Missing Link - Review

 

With a studio like Laika, it's difficult to know where to set expectations. Sure, none of their movies are bad, but there is a stark difference between “Coraline” and “The Boxtrolls.” So, anyone going into “Missing Link” wondering what to expect would be forgiven if they didn’t have the highest expectations, despite the studio’s illustrious history.

It’s a simplistic story, wherein an explorer agrees to help an undiscovered sasquatch find his cousins in exchange for allowing him to prove to the world that sasquatch are real. Thankfully, the cast is really what sells it, with each bringing their personalities to the role.

Hugh Jackman (“The Greatest Showman,” “Logan”) provides voicework here that rivals his other excellent vocal performances from films like “Happy Feet,” “Flushed Away,” and “Rise of the Guardians.” While his Australian accent, unfortunately, isn’t out to play this time, he delivers every line with wit and grace, creating a wonderful portrait of a bumbling yet posh explorer in Lionel Frost.

Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek (2009),” “Guardians of the Galaxy”) is also good as Lionel’s former flame Adelina Fortnight and while she’s mostly relegated to being Lionel’s voice of reason, she’s nonetheless engaging and amusing.

The real star of the show though is Zach Galifianakis (“The Hangover,” “Baskets”) as the Sasquatch himself, Susan Link. It’s remarkable how much emotion he’s able to work into his lines while also maintaining an easy-going, comedic attitude. Sure, most of his lines play on the “I’m new to this world so I take everything very literally” trope, but it strengthens the character due to his commitment and energy, rather than feeling like a cliché.

Just as was the case in Laika’s previous work, this is a gorgeous film to behold. The fluidity of their animation continues to border on CGI, and the color palette is simply astonishing. It’s a wonderous film with a great sense of scope as well, thanks to cinematographer Chris Peterson. Utilizing multiple bent angles and wide-angle shots, scenes of mountain climbing and travelling large vistas feel just as expansive as they would in real life.

Everything pops with vibrant colors and expansive sets thanks to some truly impressive production design from Nelson Lowry (“Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “Kubo and the Two Strings”) and Lou Romano (“Kubo and the Two Strings,” “Up”). Even seemingly drab sets like a marble country club or an American mining town are given visual life thanks to complete commitments to their distinctive color schemes. It’s a wonder to behold and should be viewed on the biggest screen possible.

However, be forewarned, do not go see this film expecting action or intrigue. This is a simplistic story that has been done before and done better as well. That’s not to say it's awful by any means, it's just somewhat bland. It’s predictable as hell, and the antagonists have little to no depth to their characters, simply appearing and disappearing when needed.

This is a film carried by the strengths of its dialogue and visual humor. While things aren’t always jam-packed with jokes, this is a frequently visually funny film. It excels when slapstick comes into the fray and the chemistry between Galifianakis and Jackman is top tier. This is a film meant to be watched for characters and not for the plot. It’s slow and meandering, but not in a boring way. Rather, it’s an easy-going film, letting you just sit back and spend time with these characters.

This results in a movie that, while not anything jaw-dropping, is worth a trip to the movies. Its artwork and incredible animation are reason enough to see it on the big screen, but its cast and their interactions really do make the most of an otherwise uninspired plot. It’s not terribly exciting or of an otherworldly level of quality, but it is quaint, charming and pleasant. 3.5/5

Hellboy (2019) - Review

Despite maintaining a relatively obscure existence, this is not Hellboy’s first foray into mainstream entertainment. He’s guest starred in video games like “Injustice 2,” had a few direct to video animated films, and was the subject of two PG-13 films in the early 2000’s from Guillermo del Toro. However, this latest film has no involvements from del Toro or his original cast and is instead coasting in on its R-rating and its new Hellboy: actor David Harbour (“Stranger Things”). However, is that enough?

Harbour, who’s made waves recently due to his enthusiasm for the role, isn’t working any kind of magic here. His Hellboy is just a big lumbering whiner, and while that works for some of the film, his pessimism and complaining nature continue past the point when he’s supposed to have grown out of it. This results in a character who’s sapped of just about any charm Harbour could bring to him since he just becomes progressively more annoying.

The rest of the cast doesn’t do him any favors either. Daniel Dae Kim (“Lost,” “Insurgent”), Ian McShane (“John Wick,” “On Stranger Tides”), and Sasha Lane (“American Honey,” “Heart Beats Loud”) seem to be only good for shouting lines at each other in various irritated tones. Most of their characters follows arcs that just plain don’t make any sense.

Milla Jovovich (“The Fifth Element,” “Resident Evil”) is the only one who seems to be doing anything of note. Whether that’s because of her ample experience in these kinds of cheesy genre flicks or not is unclear, however she is the most enjoyable actor to watch in the entire film.

Part of the blame lies with the actors, but a larger chunk has to be because of the script. While it isn’t incomprehensible, writer Andrew Cosby’s (“Eureka”) script sure is trying its damndest to be. Most of the plot revelations literally require other random characters to be pulled in from nowhere to tell the main cast what to do and how to do it.

Sure, most of these sequences look cool, like the house of Baba Yaga, but it doesn’t save the film from the fact that the writing and plot are so poor, that they couldn’t even find ways to naturally let it play out.

By the way, this “Hellboy” film is rated R. Don’t worry if you didn’t know that, because the film won’t let you forget it. While previous superhero films have dabbled in the rating of blood and gore, “Hellboy” makes them look like Saturday morning cartoons by comparison.

Literal waves of blood and gore can be seen on screen and they aren’t the least bit effective. It’s cool, at first, but the lack of restraint in any capacity eventually dulls the impact and makes it boring. When the film does a zoom on a shattered skull in the third act, it doesn’t mean anything because it’s almost the fifteenth time it’s been done.

Most of the gore isn’t that impressive either. For once it seems like the CGI is better looking than the practical effects, and that’s saying something considering the CGI looks pretty bad. Most of the visuals benefit from practical sets and a thick layer of darkness, but when they’re absent, the cracks start to show.

Monsters and most of the gore look like early PlayStation 3 games, and the practical effects look like they’ve been hobbled together out of Party City supplies. The only exception is Hellboy himself, and it seems like most of the budget must have gone to making him look excellent, because damn does he look excellent.

Even without these problems, the film at its core is a headache to watch thanks to some laughably bad editing from Martin Bernfeld (“Power Rangers (2017),” “Project Almanac”). The cuts back and forth come so frequently and quickly that it becomes almost nauseating. It’s as if the no one told the directors that, just because you have the shots, doesn’t mean you have to use all of them. Things cut so frequently and with such random nature, it’s as if the cuts were made at random, by throwing a dart at a dartboard.

This “Hellboy” is mostly a film of excess, and that’s where its problems lie. There isn’t just an excess of gore, an excess of plot devices, and an excess of editing, but there’s a lack of trust in the audience. Seeing Hellboy pull up to a building while “The Devil You Know” plays isn’t clever, it’s just groan inducing. The number of times people re-explain Hellboy’s internal conflict to him border on idiotic.

This is a movie where the creators felt their ideas were just so clever, they wanted to make sure they were obvious to the audience, by over explaining them every chance they got, in any way possible.

Apart from some decent-ish makeup and a cheesy good performance from Milla Jovovich, there is literally no reason to see this film. Its painful editing and unnecessary levels of gore would be bad enough, but it’s the way it treats itself high and mighty. It talks down to the audience, constantly trying to over explain a script that is barely coherent by itself. If there’s any desire for a Hellboy adventure, just rent both del Toro films. They’re legitimately incredible fantasy adventures. As for this version: stay the hell away. 1/5

Shazam! - Review

 

Superheroes are, by definition, completely stupid. Even the more realistic ones are built upon the idea that regular everyday humans can have the power of flight, invisibility, and impeccable beach bods. Despite how much the more recent DC films and the MCU as a whole have captured the various building blocks of the comic book, that kind of gleeful stupidity or whimsy hasn’t existed in a superhero movie since the 90s. DC’s response to all that? Just say the word.

That word is, of course, “Shazam!”, which is the name of the super-powered man-child played with gleeful abandon by Zachary Levi (“Chuck,” “Tangled”). It’s genuinely incredible how Levi manages to make this, walking embodiment of every 14-year-old’s dream of what an adult is, not come off as annoying. His performance is a ball of comedic mastery, with tightrope precise comedic timing, with the ability to still nail the epic superhero scenes.

His teenage form, Billy Batson, played by Asher Angel (“Andi Mack”) is just as charming as Shazam himself. Both have a wonderful sense of continuity, and it really does feel like the same person on the inside, which is a testament to the talent of both of them.

While his roommate and best friend Freddy, played by Jack Dylan Grazer (“IT,” “Me, Myself & I”) gets a larger chunk of the runtime to skip school and cause various shenanigans with Shazam, the remaining family members are shortchanged. This is a shame because each of them is charming and memorable in their own ways. The third act does bring them all back together in a genius way, but it would have been nice if they had each gotten more room to establish themselves.

Mark Strong (“Kick-Ass,” “Kingsman: The Secret Service”), who plays the villain, Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, does his job well; strutting and scowling like you’d expect from a big budget supervillain. His character does represent one of the film’s biggest weaknesses; the tonal shift associated with the character. They are only a minor issue though, as they’re ironed out after the first act.

Narratively, there isn’t anything particularly new about “Shazam!”, but it does its job well enough. Really, it’s the small moments of downtime and the power of Shazam himself that allows for the creativity of the filmmakers to shine through. Director David F. Sandberg (“Lights Out,” “Annabelle: Creation”) has clearly been let loose here, and his film feels less like the strictly structured superhero films of the modern day, and more like a kid, joyously smashing his action figures together.

There is one plot hole midway through the movie that may catch most off guard. Really, it boils down to one character blaming another for something that the other one was clearly responsible for. And the clear illogical nature of the character’s argument is never brought up. While it is minor, and plot is clearly not the film’s highest priority, it’s something that should have been either ironed out or addressed.

What is the clear and very highest priority of Sandberg, and his cast and crew, is fun. It is genuinely bizarre how much fun “Shazam!” is at times. It’s such a gleefully stupid and silly movie that practically begs you to make fun of it. There’s a genuine irreverence to the entire proceedings that make it a sheer blast. The cliched nature of the villain and his minions is poked at with every turn, and it serves to create a stronger identity at the core of the film.

Yes, it is funny, but it’s also a beautiful picture of whimsy and the joy of childhood. The comparisons to Tom Hanks’s 1988 film “Big” are apt, but this whimsy works because of the superhero genre itself. This is, again, a genre where people who can fly and talk to fish are considered normal. And while poking fun at those tropes has been done in films before, what sets “Shazam!” apart is the joy and excitement it has about those tropes.

Primary colors and scale are at the center of the visual identity of “Shazam!”, and it helps set the film apart. While just about every superhero film is set in a city, Sandberg and his cinematographer Maxime Alexandre (“Earth to Echo,” “The Crazies”) make the city feel big. Maybe it’s the child perspective or the use of scale with the surrounding buildings, but the world of “Shazam!” feels bigger and more consequential than your average superhero film, strengthened by an incredibly vibrant color palette.

The film is excited to show off Shazam, his powers, and his origin. It’s excited to show you the final confrontation, and it’s excited to show you just how bonkers things can get. It’s genuinely weird to say that this kind of excitement and sense of whimsy has been missing from the genre for quite a while, because the way “Shazam!” uses it, it feels like you couldn’t make a superhero film without it.

David F. Sandberg’s tribute to childlike wonder and whimsy manages to leap directly over its first act tonal shifts, its majorly minor plot hole and its routine narrative to create a film that wants to celebrate the idea of superheroes. It does this with flying colors, blasting past previous DC flops with a burst of primary colored joy and crackling humor, bolstered by a wonderful cast, and setting a very high bar for the future DC films to come. Apparently, all you need to make a great DC film is to be like Shazam and get in touch with your inner child. 4.5/5

Us - Review

 

It’s appropriate to fear for a director when it comes time for their sophomore film. While a great first outing is a good sign for a long career, most promising directors have been broken thanks to a shoddy sophomoric outing. Jordan Peele, the Academy-Award-winning writer/director of “Get Out,” does not have to worry about a sophomoric slump. Because he has “Us.”

Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years A Slave,” “Black Panther”) is an absolute powerhouse here. Each member of the cast is impressive, as they all have to play dual roles, but Nyong’o’s is especially so, given the intense physicality and emotional states she is put through. It’s more than a mere “scream queen” role, she delves into Adelaide in a way that brings forth what is absolutely the best performance of her career and makes an Oscar nomination a sure bet.

Winston Duke (“Black Panther”) is a stalwart presence, providing both a welcome sense of humor to the grim events of the film, and also a warm fatherly sense of protection as Adelaide’s husband Gabe. Their children, Zora and Jason, played by Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex, respectively, do an absolutely incredible job, mirroring the excellence of Nyong’o.

While neither Joseph or Duke have roles as physically involved as Nyong’o’s, Alex certainly does. He commands the screen just as much as Nyong’o, delivering a performance that eclipses most major adult actors, let alone child actors in their debut film role. In fact, both he and Joseph make their big screen debuts in “Us” and it makes their skill and talent that much more impressive.

Peele has crafted a world that is slightly closer to sci-fi than horror, but manages to exist in this bizarre space of reality. Everything looks and sounds almost too normal, resulting in a sense of tension that is impossible to describe. At any moment something could happen, and Peele uses this to his advantage, building on each moment in increasingly creative and narratively satisfying ways.

Because in order to craft a horror film that resonates and remains inside an audiences’ head, you have to give them characters to care about. True horror is built out of fear for the people onscreen, and Peele without a doubt understands that. He spends time before the carnage starts establishing a strong and fleshed out family dynamic, and even continues to thread character building moments throughout the scares.

Cinematographer Mike Gioulakis (“Split,” “It Follows”) helps him do this, and he helps zero in on Peele’s favorite narrative object: eyes. They’re the focal point of the film, just like in “Get Out,” and this focus, as well as smooth camera work and shot compositions, create some truly gorgeous looking nightmares.

There’s a large emphasis on color as well, and the bleeding red that weaves its way throughout the film leaves a visual imprint on audiences’ brains that is hard to forget. The passage of time in conjunction with the length of the film also serves as potent fuel for Peele’s tension machine. He isn’t afraid to let a scene or sequence linger for minutes on end.

Peele has reteamed with composer Michael Abels (“Get Out”) for the score for “Us” with a mostly effective result. While it remains an undercurrent of the film, raising and lowering with the bloodshed to appropriately accompany the horrors, there are a few times when the music feels a bit too heavy-handed. It doesn’t take away from the proceedings, but it is noticeable.

Despite Peele’s efforts to craft a wholly original horror story, there are elements of the film that do feel predictable. However, this predictability only really sets in once the film is done. This is in part because of the unique craftsmanship of each individual scene. It’s as if Peele has crafted a puzzle that is, for the most part, a puzzle you’re familiar with. But the shapes of the individual pieces are so bizarre and unexpected that it still keeps you on your toes.

The craftsmanship of the film is one reason the predictability doesn’t set it.

But the ending recontextualizes everything.

It is absolutely crucial to go into “Us” knowing as little as possible. Not only because it’s a story worth seeing unspoiled, but because the film also works as a carefully layered mystery just as much as it does a horror film. When credits roll, Peele has essentially tossed a chair through any reaction that could have been established prior, effectively requiring multiple viewings to fully take in the events of the story. It also helps to establish “Us” as a movie that refuses to paint anyone as an explicit protagonist or antagonist.

The questions it raises, not only about the events and their repercussions in the film’s world, but in our own, are staggering. However, “Us” also doesn’t give as many answers regarding its subject as “Get Out” did, but it also doesn’t seem like it wants to. The intense mystery is part of the film’s immense charm, and it’s a film that wants its audience to marinate on the questions rather than their answers.

“Us” may be, on the whole, kind of predictable, but it’s hard to even remotely think about that in the moment. Peele has crafted a film whose various questions and themes almost refuse to give easy answers, allowing for a viewing experience that is the absolute best kind of uncomfortable. Lead by Nyong’o in an Oscar-worthy performance with a completely committed cast and a world that is built upon layer by layer, “Us” is a supremely terrifying second feature. Just make sure, when you’re gripping your theatre seat in terror, that you know whose hand you’re holding. 5/5

Dumbo (2019) - Review

 

Dumbo is a character beloved for how unloved he was. Burton is a director who has built a career on giving the spotlight to exactly those kinds of characters. So, why shouldn’t the two of them meet in the middle for the latest of Disney’s live action remakes?

Burton smartly brings some of his past colleagues onto Disney’s payroll for this film; Eva Green (“Penny Dreadful,” “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children”), Michael Keaton (“Birdman,” “Batman”), Danny DeVito (“Batman Returns,” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”) are all here, as well as frequent musical collaborator Danny Elfman (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Beetlejuice”).

Green does a serviceable job here, as does DeVito. Both are clearly doing the best with a shaky screenplay, as their characters don’t really have an effect on the overall plot. DeVito’s especially feels like he’s merely forgotten about in the latter half of the film. Keaton meanwhile hams it up, walking the line between acting and just chewing the scenery to pieces. Oddly enough, it makes him the film’s most interesting character.

At least he’s more interesting than the center family. Colin Farrell (“In Bruges,” “Horrible Bosses”) is, like the others, doing the best he can. It’s commendable, and he does a decent job, turning his father figure of Holt Farrier into the most emotionally resonating character in the film. However, his children are an entirely different matter.

Finley Hobbins is perfectly mediocre as Holt’s young son, Joe. He wants to have an act, does handstands, and is generally un-annoying. However, Holt’s daughter Milly, played by Nico Parker, is an absolute disaster.

Not only does the movie seem determined to dumb her down into a one-dimensional STEM stand-in, but Parker turns out one of the worst performances of the year. She consistently sounds flat, moving from having no emotion whatsoever to have a slightly higher inflection. It’s maddening as she is clearly meant to be the film’s emotional center, and it's hard to take anything seriously as she delivers the most important lines in the flattest way possible.

Dumbo, meanwhile, is just fine. While he’s animated well, that’s about all that can be said about him. He’s unassuming and cute but fails to make a real impact. His ridiculing doesn’t really register, since the people immediately around him, the circus folk, immediately care for him. So, his outcast nature doesn’t land because he never feels like an outcast. Sure, the audience might laugh at him, but the people who actually take care of him and spend time around him shoe the naysayers away.

That means that the central emotional crux of this story is gone. Poof. A dream on the wind. What else does Dumbo have if it isn’t an outcast story? The answer is nothing. What we’re left with is a movie with decent actors and some stellar visuals.

Because if there is one reason to see Dumbo, it's for the visuals. While most are CGI, it makes the actual sets, like the latter half’s main location DreamLand, really pop. When Dumbo does fly, it feels spectacular, even for a brief moment, like something out of a storybook. It’s Burton’s distinct visual style at its best, with deep colors conflicting with dark imagery to evoke some real menace. The CGI that does exist though, is painfully obvious. While Dumbo and his mother are well done, every other animal and item looks like cheap plastic. It’s as if 99% of the budget was given to Dumbo and the remaining 1% was spread out to everything else.

This visual distinctness also extends to the music, which, alongside the visuals, is the film’s best aspect. Elfman has created a confident and bizarre score that feels ripped from his heyday of 90’s horror-comedies. The cheeky menace that reverberates from every musical note helps to elicit reactions when the film’s script falls flat. It also makes, however short it may be, the Pink Elephants scene the best part of the entire film.

There’s also a weird tonal disconnect at the heart of this film. Not within the tone of the film itself, but with the studio behind it. Here is a film about an animal who wants to be set free from its captivity in an amusement park, trapped by a charismatic man with a glowing smile who constantly talks about making “dreams come true.”

You’d be forgiven if you only saw the last hour of the film and thought it was a parody of all of Disney’s ideals. But, because it’s a legitimate Disney film, it makes it hard to take seriously. When the film’s ending rolls, with messages about how no animal should be caged for human amusement, it’s hard not to think of Animal Kingdom in Florida.

Granted, Disney is not the worst company to have animals in theme parks (Hello Seaworld), that background knowledge makes everything feel disingenuous. It doesn’t go far enough in its Disney parallels or fun-poking to be considered self-parody either. It feels like being lectured by a teacher about not smoking cigarettes, to then be sold a vape by them later that day. Sure, it isn’t as bad, but it isn’t great, either.

All of this, in addition to an amazingly rushed and incoherent third act, take the air out of the film’s wings. Sure, it has some decent actors and a distinct visual and musical flair. But none of that can save a movie when it lacks heart and soul. When “Dumbo” flies and the film talks about imagination, it only cements how creative and emotionally bankrupt it is. Sure, the elephant can fly, but it would be even better if he had a soul whilst doing it. 1.5/5

Wonder Park - Review

 

Considering their involvement with one of the most successful children’s networks, it’s surprising that Paramount Pictures doesn’t have a well-established animation studio. Now they have “Wonder Park,” the latest film from their revamped Paramount Animation.

Animated mainly by the Madrid-based Ilion Animation Studios, with Paramount Animation handling the story, editing, voice cast, “Wonder Park” is a definite visual wonder. The lighting is especially incredible, and the film’s various multicolored sets and contraptions are detailed and intricate.

Virtually every scene has some sort of visual magic going on, whether it’s the multitudes of tiny Chimpan-Zombies running around or a cascade of sparks and lava during an action sequence, it’s a movie tailor-made to show off 4K TVs at home or in Best Buys. A sequence halfway through at a fireworks ride is without a doubt one of the most gorgeous of the year so far. Although, it is accompanied by a bizarre fisheye lens zoom effect for the first act.

Which is unfortunate overall because, that’s really all that “Wonder Park” has. A voice cast consisting of Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30,” “Daredevil”), Matthew Broderick (“Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “The Cable Guy”), Kennan Thompson (“Kenan & Kel,” “Good Burger”), Ken Jeong (“Community,” “Dr. Ken”), Mila Kunis (“That 70s Show,” “Family Guy”), John Oliver (“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” “The Smurfs (2011)”), Norbert Leo Butz (“Bloodline,” “Mercy Street”), and Ken Hudson Campbell (“Armageddon,” “Herman’s Head”) can’t even dredge a muddled and mediocre script back from the brink.

However, you cannot mention the voice acting without also bringing up newcomer Brianna Denski, who absolutely kills it here as the young June. While she has a few smaller credits to her name, Denski makes her big-budget debut here, and she goes above and beyond to make the best out of an inconsistent script. It’s truly admirable and she’s one of the film’s best aspects.

To be fair, none of these actors are delivering top-notch work though. They aren’t awful. In fact, Broderick is a warm and enjoyable father figure for main character June. Oliver is funny enough and he’s the only consistent stream of comedy that it’s flat. Butz and Campbell, as Boomer and Peanut, respectively, are the only ones to seem to be putting any effort in. Both of their characters provide nice gooey centers of emotional support, and Peanut ends up being a legitimate surprise in terms of emotional vulnerability.

It’s a shame that vulnerability isn’t put to good use though. About 95 percent of the plot is rehashed ideas from past animated ventures. The sick parent, the child who loses their imagination, a mysterious “darkness,” etc. Not of it is particularly awful. It’s just so incredibly bland and lifeless, seeming even more so when accompanied by the gorgeous animation.

However, credit where credit is due, it does try to incorporate some new ideas into its lazy script from Josh Appelbaum (“Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows”), André Nemec (“Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows”), and Robert Gordon (“Galaxy Quest,” “Men in Black II”).There’s a thinly veiled metaphor for depression that has an admirable conclusion. The logistics of the theme park itself, and where it fits into the film’s lore are also supremely interesting, especially regarding its creation.

There’s also a fair amount of effort put into heroine June’s characterization. She’s extremely smart, but never in a way that annoys like other movies with smart young protagonists. Her ideas, inventions and intuition save the day for most of the movie, and she’s a confident creator at that. It’s a welcome role model for the young kids, especially girls, who’ll see her in this flick.

But goodness gracious does this film play a tonal tap-dance. What starts out as a fun meditation on imagination then turns dark with the previously mentioned “parent got sick” plotline, before derailing into a territory populated by tiny destructive “Chimpan-Zombies” and multiple cute and cuddly mascots uttering the words “We’re at war!” It’s virtual tonal whiplash in the first act, and while things eventually settle to a more consistent level, it takes half the movie to get there.

“Wonder Park” also plays an interesting balancing act that, if it were intentional, might seem like an achievement. It is somehow ridiculously hyperactive in its animation and dialogue, with some sequences moving so blazingly fast they seem like they’re missing frames, yet some sequences move normally. It’s as if someone chopped the movie up and put random scenes on fast forward.

This is not a film devoid of any creativity or fun. The stuffed-toys-turned-Chimpan-Zombies are amusing as they run around committing acts of destruction while spouting cheery theme park catchphrases. There are the aforementioned attempts to make the plot something deeper, and, to reiterate, this movie is beautiful!

Things even manage to pick up in the third act, often where most mediocre animated films fail. The last 15-20 minutes are satisfying, bringing the film full circle in a clever way, and showing what could have been with a more focused vision to match the gorgeous look of the film.

At the end of the day though, beauty can only get a movie so far. Especially one that is clearly trying to present deeper ideas to its audience. A few committed voice actors, a gorgeous display of visuals, a great third act and a well-intended, but flawed depth can’t set “Wonder Park” apart from its own poor tonal work and blandness. It’s like a balloon from a theme park. It’s shiny and pretty, but there are a million others like it. 2/5

Captain Marvel - Review

 

Hot off the heels of “Infinity War,” here comes “Captain Marvel,” an origin story focusing on Carol Danvers and the hero she will become. A prequel to, essentially, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel’s first female lead film, a lot is riding on this glowing, alien hero.

Brie Larson (“Room,” “Short Term 12”) perfectly encapsulates exactly who Danvers is. She’s tough, but snarky and sarcastic, fitting perfectly next to Tony Stark and Peter Quill into the kind of mold that the MCU has been churning out for years. When she’s strutting her stuff, showing off her ridiculous powers to Nick Fury and others, she seems completely in control and undeniably charismatic.

Samuel L Jackson (“Pulp Fiction,” “The Avengers”) is also wonderful, with a much larger role than in any of his previous MCU appearances. The decision to play regular hard-ass Nick Fury as a bit of a softer desk agent was risky but pays off. It’s supremely interesting to see a character so associated with being a stone faced, quip shouting bad ass getting his feet wet.

Ben Mendelsohn (“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” “Mississippi Grind”) delivers depth to his Skrull character Talos that remains intriguing as the film progresses, and it’s a testament to his strength as an actor that, despite the major twist halfway through, his performance and characterization remain consistent throughout. The same can be said for the supporting cast, with everyone consistently pulling their weight to bring the most to these fresh new faces.

However, as much as Larson excels at providing a balance between her captain’s sarcasm and stoic attitude, it takes some time to get there. The film’s first 15 minutes, basically everything prior to arriving on Earth, are slow and boring. Yes, it is essential information for the plot going forward, but its paced so poorly that it drags down the movie as a result.

Danvers’s final moments of badassery are just that, badass, but there isn’t a huge fight by the film’s end. It doesn’t feel like she’s had to physically overcome anything. Most of the action has her handedly whooping everyone else around her, and while it does look cool, Larson delivers it only decently well. The larger action sequences leave something to be desired, lacking the kind of nuance or flow from other Marvel films like “Winter Soldier” or “Black Panther.” That being said, the smaller scale fights do not disappoint.

There are times where it feels as though the action and powers almost aren’t the focus of the film. That is not a bad thing by any means, because directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (“Mississippi Grind,” “It’s Kind of a Funny Story”) instead shift the focus to Danvers’s emotional journey, leading to one of the MCU’s more emotionally satisfying stories.

Danvers is not a character who is unsure of what she wants or who she is. Instead of taking someone insecure and throwing them into this amnesiac story line, Boden and Fleck have instead chosen to show the kind of journey that someone who is that headstrong might go on when filling out their unknown past.

Its makes for legitimately engaging drama and has some of the MCU’s most unexpected and thematically satisfying twists ever. This is again thanks to the talented cast, but thanks also go, in no small part, to the wonderfully evocative electronic score from Pinar Toprak (“Sinner,” “Krypton”) and the indie movie styled cinematography from Ben Davis (“Kick-Ass,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”).

“Captain Marvel” is also unabashedly and unflinchingly a feminist piece. This is not only due to the fact that the cast and crew have stated this multiple times, but from the story line itself. Numerous moments throughout the film showcase the times in Danvers’s life when her gender has caused her to struggle. There is zero beating around the bush when these moments are brought up, and while some will likely have issues with that, it’s also refreshing to have a big budget, multi-million-dollar film so earnestly and clearly wear its heart on its sleeve like is done here.

Because that’s what “Captain Marvel” has at the end of the day. It’s pure and unabashed sense of heart helps it soar despite a slow start and less than stellar action. It’s carried by wonderful performances and has a joyful sense of optimism. One of the MCU’s most satisfying films, story wise, “Captain Marvel” may not rocket into the stratosphere, but it definitely soars. 4/5

How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World - Review

 

Without a doubt one of DreamWorks most beloved and acclaimed series, “How To Train Your Dragon” ended its story this past week with the release of the final film in the trilogy, subtitled “The Hidden World.” After two acclaimed films prior, can this finale cement its place as one of the crown jewels of the DreamWorks canon?

Those going in expecting a scope as broad and expansive as the previous film might be disappointed. This is not an epic, earth shattering conclusion like other series typically have as their finales. On the contrary, this last chapter for Hiccup and his band of dragons and friends is much more introspective than before.

It focuses on why its takes others to show people the potential they have inside them, and how that can both help and hinder a leader. It’s not as heavy as the emotional moments from the previous film, but it’s still unique for a film billed as a family adventure to have such an introspective theme.

Hiccup is a flawed character, often times stubborn and over relying on his bond with the Night Fury dragon Toothless. Writer and director Dean DeBlois (“Lilo and Stitch,” “How to Train Your Dragon”) knows that the bonds that seem the simplest often have the most complex connections bubbling underneath, and he continues to employ that here.

It helps that he continues to have such a great cast at his disposal. Jay Baruchel (“Man Seeking Woman,” “Tropic Thunder”) continues to deliver career excellent work as Hiccup. America Ferrara (“Superstore,” “End of Watch”) and Cate Blanchett (“Thor: Ragnarok,” “Carol”) play off each other wonderfully as Astrid and Valka, respectively.

F. Murray Abraham (“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” “Amadeus”) gives a growling and well-done performance as the villainous Grimmel the Grisly. However, despite giving an excellent performance, his villain highlights a problem inherent in some of the film’s aspects.

Grimmel simply isn’t as intriguing or well developed of a villain than the previous film’s antagonist Drago. He isn’t poorly performed, or uninteresting, he’s just not as strong as those who came before. The same goes for the film’s third act; it isn’t bad, not by a long shot, but it isn’t as powerful as the second film’s.

As this is DreamWorks, its expected that some of their brand of kid-friendly humor will sneak its way into even its more serious films. The same is true here, where most of the more serious moments have at least a light chuckle peppered into them, to prevent scenes from becoming too dire. A few running gags just seem bizarrely out of place though, like one of Hiccup’s friends hitting on his mother.

It does leave a bit of a cloud hanging about this film: since the previous entry was so great, can this possibly match up? In some ways, like the villain and third act conflict, it can’t, reaching a spot just below the excellence previously achieved. However, it still manages to hit the incredibly high bar the previous film set visually.

Every frame of “The Hidden World” crackles with color and life. This is a world that feels absolutely fantastical, with endless oceans and piercing blue skies. The seemingly endless dragon designs are a joy to look at and identify. Even the character designs, just like the second film, go against the typical animated Hollywood tradition, by aging them appropriately. It’s a visually stunning film that deserves to be seen on the biggest screen possible.

This being the final film in the “Dragon” series, there is a sense of bittersweet that goes along with it. It also leads to mediations on the nature of this finale; could it ever live up to expectations? Are the nitpicks and comparisons to the previous films worth picking at in what is, clearly, a smaller scoped film? Yes and no. While none of these are reason enough to harm the film, their worth mentioning, especially as this is a series film. Even if “The Hidden World” is still leaps and bounds above most typical Hollywood animation, and even most DreamWorks films, it’s still worth mentioning.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter much though, because the emotional core of the movie is so incredibly rock solid. While it may not be as heart-wrenching as the previous film, its more bittersweet and somber. DeBlois doesn’t pull any punches when it comes time to wrap things up, and the movie’s closing monologue is not only something special, but something tear inducing as well.

“The Hidden World” is a worthy conclusion to one of DreamWorks best series. It continues the previous films trend of providing gorgeous animation as the backdrops for thought provoking mediations on friendship and leadership. Even if it can’t quite live up to the previous film, that doesn’t mean it isn’t excellently voice, wonderfully scripted, and emotionally poignant. It’s hard to see a better way this series could have flown off into the sunset. 4/5

The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part - Review

 

Phil Lord and Chris Miller are on a bit of a roll right now. For the past five years, they’ve helped to dominate the animation world with the LEGO series of films, they’ve earned rave reviews with their comedy series “The Last Man on Earth,” and they’re the favorite to take home an Oscar for their 2018 critical darling “Into the Spider-Verse.” Now would be as good a time as any to release a follow up to the film that arguably catapulted them to this newfound success, and thus, here we have “The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part.”

Thankfully, everything this sequel introduces clicks right into place with the preexisting world, and even manages to throw in some references to the spin-off films for continuity. It also mantains the same level of meta humor and jokes about animated films, just like the first film. Just about half of the film is exactly what you’d expect after the previous LEGO films.

However, about thirty minutes in, things get cranked up to eleven after the true themes are revealed, diverging from what the trailers seemed to give off almost completely. It’s a welcome surprise, and these new themes manage to give “Second Part” an emotional core just as rock solid and unexpected as the first films.

By the time this new theme is introduced though, it’s clear that subtly is the last thing on the mind of “Second Part.” Whereas the first movie ended with a bombshell realization that set the wheels in motion for the entire universe of LEGO films, this one wears its heart on its sleeve, embracing its meta nature and its twists a bit too earnestly.

This results in a movie that isn’t as surprising as the first, and while there are plenty of twists, only some really pack a punch due to the lack of subtlety. The twists that do hit are the most important though, and they hit hard. Just like past LEGO films, there are quite a few moments of tears in “Second Part” and they come from the most unexpected of places.

All of that is thanks to the fact that Lord and Miller know that a comedy still needs to provide an engaging story underneath the jokes. “Second Part” keeps audiences guessing with just where its story is going to go, and it surprises in quite a few places, never getting lazy or letting the pace die down for the sake of jokes. It’s still just as effective as the previous LEGO films at talking about the mind of a child, and not at the child.

It’s still a visual marvel as well. There aren’t as many “WOW” moments as in the first, mainly since the uber-realistic animation style is now the norm for the series, but there are still plenty of cool looking sequences and details.

Some of the space sequences seem to be set against sheer glittery veil-like cloth, and any scene with the new Queen Watevra Wa-Nabi, a shape-shifting alien, is a wonder to behold. She moves with a fluidity and ease that would have initially seemed impossible within the LEGO medium, but the animators at Animal Logic have not only doubled down her effects, but brought the entire rest of the film to equally impressive quality as the previous ones.

The cast from the first film have all returned, and do just as excellent of a job as before. The only major additions are Tiffany Haddish (“Girls Trip,” “The Last O.G.”) as Watevra and Stephanie Beatriz (“Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” “Short Term 12”) as General Mayhem. They both do well, holding their own against the previous film’s characters and adding to the general sense of fun present throughout. Chris Pratt also gets to add even more silliness to the fare, not only returning as Emmett, but also voicing the new space-faring hotshot Rex Dangervest.

What’s most impressive about this sophomoric outing with Emmet and his friends is how it manages to (mostly) avoid the typical trappings of big budget sequels. The nature of the story doesn’t feel like it has lower stakes or is unworthy of the audience’s time. It also never sacrifices the sense of humor previously established or the direct parodying of itself it does.

It does, however, lack the initial surprise that came from the first film’s unexpectedly high quality. Everything also feels a bit looser and wilder, partly because of the lesser emphasis on subtlety. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does rob the film of some of the tension the first film managed to establish effortlessly.

These points are only valid when comparing it to the first film though, because even with them, “The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part” is better than 99% of the rest of the Hollywood animation game. It’s still funny, it’s still gorgeous, and it still manages to surprise with its themes and its willingness to poke fun at itself as it goes along, all while providing an engaging adventure. It may not be as flawless as the first, but everything is still awesome. 4.5/5

The Kid Who Would Be King - Review

 

Joe Cornish has made a name for himself fairly recently working on movies just as bizarre as “The Kid Who Would Be King.” From writing “Ant-Man” and the 2011 “Tintin” film, to directing the sci-fi action comedy “Attack the Block,” each of his previous works have at least a little bit of charm and whimsy. Thankfully, that charm, whimsy, and a bit of action is on full display in “The Kid Who Would Be King.”

An update of the classic King Arthur story, “King” focuses on bringing the myth’s traits into the 21^st century in some really clever ways. From a reinvention of Merlin the Wizard, to the Knights of the Round Table, Cornish manages to bring the myth up to modern day, without sacrificing the magic inherent in the tale.

It also helps that his cast is just as magical as the tale they’re telling. Patrick Stewart (“X-Men,” “Star Trek: The Next Generation”) and Rebecca Ferguson (“The Greatest Showman,” “Mission Impossible: Fallout”) make up the major adult roles, but other than that, the film focuses on a pretty talented cast of child actors.

Louis Ashbourne Serkis, Tom Taylor, Angus Imrie, Dean Chaumoo and Rhianna Doris manage to impressively hold their own against the other more seasoned actors and the various CGI creatures. Imrie in particular, playing the teen version of the wizard Merlin, ends up as the film’s unquestionable standout.

While it may be clear in most of the more action heavy sequences that there isn’t a budget to rival that of the biggest Marvel or other Hollywood films, its impressive what Cornish and his crew manage to accomplish on their smaller scale. While most of the sequences go for CGI creatures, there is still an impressive number of physical sets and practical effects, leading to a sense of realism that, in addition to the film’s ample energy, helps to engross audiences even further.

“King” clearly isn’t a film trying to win an Oscar, and while it may be obvious, it’s not an issue. Rather, there’s a sense of warmth and energy present in every frame that can only be compared to the adventure films of the 80s. “King” may very well find itself standing tall as this generations “E.T.” or “The Goonies,” and it rightly deserves it.

It’s a movie that knows what it is and isn’t afraid to embrace its somewhat cheesy tone, it’s adventure story roots, or its clichés. But it also knows just how to deliver the right gag to get a well-deserved laugh or the right line to earn a well-deserved heartstring tug.

This, coupled with the themes of identity and finding a place in the world, further build upon the film’s strengths. It doesn’t shy away from how gloomy the world can sometimes feel as a kid, and how in today’s age it can feel even worse. This gloom never overpowers the film’s sense of goodwill and change, though. When Merlin makes the four heroes recite an oath of chivalry, it doesn’t feel forced. It feels pure and sincere.

“The Kid Who Would Be King” is a pleasant January surprise. Not a jaw-dropping must see experience, but instead it ends up providing more than enough energy, charm, wit, surprisingly wisdom, and well-acted action to overcome it’s cliched nature. It’s not perfect, but it has wit and whimsy as sharp as Excalibur and just as polished. 4/5