101 Dalmatians - Live-Action Film Series Retrospective

Over the past few years, I’ve spent a lot of time discussing Disney’s recent line of live-action remakes of their iconic animated films. However, what some Disney fans might not realize is that while 2010’s Alice in Wonderland is generally considered to be the film that started this current trend for the studio, it technically wasn’t the first time that a live-action Disney remake was made. Instead, that honor goes to 1994’s Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, which was released 22 years before Jon Favreau’s big-budget reimagining of Disney’s 1967 animated classic in 2016. However, for the purpose of today’s retrospective, we’ll be focusing on the other major live-action Disney remake that was made in the ’90s, 101 Dalmatians. It all began, of course, with Disney’s 1961 adaptation of author Dodie Smith’s The Hundred and One Dalmatians. Upon its release, the film proved to be the much-needed hit that the studio needed after 1959’s Sleeping Beauty ended up being a bit of a commercial dud for them. Part of the reason why was due to One Hundred and One Dalmatians sporting a much smaller budget by comparison thanks in large part to a new animation process known as xerography. Developed by Walt Disney’s long-time collaborator Ub Iwerks, this system allowed for the direct transfer of the animators’ drawings to animation cels, thus avoiding the inking step of the classic ink-and-paint process, and while this method did result in the film’s animation not being as polished as other Disney films, it was exactly what the studio needed to keep production costs down. And with an overall lifetime gross of around $303 million worldwide (a total that skyrockets up to over $936 million when adjusted for inflation) and strong reviews from critics, One Hundred and One Dalmatians still stands as one of Disney Animation’s most highly acclaimed films.

But for many people, one of the biggest reasons for the film’s success was its legendary main antagonist, Cruella de Vil, a sinister heiress who kidnaps all but two of the titular 101 Dalmatians so that she can use their fur for coats. Since then, Cruella has easily been one of Disney’s most iconic villains, and sure enough, when it comes to the original film’s live-action remake, many would agree that the best thing about it is Cruella herself, portrayed by the legendary Glenn Close. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that for an entire generation or two, Glenn Close’s take on Cruella de Vil is generally regarded as the definitive interpretation of the character. But this week, we have ourselves a new spin on the iconic villainess as Emma Stone takes on the role in Disney’s latest live-action reimagining, Cruella, a prequel-style story that delves into the events that made Cruella de Vil… well, Cruella de Vil. Glenn Close will still be involved, however, as an executive producer, and so, in honor of the new film’s release, today we’ll be looking at the two films that gave us just one of the numerous iconic performances in Close’s career; the 1996 live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians and its 2000 sequel, 102 Dalmatians. Now, as per usual with these franchise-based retrospectives that I do, we’ll only be focusing on theatrically released films, which means that we won’t be covering any other installments of the 101 Dalmatians franchise. This includes both of its animated TV shows (the 90’s series created by Doug creator Jim Jinkins and the newer 101 Dalmatian Street), the direct-to-video sequel 101 Dalmatians II: Patch’s London Adventure, or Cruella’s appearances in shows like Once Upon a Time and the first Descendants film. And so, without further ado, it’s time to start playing Roger Radcliffe’s classic song that reminds us that “if she doesn’t scare you, no evil thing will” as we look at one of Disney’s initial attempts at making a live-action remake out of their animated filmography.

But first, just for fun, let’s go over the original…

ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS (ANIMATED – 1961)

As longtime visitors of this site will no doubt recall, I covered this film back in 2016 in the 1960s/1970s installment of my Disney Retrospective series. Back then, I noted that I found the film to be solidly entertaining even though I admittedly found its second half, when Pongo and Perdita head out to rescue their puppies, to be better than its first half. And when I ranked all 55 of the then-currently released films made by Walt Disney Animation Studios (this was right before the release of Moana, for the record), I ended up placing it right around the middle of the list at #34. Upon my most recent re-watch of the film for the purposes of this retrospective, I found that my thoughts on it hadn’t changed too much. That said, though, while I still think that the film’s best moments come in its second half since that’s where many of the best humorous bits occur thanks in large part to Cruella and her bumbling henchmen Horace and Jasper, I’m a lot more positive about the first half of the film than I was a few years ago. At the very least, it does have its moments and it does a nice job of setting everything up (the relationships of both Roger and Anita and their dogs Pongo and Perdita, building up Cruella and her evil plans, etc.). And despite the whole thing about the xerography method of animation producing much less refined visuals compared to other Disney films, I think that this film’s animation is still quite good, for the most part, as it helps give it a charmingly old-fashioned look that fits in nicely with the story’s London setting. With all this in mind, it’s easy to see why the original Hundred and One Dalmatians is still widely considered to be one of Disney’s most beloved films. While it may not be one of my ‘top’ favorite Disney films, there’s no denying that it’s a delightful comedic romp headlined by an unforgettable villain and that indisputable Disney charm.

Rating: 4/5

101 DALMATIANS (LIVE-ACTION – 1996)

Looking at this film in 2021 after all the other live-action Disney remakes that have been made since then, one of the first things that comes to mind is how relatively modest it is as a remake. Basically, just like what the remakes of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin did, this one presents a straightforward retelling of the original where the biggest changes are cosmetic in nature, such as Roger being a video game designer instead of a musician and Cruella being Anita’s boss rather than her old schoolmate. And unlike nowadays where it’s more common to see filmmakers using CGI animals to avoid getting into any situations that could put real animals in harm’s way, this film utilized as many real dogs as it could with only a few instances of CGI and some animatronics from Jim Henson’s Creature Shop. Really, it’s sort of more interesting to note some of the folks who worked on this film behind the scenes such as director Stephen Herek, who made the first Bill and Ted film and had become a regular director at Disney at that point with films like The Mighty Ducks and Mr. Holland’s Opus, and writer/producer John Hughes. Yes, this was one of many projects that Hughes worked on in the ’90s, although admittedly, this was at a point where many critics felt that his work was starting to delve into more juvenile territory given the overly slapsticky nature of most of them. And yet, while this film certainly has some of those moments, I don’t think they’re as apparent as they are in some of his other 90’s films. In short, the live-action 101 Dalmatians is a lot like its animated counterpart. The second half is better than the first, Cruella is still a delightfully over-the-top villainess, and Jasper and Horace (played here by Hugh Laurie and Mark Williams, respectively) are just as hilariously bumbling as ever. Overall, I consider this to be one of the weaker live-action Disney remakes because it doesn’t do as much as some of the others to truly differentiate itself from the original, but it’s still a solid watch, especially if you’re amongst the crowd that grew up with it in the late ’90s.  

Rating: 3.5/5

102 DALMATIANS (2000)

Despite its mixed reception, the live-action remake of 101 Dalmatians was a major success at the box office, grossing over $320.7 million worldwide. Thus, a sequel was put into development soon after with most of the primary production crew returning save for John Hughes since the studio that he formed with Disney, Great Oaks Entertainment, ended up shutting down in 1997. It also saw a notable change in director since, just like Stephen Herek, Kevin Lima is another filmmaker who’s done quite a lot of films with Disney over the years. This is, after all, the same director who made one of the biggest cult classics of the ’90s, A Goofy Movie, co-directed the final ‘Disney Renaissance’ film, Tarzan, with Frozen’s Chris Buck, and helmed 2007’s live-action/animated smash hit Enchanted. And yet, while John Hughes may not have been involved with this film, 102 Dalmatians is, ironically, the much sillier of the two, thus tying into the whole thing that I mentioned earlier about Hughes’ work taking on a campier tone in the ’90s. Simply put, a film that includes, among other things, a talking bird named Waddlesworth (voiced by Eric Idle) that believes he’s a dog can get incredibly damn goofy at times. But while this does mean that the film is basically geared more towards younger audiences, it’s still a decently entertaining family flick that has its charming moments. Plus, whereas the first film’s strict structural adherence to the plot of the original animated film meant that Glenn Close had a more limited screen-time than those who haven’t seen it might expect, this one gives Cruella a more prominent role in the story, thus giving us more of Close’s delightfully over-the-top antics.

But to me, one of the most unique aspects of this film… is the fact that I have more of a history with it than I do with its predecessor. A few years back when I did a retrospective on Disney’s Honey, I Shrunk the Kids franchise, I noted that I technically had more experience with that franchise’s direct-to-video sequel Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves than I did the original Honey I Shrunk the Kids since the former frequently aired on Disney Channel. As for the original, my first proper viewing of it… was when I watched it for that retrospective. And yes, folks, we have an eerily similar situation with these live-action Dalmatians films. While I do believe that there’s a strong possibility that I did watch the first film when I was younger (even though I honestly can’t remember at this point), I watched 102 Dalmatians quite a lot back then. Granted, I don’t exactly recall seeing it in theaters (again, maybe I did, I don’t know…) but it was one of the first films that I distinctly remember owning on DVD along with its video game tie-in for the Game Boy Color, 102 Dalmatians: Puppies to the Rescue. So, with that in mind, I’ll admit that there may be some nostalgia-based bias when it comes to my thoughts on this film given everything that I just talked about, but overall, I think that 102 Dalmatians is a genuinely harmless follow-up that’s largely on par with its predecessor. Like I said before, though, this is also one of those instances where younger audiences will most likely get more enjoyment out of it than adults.

Rating: 3.5/5

And that concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective on the live-action 101 Dalmatians films (plus a quick reappraisal of the 1961 animated classic). Admittedly, it will be a little while before I publish my review of Cruella given the current backlog of posts that I’m working on, but I promise that it will come eventually. Until then, thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of these films.

TODAY'S RETROSPECTIVE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU BY KANINE KRUNCHIES!

Mortal Kombat (2021) review (Theatrical/HBO Max)

 

In 1992, Midway Games released a new arcade fighting game, Mortal Kombat. Created by Ed Boon and John Tobias, the game was originally set to be an adaptation of that year’s sci-fi action film Universal Soldier starring Jean-Claude Van Damme; but, when that idea ultimately went nowhere, it was transformed into a more fantastical fighting game defined by its incredibly graphic finishing moves known as ‘Fatalities’. And while those Fatalities ended up putting the game in some major hot water with certain crowds to the point where it was largely responsible for creating North America’s video game rating system, the ESRB, it also helped make Mortal Kombat an instant staple of both the arcade and home consoles once the game was adapted to the latter format. Since then, the series has spawned numerous follow-ups and spin-offs that have sold around 54 million copies worldwide, and in 1995, it was brought to the big screen courtesy of director Paul W.S. Anderson. Upon its release, the first Mortal Kombat film did incredibly well financially, and despite a generally mixed critical reception, mainly due to it being a heavily toned-down take on the series so that it could maintain a PG-13 rating, it was enough of a hit with fans that, even nowadays, it is still considered to be one of the better films based on a hit video game. However, the same can’t be said for its 1997 sequel, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, which, despite boasting a budget nearly double the size of the original, somehow ended up being an all-around cheaper production that promptly killed any chances for a third installment.

Yes, because of how disastrous Annihilation turned out, a planned third installment spent several years stuck in development hell. It wasn’t until 2010 after Warner Bros purchased the franchise rights from Midway when the latter declared bankruptcy when this proposed threequel was finally shelved in favor of a full-on cinematic reboot. Originally, the project was set to be developed by director Kevin Tancharoen and writer Oren Uziel, who garnered a lot of attention that year when they made an eight-minute fan film, Mortal Kombat: Rebirth. The short proved to be such a big hit that Warner Bros and NetherRealm Studios granted Tancharoen the opportunity to make a web series based on the franchise, Mortal Kombat: Legacy, which ran for two seasons from 2011 to 2013. And while Tancharoen was then officially tapped to direct the reboot, he ultimately backed out of the production a month after Legacy’s conclusion. Thankfully, this wouldn’t be the end for the new Mortal Kombat film as James Wan (who, at the time, was steadily becoming one of the most prominent directors in the industry) signed on to produce it in 2015 with commercial director Simon McQuoid stepping in as its new director. And now, nearly two and a half decades after the franchise’s previous cinematic incarnation fizzled out, the new Mortal Kombat film is upon us and promises to be a far more faithful take on the franchise, especially due to its R-rating. As you might have guessed, this means that we finally get to witness the Mortal Kombat franchise’s infamous ‘fatalities’ in this all-around crowd-pleaser that may be far from perfect but still manages to deliver on some utterly satisfying fan service.

For the past several centuries, the fate of humanity has been dependent on the results of an intense tournament known as Mortal Kombat that involves warriors from Earth, AKA Earthrealm, and the dark and mysterious dimension known as Outworld. Unfortunately, for the people of Earthrealm, Outworld has won the last nine tournaments, and if they win the next one, said victory will allow the sinister sorcerer Shang Tsung (Chin Han) and his constituents the opportunity to conquer Earthrealm. Thus, with the threat of Shang Tsung’s wrath more prevalent than ever before, Lord Raiden (Tadanobu Asano), the god of Thunder and protector of Earthrealm, begins to assemble a varied collection of warriors, including Shaolin monk Liu Kang (Ludi Lin) and vicious mercenary Kano (Josh Lawson), to train for the tournament. Another notable recruit is Cole Young (Lewis Tan), an MMA fighter who learns that he has a significant connection to Hanzo Hasashi (Hiroyuki Sanada), a warrior from 17^th century Japan who was killed by one of Shang Tsung’s warriors, Bi-Han AKA Sub-Zero (Joe Taslim). As the Earthrealm crew soon discovers, however, Shang Tsung has no intent on playing fair as he unleashes his minions upon them to ensure that no one can get in the way of their conquest.

One of the first questions that I’m sure a lot of people have about this film is if it manages to deliver on Mortal Kombat’s trademark violence in ways that the 1995 film didn’t, and simply put, it does. Now, obviously, it doesn’t go ‘all out’ with its violence to avoid getting hit with the dreaded NC-17 rating (which means that it’s objectively less violent than the games themselves), but still, what’s there is presented in all its ridiculously messed-up glory thanks to the film’s excellent action sequences that, for the most part, help to make up for its narrative shortcomings. For one thing, given that this is clearly meant to be a ‘franchise starter’ film, it starts off on a bit of a slow note (not counting the excellent pre-title sequence that sets up the conflict between Hanzo Hasashi AKA Scorpion and Bi-Han AKA Sub-Zero, arguably the franchise’s most popular characters) in its efforts to set up the plot and the world of Mortal Kombat. It also doesn’t help that, when it comes to said plot and character development, it’s a lot of generically basic material, especially when it comes to the film’s main protagonist Cole Young, a film-exclusive character who’s mainly just your typical audience surrogate. Despite all this, however, it all comes together nicely in the film’s second half since that’s where all the best action sequences occur along with some great nods to the franchise, including a pitch-perfect utilization of the franchise’s iconic theme song, ‘Techno Syndrome’ by The Immortals. In short, it’s a lot like what happened with the first Avengers, which also had a basic plot and started off rather slow but then got going at just the right time to deliver on exactly what fans had come to see.   

When it comes to the previous live-action Mortal Kombat films, their casting efforts admittedly garnered mixed results. While the first film featured standout performances from the likes of Christopher Lambert as Raiden and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as Shang Tsung, the rest of the cast could be hit or miss, which only proceeded to get worse with the sequel, Annihilation, especially since more than half of the main protagonists were recast. Thankfully, this isn’t the case with the 2021 reboot, which spawns a much better all-around ensemble. Despite what I said earlier about his character being a basic audience surrogate who is largely overshadowed by all the other classic Mortal Kombat characters, Lewis Tan does headline the film nicely as Cole Young. The same goes for Jessica McNamee in the lead female role of Sonya Blade, who gets a bit more to work with as her arc revolves around her efforts to prove herself since she’s not immediately tapped as one of Earthrealm’s heroes. Ultimately, though, the biggest standouts of the cast are its supporting players such as Ludi Lin and Max Huang as the duo of Liu Kang and Kung Lao and Josh Lawson, who’s a full-on comedic riot as the hilariously scummy Kano. And then there’s the duo of Sub-Zero and Scorpion who, despite their enduring popularity, were mostly underused in the original Mortal Kombat films. It’s a much different story in this film, though, with Joe Taslim being perfectly intimidating as Sub-Zero and Hiroyuki Sanada getting some of the best dramatic moments in the film even if Scorpion isn’t in it as much by comparison.    

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have much of a history with the Mortal Kombat games. In fact, to be perfectly honest, the build-up to this film’s release was the main reason why I’ve even started playing them recently since my only real experiences with the franchise beforehand was via the original films and the rare instances where I came across an MK game in an arcade. And when it comes to the latter, I do mean ‘rare’ since once I was old enough to legitimately show any kind of interest in the franchise, it was at a point where most arcades began to rely more on newer games rather than older ones. Nevertheless, I was well aware of the franchise during my teenaged years, which then led to me watching the undeniably flawed but largely entertaining 1995 film adaptation… and its infamously horrendous 1997 sequel. And now that I’ve seen this new one, I can safely say that 2021’s Mortal Kombat is the series’ best film adaptation yet and one of the best video game films ever made, even if the latter half of that statement isn’t saying much given most of the other films in the genre. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s far from perfect; it takes a while to get going and is as basic as you can get from a narrative perspective. And yet, thanks to an awesome second half that gives us much of what has made this the smash hit of a franchise that it is, this is very much the snazzy and highly faithful big-budget cinematic take on Mortal Kombat that fans have been waiting to see for years. As such, I’m sure I’m not the only one who would love to see this get a sequel that, should it follow the example of the best parts of its predecessor, could be an even better showcase of everything that is MORTAL KOMBAT!!!

Rating: 4.5/5

Mortal Kombat Retrospective

 

The latest film adaptation of a hit video game will soon be upon us in the form of Mortal Kombat, the James Wan produced adaptation of the iconic franchise of the same name. Yes, Mortal Kombat is undoubtedly one of the most popular franchises in the world of gaming. Created by Ed Boon and John Tobias, what started out as a 1992 arcade fighting game that was originally intended to be based around Jean-Claude Van Damme (who, of course, would end up starring in the first film adaptation of the other big fighting game franchise of the ’90s, Street Fighter) would go on to become a bona fide staple of its genre. It spawned numerous follow-ups, is still going strong today with the most recent entry of the series, Mortal Kombat 11, released in 2019 and, as of 2020, has sold over 54 million copies worldwide. However, it’s also worth noting that, amidst all its success, Mortal Kombat also became notorious for its intensely violent fighting mechanics, especially due to its incredibly graphic finishing moves known as ‘Fatalities’. As you might have guessed, this resulted in the series attracting its fair share of controversies over the years, which can best be summed up by the fact that the original game was largely responsible for the creation of the video game industry’s official North American rating system, the ESRB. But for today’s post, we’ll be focusing on the franchise’s feature film outings since this new adaptation of Mortal Kombat is not the series’ first foray into the medium.

In the mid-’90s, the franchise spawned one of the first major film adaptations of a popular video game with a 1995 adaptation that, for the most part, is still widely considered to be one of the better films to come from this subgenre. It was then followed by a sequel in 1997, which is widely considered… to be one of the worst films of all time. We’ll be looking at both of those films today, and just for the heck of it, I’ll also cover a different Mortal Kombat film that came out just last year; an animated feature based around one of the franchise’s most popular characters. To be clear, though, we’re only going to talk about the films, which means that we won’t be addressing any of the franchise’s other spin-offs, which mostly come in the form of TV shows. This includes an animated series, Mortal Kombat: Defenders of the Realm, and a live-action series, Mortal Kombat: Conquest. We’re also not going to go over the web series Mortal Kombat: Legacy even though that show did have a notable impact on the upcoming film adaptation since its creator, Kevin Tancharoen, was originally slated to direct it. It’s also worth noting that Legacy primarily came to be after Tancharoen directed a short fan film in 2010, Mortal Kombat: Rebirth, which proved to be quite a hit when it was released on YouTube. But with all that out of the way, it’s now time for all of us to test our might because to quote the iconic tune from The Immortals, it’s time for the one, the only… MORTAL KOMBAT!!!!!!

MORTAL KOMBAT (1995)

Let’s flashback to the mid-’90s, where we got our first major attempts at films that were based on hit video games. However, these initial works such as 1993’s Super Mario Bros and 1994’s Street Fighter very much set the stage for the genre’s consistently bad luck as they were poorly received upon their release and attracted some flak from fans of their respective franchises for not necessarily staying true to their source material. But when it comes to 1995’s Mortal Kombat, directed by Paul W.S. Anderson in what was only his second directorial effort, it did manage to capture a lot of what made the Mortal Kombat games so successful, especially from a visual perspective (dated CGI notwithstanding). Granted, I wouldn’t call this a, to quote one of the series’ trademark phrases, “flawless victory” as there are a few things about it that fans of the franchise will probably find incredibly disappointing, such as the underutilization of some of the series’ most popular characters and the heavily neutered nature of its action sequences. Yes, this is a PG-13 rated film, which means that there’s almost none of the series’ trademark graphic violence. Still, for what it’s worth, the film does feature plenty of solidly done fight sequences as well as some incredibly memorable performances from the likes of Christopher Lambert as Lord Raiden, the god of thunder, and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as the sinister sorcerer Shang Tsung. In short, it goes without saying that the original Mortal Kombat is far from perfect and will undoubtedly be overshadowed by the series’ upcoming reboot which, by all accounts, will be an even more faithful take on the franchise. And yet, given all the other films based on video games that have been made over the years, this still stands as one of the genre’s best. It may not have been a ‘pitch-perfect’ adaptation, but it did manage to hit just enough of the right beats to avoid being a case where it’d be more appropriate to call it Mortal Kombat ‘in name only’.

Rating: 3.5/5

MORTAL KOMBAT: ANNIHILATION (1997)

Given that it spent three weeks at the top of the U.S. box office, it’s safe to say that the first Mortal Kombat film was a massive success; thus, a sequel would end up hitting theaters in 1997, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. But since Paul W.S. Anderson opted to direct the sci-fi horror film Event Horizon instead, directorial duties were taken over by the first film’s cinematographer, John R. Leonetti. Upon its release, however, the film fared far differently than its predecessor both critically and commercially. In other words, whereas the original is regarded as one of the best video game films, Annihilation is not only considered to be one of the genre’s worst… but also one of the worst films ever made in general, and to be perfectly frank, it’s easy to see why as everything that worked well in the first film is practically non-existent in this one. Most of the fight sequences are mediocre at best and despite the film boasting a budget that’s nearly twice as big as the original’s, it inexplicably looks far worse by comparison with even cheaper-looking CGI and a blatant overuse of green-screen. It also carries over the ‘underutilization of the series’ most popular characters’ issue from the first film and exacerbates it even further by overfilling itself with characters, many of whom are only in it for like a single sequence at best. And since most of the leads were recast save for Robin Shou as Liu Kang and Talisa Soto as Kitana, there aren’t any standout performances like there were in the first film… in fact, most of them are straight-up bad. In short, as flawed as the first Mortal Kombat is, it’s still a decently entertaining popcorn flick. The same can’t be said for Mortal Kombat: Annihilation aside from a few instances of unintentional hilarity a la another infamous 1997 release, Batman and Robin. Simply put, this can best be summed up by its ironic promotional tagline, ‘Destroy All Expectations’.

Rating: 1/5

MORTAL KOMBAT LEGENDS: SCORPION’S REVENGE (2020)

To conclude today’s retrospective (while also letting us end things on a much better note than Annihilation), we have a direct-to-video animated film courtesy of Warner Bros. Animation, Mortal Kombat Legends: Scorpion’s Revenge. As the title suggests, it primarily follows the franchise’s most famous character, Hanzo Hasashi AKA the undead ninja warrior Scorpion, as he seeks revenge against those who killed his family. And to put it simply, for those who were disappointed by the non-graphic nature of the live-action films’ fight sequences, you’ll find this one to be a lot more satisfying as it goes all out with its ridiculously violent kills straight down to the faithful execution of the brutal X-Ray moves from the most recent games. However, as solidly animated as this film is, especially given its direct-to-video status, it’s a bit unfocused from a narrative perspective as it juggles Scorpion’s revenge plot with the series’ traditional premise of the warriors of Earthrealm (Liu Kang, Sonya Blade, and Johnny Cage) fighting in the Mortal Kombat tournament. While there’s nothing necessarily wrong about the latter aspect of the plot since that’s what this series has largely been about, it does feel a bit misleading to call this Scorpion’s Revenge because it honestly feels like Scorpion is treated like a secondary character in what is ostensibly his own film. In other words, having it set almost entirely from Scorpion’s perspective would’ve been the much better route to take instead of just rehashing stuff that we’ve seen before. And so, with that in mind, I’ll admit that I’m not quite as positive towards this film as I know a lot of other people are, but at the same time, it’s still a genuinely well-done take on the franchise that’s wholly engaging throughout. That said, though, if they ever do any sort of follow-up, hopefully they’ll be willing to shake things up a bit and do something more character-driven rather than simply relying on the series’ overarching plot.      

Rating: 3.5/5

This concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective on the Mortal Kombat franchise’s foray into feature-length films. Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of this iconic franchise. And yes, a review of the new Mortal Kombat film will be coming sometime soon; so, with that in mind, hopefully y’all will GET OVER HERE and check it out when it drops.

Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) review (HBO Max)

 

‘Creature features’ have been a staple of film for many decades, and when it comes to this particular genre, there are two cinematic monsters who reign supreme. First, there was King Kong, the titular 24-foot-tall prehistoric gorilla, dubbed the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World’, who debuted in the 1933 film of the same name directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack. With groundbreaking stop-motion effects by Willis O’Brien and an iconic finale in which the title character scales the Empire State Building, King Kong quickly became one of the most highly regarded films of all time, undoubtedly inspiring numerous generations of filmmakers. Case in point, in 1954, another giant monster came onto the scene known as Gojira, a 164-foot-tall radioactive reptilian beast. Created in the wake of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the tail-end of World War II, Godzilla (which is the character’s English-translated name) also became a landmark for both the monster genre and the art of special effects while simultaneously revolutionizing the genre of Japanese giant monster films AKA Kaiju films. Following their quintessential debuts, both characters would go on to appear in several other films over the years. The original King Kong, for example, was notably remade twice; one in 1976 starring Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange and the other in 2005 directed by Peter Jackson. As for Godzilla, he would end up appearing in a whole bunch of follow-ups with the character’s parent company, Toho, producing over 30 sequels that span 4 distinct eras and saw the King of the Monsters face off against new and exciting creatures such as King Ghidorah and Mothra.  

But while these two towering icons have mostly operated on their own accord, they did notably appear together on-screen in Godzilla’s third official cinematic outing, 1962’s King Kong vs. Godzilla. Primarily spawned from a story outline from Willis O’Brien that had King Kong fighting a giant-sized version of the Frankenstein monster, this concept evolved into a figurative and literal ‘clash of the titans’ that ended up being one of the Godzilla franchise’s most popular installments. But now, nearly six decades after the original’s debut, the ‘King of the Monsters’ and ‘The Eighth Wonder of the World’ are back at it again in Godzilla vs. Kong, the latest installment of Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures’ MonsterVerse series which reimagined the titular characters for a worldwide audience. It all began, of course, in 2014 with the release of the second attempt at an American-made adaptation of Godzilla after the infamous 1998 adaptation directed by Roland Emmerich. A sequel would follow in 2019, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, while King Kong headlined his own cinematic reboot two years prior with Kong: Skull Island. For this latest installment of the franchise, directorial duties go to Adam Wingard who, like his immediate predecessor Michael Dougherty (who directed King of the Monsters and has a story credit for this film), is mainly known for his work in the horror genre, having directed films such as the 2011 slasher You’re Next and the 2014 thriller The Guest. In short, it goes without saying that this has been one of the most anticipated films in recent memory, and while there are plenty of instances where it showcases some of the MonsterVerse’s most common shortcomings, Godzilla vs. Kong still manages to be a delightfully entertaining crossover event.   

With humanity now fully aware of the existence of gigantic creatures known as ‘Titans’, much of their attention has been geared towards learning more about the Titans’ homeworld, Hollow Earth, that’s hidden directly underneath the planet’s surface. This includes Walter Simmons (Demián Bichir), the CEO of tech conglomerate Apex Cybernetics, who recruits geologist Nathan Lind (Alexander Skarsgård), a former member of the Titan-studying organization Monarch, for a mission to travel to Hollow Earth and retrieve a power source that they could potentially use to deal with Godzilla, who has recently been on a series of inexplicable rampages around the world. As part of the operation, Lind recruits Monarch linguist Dr. Ilene Andrews (Rebecca Hall), who has been monitoring the apex predator of the mysterious Skull Island, Kong, and has also been looking after the island’s last native, Jia (Kaylee Hottle), a young deaf girl who has a unique friendship with Kong. But, as to be expected, their journey to Hollow Earth soon results in Kong crossing paths with Godzilla, thus putting Lind and his team in a time-sensitive situation as they race to give Kong a fighting chance against his incredibly imposing adversary. Meanwhile, Madison Russell (Millie Bobby Brown), her best friend Josh Valentine (Julian Dennison), and conspiracy theorist Bernie Hayes (Brian Tyree Henry) go undercover to investigate into Godzilla’s recent attacks, which leads to them uncovering a sinister plot by Apex that could result in devastating effects for both them and the Titans.

Godzilla vs Kong knows exactly what kind of film you’re here to see, and as always, this franchise more than delivers when it comes to its monster-based action sequences. In fact, this one even manages to surpass all its predecessors, especially the Godzilla films, by having multiple sequences take place during the day rather than at night, and even when they do have a night-time action sequence, they’re lit far better than the ones from previous films. Tonally, this film is more in line with the generally light-hearted Kong: Skull Island rather than the more serious Godzilla films, and while it is admittedly a bit jarring to see the returning characters from Godzilla: King of the Monsters partake in some of this film’s wackier antics, it’s also arguably a far better route to go for a film of this nature. However, as entertaining as this film is, it goes without saying that it maintains one of the most recurring problems that the MonsterVerse has faced over the years in that all that great action can’t entirely make up for its mediocre plot. In this instance, we have what is probably the franchise’s most sci-fi heavy premise to date given everything revolving around Apex Cybernetics and the journey to Hollow Earth… and yet, it still manages to feel like a complete afterthought with a bunch of extraneous characters and plotlines. But like I just said earlier, the fact that this film is more upbeat in tone than the previous films helps to alleviate much of that since, at the very least, it’s not trying to take itself too seriously.    

As always, the human element of the MonsterVerse films has never been the point of the franchise. Case in point, Godzilla vs. Kong follows in the footsteps of Kong: Skull Island and Godzilla: King of the Monsters by featuring an impressively stacked ensemble cast… and doesn’t really give any of them anything of value to work with. Still, for what it’s worth, I do think that this film handles the human side of its story better than King of the Monsters, where I’d argue that the human plot was even more poorly executed than usual. Obviously, Godzilla vs. Kong isn’t that much better by comparison, but there are a few decent character moments here and there, namely via the friendship between Kong, who’s basically the main character of the film, and Jia, the last surviving member of Skull Island’s Iwi natives. Newcomer Kaylee Hottle and Rebecca Hall headline the film nicely as Jia and her adoptive mother Ilene, respectively, in what is probably the franchise’s best example of human characters who have a strong connection with one of the title characters. Everyone else in the cast from Alexander Skarsgård to Brian Tyree Henry is just there, for the most part, but they work well enough with what they get. This includes the returning Millie Bobby Brown and Kyle Chandler from King of the Monsters as Madison Russell and her father Mark, and while Chandler is sadly limited to an extremely minor supporting role this time around, Brown thankfully isn’t sidelined like she was for most of the previous film. Granted, her role here is arguably the most prominent case of the film’s ‘extraneous’ plotlines, but at the very least, she does get more to do this time around.      

If you’ve been following this site for a while, you might recall that my thoughts on the MonsterVerse have varied considerably from film to film. Overall, I thought that the first Godzilla from 2014 was a solid kick-starter for a new cinematic universe style franchise a la the MCU. Sure, it didn’t have much of the title character and the main human protagonist was the very definition of a bland and generic lead but at the very least, director Gareth Edwards did a fantastic job of mirroring the serious tone of the original Godzilla film from 1954, especially when compared to the franchise’s campier follow-ups. As for 2017’s Kong: Skull Island, it’s easily my favorite of the first three MonsterVerse films. While it was arguably a major case of style over substance, its unabashedly extravagant visual style helped make this full-on homage to 1970’s war films an incredibly entertaining watch. Conversely, the second of the MonsterVerse’s Godzilla films, 2019’s Godzilla: King of the Monsters, was a film that, unfortunately, I wasn’t too big on when it first came out, and upon my most recent re-watch… well, nothing’s really changed on my end. Granted, I fully understand why this film became such a hit with fans of the franchise, namely due to how it delivered on many of the things that they didn’t get from the first film such as the sight of Godzilla fighting some of his most iconic adversaries such as King Ghidorah. Overall, though, the film suffered immensely from some incredibly sluggish pacing, and while the lack of any decent character development is to be expected from this franchise, this is one instance where I’d argue that the human side of the story almost derailed it entirely.

I’m happy to report, however, that I’m far more positive towards Godzilla vs. Kong, which is basically the cinematic embodiment of the MonsterVerse franchise in a nutshell. From a visual perspective, it goes above and beyond to present some of the most exciting action sequences involving cinema’s most iconic monsters. But from a narrative perspective, it’s barely held together by a bare-bones plot, and while the film does boast an excellent cast, said cast is just there to help move things along. Thus, at the end of the day, it ultimately comes down to how everything came together in the end, and this is where I’d argue that this film turned out to be a lot better than Godzilla: King of the Monsters, especially when it comes to these films’ overall tone. Whereas King of the Monsters took itself a bit too seriously, Godzilla vs. Kong fully understands that what we’re mainly here to see is the awesome sight of a giant monkey punching a giant lizard in the face. Thus, while it’s undoubtedly the MonsterVerse’s most undemanding installment to date, its lighthearted tone and far more vibrant color palette compared to some of the other installments of the franchise helps to make up for the usual narrative shortcomings, for the most part. In other words, Godzilla vs. Kong is an incredibly fun popcorn flick whether you’re watching it at home via HBO Max as part of Warner Bros.’ simultaneous theatrical/streaming plan for its 2021 releases or in theaters, where it has arguably been the most successful blockbuster that’s been released since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Rating: 4/5

Cherry (2021) review (Apple TV+)

Adapted from the 2018 semi-biographical novel of the same name by Nico Walker, a US Army veteran who struggled with drug addiction to the point where he was sent to prison for a series of bank robberies that he committed to fund his drug use, Cherry isn’t exactly the kind of film that I watch regularly. That’s usually the case when it comes to films that could be described as ‘arthouse’ flicks which, simply put, is a genre that I’ve never been able to get into. While there have been a few arthouse films that I’ve liked such as 2016’s Swiss Army Man, other films such as 2017’s mother are among some of the worst films that I’ve ever seen. At the end of the day, it all depends on whether a particular arthouse film interests me or not, and in Cherry’s case, the main reason why it got my attention basically had everything to do with its directors; a pair of brothers who, like Walker, hail from Cleveland. These two mainly got their start working on highly regarded television shows such as Arrested Development and Community, but in recent years, they’ve been responsible for hit films such as Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War, and the highest-grossing film of all-time for the past two years*, Avengers: Endgame. Yes, folks, Cherry is notable for being the first big directorial outing from brothers Joe and Anthony Russo since the landmark outing that was Endgame. In fact, this film even sees them reunite with the MCU’s Spider-Man himself, Tom Holland, who stars in the lead role of a fictionalized take on Nico Walker. However, despite all the talent that’s involved both in front of and behind the camera, Cherry is, admittedly, a rather flawed crime drama despite its ambitious (and, in several cases, good-natured) intentions.

In 2002, a young man from Cleveland (Tom Holland) falls in love with one of his college classmates named Emily (Ciara Bravo). However, when she reveals to him that she has opted to transfer to a different school in Montreal, thus basically ending their relationship, the young man is so torn up about it that he decides to enlist in the U.S. Army. And while he eventually manages to rekindle his relationship with Emily to the point where the two of them get married, his experience as an Army medic in Iraq leaves him completely traumatized and stricken with a severe case of PTSD once he returns home. With no viable options to properly deal with his newfound trauma, the young man resorts to painkillers like Oxycontin, and once Emily can no longer deal with his BS, she becomes an addict as well. Unfortunately, the two of them end up getting into a precarious situation when they consume the large number of drugs that they were supposed to hold for their local drug dealer, Pills and Coke (Jack Reynor), who promptly informs them that they’re all about to face the wrath of his boss, Black (Daniel R. Hill). Thus, to settle their massive debt with Black, the young man embarks on a series of bank robberies, but as time goes on, his messed-up life only begins to spiral even further out of control than it already has.

Cherry is one hell of an ambitious crime drama and not just because it has a decently hefty runtime that’s on par with any of the Russo brothers’ MCU films. No, that runtime is simply an indicator of just how much the main protagonist goes through over the course of the film, from his time in Iraq to his drug-funding bank robberies. That said, though, because of all the material that the film goes through to tell this story, there are quite a few instances where the plot ends up being a bit too sprawling for its own good. As much as the film is a strong showcase of the Russo brothers’ talented direction, especially because of how visually driven it is, there are a few times where it either feels a bit unfocused or completely overwhelmed by its numerous plot threads. And if that weren’t enough, I’d also argue that some of these plotlines end up being far more interesting than others (and, in some cases, don’t get as much attention as they probably should’ve), such as the main protagonist’s PTSD struggles or how the string of bank robberies that he commits slowly but surely start to get messier in their execution. Ultimately, though, what really hurts Cherry is its meandering pace, which only makes this incredibly long film feel even longer. Not only that, but the film also sports a surprisingly crude tone. Now, granted, I recognize that this clearly must’ve been intentional since this is far from being a light-hearted story… and yet, the endless amount of juvenile sex jokes can admittedly be a bit much.

One of the best things that I can say about Cherry is that it’s a prime example of a film where its lead actor gets to show that they are far more than just their career-defining role. Of course, in this instance, I’m mainly referring to Tom Holland, who has spent the last several years playing the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s rendition of Spider-Man but successfully disappears into the transformative role of this film’s main character. Holland does a phenomenal job of blurring the line when it comes to the process of either making his character genuinely sympathetic given the horrible things that he goes through (e.g. having to witness the death of his friends firsthand during the war) or utterly pitiful because of how much he screws up his own life. In other words, Holland’s strong screen presence allows you to find some bits of humanity within a character who’s not exactly the easiest guy to root for (sympathetic PTSD struggles notwithstanding). These complex moral dilemmas also apply to Holland’s main co-star, Ciara Bravo. While Holland’s character is obviously the main protagonist of the film, his wife Emily goes through some fascinating incidents of her own, mostly by way of her also becoming a drug addict simply because she gets fed up with her husband’s antics. Considering that this is basically her first major leading role, Bravo more than holds her own against Holland, and while their characters’ relationship is almost always rocky, they do manage to sport some solid chemistry together.

The Russo brothers have said that Cherry is arguably the most personal film that they’ve made to date, and in a lot of ways, it’s easy to see why. For starters, given the setting of its source material, they got to film it in their hometown of Cleveland, which was also something that they got to do for parts of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Not only that, but it’s also worth noting that one of the film’s credited writers is their sister, Angela Russo-Otstot. And so, with all this in mind as well as their noble efforts to accurately convey the horrors of PTSD, you can’t really fault Cherry for its ambition… ultimately, though, that same ambition is what ends up hurting it. It’s a film that tries to cover a lot of narrative ground and while it certainly has a run-time long enough to make that happen, it suffers from some incredibly sluggish pacing and often feels incredibly unfocused because of how many plot points it’s trying to juggle, with some handled far better than others. And while the film certainly succeeds at giving off an incredibly uncomfortable vibe by way of the main character’s descent into utterly messed-up territory, most of its content comes off as being a bit too crude for my tastes. Now, with all this said, this doesn’t mean that I think that the film is ‘bad’. At the very least, you can see what the Russo brothers were going for and it benefits greatly from the strong lead performances of Tom Holland and Ciara Bravo. Ultimately, though, I’d say that this needed a few more run-throughs in the editing bay to both streamline the looser parts of its narrative and liven up its pacing.

Rating: 2.5/5

(*Just a few weeks ago, a re-release in China helped push James Cameron’s Avatar back into the top spot that it had held since its initial release in 2009 before Avengers: Endgame overtook it a decade later…)