Artemis Fowl (2020) review (Disney+)

Thanks in large part to the massive critical and financial success that Warner Bros has achieved through the Harry Potter franchise, we’ve seen plenty of attempts at film franchises based on other popular young adult novels. And yet, the results have generally varied when it comes to their attempts to become the next Potter. In other words, while franchises like The Hunger Games and Twilight managed to see their stories told to completion, others like His Dark Materials and The Mortal Instruments basically crashed and burned right at the start, thus failing to spawn their potential franchises. But now we’ve come to the latest attempt at a film franchise based on a YA novel with Artemis Fowl. It all began with the 2001 fantasy novel of the same name written by Irish author Eoin Colfer, which introduced readers to the titular Artemis Fowl II, a 12-year-old prodigy who runs his family’s long-standing criminal empire. Upon publication, it did quite well with both critics and audiences and would be followed by seven sequels that were released up until 2012 as well as a few spin-offs. But as for a potential film adaptation of the franchise… it took a little longer to make that a reality. Plans for this adaptation go back as far as 2001, the same year that the first novel was released, but it ended up in development hell for at least more than a decade until 2015, when the one and only Kenneth Branagh was announced as its director. It was originally set for an August 2019 release but was then pushed back to May 2020, presumably due to Disney’s efforts to manage the newest additions to their release schedule that came courtesy of their recent purchasing of 20^th Century Fox. But, as you might have guessed… then came the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced Disney to cancel its theatrical release and instead have it debut on Disney+. And while I’m well-aware of the incredibly notorious reputation that this film has garnered amongst fans of the franchise from an adaptational perspective, I’d say that it still manages to be a decently entertaining fantasy flick.   

Artemis Fowl II (Ferdia Shaw) is a 12-year old genius who lives with his father, Artemis I (Colin Farrell), at their prestigious manor off the coast of Ireland but is emotionally burdened by his father’s frequent trips that he never talks about. But then, on one fateful day, Artemis Sr. suddenly disappears, and thanks to the extensive media coverage of this incident, Artemis is distressed to discover that his dad has been linked to the thefts of some of the most famous artifacts in the world. And if that wasn’t enough, Artemis gets a message from a mysterious figure named Opal Koboi (voiced by an uncredited Hong Chau and physically portrayed by Emily Brockmann, Jessica Rhodes, and Charlie Cameron) who reveals that she has kidnapped his father, who had stolen a powerful artifact from her known as the Aculos. Artemis’ loyal bodyguard Domovoi ‘Dom’ Butler (Nonso Anozie) then proceeds to inform him that his father, like his ancestors before him, has spent several years documenting the existence of magical creatures. And as it turns out, a whole universe of these creatures exists underground in a place known as Haven City. Thus, with only three days to find the Aculos and save his father from Opal, Artemis and Butler enact a plan that sees them capture Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), an elven fairy and member of Haven City’s Lower Elements Police reconnaissance squad (AKA LEPrecon). Holly also happens to be the daughter of Beechwood Short, who is revealed to have been the one who had originally stolen the Aculos for Artemis’ dad despite this resulting in him being deemed a traitor by LEPrecon. Naturally, Holly’s capture attracts the attention of LEPrecon as her superior, Commander Root (Judi Dench), launches a full-scale assault on the Fowl estate to rescue her, completely unaware that this is all part of Artemis’ ingenious scheme to stop the evil being that threatens to destroy both the human world and the magical world.

Right off the bat, the first thing to note about this film is that, in several places, it differs quite a bit from its source material. While the main plot of Artemis kidnapping Holly Short and incurring the wrath of LEPrecon is the same as it was in the book, the set-up behind it isn’t. Instead of being part of his quest to find a powerful magical artifact and rescue his father from Opal Koboi (who, in the books, didn’t appear until the second installment, Artemis Fowl: The Arctic Incident), the book saw him do this simply to collect a massive reward to recoup his family’s fortune. There was also a key emotional subplot regarding Artemis’ mother, which is absent in the film as it’s established that she died sometime prior. So, in other words, it seems like the biggest difference between the film and the book is that the former makes a considerable effort to tone down Artemis’ ‘criminal mastermind’ persona so that he doesn’t come off as an unlikable villain. And yet, based on what I’ve seen from fans of the franchise, it’s safe to say that Artemis’ traditional characterization was never an issue for them, and as you might have guessed, they aren’t too happy with all these narrative and character-based changes. However, what fascinates me the most about this film is how surprisingly modest it is when it comes to one of the biggest aspects of any potential franchise starter, world-building. While it does set up the world of Haven City and the creatures that inhabit it, it doesn’t spend a lot of time there, instead focusing more on Artemis’ clash with LEPrecon at his family’s mansion. Granted, this does result in a rather unique ‘bottle episode’ of a story that’s often been described by Eoin Colfer as a ‘fantasy version of Die Hard’, but it still would’ve benefitted from a greater focus on the magical world of Haven City. To be fair, though, this is probably another consequence of the film’s major changes, especially since films usually don’t get the same amount of time that books get when it comes to setting up their unique settings and their eclectic casts of characters.

Despite this, however, the film fares a lot better in other aspects of its production, which I primarily attribute to Kenneth Branagh’s traditionally solid direction. While action sequences are still far from being Branagh’s strongest suit as a director, the film does boast some nice production design, especially for the fantastical world of Haven City. And thanks to its breezy 95-minute runtime, its pacing is generally decent throughout even if it does sometimes come at the cost of story and character development. It also sports a solid cast that, even with some big names like Judi Dench and Josh Gad to headline the ensemble, primarily lets newcomers Ferdia Shaw and Lara McDonnell have their time to shine in the lead roles of Artemis and Holly, respectively. And overall, these two do manage to hold their own against their famous co-stars even when taking the changes to their characters into account. Obviously, Artemis is the most radically different compared to his book counterpart, but Ferdia Shaw still manages to do a nice job in maintaining Artemis’ persona of a kid who’s very much wise beyond his years. Again, it may be a far cry from how the character is portrayed in the book, but it works fine enough for this specific take on the story. The same goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short, who arguably fares a bit better than Artemis does when it comes to withstanding the changes to her character since they’re more story-based than character-based. As for their co-stars, Judi Dench is her usual dignified self as a gender-swapped Commander Root (and yes, that’s the second time in a row that she’s played a character like that) while Nonso Anozie, who’s quickly becoming a Branagh regular, continues to showcase his talents as a top-notch supporting player as Butler. But as for the biggest standout of the film, that honor goes to Josh Gad as Mulch Diggums, an ‘oversized dwarf’ and kleptomaniac that LEPrecon brings in to aid in their attack on Fowl Manor. As you might have guessed, he ends up being the film’s best source of comic relief.  

In conclusion, I should probably note that when it comes to the YA-oriented novels that I read when I was growing up, Artemis Fowl wasn’t really a part of that group. Instead, it was headlined by the likes of Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, and of course, Harry Potter. My family did own copies of the first two installments of Artemis Fowl… but I’ll freely admit that I only got a few chapters into the first book before putting it down. For reasons that I simply can’t explain, it just didn’t click with me the same way that something like Harry Potter did even though fantasy is very much one of my favorite genres. As such, I went into this film as a complete newcomer which, given what I’ve learned about all its controversial changes, was probably for the best. While Artemis Fowl does maintain the general plot synopsis of its source material, it isn’t as faithful when it comes to how that plot comes together. But while fans won’t be the least bit happy with how radically different it is when compared to the book, Artemis Fowl manages to be a decent little fantasy flick even if it is rather hindered by being a bit too simple-plotted for a supposed franchise starter. While most have focused on how much it deviates from the source material, I’m more fascinated by how it ends up being surprisingly light on world-building since it doesn’t spend as much time as it could’ve in the underground world of Haven City. Simply put, the first installments of other franchises based on YA novels have done a far better job when it comes to that sort of thing since that’s usually what’s expected from them. Ultimately, though, while it’s far from being a masterpiece, it manages to get by thanks in large part to its solid cast. However, I think it’s safe to say that its fate as a Disney+ release means that we probably won’t be seeing any sequels. To be fair, though, I have the feeling that if this film was released in theaters as originally intended… its poor reception would’ve easily led to it becoming one of the year’s big box-office bombs.

Rating: 3.5/5

Frozen II (2019) review

Calling Disney Animation’s 2013 release Frozen one of the most successful projects that they’ve ever made would easily be one of the biggest understatements of all-time. Upon its release, this loose adaptation of author Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale The Snow Queen became the studio’s first animated film to gross over $1 billion worldwide (not counting subsidiary Pixar’s Toy Story 3, which did the same thing in 2010). It won two Oscars for Best Original Song and Best Animated Feature and has widely been regarded as one of Disney Animation’s modern masterpieces. And while there have undoubtedly been a select number of folks out there who were likely driven mad by the truly extensive mark that the film left on pop culture, there’s no denying that Frozen was very much one of those films that was fully deserving of becoming the full-on cultural phenomenon that it still is today. Whether it was thanks to its lovable cast of characters or its undeniably catchy soundtrack, Frozen quickly blossomed into one of Disney’s biggest animated franchises that would later spawn a few animated shorts to build up hype for the film’s heavily anticipated feature-length follow-up. And now, the story of the Royal Sisters of Arendelle officially continues with Disney Animation’s 58^th official animated feature, Frozen II. Luckily, for fans of the franchise, this sequel brings back almost all the key players from the first film, including songwriters Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez, the core quartet of leads Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Jonathan Groff, and Josh Gad, and directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee. And because of this, Frozen II is a fantastic sequel to its equally fantastic predecessor as it flawlessly retains everything that made the original Frozen a beloved Disney classic.

 

For the past three years, the Kingdom of Arendelle has thrived under Queen Elsa (voiced by Idina Menzel), especially after she was able to rekindle her relationship with her younger sister, Princess Anna (voiced by Kristen Bell). However, on one faithful night, Elsa becomes entranced by a mysterious voice calling out to her from afar, and when she finally interacts with it, the kingdom is suddenly ravaged by mysterious elemental forces. Elsa and Anna soon learn from the wise troll Grand Pabbie (voiced by Ciaran Hinds) that this recent turn of events is due to Elsa unintentionally awakening the four elemental spirits of Earth, Fire, Water, and Air. And as he informs them, the only way to set things right is to travel to the Enchanted Forest that their parents, King Agnarr (voiced by Alfred Molina, replacing Maurice LaMarche from the first film) and Queen Iduna (voiced by Evan Rachel Wood, replacing director Jennifer Lee from the first film) told them about when they were younger. For years, this Enchanted Forest has been consumed by an impenetrable wall of mist that has trapped all those inside it after an unexpected fight occurred between the native Northuldra tribe and a group of Arendellian forces. Thus, Elsa, Anna, sentient snowman Olaf (voiced by Josh Gad), and Anna’s ice harvester boyfriend Kristoff (voiced by Jonathan Groff) embark on a journey to appease the elemental spirits, specifically by uncovering the cause of this long-standing conflict. Along the way, Anna and Elsa even begin to discover the secrets behind the magical ice powers that the latter has possessed her whole life.

Frozen II certainly fits the bill when it comes to being a ‘bigger sequel’ in every sense of the phrase. The adventure that Anna and Elsa go on in this film is far grander in scale than the one from the first film, and while it does continue to maintain the usual light-hearted atmosphere of a Disney animated film, it is a little darker in tone compared to its predecessor. In other words, Frozen II does what any good sequel should do by naturally expanding its universe while also showing a genuine sense of maturity from a storytelling perspective. At the same time, though, it never loses sight of any of the things that made its predecessor so iconic, especially the strong and loving relationship between its lead sister duo. The animation is superb as always and the new songs by Robert and Kirsten-Anderson Lopez arguably stand toe to toe with the first film’s truly unforgettable soundtrack. Highlights of the sequel’s soundtrack include but are not limited to Elsa’s big solo ‘Into the Unknown’, Anna’s downright devastating solo ‘The Next Right Thing’, which stems from what is quite possibly the most emotional moment in the whole film, and Kristoff’s 80’s power ballad (yes, I know what I just said…) ‘Lost in the Woods’. Now, if there was any sort of shortcoming with this film, it’s that, because of how its story is structured to focus primarily on Anna and Elsa above everything else, Frozen II doesn’t really spend a lot of time with the new characters that it introduces. As such, certain subplots like the feud between the Northuldra tribe and the Arendelle soldiers who got trapped in the Enchanted Forest sometimes tend to get overlooked. And yet, I don’t even remotely consider that to be a bad thing in this instance since this series has always done a wonderful job of exploring the theme of how love truly does conquer all through the phenomenal heroines who headline it.

On that note, one of the coolest things about Frozen II is how it manages to shake things up a bit when it comes to the overall roles that Anna and Elsa play in this story. While the original Frozen was sure to give them equal amounts of quality character development, it was fundamentally told from Anna’s perspective since it was all about her taking the initiative to set things right and rekindle her relationship with Elsa. By comparison, Frozen II focuses more on Elsa as she works to appease the four elemental spirits while also learning the truth about why she’s the one who possesses magical ice powers. Nevertheless, the unbreakable bond between these two sisters continues to be the most important aspect of this franchise, and as always, it’s primarily thanks to the phenomenal work by Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel in their respective roles. Bell continues to be effortlessly charming and spunky as Anna while Menzel once again imbues Elsa with all her grace and power. Fellow returnees Jonathan Groff and Josh Gad are also excellent once again as Kristoff and Olaf, respectively, with Groff getting to explore a wonderful new side to the loyal Ice Harvester via the numerous attempts he makes at trying to propose to Anna and Gad, as to be expected, continuing to get many of the film’s best humorous moments. After that is when the previously mentioned dilemma of the film not giving its new characters a lot to do comes into play, but for what it's worth, everyone else in the cast does a solid job with what they have. This includes Sterling K. Brown as Lt. Mattias, a friendly Arendelle soldier who was amongst those trapped in the Enchanted Forest, and Evan Rachel Wood as Anna and Elsa’s mother Iduna who, despite only appearing mostly in flashbacks, does get her backstory explored in some very fascinating ways that help add to the film’s strong emotional poignancy.

While I may not have as much of a history with it compared to the likes of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, the first Frozen truly is one of my favorite Disney animated films of all-time; in fact, it’s amongst my Top 5, even, when it comes to Disney’s long line of animated classics. Granted, you might think otherwise if you look back at my original review of it from 2013 where I only gave it a 4/5, but it goes without saying that that old review is the very definition of ‘dated’. Simply put, Frozen became one of those films that I became more and more attached to as time went by, and as I noted in the intro, I’m personally glad that it became the worldwide phenomenon that it did no matter how much some people got utterly sick of it after a while. And as for Frozen II, I’m happy to report that it’s another fine addition to this beloved franchise. Just like its predecessor, Frozen II is a perfect mix of gorgeous animation, unforgettable songs, and a powerful emotional core. It expands upon the world of Frozen in ways that feel appropriate for the story that directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee (the latter of whom was just recently named Disney Animation’s new Chief Creative Officer) are telling. And while it does follow the route that most sequels go by being a far bigger adventure than its predecessor, the strength and beauty that stems from the bond of the perpetually endearing sisterly duo of Anna and Elsa is still very much the driving force of this franchise. Because of all this, it goes without saying that Frozen II is yet another rousing success for Walt Disney Animation that is sure to delight the fans who made this franchise a pop-cultural landmark.

Rating: 5/5!

Coco (2017) review + Olaf's Frozen Adventure (2017) review

The time has come once again, folks, for the newest effort from the legendary animation studio, Pixar. Pixar, of course, needs no introduction. Since 1995, they’ve given us an endless array of animated masterpieces that have helped to make them pioneering forces in the art of computer animation, from the early classics like the Toy Story films and The Incredibles (which is finally getting a sequel next year) to recent gems like Up and Inside Out. And now, they’re back again with their second 2017 outing (after Cars 3 was released earlier this summer) in the form of Coco. With Coco, Pixar takes us on a fantastical journey inspired by the most famous Mexican holiday, Día de Muertos AKA the Day of the Dead, where families come together to honor their fallen loved ones. In the director’s chair for this one is Lee Unkrich, who’s been a mainstay at Pixar ever since they started producing their own feature films. Initially, he was an editor for films like Toy Story and A Bug’s Life before he started to work as a co-director on projects like Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo. Then, in 2010, he finally got promoted to the role of lead director for the third installment of the Toy Story franchise, and to call Toy Story 3 a success would be a massive understatement. It grossed over $1 billion worldwide and was only the third animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and while it didn’t end up winning that award, it did win the Oscar that year for Best Animated Feature. And as for his latest outing, Unkrich proceeds to give us yet another gorgeously animated and heartfelt Pixar adventure that treats its subject matter with the full respect that it deserves.

In a peaceful little Mexican village, a young boy named Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) finds himself in a troubling situation over one of his family’s longtime traditions. While he yearns to become a musician like his idol, the late Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt), his family has regularly enforced a ban on music ever since Miguel’s great-great-grandfather left the family to embark on a musical career. Miguel’s passion for music is only fueled further, however, when an old family photo implicates that his great-great-grandfather was, in fact, Ernesto de la Cruz. Thus, on Día de Muertos, Miguel sneaks into the local mausoleum dedicated to de la Cruz and proceeds to take his guitar in the hopes of performing in a local talent contest. In the process, though, he ends up being transported to the Land of the Dead, where the deceased reside until they return to the land of the living every year on this day to visit their living relatives. While there, Miguel is reunited with all of his ancestors who must now try and get him back home before sunrise; otherwise, he would become a skeleton and be stuck in the Land of the Dead forever. But when his ancestors demand that he give up his dreams of becoming a musician as a condition of the return process, Miguel decides to try and find his great-great-grandfather so that he can return home without having to give up on his dream. And so, Miguel teams up with a charismatic con man named Hector (Gael Garcia Bernal), who allegedly knows de la Cruz, to find him in the hopes of proving to his family that this is who he’s meant to be.

Prior to this film’s release, it did attract some skepticism early on from those who were fearful of how Pixar would handle a story that was based on such an important aspect of Mexican culture, especially after an incident in 2015 in which Disney tried to trademark the phrase ‘Día de Los Muertos’. And, of course, there was a lot of tumultuous uproar made by those who accused the film of being a rip-off of the 2014 animated film The Book of Life, even though its director, Jorge R. Gutierrez, clearly denied this multiple times. Well, fear not, folks, as Pixar does treat this staple of Mexican tradition with the respect that it deserves. While Coco does focus a lot on Miguel trying to follow his dreams of becoming a musician, its plot is ultimately steeped in the one thing that the Day of the Dead celebrations are all about, and that is the importance of family. During his journey, there are several instances in which Miguel tries to distance himself from his family when they discourage him from being a musician. At the same time, though, Miguel also begins to realize how much his family truly means to him when he starts to learn the truth behind the events that caused them to carry out their ban on music in the first place. This paves the way for a great plot twist in the third act that further strengthens the emotional poignancy of the story. Yes, just like all the great Pixar films, this film is sure to hit you with the feels at certain points, especially near the end (don’t worry, no spoilers…). 

As for the animation… well, it’s Pixar, what do you expect? It’s bright, crisp, and colorful, and just like the plot itself, it utilizes its Mexican roots to their full effect, effectively giving us a great visual world to explore in its version of the ‘Land of the Dead’. The great animation also ties in well to another key element of this film, its music. Yes, Coco is quite arguably the first major musical that Pixar has ever done, and the music, written in part by Frozen songwriters Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez and backed by the usual great score by Michael Giacchino, is excellent. And of course, like any great Pixar film, it boasts an excellent cast of characters. They’re so solid, in fact, that because the story is so well-handled, even the characters that initially come off as being rather stern become more sympathetic once we get to know them better. This includes the likes of Miguel’s great-great-grandmother Imelda (Alanna Ulbach), who was the first to initiate their family’s music ban after her musician husband left her all those years ago, and Miguel’s grandmother Elena (Renee Victor), who continues to enforce it to this day. But, of course, it’s ultimately the lead duo of Miguel and Hector who are the true emotional core of the story. As the film’s likable young protagonist, newcomer Anthony Gonzalez shines in what will surely be a breakout role for him, while Gael Garcia Bernal gets to work with a great redemption arc that slowly but surely begins to reveal more of the charismatic Hector’s background.

I’ve talked before about the internet’s extremely severe attitude towards Pixar in recent years that has mainly come as a result of some of the strictest expectations that have ever been seen from the film fan community. This has especially been the case ever since 2011’s Cars 2 ended up being the first project of theirs to attract primarily negative reviews. And thus, nowadays, I find that the current internet mentality towards Pixar films is that if a film of theirs isn’t a straight-up masterpiece effort of storytelling, then it is effectively deemed as a ‘failure’. This has been a fate that has sadly affected perfectly decent films like Monsters University, The Good Dinosaur, and Brave, just to name a few. Thankfully, though, that has not been the case with Pixar’s latest outing, as Coco is being regarded by many as one of the studio’s best films yet. And quite frankly, it’s easy to see why, as the film is a heartfelt tribute to arguably the most famous holiday in Mexican culture. Not only does it handle the concept of death and the afterlife in a smart manner, but it also ties it all together perfectly with a poignant story that’s focused on the most important element of Día de Muertos, family. Add in a great cast of layered characters and a toe-tapping soundtrack of songs and you have what is easily one of the best animated films of the year, if not the best. Simply put, Pixar has done it again!  

Rating: 5/5!

OLAF’S FROZEN ADVENTURE – SHORT REVIEW

Now as many of you know, in lieu of the traditional Pixar short that plays before every new Pixar film, Coco was paired with a 21-minute featurette from Walt Disney Animation Studios, Olaf’s Frozen Adventure. This is the first time since 1990 (when The Prince and the Pauper ran in front of The Rescuers Down Under) that a short film of this length has been shown in front of a Disney film. And in this instance, it comes in the form of the continuing adventures of sisters Anna and Elsa and all of their friends from Disney’s 2013 global phenomenon, Frozen. In this new short, the lovable snowman Olaf (Josh Gad) embarks on a quest to find a new holiday tradition for Princess Anna (Kristen Bell) and Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) when the latter realizes that, because of all the time that she’s spent secluded from society, she and Anna don’t really have a family tradition of their own. As for the short itself… well, if you’re one of those people who are 100% sick to death of ‘Frozen mania’ at this point, then clearly this isn’t going to do anything for you just like when Frozen Fever ran in front of the live-action remake of Cinderella back in 2015. For the record, I still think that Frozen Fever got way too much flak from the internet, but that’s another story at the moment because… damn! This new short is clearly turning out to be far more controversial compared to its immediate predecessor just because it was paired with Coco instead of airing on TV as was originally intended. It’s been so controversial, in fact, that Mexican theaters straight-up pulled it in favor of just showing Coco. And to be perfectly frank, it isn’t doing much better here in the states…

But for those who still love the original film and its endearing cast of characters, then I’m pleased to say that this new short will provide you with even more great moments with them that will hopefully hold you over until the release of the impending sequel in 2019. Now, granted, that doesn’t mean that I think that this is as good as the original film. I do agree with a common argument that’s being brought up in that it sort of rushes through its track list of songs (which, for the record, weren’t done by Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez this time around). Still, the characters are just as lovable as ever and while the songs in this short probably won’t become as popular as the ones from the original film, the final song ‘When We’re Together’ is an undeniably sweet melody. Plus, I won’t lie… the ending is so damn heartwarming in terms of its ultimate resolution, and it serves as yet another perfect representation of the heartfelt narratives that have made up this entire franchise. In short, those who are absolutely dreading the thought of having to sit through this new entry in the Frozen franchise shouldn’t fret too much about it, because from what I’ve heard, this is only going to be running in front of Coco for a limited time. So if you’re this upset about it, just wait a while before you go to see Coco… it’s that easy. But in all seriousness, Olaf’s Frozen Adventure isn’t even remotely as bad as the internet is currently putting it out to be. I mean, really, is it ‘that’ hard to just sit through a 21-minute short film?

Rating: 4/5

UPDATE: It has just been recently announced that Olaf's Frozen Adventure will be pulled from theaters starting on December 8th, presumably in the wake of all of the backlash that it has received from audiences ever since it debuted in front of Coco. And yet, I still don't think that it's as bad as the internet says it is. I mean, seriously, I've seen several online articles recently that have accused the short of being 'offensive' to Pixar fans and for harming the reputation of Coco by overshadowing it. Well, I'm a Pixar fan... and yet I can safely say that I wasn't the least bit 'offended' by this short. Heck, if you ask me, this whole backlash towards an innocent holiday short is far more harmful to Coco's reputation than the short itself. Why? Because THAT, folks, is how Pixar's latest masterpiece is being overshadowed; not directly by the short that precedes it, but because people are truly making a mountain out of a molehill. Once again, I must ask; is it really THAT hard to sit through a 21-minute short that precedes an animated film that's just under two hours?

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) review

When it comes to some of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie is undoubtedly one of the most legendary in that field. Over the span of several decades, the late English author was well-known for writing several classic mystery stories, so much so that she currently holds the record as the best-selling novelist of all time with over 2 billion copies of her work sold. And in her first novel, 1920’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles, readers were introduced to arguably her most famous creation, the Belgian detective known as Hercule Poirot. Poirot went on to appear in 33 of Christie’s novels, her 1930 play Black Coffee, and over 50 of her short stories. But as for the most famous story that he ever appeared in, that honor goes to Christie’s 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express, in which the detective with the well-groomed mustache found himself dealing with, as the title suggests, a murder mystery onboard the titular Orient Express. This particular Christie story has already been adapted to the screen several times over the years, including a star-studded 1974 film adaptation directed by Sidney Lumet and an episode of the long-running British TV series Agatha Christie’s Poirot. But now Poirot is back on the big-screen once again in a brand new take on this iconic story, with Sir Kenneth Branagh taking on the role of the legendary detective. He also serves as the director of this new film which, like the 1974 adaptation, also features a star-studded cast. And overall, despite some of its shortcomings, this new version of Murder on the Orient Express does manage to be a solid adaptation of its source material.

As the film begins, we are introduced to the man himself, Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), the most famous detective in the world. The year is 1933 and despite Poirot’s plans to go on holiday after his most recent case in Jerusalem, he receives a telegram demanding that he return to London to take on a new case. To get there, Poirot’s friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) offers him a compartment on the luxurious Orient Express, which Bouc has just been appointed the director of. Whilst onboard, Poirot is joined by an eclectic group of passengers, including young governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), American socialite Caroline Hubbard (Michelle Pfeiffer), and immoral businessman Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp). Ratchett ends up approaching Poirot and asks him to be his bodyguard as he fears that he’s in danger. Poirot refuses but, soon enough, Ratchett is found dead in his cabin from several stab wounds. When the Orient Express is forced to make an unscheduled pit stop due to an avalanche, Poirot quickly begins to investigate the cause of Ratchett’s death. Deducing that one of their fellow passengers was responsible for the crime, Poirot works tirelessly in order to figure out which one of them is the murderer. And as he soon finds out, this case ends up having some noticeable connections to a highly public kidnapping/murder case that had occurred a few years back.

Now, just a quick disclaimer; at the time that I’m writing this, I have not read the original Murder on the Orient Express novel. I also haven’t watched any of the previous adaptations of this story, which of course includes the last major feature film adaptation from 1974. And from what I’ve read online, comparisons between this film and its various predecessors have been quite common. Thus, given what I just said about my general unfamiliarity with the source material, unfortunately, I can’t really add much to that discussion. What I will say, though, is that Branagh does do a good job in making this film an engaging murder mystery, and because I didn’t really know anything about the plot before seeing it, it allowed me to go into the film without already knowing the final outcome. With that in mind, however, I am aware that some have been rather mixed on the ending, not because it changes anything (from what I’ve read, it seems like Branagh stayed generally faithful to the source material) but more in the case of how Branagh handles it as director. Some have felt that the ending diminishes the impact of the final reveal by way of how Poirot ultimately responds to it. And despite this being my first major experience with this classic murder mystery story, I will admit that I did find that the ending didn’t quite have the impact that it wanted to leave on the audience. Still, at the very least, the build-up to the final reveal is well-handled and the film is well-made on a technical level, benefitting especially from some great cinematography from Branagh regular Haris Zambarloukos that was shot on 65 mm film a la Dunkirk.

As noted earlier, the 1974 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express featured an all-star cast that included the likes of Albert Finney in the role of Poirot, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, and Sean Connery just to name a few. The same applies to this new version as well, with names like Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Judi Dench, and Johnny Depp… and again, that’s just to name a few. And, of course, Kenneth Branagh not only directs the film but stars in it as well as the one and only Hercule Poirot. Branagh does a great job in the role, excellently conveying both Poirot’s wisdom and eccentric nature, two traits that very much help him when it comes to solving cases. As for the rest of the cast, they’re all great as well but they admittedly don’t have as much to work with compared to Branagh. Now, to be fair, it can be argued that this is just a consequence of being a story in which there are 12 primary suspects. Still, aside from a select few like Gad and Ridley’s characters, most of their roles in the film are basically just limited to one or two major scenes that they share with Poirot, who interrogates them all one at a time. Ultimately, though, if I had to pick the biggest standouts of the supporting cast, that would include Michelle Pfeiffer as the headstrong Mrs. Hubbard, Judi Dench as the pushy Princess Dragomiroff, and Leslie Odom Jr. as the often put-upon Dr. Arbuthnot.

So as I’ve made it clear, this film basically served as my introduction to Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. As such, I can’t really say much about how this version of the story compares to other adaptations of it because simply put, I haven’t seen any of them. With that said, though, I am aware that some have been critical of this adaptation for not really doing anything new with the source material. And, of course, some have also taken issue with the ending, which I’ll admit is an argument that I do sort of agree with in terms of how it kind of lessens the final resolution of the main conflict. Still, for the most part, I found this to be a solidly made mystery thriller. While the plot does maintain a ‘slow burn’ style of pacing throughout, there is never a dull moment in this film. And like many of Branagh’s films (e.g. his remake of Cinderella and the first Thor film), this film does benefit from some solid production value, namely in regards to the cinematography, and an excellent ensemble cast. In short, if you’re like me and you’re not too familiar with the original source material going in, at the very least this film serves as a nice way of introducing newcomers to Christie’s work. And given that the film ends with a nod to another Poirot story, the potential is there for a sequel or two adapting other classic Christie novels. But if you are familiar with this story and the previous adaptations of it, this adaptation may seem a bit more questionable given everything that’s come before it. Overall, though, this film does succeed when it comes to being an entertaining popcorn flick that’s worth checking out on the big screen.

Rating: 4/5

Beauty and the Beast (2017) review

Disney’s been on a roll as of late with their live-action reimaginings of their classic animated films. Granted, this current trend of theirs isn't going over well with ‘everybody’, as I pointed out last time, but, for the most part, films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book have been major successes on both a critical and commercial level instead of just on a commercial one as was initially the case with these films. And for their latest endeavor on this front, Disney revives one of its most beloved stories for a new generation; Beauty and the Beast. The studio’s original animated take on the classic fairytale of the same name from 1756 was the second smash hit of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ era when it was released in 1991. In fact, it was so universally adored that it ended up being the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a feat that has only been accomplished 2 other times since then by, fittingly enough, a pair of Pixar films; 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, which, of course, were released under the Disney banner. So, yeah, one could say that there was a lot of pressure on this new take on the ‘Tale as Old as Time’, directed by Bill Condon, who's no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner, Chicago (not to mention directing 2006’s Dreamgirls, which won 2 Oscars), and features an all-star ensemble cast. After all, we’re talking about one of the most famous Disney stories of all time, meaning that this new film has a hell of a lot to live up to. Thankfully, Condon does do justice to this beloved masterpiece of a story with a highly enjoyable new take on Beauty and the Beast that respects its predecessor without being a direct carbon copy of it.

In a quaint little town in France, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson) is a complete mystery to the rest of the people living there. Never once conforming to the expectations that life tries to set upon her, Belle spends most of her days reading, inventing things, and ignoring the advances of the town’s popular but egotistical local hunter, Gaston (Luke Evans), while also hoping to someday leave the confines of her ‘poor, provincial’ town. That day ends up coming sooner than anticipated when she goes to rescue her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), who had been taken prisoner by a monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens) that resides within a forgotten castle not far from town. To save her father, Belle ends up taking his place as the Beast’s prisoner. But, soon after, she begins to learn the big secret behind the castle and, more importantly, its mysterious owner. As it turns out, years ago, the Beast was a selfish and vain human prince who was cursed by an Enchantress after he had rejected her pleas for shelter. Turning him into a Beast, as well as turning his servants into enchanted household objects, she puts the Prince under the pressure of having to find true love in time before the last petal of the red rose that she initially offered him falls. And, thus, as Belle begins to become more and more accepted by the Beast and his servants, she does begin to fall in love with him, which soon causes problems once Gaston learns of the situation.

Now, admittedly, as far as Disney’s remakes go, this is more like Cinderella than The Jungle Book. By that, I mean that you shouldn't go into this expecting a lot of differences between this new version and the original. It's the same exact story with the same primary plot points. So, with that said, I know what some of you will inevitably say; “Why the hell remake a masterpiece then?” But I'm going to ignore that debate for now because, to me, it all comes down to execution, and I'm pleased to say that this film is very well-made in every possible way. Sure, it's still the same story as the original but I'd say that there are just enough new elements in here, as minor as some may be, that help differentiate it from the original (e.g. a new plotline that reveals why Maurice and Belle stayed in their provincial town for all these years). Visually, this film is a top contender for next year’s Oscar for Best Visual Effects, Production Design, and basically every other major technical award at that ceremony. Yes, a lot of the visuals in this are CG but they are done excellently. And as for the songs, well, what more needs to be said about them? They're the classic songs written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice and are all handled brilliantly in live-action. You'll be tapping your foot along to the beat of ‘Gaston’, marvel at the grandeur of ‘Be Our Guest’, and awe at the beauty (no pun intended) of the title song, ‘Beauty and the Beast’. There's also some great new songs as well, including the sweet recurring melody ‘How Does a Moment Last Forever’, which is sung three times in the film (this includes the end-credits version sung by Celine Dion who, of course, sung the title song during the end credits of the animated film) and the Beast’s new big solo, ‘Evermore’.

One of the best things about the film, though, is its ensemble cast. Because, damn, does this film have one of the most impressive ensembles in recent history. Of course, it's all led by Emma Watson, who does a phenomenal job in the role of Belle. Simply put, she does justice to one of Disney’s most beloved heroines while also doing just enough to provide some nice little updates to the character here and there without ever going against everything that made her great in the first place. And I know that she’s gotten some flak for her vocal performance during the musical numbers but I thought she was fine in that department. Dan Stevens is also fantastic as the Beast, perfectly conveying everything that goes into the character's great redemption arc. As for the villains of the film, both Luke Evans and Josh Gad are clearly having a lot of fun in the roles of Gaston and LeFou, respectively. They ham it up in the best way possible, as Evans perfectly encapsulates our favorite manly but shallow villain while Gad brings new depth to the role of Gaston’s loyal lackey. Kevin Kline is great as well in the role of Maurice, as he portrays the character in a much more toned down manner compared to the original that fits very well with the new plotline that shows why he’s been so protective of Belle all this time. And of course, we can't forget about the Beast’s servants and man did they get a great cast for these iconic supporting roles; Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette (Fifi in the original film), Audra McDonald as Madame de Garderobe the Wardrobe, and Stanley Tucci as new character Maestro Cadenza the Harpsichord.

And thus, Disney is now 4 for 4 with their recent live-action remakes. I mean, admittedly I don't think I can go as far as to say that it's the ‘best’ of these remakes but I can tell you one thing; it's a hell of a lot better than its current 71% score on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. Thankfully, that's still considered a ‘fresh’ rating but I have the feeling that some of the more negative reviews that the film has been getting have been a lot more stringent on comparisons between the two versions of this story. Like I said before, I can see why this is happening. Because this one is arguably the closest to its animated counterpart out of all the Disney remakes released to date, the word ‘unnecessary’ has undeniably been thrown around a lot. Maybe it is… but I don't care. I love the original (it is, after all, my 3^rd favorite Disney animated film of all-time) but I also love this new take on it, as its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, it is a genuinely well-made film in terms of its production design and visuals, not to mention having a fantastic ensemble cast to portray this story’s collection of iconic roles. Simply put, it's just an incredibly satisfying ‘feel good’ film and in this current time, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now. Just ignore all the negativity in the world for a few hours (especially the negativity directed towards a certain element of this film; more on that in a bit) and enjoy a charming new take on a classic that we all know and love. On that note, to those who aren't big on these Disney remakes, don't worry, for the original animated film is still as perfect as it ever was. This new version is ultimately just like the remakes of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon; it's a nice complement to the original source.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. Well, I should probably address the big controversy surrounding this film because… oh boy. So, as many of you are aware, the film has been getting some flak recently from some audiences after an announcement that stated that it would have Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay’ moment involving the character of LeFou. Because of this, there's been quite a bit of heavy blowback from various parties; some countries banned the film unless cuts were made, a theater in Alabama refused to show it, and in Russia, it was given an adult rating. Yes, in Russia, this film is considered nearly as mature as, say, Logan. To all this, I say… this is one of the stupidest and most overblown controversies in recent memory. This moment that everyone keeps talking about is just one SMALL moment at the end of the film. Heck, if it hadn't been pointed out beforehand, I bet most of us wouldn't have even noticed it because the film’s quite subtle about it. Bottom line, Disney isn't trying to force an LGBT agenda down our throats; they're just trying to represent a wider audience. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, this backlash totally goes against the great positive messages of this film, namely, you know, accepting people for who they really are on the inside. So, yeah… this backlash is frigging stupid.)