Smallfoot - Review

 

Warner Animation Group’s latest CGI family feature is here, arriving amongst a storm of memes featuring Zendaya and a much-maligned advertising campaign. With a star-studded cast and animation veteran Karey Kirkpatrick (“Madagascar”, “James and the Giant Peach”) directing, does “Smallfoot” make a big splash?

W.A.G.’s fifth animated film continues its streak of creating gorgeously animated worlds to play in. While mostly restricted to mountains and snow, “Smallfoot” is nevertheless break taking to behold. Sweeping vistas grant a sense of scale only comparable to W.A.G.’s previous film “Storks” and the intricacies of the Yeti civilization are detailed and creative.

These creative and beautiful environments help to set the scene for the film’s numerous musical sequences. That’s right, while the trailer may have avoided this fact, “Smallfoot” is a musical. Not a full-on songfest like “Moana” or “Beauty and the Beast,” it has closer to five or six songs, rounding out the world nicely with catchy pop beats that are well crafted and infectious.

That is, except for one song, and that song, the only one sung by humans, shares a lot in common with the film’s biggest problem. While Migo, voiced with goofy charm by Channing Tatum (“21 Jump Street,” “Magic Mike”), and his cast of celebrity voiced abominable friends are all entertaining, featuring Zendaya (“Spider-Man Homecoming,” “euphoria”), Common (“Selma,” “John Wick: Chapter 2”), Lebron James, Gina Rodriguez (“Jane the Virgin,” “Deepwater Horizon”), and a stand-out Danny DeVito (“The Lorax,” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”). However, the same cannot be said for the movie’s human characters.

It’s easy to see a version of this film that’s about 20-30 minutes shorter with the human subplot completely cut out. It would undoubtedly be an improvement, as that subplot is the film’s biggest flaw. The main humans, Percy, voiced by James Cordon (“Ocean’s 8,” “The Emoji Movie”) and Brenda, voiced by Yara Shahidi (“Black-ish,” “Imagine That”), just fall flat and fail to be nearly as interesting or creative as the Yetis and their plot. It’s just boring compared to the Yeti’s tale, dealing with television ratings and viral hits. It seems completely at odds with the film its in and serves to extend the runtime.

This, in turn, drags down a story that is otherwise surprisingly deep. At its core, “Smallfoot” is a film about questioning your beliefs, even if its scary. Karey and his team pulls this off, not only with grace but with menace. There are some hard questions the film asks and even delving into topics like blissful ignorance and breaking societies pre-established rules. Most notably though, the movie doesn’t encourage completely throwing those themes out.

Funnily enough, it can best be compared to “Sausage Party” in that regard, as both films tackled the ideas of questioning beliefs instead of blindly following the tradition, without completely disrespecting those old ideals. It’s nothing life-changing, but its surprisingly smart and shows effort.

“Smallfoot” can easily be summed up in such a way. Nothing about the film is exceptional, and it may have one glaring flaw in its human subplot, but it’s still well intentioned. Mixing interesting subject material with gorgeous animation, catchy songs and a celebrity voice cast that pulls their weight, “Smallfoot” isn’t amazing. But it is nice and cool. 3/5

Night School (2018) - Review

“Night School” is a film about someone who covers up their less than favorable past in order to put the focus on their more successful present, before being exposed to the world. Funny then that, while the film is being marketed as the follow up from Malcolm D. Lee, the director of “Girl’s Trip,” a very well-made comedy, the director’s previous films, duds like “Undercover Brother,” “Soul Men” and “Welcome Home, Roscoe Jenkins” are much closer to “Night School” than it is to “Girl’s Trip.”

The film follows a high school dropout played by Kevin Hart (“Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” “Ride Along”) coming back to get his GED to get a fancy new job to impress his out of his league fiancé. Despite a robust ensemble cast consisting of Rob Riggle (“Talladega Nights,” “The Hangover”), Keith David (“The Thing,” “The Nice Guys”), Ben Schwartz (“Parks and Recreation,” “House of Lies”), and Taran Killam (“Killing Gunther,” “Brother Nature”), no one manages to stand out even remotely. Tiffany Haddish (“Keanu,” “The Carmichael Show”) is the most memorable, but that’s mainly due to her getting the most screen time.

Some of the film’s concepts even manage to be pretty genius, in theory. Killam plays a former nerd who’s become antagonistic as a principal in his quest to educate, and most of that class of GED seekers seem amusing, but most are reduced to idiotic stereotypes out of the gate.

However, despite being stereotypes, the film spends an extended introductory scene trying to give them all backstories and developments. Nothing matters as the film progresses though, as none of the grow by the end. One of the characters, a young teen named Mila, is given more backstory in a more understandable way on the film’s Wikipedia page.

This lack of any stand out characters is surprising given the film’s six credited writers. Even with that many cook’s in the kitchen, “Night School” ends up being indistinguishable from other comedian led comedies that release over the years. This doesn’t mean the film is bad. It just means its bland.

Nothing in the film stands out. The plot is routine, the characters are standard, even the arcs of the background characters are bland. Most of this could be forgiven if the film was funny. But virtually none of the jokes land, getting only a chuckle here and there and nothing more.

Most bizarrely though, there are minor elements within the film that speak to the best of intentions. Hart’s character has learning disabilities, including dyslexia, dyscalculia and a processing disorder, and while he often is, they’re never the butt of the joke. His classmates and teacher then help him to learn in the way that best suits him.

Not only that, but the film’s last twenty minutes are a large jump in quality, moving away from trying to be a flat comedy and towards the territory of a cheesy underdog story. These last twenty minutes are easily better than the 100 minutes that come prior. This and the fact that Haddish’s character is a lesbian, feel like sweet and well-intentioned additions that end up doing very little to improve the actual quality of the film.

“Night School” is boring and bland, but nothing about it is objectively bad. It’s merely routine and unfunny. A few decent minor details and a sweet third act help a bit, but in the end Hart and Haddish are left stranded in a film that’s as cookie cutter and uninteresting as they come. It’s not a flunk. It’s just painfully average. 2/5

The House with a Clock In It's Walls - Review

 

Quite a few famous directors have made their way into more family friendly fare after making a name for themselves in more mature genres. Danny Boyle, Sam Raimi, Martin Scorsese, and Robert Rodriguez all starting in the hard R department before venturing into kiddy fare. Now horror director Eli Roth (“Knock Knock,” “Hostel”) has followed in their footsteps with “The House with A Clock in Its Walls”.

Roth’s horror roots show throughout the film, thanks to strong art direction and cinematograph throughout. Orange light and dark atmospheric touches abound in every scene, and the musical score from composer Nathan Barr (“Hostel,” “Hemlock Grove”) is effectively creepy and sinister exactly when it needs to be.

Everything about the film is solid production wise, creating a wonderful sense of nostalgic atmosphere, like that of films like “E.T.” or “Super 8”. It evokes the kind of feeling associated with walking into an old library. Roth and his crew have built a house and established a feeling of history and wonder.

All of these production achievements are great, but they mean nothing if the film they’re backing up isn’t solid in the other departments. The rest of the film is mostly good. Its biggest issue is the first act, wherein the film’s tone lands squarely in the goofy, family friendly arena that previous Jack Black vehicles like “Gulliver’s Travels” and “Goosebumps” have occupied. It’s fine enough, and it doesn’t ruin the film, but it manages to be the least interesting part of the story.

However, once things pick up in the last two-thirds of things, they really pick up! This is also the part of the film where Roth’s horror sensibilities are able to come out and play, as the film manages to successfully distance itself from the faux creep family genre, and travels into the realm of legitimate scares.

Demons, blood rituals, instruments made of bone, satanic symbols and more pepper throughout the rest of the film, adding tension and creating a legitimately creepy tone that helps the film stand out and capitalize on its source material. Some moments even cross into the realm of downright geniusly unsettling, like a certain camouflaged reveal sequence.

Jack Black (“School of Rock,” “Kung Fu Panda”) gleefully prances around the scenery, finally being allowed to rely on his comedic timing only, without having writers who fall back on his portly stereotype. He’s electric and his smile and cockeyed charm help sell his character’s persona.

Owen Vaccaro (“Daddy’s Home,” “Mother’s Day”) is just fine as the young Lewis, nephew of Black’s Jonathan. He’s the typical child actor, who’s weaknesses show during the more emotional scenes, but manages to be solid and reliable throughout. Cate Blanchett (“Elizabeth,” “The Aviator”) steals the show, providing the most push behind her badass witch Florence. It helps that she’s given the most emotional heft to work with, and she knock it out of the house.

The supporting cast is fine as well. Vanessa Anne Williams is poorly underutilized as Lewis’s bug loving friend Rose, Sunny Suljic (“The Killing of a Sacred Deer,” “mid90s”) delivers an easily hate-able greaser bully as Tarby, and the evil duo of Izard and Selena are played to devilish perfection by Kyle MacLachlan (“Twin Peaks,” “Dune (1984)”) and Renée Elise Goldsberry (“One Life to Live,” “Rent (2008)”), respectively.

The film’s best aspect is not only its tone, but its themes. Its focus on family and platonic friendship over romances, the importance of knowledge, the ability to see things from new and different perspectives and the focus on unconventional family all land right in the sweet spot of kind messaging, without ever being shoved down audience’s throats.

“House with a Clock” proves that not only can director Eli Roth successfully transition from horror to family film territory, but also help bridge the gap between the two genres in a satisfying way. It may have a weak first act that struggles with its tone, but once things get moving, everything is nailed down to a deliciously creepy degree. It isn’t perfect, but it’s just as unsettling and fantastical as it needs to be. 3.5/5

White Boy Rick - Review

 

Somber and coated in shades of white and brown, “White Boy Rick” is the latest in the based on a true story genre to cover the life of a drug kingpin. The angle of this story however, is the fact that Rick was sentenced to life in prison after running a cocaine ring in Detroit in excess of eight kilograms, at the age of just seventeen. It’s a story ripe for film, and it mostly succeeds.

Color is used extremely well throughout the film, be it deep blacks or muddy browns. There always seems to be a contrast happening on screen, which in turn helps to strengthen the film’s overall aesthetic, but also works as an allegory to Rick’s life. He’s a white man dealing drugs in Detroit in the 80’s. he’s the only white man doing so in his neighborhood, and he knows that this sets him apart. As one of the characters tells him early on, “If we get sent down, we’re doing black time. If you do, you’re doing white time.”

This dynamic is examined throughout the film, with Rick’s friends, business partners, and love interests all being used to play with the idea of privilege and power in crime. It doesn’t always communicate its points smoothly, but the attempt is worth acknowledging and appreciating.

Matthew McConaughey (“The Wolf of Wall Street,” “Magic Mike”) continues to show off his southern draw and excellent acting, with virtually the entire cast performing their roles excellently. No one is more noteworthy than Richie Merritt, as the young man completely steals the show in his first ever film role as Rick. He manages to hold his own and then some against the film’s heavy hitters, and succeeds in bringing warmth and humor to the young kingpin.

For most of the film, though, these actors are given a script that tries its best. It isn’t bad, and there are quite a few times where lines and metaphors are reused to great effect. But some of the dialogue and scenes showing Rick and his friends as they grow up feel weightless.

It’s a shame because in the third act, the filmmakers manage to build a wonderful sense of tension, with the pacing and script coming together flawlessly. It’s a shame it couldn’t have happened earlier in the film.

On that note, the film’s pacing is also affected negatively for most of the film, as it drags a majority of the film. It doesn’t make it unwatchable or even bad, but it does turn a two-hour film into one that feels closer to two-and-a-half-hours.

The ending leaves the most to be desired. It’s impossible to tell what exactly the filmmakers wanted it to achieve. It isn’t bad, but its merely confusing, ending on a somber note before seemingly trying to cheer the audience up with end credits “where are they now” styled details.

In the end, “White Boy Rick” is a flawed film that is, at the very least, engaging. It’s wonky pacing and uneven script are carried through to the end thanks to powerful performances from the entire cast. Richie Merritt especially proves that he is one to watch in the future, and he is the reason “White Boy Rick” remains a good time. 3.5/5

The Predator - Review

 

In 1987, audiences were wowed by the original “Predator” film. Not because it was anything truly groundbreaking, more so because it seemed like something could actually kill Schwarzenegger. Now, the original film is remembered fondly as a big, brash, and gory action blockbuster. But as the years went on and Predators kept returning to the cinema, the quality of their escapades began to drop. Now Shane Black’s (“The Nice Guys,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”) “The Predator” is here to, hopefully, show these killers can still…kill.

“The Predator” starts and the blood flows almost immediately. While its protagonist Quinn McKenna is routine and cookie cutter, he’s performed well by Boyd Holbrook (“Narcos,” “Logan”), with a southern charm and steel eyed gaze that’s enjoyable to watch. The same goes for the rest of his crew of mentally unstable soldiers, with particular credit to Trevante Rhodes (“Moonlight,” “If Loving You Is Wrong”) who manages to out charm and outshine Boyd in every scene they’re in.

The same cannot be said for the film’s females. Olivia Munn (“The Newsroom,” “X-Men: Apocalypse”) fairs the best, as she manages to be the closest thing the film has to a character who experiences growth and change. McKenna’s ex-wife, played by Yvonne Strahovski (“Chuck,” “The Handmaid's Tale”), gets the short end of the stick in both screen time and development.

Sterling K. Brown’s (“This is Us,” “The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story”) antagonistic Will Traeger is easily the film’s goofiest character. Brown carries the character with a self-important cheesiness that makes him the movie’s most entertaining piece. Jacob Trembley however, fresh off his acclaimed performances in “Room” and “Wonder”, fairs worse than anyone else in the film. His character is boiled down to a pre-teen deus-ex machina, utilized to translate alien tech thanks to his autism and as bait in the hunts, and whine the rest of the time.

Trembley’s poor characterization also speaks to the film’s general laziness. Need a kid who’s super smart? Easy, give them autism. Need a crew of soldiers? Easy, make them the rag tag bunch. The only clever spin “The Predator” tries to put on its tired clichés is that, instead of smoking, the human villain chews Nicorette gum. An amusing detail, nonetheless.

Every good intention the film has seems misplaced though. It mistakes the hardened fighting spirit in the first film for a douchey frat boy sense of humor here. It doesn’t mean that none of the jokes land, but for the most part the only thing they induce is eye rolling. By the time the movie passes into its second half though, everything seems to get better.

The humor becomes smarter, the action is more satisfying, and the overall pacing improves drastically. It becomes the kind of mindless action movie it clearly wants to be. And while its debatable if the entire product is a “Predator” movie, since it mainly favors big loud action over sneaking stealth moments, it nonetheless becomes enjoyable in its second half.

It still suffers from a general addiction to cheese and the ending is just awful, but at least it becomes bearable. What doesn’t improve though, is the editing. In fact, it only gets worse as the film progresses, as do the visual effects. What starts as a decently edited film with cool practical effects becomes a CGI mess with green screen seams popping up everywhere. It’s also very clear in the second half that the film generally suffers from a lot of studio meddling, as most of the editing mistakes seem amateurish at best.

“The Predator” isn’t the best the series has to offer, nor is it the worst. It’s first half is more visually engaging than the seconds, but the second half has superior writing, action, and humor. It becomes a film that is, ultimately, despite its cheese and adherence to the worst of the 80’s clichés. As McKenna himself says, “Nobody’s gonna remember them when the day is over.” As passable as it may be, the same can probably be said for this movie. 2.5/5

Peppermint - Review

 

If your film contains cursing, blood, explosions, gunfights, screaming, and all about every ten minutes, then it says a lot that it still manages to be so boring and monotonous that it could put audiences to sleep. That’s the reality for “Peppermint”, a new revenge thriller with all the style and substance of a sticky, lint covered candy.

Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30,” “Daredevil”) growls her way through most of the scenes as Riley North, a mother whose husband and daughter were killed in a drive-by shooting on the night of her daughter’s birthday. The reasoning behind the shooting is quickly and unconvincingly coughed up by a few side characters, and quickly forgotten. Plain and simple, Garner is an actor whose talents are completely wasted on a borderline one-dimensional revenge seeking mother.

After all, why put any obstacles in the way of Garner kicking ass? Her badassery may be cool to watch at first, but eventually the film’s shoddy editing style and overuse of slow motion become too grating to ignore. Every scene transition seems to feature a weird blur effect and if its meant to be a representation on Riley’s deteriorating psyche, then it doesn’t work, since it feels like the editors simply used it whenever they felt like it.

However, her character is so cliched and thin that any semblance of depth that an editing trick like that could provide quickly evaporates. The first scene in the film where she isn’t kicking ass involves a stuck-up suburban mom yelling at her about moving in on her daughter’s cookie selling territory. No less than twenty minutes later, she’s become a completely changed person, with no reasoning given.

Yes, her family was killed, and the men got away with it, and yes this is a revenge fantasy film, but that doesn’t explain how she goes from Los Angeles to Hong Kong, kick boxing and stealing drug product from the Cartel along the way, only to end up smuggling herself back into the U.S. on time. It’s bizarrely convoluted and is mentioned once and then never again.

The supporting cast doesn’t fare much better, in performances or characterizations. Everyone is a poorly written, cliched character with no hope of depth. Annie Ilonzeh (“All Eyez on Me,” “Til Death Do Us Part”) and John Gallagher Jr. (“The Newsroom,” “10 Cloverfield Lane”) try to hold it together as an FBI agent and local detective, respectively, but both are as cliched as possible. The only bright spot comes from John Ortiz (“Fast & Furious,” “Jack Goes Boating”) as the elder cop Moises, but that’s less to do with the quality of his characterization, and more to do with the fact that he seems to be the only person in the movie who isn’t angry all the time.

Everything apart from the writing and acting isn’t necessarily bad, it’s just overly familiar. Every set, every gunfight, every explosion brings to mind other films that have done it better. At best it’s makes the film simply forgettable or bland. At worst, it harms the film’s sense of space and structure, by setting it in a series of corridors and warehouses instead of memorable locations.

Cliched is the perfect way to describe “Peppermint” but it doesn’t just go as far as the characters. Every story-beat and detail feels rehashed and reused. Every cop constantly drinks coffee with alcohol in it, the grizzled cops are the young reckless one and the aged wise one. The FBI eventually becomes involved, the public thinks she’s a vigilante, every bad guy is from the Mexican cartel and the two major cartel locations are painfully racist: a piñata warehouse and a drug warehouse filled with statues of Mary, mother of Jesus.

A handful of moments are amusing at best: at one point in the movie, Carly, Riley’s daughter, tells her mother that she should’ve punched the uptight suburban mother. That line is called back to quite effectively later on, and the scene afterwards is probably the best in the film. It allows Riley to slow down and for a moment, we see her pain and anguish. She feels like, even just for a moment, a real person. Less than five minutes later, though, she’s back to her old, boring self.

More disturbing than the film’s disregard for Garner’s acting talents is the blatant emotional manipulation it employs for most of the film, especially during the drive-by. The musical cues and flashbacks are utilized in such a razor-sharp way, it feels like the filmmakers didn’t stop until they chemically produced a product more emotionally manipulative than the SPCA’s “In the Arms of an Angel” ad campaign.

It’s the overall lack of sincerity that leads to this film failing to be any form of entertaining. Films like “John Wick” succeed because, for all the gore and badassery within, they aren’t afraid to show their characters affected by their actions. “Peppermint” robs audiences of what could have been a wonderful performance from Garner by failing to provide her with a character who is anything more than a caricature: a figure, not a person, crafted to elect an emotional response and then be immediately forgotten about.

“Peppermint” could at best be described as a throwback to the pulpy grindhouse revenge films of the seventies, but even by that measure it still wouldn’t be any good. Bland action and cinematography combined with flat performances across the board leave “Peppermint” at the mercy of its poor characterizations and bad writing. Needless to save, that doesn’t save it. One could describe it as a “turn off your brain” movie, but even then, it just ends up being boring. “Peppermint” isn’t sweet like its namesake; its more comparable to a different small round edible object: Ambien. Because all this vengeful mother is going to do is put her audience to sleep. 1/5

The Happytime Murders - Review

 

Pushing the envelope is nothing new. It’s almost become an ironic thing for a film to do, since its not really all that groundbreaking to push it anymore. It isn’t groundbreaking to try to be groundbreaking. Therefore, when an idea comes along that seems genius, it requires a certain finesse to get it to a place of quality. “The Happytime Murders” does not have that finesse.

It doesn’t really have much of anything in fact. However, it does have some impressive technical aspects. In a world where puppets and humans coexist, some of the advanced puppeteering methods used by Henson Alternative are downright genius. Greenscreen, multi person rigs, special sets, and even hydraulic pumps help bring this extremely technical world to life. It’s clear the crew and director Brian Henson (“Muppet Treasure Island”, “A Muppet Christmas Carol”) are proud of this new tech, as shown via an end credits montage of behind-the-scenes footage.

This advanced technical prowess also helps bring the film’s action scenes to life in a wondrous fashion. While not all of them are great, some are just downright lazy, most employ the same level of expertise that the rest of the film does. They’re by far the coolest sequences in the film, especially when they use the puppets directly in the fights.

It helps bring believability to the scenes, adding a layer to the film as a whole. Also helping a great deal is the wonderful performance from Bill Barretta (“Muppets from Space,” “The Muppets (2011)”), the voice and puppeteer behind Phil Phillips, the movie’s main character. He does a good job, by far the best in the entire film.

Melissa McCarthy (“Bridesmaids,” “Spy”) and Maya Rudolph (“Bridesmaids,” “Sisters”) are just fine. Neither are particularly bad but neither do anything to make their performances memorable. The rest of the supporting cast; Joel McHale (“Community,” “The Informant!”), Leslie David Baker (“The Office,” “Puppy Dog Pals”), and Elizabeth Banks (“Wet Hot American Summer,” “Pitch Perfect”), just appear, say some lines and disappear. They add virtually nothing to the film.

As bland as most of the acting is, it’s the writing that truly kills most of the film. Half the time the puppet characters are spouting lines about prejudices and how humans view puppets as singing and dancing slaves. Meanwhile there are subplots about Phil’s disgraced cop career, his relationship with a human and his soured partnership with McCarthy’s Detective Connie.

None are pulled off well at all and a few simply disappear when they cease to be relevant to the story. The puppet minority allegory is mentioned a few times in the first thirty minutes, but then is dropped. Worse still, it’s never integrated into the story in any way. There are brief mentions of Phil resisting the urge to sing and entertain, instead wanting to have a real job. But this idea is never expanded upon like it seems like it should.

This isn’t just a case of potential being wasted though. Audiences are clearly meant to pay attention to these moments thanks to editing and filmmaking techniques that makes them think they are. It almost feels like they’ve been cheated when these moments amount to almost nothing.

Worse still is the fact that there is some legitimate gold in here. A few of the bits of satire are funny, and some of the grislier scenes of murder and violence could be more entertaining in a better film. But “Happytime” feels like a film that could be so much more, if it wasn’t forced to be an R-rated crude comedy.

Oddly enough, the best parts of the film are in the third act, when a lot of the more obvious and overtly crude humor takes a back seat. If all that had been taken out and Henson had just delivered a PG-13 puppet buddy cop film, then it definitely would’ve improved the film. As it stands, the film’s crude nature serves merely as a distraction from the rest of its elements.

A distraction is warranted though, as the film’s writing is so bad it’s painful. Not the dialogue per se, but more that the film’s internal logic is screwy. So many moments happen apropos of nothing, just popping up because they have to. But because none of it makes any sense, it becomes painful to sit through, making even the mediocre elements feel even worse.

Some technical expertise and a good puppeteering performance can’t save a film down trodden with poor writing, humor and a severe lack of internal logic. There’s a germ of a good idea here, and if someone was to try this again, with either a PG-13 or a far cruder R-rating, maybe “Happytime Murders” could work. As it stands, it’s just a film that can’t commit to any one plot point, subtext, or comedic tone. It avoids being unwatchable or completely awful. It’s just all fluff and no substance. 1.5/5

Crazy Rich Asians - Review

Routine, downtrodden, played out, exaggerated. These words and many more could describe the romantic comedy genre, a type of film so outplayed that there have been films about being haunted by dead exes, couples rekindling love while searching for buried treasure, witches using spells to make others fall in love, and even convincing the family of a man in a coma that you’re his girlfriend.

However, in recent years the genre has seen new life breathed into it thanks to smaller stories told from new points of view (“The Big Sick,” “Love, Simon”). “Crazy Rich Asians” is definitely a new point of view, but its anything but small.

From frame one, “Crazy Rich Asians” flows from scene to scene with delicate and impactful camera movements. Each moment is framed elegantly, and it feels like the first film in a long time that could be viewed and enjoyed purely based on its sets and cinematography. Director Jon M. Chu (“Now You See Me 2,” “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”) and Cinematographer Vanja Cernjul (“30 Rock,” “Nurse Jackie”) work to make each location and moment pop with color and beauty, regardless of whether the scenes are short and filled with talking, or a grand overhead shot.

A delightfully upbeat score from Brian Tyler (“Iron Man 3,” “Now You See Me”) helps accentuate the moments of Nick Young and Rachel Chu. Young, played by Henry Golding, oozes charm from every pore of his body, and it’s a testament to the sharp script that he never feels condescending or mean. He’s just a charming, genuine guy who’s easy to like.

The supporting cast frequently steals the show, with Awkwafina (“Ocean’s 8,” “Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising”), Ronny Chieng (“Ronny Chieng: International Student”), Nick Santos (“Superstore”), and Ken Jeong (“Community,” “The Hangover”) constantly providing belly laughs and moments of clarity. Their down to earth nature help prevent the film from becoming a spectacle of excess. Gemma Chan (“Humans,” “Submarine”) is wonderful as Nick’s cousin Astrid, although her subplot could have been given more time to shine.

However, the two showstopping scene stealers are Constance Wu (“Fresh Off the Boat,” “EastSiders”) as Rachel and Michelle Yeoh (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” “Sunshine”) as Nick’s commanding mother Eleanor. Wu is an absolute delight, exuding intelligence and wit at every moment. On the contrary, Yeoh plays Eleanor with a calm demeanor that hides a fiery spirit. All it takes is a smirk and she shuts down conversations and disputes in a flash.

While it may be gorgeously shot and written with a sharp tongue and quick wit, thanks to screenwriters Peter Chiarelli (“The Proposal,” “Now You See Me 2”) and Adele Lim (“One Tree Hill,” “Las Vegas”), this is still a romantic comedy. It can’t break free of every cliché, and it does fall prey to many of the same beats that virtually every rom-com treads over.

Not that it’s boring or bad, quite the opposite. It uses those elements and has fun within the clichés without completely reinventing them. It helps that, again, it does all of this with a script that’s quick witted and could easily be compared to the best work of romantic comedy legend Nora Ephron.

Most of all though, underneath the family politics and the gorgeous excess, this is a film that it never afraid to have fun. It keeps a consistently exuberant energy throughout the entire runtime that simply invites its audience to smile. Half of the time it feels like its actors aren’t even acting, just all hanging out together, having a good time and making each other laugh, and this wonderful sense of fun is what really makes this film shine.

It also can’t be understated how much love fills “Crazy Rich Asians.” While that may seem like an obvious point, it is a romantic comedy after all, it feels so genuine. Love between friends, family, significant others, it all comes across so effortlessly. Instead of simply delivering a story of two people who seem to be together just because they can stand each other, Chu and his crew have created a story where people genuinely are in love, and its all the better for it.

“Crazy Rich Asians” is a ridiculously good time. It may not reinvent the genre, but it certainly has fun within the clichés and well-trodden story beats. It’s charming cast, witty script, and delightful sense of fun help deliver a romantic comedy that is just crazy fun. 4.5/5

Christopher Robin - Review

 

Winnie the Pooh is probably the most unlikely candidate to make a comeback in today’s age of excitement and genre pushing excess. He’s slow, witty and tends to meander about. Rarely does he do anything with expediency and most of his stories tend to have an element of sadness to them. The latest film featuring the bear of very little brain, “Christopher Robin”, is set to tell the story of what happens to the Hundred Acre Wood after its human caretaker grows up. Is the resulting story as sweet as honey or is it of very little brain as well?

Clocking in at just around an hour and forty-five minutes, “Christopher Robin” manages to hit the sweet spot in terms of storytelling and pacing. It meanders about slowly, allowing its story to take as much time as necessary to build its conflicts to satisfying emotional crescendos.

Not once does it overstay its welcome or feel too slow, thanks to excellent visuals and voice work from its entire cast, especially the legendary Jim Cummings (“Darkwing Duck,” “Goof Troop”). This man has been voicing Pooh and Tigger for over twenty years, and his performance as the eponymous bumbling bear is still wonderful.

It is taken a step further though, thanks to the intelligence of the script. Writers Alex Ross Perry (“Listen Up Phillip”) and Allison Schroeder (“Hidden Figures”) go to great lengths to make this the most mature film of the Pooh franchise. Material relating to the importance of family and growing up is introduced, but it’s done in such a wonderfully scatterbrained way that it keeps the feeling of routine out of the picture.

The writer and director Mark Forster (“Stranger Than Fiction,” “Finding Neverland”) isn't afraid to inject somberness into this adventure without warning. It leads to moments of genuine shock and emotion, which in turn allows the emotional payoffs to feel just as impactful.

Ewan McGregor (“Moulin Rouge,” “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”) is excellent as the elder version of Christopher, keeping a balanced childlike wonder and adult pessimism throughout the film. Haley Atwell (“Agent Carter,” “The Duchess”) is also great as his wife Evelyn, but the standout of the humans is young Bronte Carmichael as Robin’s daughter Madeline. She’s completely adorable and wonderfully charming, feeling right at home with the creatures of the Hundred Acre Wood.

Geoff Zanelli (“Disturbia,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales”) and Jon Brion (“Punch Drunk Love,” “Lady Bird”) manage to incorporate the classic Pooh themes into the music. Many characters have the melodies to their own songs playing underneath scenes involving them, and there’s a delightful piano whimsy to the entire affair.

Pooh and his gang of misfits all look great, with attention to detail in every facet. Tigger’s worn face resembles gray facial scruff, and the felt pads of Pooh’s hands are worn from years of play. It’s a gorgeous film in its simplicity, opting for quiet practical forest shots instead of busy computer-generated backgrounds.

Like previously stated, “Christopher Robin” does not overstay its welcome or have bad pacing. However, it does take a bit to really get going, and while its meandering nature is charming and lighthearted, it may seem slow and off putting to some.

Also, while the more mature and adult nature of many of the story elements is handled well, it results in a film that is fine for kids around the ages of 9 and upwards, but those younger may be scared or frightened of some plot elements that stray further than normal from the general family friendly nature of Pooh’s other outings.

“Christopher Robin” is an incredibly sweet and simple film. It knows exactly what it wants to say and how to get it across, without sacrificing intelligence, wit, or the maturity its story needs. Excellent vocal and physical performances balance out a meandering story that results in a film a lot like the silly old bear himself. Sweet, lovable, a bit slow, and endlessly charming. 4/5

Teen Titans GO! To The Movies - Review

 

For those unfamiliar with the show, “Teen Titans GO!” is a reboot of the original early 2000’s “Teen Titans” TV series. It abandoned the original’s serial-based plots and anime inspired style, for colorful flash animation art and quippy pop culture references and poop jokes. While the show has received generally mixed reception over its run, Warner Bros. Animation has decided to bring it to the big screen with “Teen Titans GO! To The Movies.” Can it be better than its source material?

Fans of the “GO!” reboot will be glad to hear that the show’s brand of fast paced jokes remains intact in this adaptation. However, even detractors will be glad to hear that the film’s sense of humor and storytelling is leagues ahead of what the show has to offer.

Jokes hit their mark far more often than in the show, leading to many amusing references and tongue in cheek jokes related to superheroes and the movies created around them. Both DC and Marvel are targets throughout the film, and some of the best jokes come from a true place of surprise.

This awareness of superhero abundance also helps the story succeed as well. The plot is based around the overabundance of superhero films, so much so that heroes without a film are considered inferior. This leads Robin to attempt to land himself a movie, and thus we have the basic plot.

It all works nicely together, jelling like a Saturday Morning Robot Chicken episode. There are indeed a few jokes that don’t land, and some that over stay their welcome. They’re easy to look past, though, due to the rapid-fire nature of other background and foreground gags happening, and the earnestness of the vocal performances, with Scott Menville (“Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue,” “The 7D”), Hynden Walch (“Adventure Time,” “ChalkZone”), Khary Payton (“Young Justice,” “The Walking Dead”), Tara Strong (“Batman: Arkham City,” “The Powerpuff Girls”), and Greg Cipes (“Ben 10,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012)”) all reprising their roles as Robin, Starfire, Cyborg, Raven, and Beast Boy, respectively.

Will Arnett (“Horrible Bosses,” “Arrested Development”) and Kristen Bell (“The Good Place,” “Veronica Mars”) provide great work, and there are a whole host of cameos that are wonderfully done, but the real stars are the Titans. The cast from both the original show and “GO!” reprise their roles and bring a cheerful earnestness that only seasoned voice actors can bring to a film this bizarre.

Halfway through the film, the plot seems to stop for an extended gag based around time-travel, and that gag is the best way to describe “To The Movies” as a whole. It puts the plot at a standstill to have some fun riffing in the DC universe. It isn’t Shakespeare, and isn’t going to deconstruct the way we view superhero films, but it is a bundle of fun, and that’s all it wants to be.

Surprisingly, there are also quite a few musical numbers that are pulled off well. The film also switches back and forth between different animation styles and techniques for different gags, even poking fun at a Disney classic about a third of the way through in what is probably the film’s best joke.

If you need 90 minutes of fun, look no further than “Teen Titans GO! To The Movies.” Fixing many of the problems the show had, the film is extremely funny with a well thought out plot. Nothing here is Oscar worthy, and there are definitely parts where it dips into the realm of grating, but the highs absolutely outweigh the lows to provide the most bizarre superhero film and studio film this side of Deadpool’s domain. 4/5