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

Vice (2018) - Review

 

With a subject that doesn't immediately inspires laugh out loud hysterics, Adam McKay (“Anchorman,” “The Big Short”) continues his move from screwball comedy into the world of "based on a true story" dramedies. He’s chosen former Vice President Dick Cheney as the basis for his next film. With a cast consisting of McKay veterans and new players, he’s set in motion what could be his most complex film yet.

Could is the operative word.

Because when tackling someone like Cheney, a person that the film even acknowledges has a secretive life, a large amount of care must go into the proceedings to make sure everything is either correct or appears so. This can lead to a lot of difficult work from the writers, but it can pay off in the end. Like in his previous work “The Big Short,” writer/director Adam McKay has clearly put work into making sure the right people are saying and doing the right things.

It's evident that attention to detail was a major factor, and it shows. However, as good as this attention to detail is, it sacrifices something major that, before “Vice,” McKay had been a razor-sharp master of tone.

“Vice” has one glaringly huge problem at its center, much like Cheney’s early heart. The film itself seems unsure of what it wants to be. A riotous comedy filled with sly cutaways and “I-see-what-you-did-there” moments, or a serious drama about the trials and tribulations of one of the most reviled figures in American political history.

This leads to a lot of the storytelling techniques that McKay used in “The Big Short” failing here, due to the inconsistent and indecisive tone. As the film goes on, it becomes less apparent what is meant to be a joke and what is meant to be taken seriously, leading to a bizarre feeling of bleakness.

When Cheney is sitting talking with Bush about being his running mate, the film constantly flips back to shots of Cheney fishing. It’s as if we’re meant to think “Oh, he’s got him hook, line and sinker.” But when those fishing scenes are forgotten about as the movie progresses, it mainly leads to confusion.

The same can be said for the numerous other cutaway scenes present throughout the film, save for one. The narrator, played by Jesse Plemons (“Game Night,” “Friday Night Lights”), and his small story is done masterfully well and almost makes the failures of the other cutaway moments seem worse by comparison.

Also present are scenes that seem to serve no purpose in the film whatsoever. At times, there will be scenes of the Cheney family having dinner at home, discussing random happenstance events, before cutting to bombings in Iraq and news coverage. It seems like McKay’s way of showing how Cheney “slept at night” despite his actions, but it just comes off as haphazard.

The film also seems to just simply end. There’s no coverage or footage of the investigations into Cheney and the last 30 minutes just feel like randomly spliced together scenes of Cheney looking solemn with news footage of the Obama inauguration and events afterwards.

Despite the uneven tonal work and bizarre cutaway moments, every performance in this film is incredible. Christian Bale (“The Dark Knight,” “American Psycho”) continues to show why he’s one of the finest actors alive, completely transforming himself into the former VP. He tries his damnedest to prevent McKay from turning Cheney into a cartoon villain and it's his attention to small mannerisms and vocal work that really seals this as one of the year’s finest performances.

Amy Adams (“Enchanted,” “The Master”) also further proves her talent as Lynn Cheney, Dick’s wife, and manages to hold her own against Bale throughout the movie. Steve Carell (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Little Miss Sunshine”) doesn’t do jaw-dropping work as Donald Rumsfeld, but what he does he does well, and with a ner-do-well smile. Sam Rockwell (“Galaxy Quest,” “Moon”) manages to find a fine line with his portrayal of George W. Bush. He avoids the overly serious stylings of Josh Brolin’s version and the overly comical style of Will Ferrell’s. He hits it right in the middle, giving great charm and gravitas to what could easily have been phoned in as a bumbling character.

As previously mentioned, Plemons does work of equal quality to Bale’s despite having significantly less screen time. The supporting cast consisting of Allison Pill (“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” “The Newsroom”), Tyler Perry (“Gone Girl,” “Diary of a Mad Black Woman”), and Justin Kirk (“Angels in America,” “Weeds”) also do fine jobs.

What McKay has done with “Vice” is essentially what he did before with 2015’s “The Big Short;” taken a well-known bad thing and put his comedic spin on its true-life tale. However, that initial concept is where the similarities end. Because whereas before he seemed to be using a scalpel for his subject, here he appears to be using a club.

McKay is known for comedy, so it's understandable that he would try to take a serious situation like this and put an amusing spin on it. However, the film ends up feeling like he was the only one who knew it was going to be a comedy. It’s a dramatic story, told with dramatic performances, and directed like a comedy.

Poor and inconsistent tonal work and a bizarre reliance on cutaway sequences hurt a movie otherwise bolstered by a fantastic frame narrative and performances across the board. A lack of effective humor especially hurts, considering “Vice” marketed itself as a hilarious political comedy. It’s hard to say where exactly this movie went wrong, because nothing in it is really truly bad. It’s just deeply flawed. 2.5/5

Aquaman - Review

James Wan, the director of “Saw,” “Insidious” and “Furious 7,” is facing an uphill battle when it comes to bringing Aquaman to a solo big screen adventure. After all, this is the character who talks to fish, and was famously the fake superhero film pitched in “Entourage,” specifically because of the inherent goofiness and silliness related to his origin and powers. Can the man who’s mastered horror bring this character from the briny depths and deliver a seaworthy adventure?

For anyone who’s seen “Justice League,” one thing is already apparent: Jason Momoa (“Stargate Atlantis,” “Game of Thrones”) plays an excellent Arthur Curry. His frat boy attitude and somewhat goofy demeanor are balanced here far better than they were in the previous hero ensemble flick, and Momoa keeps his smile and charm flowing throughout the movie’s runtime.

As for the rest of the cast, well, it’s a mixed bag. Nicole Kidman (“Days of Thunder,” “Moulin Rouge”) does a great job given her relatively low amount of screen time, as does Temuera Morrison (“Once Were Warriors,” “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”) as Arthur’s father. William Dafoe (“The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Spider-Man”) plays essentially the same character he’s always played, but does so well.

Patrick Wilson (“The Conjuring,” “Angels in America”) completely commits to the overly cheesy dialogue and plot that he’s been given, and it allows him to deliver a weirdly intriguing villain, despite not being particularly interesting. He’s intense and focuses your gaze when he’s onscreen and completely forgettable when he isn’t. Amber Heard (“All the Boys Love Mandy Lane,” “London Fields”) is the same; a good performance when she’s onscreen and almost gone from memory when she isn’t.

Unfortunately, the one character who seems to be the most interesting and obvious foil to Aquaman is also the worst performance. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (“Baywatch (2017),” “The Get Down”) butchers almost every line he’s given as Black Manta. A cool suit alone doesn’t add up to create a compelling villain, and his hammy delivery also isn’t helped by the fact that the screenwriters seem to have thrown him in to this film purely to be sequel-bait.

Which leads to the film’s biggest problem: its script. Not the overall plot, which is mostly enjoyable, especially when it focuses on the well-worn adventure movie tropes it so clearly wants to play into. The script, and dialogue specifically, are the biggest flaw. Sometimes, everything is fine, and the action is playing out epically with not a care in the world.

However, there are a handful of moments that involve someone opening their mouths and delivering a line that is so out of nowhere bad that it takes audiences completely out of the moment. Not every line is like this, and some of the actors can deal with them. Momoa, Kidman, and Morrison can tackle just about anything the film throws with charm, meanwhile Wilson and Heard give as many terrible lines and they do cheesily enjoyable ones.

While the overall script may be flawed, one of the defining elements of the film, Arthur’s heritage, is actually handled quite well. It’s by no means subtle, but the themes of home, belonging, and familial worth do ring true, thanks to Momoa’s commitment to the role and respect for his hero’s backstory. It adds depth to him deep-sea hero and helps to balance out the script and plot’s more egregious flaws.

Was something like that inevitable? Is the basic concept of this character one that can’t help but deliver pure B-movie cheese? No, not necessarily, because the rest of the film’s aspects seem to be air-tight. For example, Rupert Gregson-Williams’s score is electric and pulse pounding, mixing guitar riffs and underwater melodies to create an epic score of both worlds.

The cinematography from Don Burgess (“42,” “Spider-Man (2002)”) maintains a wonderful divide; remaining unobtrusive during dialogue and getting weird during fights. In particular, the use of rotating camera angles and unbroken shots is the breath of fresh air that DC’s action has needed for quite a while. This naturally extends to the fight choreography itself, which is excellent. For the most part, the action is kept small and confined, allowing acrobatic techniques to be used that are just plain cool to watch.

If there’s one thing to laude “Aquaman” for, it’s the visual designs. The underwater cities teem with light and color, seeming closer to alien planets than liquid civilizations. A layer of blue from the water gives everything a cool sheen to it, and the simplistic nature of the submerged proceedings is an excellent counter to the overly-complicated bubble world Zack Snyder tries to deliver in “Justice League.”

Reverse diving suits, water transformation lasers, giant undersea creatures and physics and logic defying underwater abilities; with all of these, director James Wan has made sure to keep one thing in mind above all else, is it fun? And when it comes to the film’s visuals and designs, the answer is undoubtedly yes! Weird, but fun.

It’s just such a fun world to spend two hours in, with the technological designs contrasting the underwater escapades in such a wonderful way. This, coupled with Momoa’s charm and the excellent visuals and effects help to deliver a movie that seems like it could be on par with “Wonder Woman.” However, its poor script and hammy acting and melodrama drag it closer to the depths. It’s not bad, not close. It’s merely cheesy. Wet and cheesy, a surprisingly good combination. 3/5

Bumblebee - Review

 

It would be easy to be pessimistic about “Bumblebee.” The live action “Transformers” series is probably one of the worst film series in recent memory, and yet despite that, the billions of dollars it has made makes it seem like audiences don’t care either way. As long as it has big robots, they’ll turn up. Which is why “Bumblebee” is so important. And so, so good.

Set in the 1980s, the film is a semi-reboot of the Michael Bay series that preceded it. It never outright does anything that would cut itself off from the previous films, and yet it is very clearly trying to distance itself from them. However, this distancing never hangs over the movie like a cloud. Rather, it ends up distancing itself the most thanks to some pretty strong writing.

Screenwriter Christina Hodson does an excellent job of forming two likable characters and putting them together rather quickly. Really, this is a pretty simple story that has been seen before. Previous films like “E.T.” and “The Iron Giant” seem to have provided the template that “Bumblebee” follows, but its not without its own spins on the formula.

One of those spins comes in the form of remarkably better action that before. Gone are the overly-complicated CGI monstrosities and the overabundance of slow motion. It seems that director Steven Knight (“Kubo and the Two Strings”) has pulled from his animation background to make the action intricate without sacrificing clarity.

There seems to be a much larger emphasis on practical effects this time, or at the very least, blurring the line between the CGI robots and the real actors. It’s nearly flawless throughout, which helps with the film’s suspension of disbelief and with preventing everything from becoming an over blown CGI mess.

Much of the action is simple, going for hand to hand combat and some gunplay here and there. There are still explosions and there is still some gratuitous violence to other robots and humans, but the tone and visuals are what keep it all grounded.

Speaking first about the tone, everything has a bubbly lighthearted feeling that somehow persists even in the darker moments. There may be aliens coming to find our titular hero, but he still finds time to joke around with his human counterparts, and it helps endear audiences to the character more than ever before.

Visually, its clear the budget is lower than previous “Transformer” films, there are fewer giant robots of course. But the redesigns help to better establish the action and visual style of the film. Gone are the robots so intricate and detailed that it becomes a chore to keep track of them. This new Bumblebee is big and chunky and bright yellow. It’s closer to the original cartoon style, and it fits the tone perfectly. Every other robot is kept to this mentality: chunky and colorful.

Now, it is worth mentioning the biggest knock against “Bumblebee.” As good as the film is and as much of a breath of fresh air as it is for this series, there’s very little of the film that hasn’t been seen before. While the ways Hodson and Knight tell their story are different, this is still the same misunderstood alien tracked by the government story seen time and time again. The same twists happen, the same redemptions, the same misunderstandings.

In that case, it falls to the actors to help save this otherwise predictable story. The main two, Hailee Steinfeld (“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” “The Edge of Seventeen”) and John Cena (“Blockers,” “Ferdinand”) are both equally excellent. Steinfeld plays a spunky and angsty teen Charlie, balancing both extremely well without becoming annoying. Cena’s sympathetic Sgt. Burns is anything but one dimensional, a refreshing change of pace from previous Transformer villains. The rest of the is still great, although their screen time and use within the story can vary.

Despite being a CGI creation, Bumblebee himself is still full of charm and personality. He’s fierce and loyal, but he also manages to be downright adorable for much of the film. He is without a doubt, the film’s scene (and heart) stealer.

“Bumblebee” may be predictable and cliched, but it helps tremendously that those clichés are delivered but such talented actors and that the story revolved around such a charming character. This is a wonderfully charming film, with a great sense of visual balance and tone, never sacrificing its heart and sense of emotion for big explosions and intensity. It’s taken someone fiercely loyal, like Bumblebee, to transform this series into something special. 4/5

Mary Poppins Returns - Review

In the recent age of Disney regurgitating most of its past films to stellar (“Cinderella (2015),” “Pete’s Dragon (2016)”) and less than stellar “(Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) results, it’s easy to be cynical about anything coming out of the Mouse House that bears resemblance to past projects. It’s even easier to be cynical when that new project is based upon something so iconic, whimsical, and “practically perfect” as “Mary Poppins.” And then you actually see the film, and all cynicism is washed away.

To make a long story short, “Mary Poppins Returns,” the sequel to the original 1964 film, is not a remake or bastardization of the original tale. It’s a continuation, with a new Mary for a new generation of moviegoers.

Emily Blunt (“Edge of Tomorrow,” “The Adjustment Bureau”) perfectly encapsulates the energy of Mary, flowing through each scene like she’s on a cloud. Her smile and wit easily match that of Julie Andrews’ in the original, while also imbuing her with a bit more playful, almost cockney sense of humor during some of the most dazzling musical numbers.

The filmmakers have also cast Lin Manuel Miranda (“In the Heights,” “Hamilton”) as Jack the Lamplighter, and have utilized each of his theatrical musical skills to a T. His charming smile and talent for fast-paced lyrics are put to great use here, and he maintains the same amount of mystery that Dick Van Dyke blessed Bert the Chimney Sweep with over 50 years ago.

While not as prominently featured, the rest of the cast is also excellent. Colin Firth (“The English Patient,” “Mamma Mia!”) delivers an excellently smarmy performance as the bank owner William Wilkins, and his lackeys, played by Jeremy Swift (“The Smoking Room,” “Downton Abbey”) and Kobna Holdbrook-Smith (“Ghost Stories (2017),” “Mike Bassett: Manager”), are delightfully buffoonish, with Smith stealing most scenes he’s in.

The three Banks children; Annabel, John and Georgie, played by Pixie Davies (“Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children,” “Humans”), Nathanael Saleh, and Joel Dawson, respectively, hold their own against the older, seasoned adult actors, doing fine jobs playing wish-washy children with a penchant for mischief and imagination.

Ben Wishaw (“Paddington,” “Skyfall”) and Emily Mortimer (“The Newsroom,” “Doll & Em”) also do wonderful jobs as the grown Michael and Jane Banks. Wishaw isn’t afraid to let his charming and childlike smile loose every so often, and Mortimer is as likeable as ever, even if she doesn’t get a much plot devotion as she deserves.

It’s easy to wax nostalgic about the original film and point out all the endless references and tiny Easter eggs all throughout this new film as well. There’s kite flying, tuppences and so much more. But nailing down these references seem so against what this new film is all about.

Director/co-writer Rob Marshall (“Chicago (2002),” “Into the Woods (2014)”) and co/writers David Magee (“Finding Neverland,” “Life of Pi”) and John DeLuca (“Memoirs of a Geisha,” “Into the Woods (2014)”), along with the rest of their crew, seem so excited to show what sets they built and what numbers they’ve choreographed that the film moves along at a brisk pace and energy just to get through it all. It wavers a bit in the middle, a nanny does need her rest after all. But just as quickly as it rested, this crew of filmmakers is right back to tripping the lights and being fantastic.

Of course, Mary Poppins just isn’t the same without music to go with the adventure, and this new film contains nine new songs to go with it. Just about all of them are excellent, with “A Cover is not a Book” and “Trip a Little Light Fantastic” proving immediate standouts. Only one (“Turning Turtle”) seems to be lacking in the same energy. Still, the worst amongst a catalog of excellence isn’t that bad.

There’s a lot to say about this new adventure. It would be easy to say it’s slow, that not much happens and that it sidelines the grown Banks children. You could even say that it seeks to imitate rather that elaborate. However, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and even if it’s all imitation, if its half as good as the original, that’s pretty damn good.

“Mary Poppins Returns” features some excellent music and an ensemble cast worth cheering about. Emily Blunt can easily hold her own against Andrews’ original nanny, as can Miranda against Van Dyke. Really, it’s the film’s seemingly pure search for joy and magic that put it above the competition. When’s the last time a movie came along that made you not want to know how they did it all? Instead, it made you want to preserve the magic and keep it all a secret. Of course, even with all that, it's easy to be cynical about a movie like this; a movie that seeks purely to instill joy and magic. It's easy, until you see it. 4.5/5

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse - Review

 

In the late 70’s, the tagline for the upcoming film “Superman: The Movie” was simply, “You’ll believe a man can fly.” Now, four decades later, the superhero genre has been twisted around and contorted in numerous ways to continuously recapture audience’s attentions. Serious dramas (“X-Men,” “Logan”) have shared screens with wacky comedies (“Deadpool,” “Guardians of the Galaxy”), with Marvel Studios dipping their toes into various genres within the MCU. But no superhero film before has captivated audiences like “Into the Spider-Verse.”

This animated spectacle comes from Sony Pictures Animation, who haven’t made an objectively good film since 2009’s “Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs.” After years of “Hotel Transylvania” and other lackluster projects, Sony and directors Bob Persichetti (“The Little Prince”), Peter Ramsey (“Rise of the Guardians”) and Rodney Rothman (“22 Jump Street,” “Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping”) have given audiences a visually stunning world to explore.

Every frame pops with color and creative designs. The world Miles Morales inhabits is bright, vibrant and simply incredible to behold. It’s the kind of film that begs to be bought on Blu-Ray and paused at every moment to savor he crisp details present thanks to the wonderfully unique style. It’s something that must be seen to be truly appreciated.

With camerawork that seems to float through each sequence, everything comes together visually in a way that feels like a comic book leaping onto the big screen, in as literal of a sense as possible. It feels as though zero compromises were made visually, even establishing slightly differing styles for each of the five Spider-People.

There are five Spider-People, by the way, all crossing into Miles Morales’s world. He’s a young kid, voiced excellently by Shameik Moore (“Dope,” “The Get Down”), who is instantly likable and charming. He admires Spider-Man and has very specific opinions about his school and home life. In a year where even some of the best characters in film have felt compromised at least a bit, it’s incredibly refreshing to see that one of the most fleshed out characters of the year is not only animated, but a superhero as well.

The rest of the voice cast, without spoiling anything, all exceed expectations. Jake Johnson (“New Girl,” “Let’s Be Cops”), Hailee Steinfeld (“The Edge of Seventeen,” “Bumblebee”), Nicolas Cage (“National Treasure,” “Kick-Ass”), Kimiko Glenn (“Orange is the New Black,” “Like Father”), John Mulaney (“Big Mouth,” “Oh Hello”), Brian Tyree Henry (“Widows,” “If Beale Street Could Talk”), Mahershala Ali (“Moonlight,” “Luke Cage”), Liev Schreiber (“Spotlight,” “Scream (1996)”), Lily Tomlin (“Grace and Frankie,” “I Heart Huckabees”), and Lauren Vélez (“Oz,” “Dexter”) are the definition of a star-studded cast, and the excellent writing from Phil Lord and Rothman give them ample room to deliver some truly wonderful material.

So, what else is there? Because there have been gorgeous animated movies before (albeit none that have looked like this). There have been unique superhero origins, likable characters, good casts, and well written stories before. Not only does “Spider-Verse” manage to combine all those elements, but it does so without skipping a beat. Rarely, if ever, do things pause for a moment, letting the pace zip along throughout the film, constantly surprising and entertaining audiences with the next unique idea.

Because at the end of the day, while it is extremely weird and extremely funny, “Spider-Verse” treats it events with seriousness. Things may be weird, but they’re real to these characters, and because the writing and voice work are so good, it’s easy to believe this world and events are serious. It’s been so long since a movie hasn’t needed audiences to “suspend their disbelief” because it’s so excellent at worldbuilding on its own.

“Spider-Verse” also knows exactly where its heart is at, and it never loses a grip on its events because of it. Miles is the core of this story, and while the danger may be large, the scope never drifts outside of him. It’s so unabashedly joyous without ever letting the focus slip away. It’s sweet without every losing its silly. It’s serious without ever losing its sense of humor. It’s a perfect balance.

This is a movie that understands the boxes it has to check to be a superhero movie, but isn’t content with simply putting out surface level work. The level of detail and wit in the storytelling is as intricate as the visuals, and the story goes to places both unexpected and perfectly logical. Constantly flipping through various narrative threads with ease, there simply hasn’t been an animated film this inventive since the original “Toy Story,” or as narratively complex since “Wall-E.” It teaches the hard, thoughtful and ingeniously delivered lessons, and adults may find themselves walking away with as much to think about as the kids. Maybe even more.

There’s even a level to the film wherein it feels like a direct response to the naysayers of animation, the people who believe because something is animated, its inherently inferior or only for kids. Not only are there jokes that directly address this topic, but back to the stories complexities, it feels like the film is never satisfied with “good enough,” crafting a film that is for everyone, yet spits in the face of the “animation is just for kids” chunk of its crowd.

“Into the Spider-Verse” has delivered something fans of the animation medium and superhero films have desired for so long: innovation and creativity. But more than that, it’s a film that is delightful on almost every level. Whether you’re a superhero fan or not, “Into the Spider-Verse” is for you. It’s, quite simply, an excellent film in all regards. It’s spectacular. It’s amazing. It’s an achievement in film making, one of the best animated films of the decade and undoubtedly one of the best movies of the year. 5/5

Ralph Breaks the Internet - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widows (2018) - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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