Space Jam: A New Legacy - Review

 

The original “Space Jam” is one of the most bizarre films to ever come out of the 90s. Not only was it born out of a series of Nike commercials, but its status as a “beloved cult movie” seems to almost be in spite of itself. Kids nowadays don’t really know it, and ask anyone who’s actually old enough to have seen it as a kid and their reactions will range from “it was bad” to “it was alright.”

Yet, somehow, Warner Bros. has manifested “Space Jam: A New Legacy” into theatres, born out of the sheer desire for money and to show off its unending catalog of intellectual property, sans intellect.

“A New Legacy” stars LeBron James as himself, as he enters a computerized world known as “The Warner Bros ServerVerse” to rescue his son, played by Cedric Joe (), from an algorithm named Al-G Rhythm, played with scenery chewing delight by Don Cheadle. To do this, he teams up with the Looney Tunes to defeat Al-G in a basketball game.

Thankfully, James is more than capable alongside the Tunes. His acting isn’t anything amazing, but he can clearly deliver jokes and emotional lines well enough to get through the script’s lightweight material. Honestly, his best moments come when he’s fully animated and delivers a pretty good vocal performance. The rest of the cast is base level passable. Nobody is given good material here, and basically any moment outside of the “ServerVerse” borders on excruciating, as if the time inside it wasn’t bad enough.

The clear winner in this film, acting wise, is Don Cheadle. The man is not only clearly having the time of his life hamming it up against his greenscreen backdrops but sells every villainous line with the mannerisms of a Saturday morning cartoon villain. He’s, clearly, the only actor who understands what kind of movie he’s in.

It’s worth noting Cheadle is the winner acting wise because the true winner of this film is Warner Bros. themselves. Each and every frame is drenched in product placements for their various franchises, and it becomes headache inducing for even the most optimistic of film fans. Remember the gag in “The LEGO Batman Movie” where Joker found the worst villains in the world, and they were all villains from other WB properties? The reason the concept worked there was because it was small scale, it put the silliness of the concept first, and it never let the idea overshadow the rest of the film.

None of that nuance is present in “Legacy.” Its genuinely startling how much the property placement overshadows the film as it really only takes up the about 30 minutes of the movie. Watching Road Runner dash alongside the cars of “Mad Max Fury Road” or seeing Granny replacing Trinity in the opening scene from “The Matrix” isn’t funny or novel in today’s day and age. Not only because YouTube videos and DeviantArt accounts have been doing this for years, but because there’s fundamentally no point to it. It feels like a time capsule, but not to the 90s nostalgia it so desperately desires, but to that weird time on the internet in the mid-2000s when people wrote fan fiction along the lines of “then Winnie the Pooh and Dracula picked up their guns and went to face Steve Harvey and end the fight they started with Jimmy Neutron.”

Bugs’s entire plot is centered around his desire to get his friends back after Al-G enticed them to leave their home because they were washed up, but why? Yosemite Sam ends up replacing Dooley Wilson’s role in “Casablanca” but there’s no joke to it other than “look at this cartoon in this non-cartoon movie.” Not only is it the laziest form of comedy, but there’s no reason given as to why any of the Tunes have picked their particular worlds to runaway to.

Is it stupid to overanalyze the plot of a “Space Jam” sequel this much? Maybe, but if director Malcolm D. Lee (“Girls Trip,” “Night School”) and the whopping six credited writers, Juel Taylor (“Creed II”), Tony Rettenmaier (“Cabarete”), Keenan Coogler, Terance Nance (“Random Acts of Flyness,” “Omniboat: A Fast Boat Fantasia”), Jesse Gordon (“Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”), and Celeste Ballard (“Wrecked,” “Sweet/Vicious”), wanted to make this such a huge component of Bugs’s plot, they need to have thought it through.

It’s a perfect example of everything that’s wrong with the film; its just lazy. Repeatedly throughout the movie, it spouts the message of “be yourself” and the Tunes encourage James to “be more Looney” and yet the film can’t even begin to be bothered to summon more than the bare minimum of the anarchy these characters are known for.

The final basketball game is ripe with sports movie cliches and what might just be the most insulting bait and switch ending in the last two decades of cinema for how transparent it is. That’s the biggest disappointment about this new film. Warner Bros. has made films in the past that utilize their properties as a part of the plot without letting them overtake the plot; “Ready Player One,” “Looney Tunes: Back in Action,” “The LEGO Batman Movie,” hell, even the original “Space Jam.”

Yet the film’s story about an algorithm that crafts all of Warner Bros. ideas, trying to get an actor to star in a movie he clearly doesn’t want to be in, and filling a big basketball game with every character it can get just to get eyeballs watching feels painfully shallow and even more painfully transparent. Its hard to believe a film like this got made with nary a shred of irony in its bones. One can only imagine what a film like this would’ve looked like if, oh, it had been directed by someone who knew how to do surrealist, satirical material really well and wasn’t kicked off the project as a director by Warner Bros. *cough-cough-Terence Nance-cough-cough*

Genuinely, this isn’t the worst thing to come out of cinema this year, nor will it be fondly remembered come December. It has a decently good performance from James and a deliciously cheesy one from Cheadle, and the effects are good, even as they border on headache inducing. Yet when the Tunes are turned to CGI and seem to be in pain when it happens, that’s when you lose me; it’s both one of the laziest films in recent memory and also one of the most overwritten, desperate to justify its existence in any way possible. 1.5/5

Black Widow - Review

 

It’s been almost two years since the last Marvel film hit screens, and while Feige and his band of merry heroes have mostly tided audiences over with the new Disney+ shows, “Black Widow” is here to jumpstart the summer (and the box office) in a way that only Marvel can.

Taking place in between “Captain America: Civil War” and “Avengers: Infinity War,” “Black Widow” probably should’ve come out at that time as well. Its not really the case of “too little, too late,” but more the fact that the film is such a beautiful sendoff for Scarlett Johansson (“Under the Skin,” “Marriage Story”) and the character of Natasha Romanoff that getting this adventure as a post-mortem feels disingenuous to the character.

But we’ve got it now, so let’s judge the film we’ve got, not the film we could’ve got. Thankfully, what Marvel and director Cate Shortland (“Berlin Syndrome,” “Somersault”) have delivered is a thrilling adventure, packed with some incredible action and a story that easily ranks with Marvel’s most thought-out and character focused pieces.

Natasha Romanoff, played by Johansson, is laying low in Europe following the events of “Captain America: Civil War” when she’s attacked by the very people she used to work for before becoming an Avenger. Now she teams up with her former faux family in the hopes of taking down Dreykov, the leader of the brainwashing Black Widow program and of the Red Room.

Johansson has more material to work with here than arguably any point in her history with Marvel. Romanoff has been through a lot even before she joined S.H.I.E.L.D. and Shortland and writers Jac Schaeffer (“TiMER,” “WandaVision”), Ned Benson (“The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby”), and Eric Pearson (“Thor: Ragnarok,” “Godzilla vs. Kong”) don’t shy away from that. Rather, they embrace her checkered past and use it to develop Romanoff as a character so desperate to break free of what she had to do to be free.

Her faux family that must be reassembled consists of Floence Pugh (“Midsommar,” “Little Women (2019)”) as Yelena Belova, David Harbour (“Stranger Things,” “Hellboy (2019)”) as Alexei Shostakov aka the Red Guardian, and Rachel Weisz (“The Mummy,” “The Favourite”) as Melina Vostokoff. Their chemistry and family dynamic are nearly flawless, with Pugh absolutely stealing the show right out from Johansson. Its one of the few cases where you can really feel and believe the familial roots that exist between a group of characters, even with all the action going on.

And action there is indeed, as “Widow” contains some of Marvel’s best and smallest scale action in a while. Don’t be mistaken, there are still massive explosions and debris tumbling every which way, but there are also numerous moments of excellently choreographed hand to hand combat that remain thrilling throughout.

Yet, it’s the quiet moments throughout “Black Widow” that really shine the brightest and make the film feel like a step in a new direction for Marvel. While there have been Marvel films with quiet, introspective moments before, the reason “Widow” stands out so much is Shortland and the writer’s decision to let these moments breath and marinate. Not only does it allow these familial discussions or reflections on one’s past land with greater impact; it results in one of the most excellently paced Marvel films in some time. Even the villain is layered with real world allegories, and while nothing here approaches the deep levels of something philosophical, it nevertheless is a great blend of serious, character driven plot with fantastic popcorn thrills.

Its not a perfect movie, and there are definitely things to criticize. As entertaining as it all is, the first two acts play out in a fairly predictable fashion, down to how certain characters and pieces of information are found. The third act, meanwhile, is a tense and fantastic action and plot packed rollercoaster ride, and that’s not to say the first two acts are bad. They have just as much juicy material as the third, they just present it in a more predictable way.

“Black Widow” is a character focused popcorn action flick with the gumption to let its small, somber moments have as much importance as its explosions and action. Johansson, Harbour, and Weisz are all great, and Pugh delivers a standout performance, resulting in a potential new direction for Marvel Studios post Endgame. 4/5

The Boss Baby: Family Business - Review

 

Sometimes all a movie has to do is fill time. It’s a cynical viewpoint of the world’s biggest entertainment industry, but even the most artful of films will only be made if there’s a potential to make some cash. That’s not to say “The Boss Baby: Family Business” or the first film are anywhere close to art house pieces. They’re Dreamworks’s biggest and most blatantly obvious cash cows, and this sequel does little to change that perception.

The sequel finds the two brothers from the first film, Tim, voiced by James Marsden (“X-Men,” “Sonic the Hedgehog”), and Ted Jr., voiced by Alec Baldwin (“Beetlejuice,” “30 Rock”), turned from grownups back into children to sneak into a private school to discover what sinister plot it holds, lead by Tim’s daughter and secret new Boss Baby Tina, voiced by Amy Sedaris (“BoJack Horseman,” “Strangers with Candy”). The plot is basically an excuse to recreate the basic premise from the first film and in that respect it works.

It also shovels numerous new characters into this weird looking world and they all feel like textbook time-wasting material. There’s a kid who bullies Tim’s older daughter, a random creepy girl who keeps popping up throughout, a miniature Pony that hates Tim, and it all feels like blatant padding. The few new characters that do add something to the mix are Tim’s older daughter Tabitha, voiced by Ariana Greenblatt (“Love and Monsters,” “The One and Only Ivan”), the villain Dr. Armstrong, voiced with apathetic glee by Jeff Goldblum (“Jurassic Park,” “Thor: Ragnarok”), and Sedaris as the new Boss Baby, Tina.

Baldwin does a serviceable job, with nothing really changing from the first film and Marsden does good work as well. Neither stand out, but they’re perfectly fine. Greenblatt also delivers a good vocal performance, but again, nothing that will set the film apart from the pack. Meanwhile Sedaris and Goldblum are doing some really energetic and silly work. Sedaris struts her stuff, showcasing why she’s been doing voices for years, delivering some of the absurd material with gusto.

Goldblum, somehow, is delivering a performance that is both over and under-exaggerated. It's entertaining for sure, but it's hard to tell if he’s making fun of the movie by putting in no energy or if he loves the work and is therefore putting in a ton of energy in the process. It’s hard to really describe without having seen it yourself.

The exact same thing can be said for the plot. Director/co-writer Tom McGrath (“Madagascar,” “Megamind”) and co-writer Michael McCullers (“Baby Mama,” “Austin Powers in Goldmember”) have written a plot that really just exists as a sequence of loosely connected events to get from gag to gag, set piece to set piece. There’s an evil plan that doesn’t make any sense and a subplot about Tabitha and a Christmas pageant, but none of it has any sense of memorability, just going one ear and out the other accompanied by colorful visuals and energetic music.

That’s one thing the film still has in its favor; like the first, the color palette is wonderfully colorful and expressive, mixing modern aspects with a pseudo-retro-futuristic 60s kind of style. It's all bent angles, unsymmetrical squares, and shiny bright lights. It certainly gives the film a unique look, even as the events that use that look are as spastic and unmemorable as ever.

“Family Business” has an almost absurdly high sense of energy. It ratchets everything up to eleven with an almost headache inducing speed. A sequence early on that begins with a missed bus results in a destructive chase through town involving a giant snowball with the mayor and multiple cops in it and a giant flaming Christmas tree. It's one thing to bring the looney tunes sense of energy into CGI animation, but this is ridiculous.

It's a triumph in a way that despite that kind of energy the film maintains its weirdly unexciting and unmemorable pace. It definitely has its moments, but it also has its fair share of uncomfortable scenarios: it's hard to laugh at a “naked baby” joke when one of the people present in the scene is canonically the naked ones daughter/niece and while the intentions are good, a father-daughter bonding subplot is a bit too… weirdly romantic given the de-aging of the dad, Tim.

“The Boss Baby: Family Business” certainly is a sequel to the 2017 film “The Boss Baby.” It keeps up the series' high levels of anarchistic energy and unmemorability with a couple of poorly thought out bits of weird uncomfortability sprinkled in for good measure. It’s technically a better film than the first one, but that’s not a high bar to reach and can only be said because it isn’t as blatantly annoying as the 2017 film was. Is it good? Not really, but it's certainly passable and competently made. You could do far far worse. 2.5/5

No Sudden Move - Review

 

“No Sudden Move” represents what one can only hope for every time a film comes out: a director working in their favorite genre, place, etc. Steven Soderbergh (“Ocean’s Eleven,” “Logan Lucky”) loves a motley crew and loves the idea of a “gentleman” thief just as much, if not more. While his career has run the gamut, his sweet spot tends to be that of thieves, aiming high and scoring even higher.

Thus his latest film, “No Sudden Move,” which fits very snuggly into that wheelhouse. It’s got crime, quippy dialogue, lots of money changing hands, and a cast that’s almost insanely star studded. Yet, it's also got something Soderbergh hasn’t had in a while: a meandering pace.

You see, the key to a mystery-adjacent film like this is to constantly keep the audience on their toes. Soderbergh is a great director, but he’s an even better writer, and as good as Ed Solomon’s (“Men in Black,” “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure”) script is, it's not as good as some of those Soderbergh has written himself. More every quip that falls flat, about three land solidly. It's also hard to say there’s a lot of mystery going on. Solomon’s script doesn’t so much traffic in a secretive mysterious plan as it does just not tell the audience what’s going on. There’s little intrigue as even some of the characters struggle to follow what’s going on.

That’s fine and good, there are plenty of movies that have been made where the main characters have no idea what's going on. But whereas most of those kinds of movies have a big “AHA” moment when everything is revealed, “Move” only musters an “Oh, cool” by the time everything is done. It’s as if you’re watching an elaborate, expertly crafted rube Goldberg machine that results in a piece of toast. It’s not that it's bad, just anticlimactic.

However, thankfully the entire cast is so committed you likely won’t mind. Don Cheadle’s (“House of Lies,” “Iron Man 2”) Curt Goynes leads with a gruff voice and a gruffer attitude. It’s a stark contrast to the actor's otherwise more likable persona and he develops a great rapport with Benicio del Toro’s (“Sicario,” “Traffic”) Ronald Russo. The pair have an entertaining back and forth and develop a believable pseudo friendship over the course of the film’s runtime. They’re effortlessly charming and most will likely want to watch the film just to watch the two of them act opposite each other.

The rest of the cast is almost unfortunately stacked. David Harbour (“Stranger Things,” “Black Widow”), Jon Hamm (“Mad Men,” “Baby Driver”), Amy Seimetz (“The Killing,” “Alien: Covenant”), Brendan Fraser (“The Mummy,” “Doom Patrol”), Kieran Culkin (“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” “Succession”), Julia Fox (“Uncut Gems”), Ray Liotta (“Something Wild,” “Narc”), and Bill Duke (“Black Lightning,” “A Rage in Harlem”) all show up at some point and it's quite a thrill getting to guess who’ll pop up next and why. None of them make as much of an impression as Cheadle and del Toro do, apart from Fox or Duke, but they’re all still fun. Culkin is digging further into his douchebag persona established on his recent projects, Liotta is basically playing himself at this point, and Fraser is absolutely trying to convince us that he, one of the nicest guy’s in Hollywood, can play a bad guy and does a damn good job at it.

Really, there’s one big unfortunate thing hanging over “No Sudden Move” like a cloud. The entire movie is just… good. It's not great, there’s nothing exceptional about it. Cheadle's performance borders on greatness and is the most entertaining part of the movie, but there’s nothing about the film that stands out before or after watching. This isn’t a bad thing at all, not every movie needs to light the world on fire. But it does mean that when credits roll, nothing really sticks with the viewer nor is there an intense need to want to rewatch it.

The film does have a unique look courtesy of cinematographer Peter Andrews (Soderbergh under an alias) and reflects Soderbergh’s fascination with new shooting techniques. Everything looks as if it was shot in a fishbowl or on a cinemascope wide lens and smushed into a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. It's definitely a cool look, although it takes some getting used to and could easily leave some viewers with a headache.

“No Sudden Move” is a fun crime movie distraction. It’s nothing exceptionally entertaining or funny, but thanks to a fun cast and solid premise and carried by Cheadle and del Toro, it manages to be a fun time for those already enamored with crime films or Soderbergh films or films that twist so much they might as well be a pretzel. 3.5/5

Werewolves Within - Review

 

In a year (or so) of delays, schedule reshuffling, and buyouts by streaming services, it's all the more impressive that a smaller movie can not only peek through the cracks but can even excel. Nobody would have been surprised if “Werewolves Within” had been dumped onto Netflix or Hulu when everything shut down, and it's a good thing it wasn’t because it likely would have meant that a wonderfully funny and delightfully goofy horror comedy would have fallen through into obscurity.

Starring a cast of character actors and lesser known stars, the cast of “Within” is one of its biggest strengths. From every bit part to the leading roles, everyone has the same winking, knowing delivery required for material this inherently goofy. It helps to strengthen the sense of place in this quiet mountain town, rather than betray it. The back-and-forths and quiet moments of interaction sell the fact that this is a real town with real people living in it.

Sam Richardson (“Veep,” “Detroiters”) is still absolutely the star however. A veteran of the Second City sketch group, Richardson has a clear understanding of how to build a character up with gags and jokes, rather than letting the character just become a vehicle for them. He makes for an endearing lead struggling with his own self-confidence, delivering both expert comedic timing and dramatic chops when it counts.

Meanwhile Milana Vayntrub (“Marvel Rising: Secret Warriors,” “Other Space”) is an absolute scene stealer and competes with Richardson as the film’s best asset. Yes, she was at one point the “AT&T girl” but she clearly has far more acting ability than that moniker would suggest. She, like Richardson, nails the sort of overacting required for a film like this, without ever losing the dramatic thread of the film’s events. The pair also have wonderful chemistry and play off of each other with such delightful and goofy ease.

Writer Mishna Wolff and director Josh Ruben (“SCARE ME,” “Adam Ruins Everything”) have crafted a town that lives right on the razor thin line between being too silly for its own good and too realistic for the silliness to land. This is the sort of the film that really shouldn’t work, but it does because of the commitment to the characters as characters. While it is based on a video game, that game was more of a free form party experience rather than a set narrative anyway, allowing Wolff and Ruben to take the basic premise and run with it. Sure, the characters are all built out of stereotypes, but Wolff clearly worked with each actor to make these stereotypes their own, delivering a cast of memorable characters you care for as the slaughtering starts. Ruben’s experience with groups like CollegeHumor also helps in balancing the exaggerated acting and tone with the suspense provided in the story.

For those coming in expecting a blood bath, you might be surprised at how long it takes for the killing to start. Ruben takes his time, establishing various characters and uneasy relationships so that it truly feels like anyone could be the malicious murderer. There’s a boatload of intrigue and it is a story with a surprising amount of twists and turns. It's rare that a film like this is set up in such a way that the identity of the killer is a mystery, and it's in that aspect that Ruben and Wolff succeed the most. When the reveal comes, it's shocking and unexpected but still makes sense.

An easy comparison to understand the vibe and style of the film immediately is the works of Edgar Wright, specifically the “Three Cornetto” trilogy. The quick cuts and sound effect, the color palette, the  over-exaggerated characters, the musical cues and score, and the specific type of black comedy all work just as well here as they ever have in Wright’s features. It's clearly an inspiration, not an imitation, for Ruben and Wolff.

There’s not really much negative to say about this fun, freaky romp in the snowy mountains of Vermont. Sure, it clearly doesn’t have a huge budget; it has its fair share of budget saving effects moments while also still having some equally good ones, but that just means that it comes down to the actors and script to elevate the film and they’re more than up to the task. It's like a mug of cocoa or a roaring fire: it's warm and sweet, even better with some friends along for the ride, and it leaves you wanting more. At just 97 minutes, it's the kind of film that one almost immediately wishes for a sequel to, if for no other reason than to see another spooky tale tackled with the same level of excellent spookiness and goofiness.

“Werewolves Within” is a delightful romp, a fun and somewhat scary film that clearly seeks to entertain above all else. Packed with a cast of committed character actors and two excellent leads, a script choked full of memorable one-liners, and a legitimately effective mystery at its center, “Werewolves Within” might just be the surprise hit of the year. 4.5/5

Luca - Review

 

For every film from Pixar about finding fulfillment in life (“Soul,” “Toy Story 2”), tackling depression (“Inside Out”), and the numerous stories about loss (“Up,” “Finding Nemo,” “Coco,” “The Good Dinosaur,” “Onward”), there are few tales from the studio that exist to merely just be enjoyed. As mentally satisfying as it is to chew over films like “Soul” and what they mean, its far easier, and sometimes far more enjoyable, to watch a low stakes film that seeks to purely entertain.

Such is the case with “Luca,” Pixar’s latest animated film and the feature directorial debut from Enrico Casarosa (“La Luna”). Every frame of the film is a gorgeous, auburn saturated Italian watercolor masterpiece, with an incredible accompanying score and overall sense of summer whimsy. It also demonstrates the fine line a film can walk between being a piece of pure entertainment without sacrificing depth under the surface.

Jacob Tremblay (“Wonder,” “Room”) and Jack Dylan Grazer (“It,” “Shazam!”) play Luca and Alberto, respectively, a pair of sea monsters who spend a summer on land in the Italian coastal town of Porto Rosso. There they encounter various charming characters, such as Giulia Marcovaldo, voiced by Emma Berman in her film debut, her father Massimo, voiced by Marco Barricelli in his film debut, and the antagonistic Vespa-obsessed Ercole, voiced by Saverio Raimondo.

Screenwriters Mike Jones (“Soul”) and Jesse Andrews (“Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” “Every Day”) and Casarosa have created a true fantasy in the sense that the film easily transports audiences to the wonderful world of Porto Rosso. The cool blues and warm summer atmosphere help to accentuate the perfectly silly nature of the entire film. For a studio so consumed with making “serious” works, “Luca” serves as a fantastic reminder of how good their comedic work can be when they put their mind to it.

The various vocal performances throughout the film are also excellent. There’s always been a trend in “Hollywood” animation where most big actors are cast to voice roles but not really do any voice “acting.” Pixar continues their trend of mixing big name actors with lesser knowns and getting fantastic performances out of all of them. Rainmondo’s villain Ercole is wonderfully silly and idiotic without sacrificing any menace, Berman’s Giulia is a delightful anarchistic bookworm who offsets Alberto and Luca’s whimsy wonderfully, and Barricelli is an absolutely lovable teddy bear of a hulking father figure as Massimo.

Tremblay and Grazer absolutely steal the show however, and their chemistry helps to prop up one of the film’s biggest unforeseen boons, more on that later. Their friendship feels organic and natural, and the energy of their antics and pre-teen attitudes make the film feel as though you’re just watching a couple best friends hang out. It never feels artificial and strengthens the film’s emotional stakes, as their friendship is at the crux of it all.

Much has been made of the film’s themes of otherness, being an outsider, hiding your true self, and trying to discover what kind of person you are. These themes aren’t anything new to film, particularly for family animated movies, and yet there’s just something about the way Luca does it that feels so fresh.

It might be the aesthetic, the music, the summery feeling, but many people have pointed out one thing in particular: the film’s queer subtext. While this could easily be traced back to the themes of hiding your true self or otherness, the Italian countryside and chemistry between Alberto and Luca has had many fans reading queer subtext into the film. After all, the byline for the New York Times review of the film was “Calamari by Your Name.”

Also, it’s just likely coincidence that the film features two young boys as merfolk, a common fantasy creature most young queer boys find themselves gravitating towards. Nonetheless, these themes have been read by numerous corners of the internet from the film’s first trailer, and to see that the film doesn’t inherently shut these readings down. In fact, without spoiling anything, there are quite a few moments, intentional or not, that even seem to support these readings.

It’s a testament to the film’s commitment to subtext that doesn’t overload the film that these themes can be read or not, and it doesn’t harm the quality of the overall product. “Luca” is a delightfully entertaining treat that doesn’t sacrifice its emotion or humor for one or the other. It’s vocal performances and visual designs are some of Pixar’s best, and it’s another easy recommendation from the studio, whether its summertime or not. 4.5/5

Wish Dragon - Review

 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or so they say, but in the entertainment world you often need a bit more than just imitation to set yourself apart. “Wish Dragon” is a perfect example of this: it’s a perfectly fine and enjoyable movie and showcases a great new strategy of focusing on Chinese-centric stories made for and by the Chinese market by Hollywood studios, but it also leans a bit too much into another animated magic wish granting genie movie from the golden age of one of Hollywood’s best animation studios.

That being said, its leads are all delightful to watch and listen to. Jimmy Wong (“Video Game High School,” “Mulan (2020)”) voices Din Song, a college student trying to reunite with his childhood best friend Li Na Wong, voiced by Natasha Liu Bordizzo (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny,” “The Society”), and ends up getting some help from Long, a magical wish-granting dragon voiced by John Cho (“Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle,” “Star Trek (2009)”) to achieve his goals.

Wong does a great job bringing the pathetic and lovable Din to life. He’s easy to like, if a bit apathetic, and his goals are sweet and admirable. Likewise, Bordizzo gives Li Na a spunky attitude without ever losing her sweetness. She’s plucky and funny and makes a great foil for Din’s overly cautious nature. However, both pale in comparison to Cho’s performance as Long. He’s an absolute scene stealer, bringing the same level of charisma to the role that Robin Williams once brought to his own fantastical, magical, wish granting creature years ago.

The magnetic nature of Cho’s performance helps the film maintain interest for a large chunk of the runtime. Long is the one with the emotional arc in this film, not Din, and it provides for an interesting contrast to the way these stories typically play out. The pair have great chemistry and build a believable friendship, leading to some great payoffs at the end as Long’s arc is played out.

Writing a movie certainly isn’t easy, and credit that first time writer/director Chris Appelhans (“Wonder Park”) is able to squeeze some creative concepts out of this well worn setup. Yet, he’s also written a film that has more than a little inspiration from other Hollywood animated films of the past two decades, to the point where some scenes are literally visually set up in the same way. The characters are likable, sure, but the overall plot is the result of a classic trope, diced up and reheated in a new setting. It really does showcase how great Cho, Wong, and Bordizzo are that they are able to keep characters that should be one note and forgettable alive with charm.

This also ties in to the film’s most forgettable and unfortunate aspect. Seemingly in an attempt to make the film more traditionally follow a three-act Hollywood structure or to try and build a franchise by establishing a “behind the scenes” puppet master, the film introduces a trio of henchmen who chase Din throughout the movie attempting to get the teapot Long is inside of. Yet they all feel painfully forgettable, as if they’d been written in during the last week of production.

Bobby Lee (“MADtv,” “Splitting Up Together”) voices the “Tall Goon,” who’s only quality is how much he likes puppies and Jimmy O. Yang (“Silicon Valley,” “Space Force”) voices the “Short Goon,” who’s only quality is how short he is. Maybe it’s just the comedic overblown nature that he voices with, but Yang at least manages to make “Short Goon” an entertaining and silly presence whenever he’s on screen. Meanwhile, Pockets, their leader, voiced by Aaron Yoo (“The Tomorrow People,” “21”) is just a painfully generic villain with no memorable or interesting qualities about him. He keeps his hands in his pockets the entire film, so that’s kind of interesting, but not in any way that matters. Just in an “oh, okay” way.

Will Yun Lee (“Witchblade,” “Bionic Woman”) voices Mr. Wang, Li Na’s father, and it's easy to see how a less “antagonistic” plot could’ve formed with him to still provide the film with some third-act emotional struggles while cutting Pockets and his goons. At least the film is still animated gorgeously though. It’s bright and colorful, with a distinct futuristic look mixed in with the older village Din lives in. Everything has a soft look to it, as if it's all made out of gelatin or plush material. It’s a delightful style that also manages to bring in some great lighting effects for night time sequences and disappearing dragons.

It’s disappointing because the film has a lot going for it besides that. The themes of friendship are well founded, Bordizzo and Wong have some pretty fun chemistry and Cho’s dragon Long is just such an entertaining, magnetic vocal performance. Yet, the painfully cookie-cutter plot and forgettable antagonists bring the whole thing down. It’s still an entertaining family adventure with great animation and morals, but it ends up flying just above the ground when it clearly could soar. 3/5

Censor - Review

 

What’s your favorite scary movie? There are many different kinds after all. There are slashers like “Halloween” and “Friday the 13th,” slow burn, creep-centric ones like “The VVitch” and “It Follows,” and more comedic takes like “Killer Clowns from Outer Space,” and “Evil Dead 2.” No horror fan is going to like everyone, but what makes “Censor” so extremely invigorating is that it is, without a doubt, a horror movie fan’s horror movie.

The film follows Enid, a censor working for the British Board of Film Classification during the early 1980’s at the peak of the “video nasty” period, where the UK tried to crack down on the large number of direct-to-VHS low budget exploration horror films being released. Her world is forever changed when she one day watches a film that begins to get under her skin and affect her day-to-day life.

“Censor” is a movie that thrives off of the psychological effect that films can have on us. Not only is it at its best when its toying with the viewer, causing them to question what they’ve just seen or if there’s actually anything horrific going on, but this idea that media can twist and affect us is fundamental to the plot itself.

Whilst she’s directed some shorts before, “Censor” is the feature directorial debut for Prano Bailey-Bond, and even if the film isn’t to your liking, she deserves to have praise heaped upon her for maintaining such a confident vision for her first feature. Every moment and scene is constructed in such a particular way, it's hard to imagine the film existing in any other way and still having the same effect.

Niamh Algar (“Raised By Wolves,” “Calm with Horses”) delivers an absolutely stellar lead performance as Enid, and she’s the lifeblood of the entire film. This is the definition of a movie carried by a single performance, as even though everyone else around her is great, if Algar doesn’t sell it, the entire movie falls apart. Thankfully, she’s extremely endearing and wonderful to get to know and we truly root for her to figure out what’s going on and to get to the bottom of the changes happening around her.

From a technical standpoint, “Censor” deserves a lot of praise as well. Not only does it maintain a thoroughly unsettling atmosphere even in its lighter moments, but it also manages to replicate the visual style of the “video nastys” and the panic surrounding them nearly effortlessly. Bailey-Bond injects plenty of medium changes and uncomfortable sound design into the film, doing everything to keep the viewer on edge for as long as possible.

All of this comes together in a third act that is truly something special; a wonderful combination of the endearing lead character of Enid, the horrific visual styles implemented up until that point, and the general horror of the unknown that we can sometimes get from horror films. It's a movie about catharsis and the feeling of both dread and relief that comes from movies like this. Sure, we feel some kind of relief when the villain rips the head off of a character, because that means it's at least over. But it’s also deeply upsetting. After all, these movies are all fake. It’s not real, isn’t it?

Yet, if there’s one massive thing that could be a deal breaker for some, it's the pacing of it all. Despite only being 87 minutes long, “Censor” is a deliberately paced film. If you like your horror films quick and dirty and covered in blood, then you might want to pass on this decidedly slower and more psychological affair. But this would be doing the film a disservice though, as it's a movie for horror movie fans. The more love you have for the genre, the more horror films you’ve seen, the more likely you are to fall head over heels in love with this trip.

“Censor” is a thrilling, confident, genre infused debut film that showcases a bright future for both its lead actress and its director. A horror film made for those who love the medium, coupled with a deliberately slow pace means this head trip won’t be for everyone, but those that do buckle up for it will be treated to a thrilling and confident horror experience. 4/5

In the Heights - Review

 

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s name is synonymous with one thing: “Hamilton.” Even people who might not know who he is know “Hamilton” and describing him as one of the brains behind the massively successful musical makes him an instant favorite for many. However, that was not remotely his first big success, because way back in 2008, after an off-Broadway run in 2007, Miranda and Quiara Alegría Hudes’s first big success premiered; “In the Heights.”

If there’s one undeniable success that this film adaptation manages, it’s translating the thumping energy of the stage to the screen. So often musicals lose substantial amounts of energy when transitioning to film, just look at the 2005 adaptation of “The Producers. Same cast, same director, but it flopped critically and commercially. This momentum is important for any film adaptation of a stage show, and doubly so with a project like “Heights” where so much of each and every moment is about the people.

If the emotion or energy is lost, then the film fails. Luckily, director John M. Chu and writer Quiara Alegría Hudes have delivered a project that radiates with energy throughout its 143-minute runtime. That’s a hard thing to pull off, but whether its in slower romantic numbers or the numerous elaborately constructed hundred cast member dance sequences, things never wain. Chu might be most well-known for directing “Crazy Rich Asians”, but he cut his teeth on films in the “Step Up” franchise, and it shows here.

This is a hard film to describe in terms of just what makes it so special. It’s easy to give lip service to its cultural elements; it showcases a minority group that is rarely, if ever, the focus of major Hollywood films and part of the reason for its sense of electric energy is the freshness this new perspective lends the film. Yet, the most miraculous thing of all is this, as wonderful as it is to have a film this grand and diverse, it also works with that removed.

What’s at the film’s core; the story of love, family, home, wanting the best for those around you, ring true. The way its being told and the perspectives are unique, but the core of it all is intrinsically universal. Hudes has successfully taken her and Miranda’s musical from the stage to the screen without losing a drop of authenticity and heart, even as songs, lines, and various other elements were swapped around for this adaptation.

Just like any film, thought arguably more important in a musical, a story is nothing if the people bringing it to life aren’t giving it their all. Thankfully, there’s not a single weak link to be seen in this sprawling and lively cast. Anthony Ramos (“Hamilton (2020),” “She’s Gotta Have It (2017)”) is, without a doubt, an Oscar frontrunner as Usnavi, the film’s protagonist. His earnestness and warm heart are palpable in every single scene and lend everything a wonderful energy and sense of love.

If Ramos is making a strong case for a Lead Actor Oscar, then Corey Hawkins (“Straight Outta Compton,” “24: Legacy”) and Gregory Diaz IV (“Vampires vs. the Bronx”) are making equally strong cases for Supporting Actor noms. Hawkins plays Benny, a taxicab dispatcher, and Diaz plays Usnavi’s cousin Sonny. Benny is an excitable guy with a head full of ideas, and Sonny is a life of the party energetic teenager almost anyone can relate to. Its hard to say anything more descriptive than just that they’re excellent. The same goes for the rest of the cast: Leslie Grace, in her film debut, Melissa Barrera (“Siempre Tuya Acapulco,” “Vida”), Daphne Rubin-Vega (“Smash,” “Katy Keene”), Jimmy Smits (“NYPD Blue,” “The West Wing”), and, continuing the trend started by films like “The Farewell” and “Minari,” Olga Merediz, reprising her Broadway role as Abuela Claudia, stealing hearts as this year’s most lovable and wholesome film grandmother.

The music is excellent, the choreography is stellar, and the film is even mostly well-paced given its lengthy runtime. If there’s any complaints to be made, its that the romantic subplot involving Benny and Grace’s Nina isn’t as interesting as the rest of the film, but that hardly means its boring or poorly done.

“In The Heights” is a virtually complete success, with stellar performances and an entire cast and creative crew uniformly committed to bringing this modern classic of a musical to the silver screen. It might be too long for some, and it, unfortunately, won’t make non-musical fans reconsider their lives, but what has been presented is easily the best film musical, adaptation or otherwise, in years. 5/5

Cruella - Review

 

It’s always appreciated when a film knows exactly what it is. Yes, not every film is going to win awards or be remembered for years to come, but there’s a difference between a film that doesn’t achieve greatness and one that knows not to try. This might seem like a negative and that the people behind a film like that would be lazy, but “Cruella” is a perfect example of how that can end up making a film better.

Let’s get the most obvious thing out of the way first: the cast is absolutely stellar. Emma Stone (“La La Land,” “Zombieland”) is electric and completely devours the scenery as she smirks and connives her way across the streets of London as Estella/Cruella. It’s the textbook definition of watching an actor have fun with a role, and she not only manages to deliver a legitimately good performance, but delivers some lines and moments that, in lesser hands, would have completely fallen flat.

Emma Thompson (“Nanny McPhee,” “Saving Mr. Banks”) does just as much delightful overacting as Stone and the sequences where the two are opposite are the highlight of the film. Its just such a wonderful treat watching two fabulous actors both trying to out evil the other. If looks could kill, their scenes together would be graveyards and its just a delicious delight.

Really, everyone in the cast does a pretty great job with what they’re handed. Joel Fry (“Game of Thrones,” “Yesterday”) and Paul Walter Hauser (“Richard Jewel,” “BlacKkKlansman”) play Jasper and Horace, respectively, and the pair are scene stealers and the heart of the entire film. The fact that they result in the film about the puppy murdering villainess having a big beating heart is something that we’ll get to in a bit but suffice it to say that their and Stone’s talents make it easy to root for these underdog antagonists.

The supporting cast, as well, do their jobs well. Kirby Howell-Baptiste (“Why Women Kill,” “Infinity Train”) provides a sweet only friend to Cruella in the form of Anita Darling. Kayvan Novak (“What We Do in the Shadows”) is amusing, if all to brief, as bumbling lawyer turned songwriter Roger Radcliffe. John McCrea (“Giri/Haji,” “Dracula (2020)”) is another amusing and underutilized character as Cruella’s friend and lead designer Artie. Mark Strong (“Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Shazam!”) is also here as the valet and right-hand man of Thompson’s Baroness. Strong is definitely the film’s oddest casting choice. He does a fine job, but he nevertheless stands apart whenever he’s on screen.

It’s clear that director Craig Gillespie (“Lars and the Real Girl,” “I, Tonya”) has tried to put as much of the antagonistic spitfire from his last project “I, Tonya” into this film, and while he mostly succeeds, this is still a Disney live-action property. There’s a certain kind of anarchic energy that the film maintains virtually effortlessly in its visual design. Its shockingly well shot, with cinematographer Nicolas Karakatsanis (“The Loft,” “I, Tonya”) delivering some truly wonderful sequences throughout the film’s runtime.

Really, the film has one big flaw and that’s the story at its center. Let’s make one thing very clear: a film’s script and its story are two very different things. This is an important distinction, because while the moment-to-moment dialogue and scenes can be, and frequently are, positively electric with joyous chaos and gleefully wicked dialogue, the overall story it’s all crammed into is decidedly less so. There’s a third act twists that feels rather out of place and brings the villain origin plot to a screeching halt as the writers seem determined to justify Cruella’s antagonistic deeds.

It’s as if these two major components (the script and the story) are working against each other, and its telling that none of the film’s three story writers, Aline Brosh McKenna (“The Devil Wears Prada,” “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend”), Kelly Marcel (“Saving Mr. Banks,” “Fifty Shades of Grey”), and Steve Zissis (“Togetherness”) wrote the script, which was instead written by Dana Fox (“Couples Retreat,” “How to Be Single”) and Tony McNamara (“The Favourite,” “The Great”).

However, despite the conflicting energy between the script, actors, director, pretty much everyone involved and the story, “Cruella” still maintains a delightfully high-strung amount of B-Movie energy throughout its entire runtime. Is all of it good? Not really, but it succeeds in taking big swings far more than it misses and the film as a result is never ever boring. It’s as if Gillespie and his actors looked at a plot that tried to “humanize” Cruella and decided to execute it in the least nice way possible.

This is a B-Movie with a budget, wonderfully cast and performed, directed with energy, and serving as a vehicle for some wonderful acidic confrontations and lines of dialogue. The film succeeds in spite of a sanitized overarching plot and manages to be all B-Movie thrills without the guilt. 4/5