, as well as having new life breathed into it thanks to the talents of Science Saru and Góngora. Lead by what might very well be the best performance of Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s career, it’s an adaptation for the ages in numerous ways, and it’s not hard to see it remaining one of the best pieces of television, animation, or media of 2023. It really takes off. 5/5

Dream Scenario - Review: A Role Most Actors Can Only Dream Of

 

Is there any modern actor with a career as fascinating as Nicholas Cage’s (“National Treasure,” “The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent”)? His works have spanned the overtly comedic to the dramatic to the horrific to the unintentionally comedic, and his latest role in “Dream Scenario” represents one of his most interesting to date. It helps that the film itself is a constantly fascinating, sometimes infuriating, work of modern science fiction realism. 

The film follows Cage as Paul Matthews, a college professor who one day suddenly begins appearing in the dreams of people all across the globe. Some of the dreams are simple, such as Paul walking through an otherwise more intense dream with no effect on the dreamers, but as he becomes more famous and the fame begins to influence him more, the dreams make dramatic turns; some sexual, some psychological, and some dark and violent. 

Cage is commanding throughout the film, and his performance is the entire focus of the film. It makes sense given the subject material, but he absolutely takes hold of the material and runs away with it, blending in feels of pity, anger, and melancholy for a performance that truly ends up being a highlight of his career. The rest of the cast, consisting of the likes of Julianne Nicholson (“August: Osage County,” “Mare of Easttown”), Michael Cera (“Superbad,” “Juno”), Tim Meadows (“Mean Girls (2004),” “The Goldbergs”), Dylan Baker (“Hunters,” “Murder One”), and Kate Berlant (“A League of Their Own (2022),” “Don’t Worry Darling”), is a collection of character actors playing things up against the eschewed straight man of Matthews to delightful effectiveness. 

Writer/director Kristoffer Borgli (“Sick of Myself”) keeps the existential dread and laughs flowing throughout the movie, balancing his high concept ideas with a thick layer of awkward comedy. It’s funneled through Cage’s pathetic portrayal of an everyman, but there’s also a lot of examinations on cancel culture and the generally fickle nature of the whims of the public and pop culture. It all works to an extent, not because it isn’t thought out, but because this is one of those movies that posits a lot of “what if” scenarios without ever giving any answers to any of them. 

Which does lead to an almost unfortunate side effect to the film: its concept is so fascinating that the fact that there isn’t a semblance of explanation is frustrating. No, a film does not need to explain its central concept, to spoon feed it to its audience, for it to be good. But the central idea here is so rich and fascinating that leaving it as unexplained as it is is maddening. Luckily, since the focus is entirely on Paul, it doesn’t sink the movie and it ends up being just a slight annoyance in the grand scheme of its overall ideas. There is also one particular moment that, while feeling just as purposefully uncomfortable as the rest of the film, feels also remarkably out of character for Paul and out of step with the rest of the film itself. It's just an uncomfortable and borderline gross moment that takes you out of the film. 

On the technical side, the film has a lovely chunky layer of film grain that overlays everything. This grain, coupled with the other splotchy and muted colors that come with Super 16m photography, helps to craft a sense of claustrophoby within Benjamin Loeb’s (“After Yang,” “Mandy”) cinematography. The odd musical score from Owen Pallett (“On the Count of Three,” “Alice, Darling”) further contributes to this feeling, and everything as a whole has a very odd, yet still extremely realistic vibe that feels quite unique. 

“Dream Scenario” is exactly that for any kind of actor. Cage gets to run away with a film based entirely around a morally dubious person put in an extraordinary circumstance that runs away with the world. It maintains a thick layer of awkward humor and irony throughout, bolstered by some fantastic technical elements, but does get a bit dogged down in a handful of narrative elements and, ironically, the genuine fascination of its central premise. I suppose, as the saying goes, you do always want to leave them wanting more. 4/5

The Killer - Review: Precise, Almost To A Fault

 

There’s something to be said for being extremely good at one specific thing. Some people make really good, complicated cuisine, but struggle with scrambled eggs. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, but rather just a fact of life. Despite some detours into character dramas and decades spanning romances, David Fincher (“Zodiac,” “The Social Network”) has always excelled at showing violent acts and violent people in starkly beautiful ways. He’s done it numerous times before, and now he’s doing it again with an adaptation of the graphic novel of the same name in “The Killer.”

Directed by Fincher and written by Andrew Kevin Walker (“8mm,” “Sleepy Hollow”), the film follows an unnamed contract killer, played by Michael Fassbender (“Steve Jobs,” “X-Men: First Class”), as he sets out to enact revenge on a list of individuals after a hit gone wrong. 

Yes, that’s all there really is to the film on a plot level, but getting inside the mind of someone like The Killer is Fincher’s specialty. There’s just something about the way he shoots violence that makes it feel so blasé, so routine. It works and the entire first fifteen minutes do a fantastic job at getting us in the head of someone who treats this stuff as simply as going to the gym or picking up milk and eggs.

Which is also why it’s so much fun to see him get thrown for a loop. Arguably the next best thing to watching someone who’s nearly perfect at a job is watching someone when they cease to be perfect at said job. It becomes a rollercoaster ride almost, and one where you and the protagonist are equally as thrown. Fassbender’s performance is phenomenal, getting into the mind of someone like this without making him seem cool or idyllic. He’s, as Fassbender and Fincher show us so well, just someone who’s really good at one particular thing.

The rest of the cast, made up of Tilda Swinton (“Vanilla Sky,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel”), Charles Parnell (“Top Gun: Maverick,” “The Last Ship”), Arliss Howard (“Full Metal Jacket,” “Mank”), Kerry O’Malley (“Brotherhood,” “Why Women Kill”) and more, do well in slotting into the world of this tale. It’s hard at any moment to tell if the versions of them we see are entirely truthful or instead the versions of them that The Killer sees, but that seems to be part of the point. This is a world based in reality but also seen through the eyes of someone cold and calculating and exceptionally harsh in his viewpoints.

A musical score from frequent Fincher collaborators Trent Reznor (“Soul,” “The Social Network”) and Atticus Ross (“Soul,” “The Social Network”) sets the electronic and robotic tone perfectly, and the camerawork from Erik Messerschmidt (“Mank,” “Mindhunter”) is smooth and graceful, almost too much, yet again matching the film’s vibe. In fact, it might actually be one too many perfectly calculating acts of perfection for this film’s sake.

It seems like a weird complaint to make, but “The Killer” is almost too perfect. There’s very little to criticize here, but very little that jumps out either. Fincher’s craft here is top notch. In anyone else’s hands, it would’ve been a far different, and likely worse, piece of work. But given his career is dotted with so many phenomenal dark genre pieces, it says a lot that as good as the film is, it still has an air of simple acceptability to it. It’s very very good, but yet also lacks anything that makes it stand out.

Truly it is ironic that a film about a contract killer, someone who’s entire job depends on fading into the background, would end up being just a tad bit too safe. This is Fincher operating in the genre he knows best, but you can’t help but also feel like he’s on autopilot a bit because of that. Which is fine, because the end product is still a ton of fun, with Fassbender turning in a great performance surrounded by a talented supporting cast. But despite the nearly flawless execution, there’s still the longing sense that the film is missing something. Just by a bit. 4/5

The Marvels (2023) - Review: Three is a Magic Number

 

As the 33rd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and the tenth film released since 2021, you’d be forgiven if “The Marvels” simply passed you by. Given the state of the MCU and cinema in general in 2023, it says a lot that a sequel to a film that made over a billion dollars will possibly not even make a quarter of that. Which is a shame, because for as much doom and gloom is surrounding the MCU at large, “The Marvels” still manages to be a breezy and fun adventure, even if that might not be enough to get butts in seats anymore.

Set over two-decades after the events of “Captain Marvel,” as well as taking place shortly after the events of “WandaVision” and “Miss Marvel,” the film follows Carol Danvers aka Captain Marvel, played again by Brie Larson (“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” “Short Term 12”), as she teams up with the daughter of her best friend Maria, Monica Rambeau, played by Teyonah Parris (“If Beale Street Could Talk,” “Candyman (2021)”), and the young heroine Kamal Khan, played by Iman Vellani (“Ms. Marvel”), to stop a galaxy ending threat in the form of Dar-Benn, played by Zawe Ashton (“Velvet Buzzsaw,” “Mr. Malcom’s List”), all while trying to balance their own entangled powers that cause the trio to swap places when they’re used.

Clocking in at just over an hour and forty minutes, this is the shortest film in the series in over a decade, and that length helps to contribute to the film’s best and worst aspects. When its going, with characters quipping and the pace breezy and light, it’s a fun carefree time. Larson, Parris, and Vellani’s chemistry and teamwork are the best part of the film, and the numerous scenes with the three of them, whether it’s fighting bad guys or just hanging out and learning about each other, are a joy.

It feels like a kind of throwback to the action/superhero movies we saw in the 90s: the bad guy is bad, the good guys are good, it’s silly but sincere, and we’re in and out in under two hours. Sure, it might leave those looking for the “next epic chapter” in this saga wanting, but not every film needs to inform on the next epic step in a 33+ part saga.

Which would be fine if the film also didn’t seem sliced to pieces by executives to shoehorn those kinds of revelations in. The film’s post-credits scene and numerous teases throughout reek of studio meddling, as does the editing. In the moment-to-moment action, it’s fine. But so many moments feel as though an entire scene was sliced out in favor of making it shorter. It leads to a breakneck pace that can get exhausting, even when it is working well most of the time.

Comedically is where the film shines, with Larson nailing a fine line between Danvers’s desire to be a leader and hero while also being a dork. Vellani is the absolute saving grace of the film, with the best comedic timing and energy. She has the kind of charisma and natural feeling for this character the franchise hasn’t seen since Robert Downey Jr. or Chris Evans. Parris is also great, playing the closest thing this trio has to a straight man, and when the three are working together, everything just works.

Samuel L. Jackson (“Django Unchained,” “Do the Right Thing”) reprises his role as the eponymous Nick Fury as well, and he steals the show, now playing the leader of SWORD as an exasperated man just waiting for retirement from all the weird shit going on. Kamala’s family, her mother Muneeba, her father Yusuf, and her brother Aamir, played by Zenobia Shroff (“When Harry Tries to Marry,” “The Big Sick”), Mohan Kapur (“Beqabu,” “Sadak 2”), and Saagar Shaikh, respectively, all bring a warmth and heart to the film as well, shining through Vellani’s energy and joy.

For as joyous and fun as the film can be, it all comes back to that pacing and the script. Written by Megan McDonnell (“WandaVision”), Elissa Karasik (“Loki,” “WeCrashed”), and co-written and directed by Nia DaCosta (“Candyman (2021),” “Little Woods”), it’s hard not to feel like the film is the product of fans getting to play with characters they love. The inner-scene dialogue is fun and flighty, but the overall plot has a routine feeling to it. It could be described as welcomely simple, but that also means there isn’t any nuance to it. It’s a “good versus evil” story, not much more to say than that.

There’s a very fun film at the center of “The Marvels,” and that’s because that center is made up of three actors with excellent chemistry and a lot of heart. The film surrounding them can be a lot of fun, when the pacing isn’t bizarrely mismatched, and the plot isn’t woefully undercooked. It might seem like damning with faint praise for a film 33 movies into a series, but if you’re looking for a fun movie that’ll make you smile, you could do a lot worse. 3.5/5

Rustin - Review: An Uneven and Long Overdue Tribute

 

It’s not an awards season without a flood of biopics made to mostly showcase one terrific lead performance, and this year is no different. Netflix in particular loves to do this and today our subject is “Rustin,” a biopic focusing on the life of Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr.’s right hand man and the man responsible for spearheading the march on Washington in 1963, despite facing opposition from other civil rights leaders due to his status as an openly gay man. 

Directed by George C. Wolfe (“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” “Nights in Rodanthe”) from a script by Dustin Lance Black (“Milk,” “Under the Banner of Heaven”) and Julian Breeze (“When They See Us”), starring Colman Domingo (“Zola,” “Fear the Walking Dead”) as Rustin himself, there’s a very distinct vim and vigor to the film as it goes on. While it might be a bit cliche to say, the fact that this is a film about a prominent gay man, written by, directed by, and starring a gay man just gives it all a very different vibe from other similar works. 

The rest of the ensemble cast, starring the likes of Chris Rock (“Top Five,” “Madagascar”), Jeffrey Wright (“The French Dispatch,” “The Batman”), Michael Potts (“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom,” “The First Lady”), Da'Vine Joy Randolph (“The Holdovers,” “Dolemite is My Name”), and CCH Pounder (“The Shield,” “NCIS: New Orleans”), amongst many more, and while they all do a good job, they never manage to rise to the level of Domingo’s performance. It isn’t really anyone’s fault, just the nature of this kind of biopic. When Rock shows up as Roy Wilkins for about five minutes total, he has gravitas and respect, but he also isn’t transformative. The same goes for the rest of the cast, feeling like celebrities doing good work, but never rising above being brief vignettes in Rustin’s story. 

Domingo truly does carry the film though. He has the dramatic gravitas to lift the entire movie onto his shoulders and run it across a football field. There’s such tender emotion and care put into his portrayal of Rustin’s story that it's almost impossible not to get invested because of it. Quite simply, it's a performance far better than any other individual aspect of the film. 

Unfortunately, the rest of the movie ends up falling prey to other typical factors of productions like this. The cinematography is serviceable but overall bland. The musical score, while full of loud horns and beats, is just somewhat forgettable. The production design is period accurate and impressive but lacks any staying power. For as significant and impactful as this story and person is, the surrounding production has the vibes of a made-for-television History Channel movie. 

Make no mistake, despite these elements, the tale is still as dramatic and emotional as it deserves to be. It's the sort of byproduct of a film like this: when you get this many talented people in a room together, even if not everyone is working on the same level or the sets seem a bit flat and hokey, you still have a group of talented people delivered good dialogue in a powerful way, which makes for a film that, on a basic level, is still enjoyable to watch. 

“Rustin” the film is unfortunately not as revolutionary as Rustin the person, but that doesn’t mean the film itself is poor by any means. Rather, it still features an ensemble working well with a great script and a phenomenal lead performance which alone makes the film worth watching. The packaging could be better, but the man at the center is still a wonder to watch. 3.5/5