Fan Vote- Favorite Films of Summer 2016

Hey folks! Well we’re coming to the end of Summer 2016 and for anyone who’s been following this blog for at least the past two years, you probably know what that means. Yes, today marks the beginning of RIMC’s annual End of Summer poll in which I invite you folks to vote for your favorite film out of the many that have come out these past four months. For those who are new to the blog, here’s how it works. Below I’ll be providing a link to a poll that I made over on surveymonkey.com. There you can pick out your favorite film of the summer from the wide selection of options and believe me, you’ll have quite a lot to choose from. Because whenever I do this poll, I pretty much just list every major ‘wide’ release this summer. Obviously that doesn’t include every single film that came out this season so if you don’t see your favorite film on the list, don’t worry because I always include a write-in section for anything I missed. This poll will run for 2 weeks until September 4^th. After that I will tally up the votes and from that, a post listing all of the ‘winners’ will be posted on the site shortly afterwards. Now when I originally did this, I had hoped to do something along the lines of a Top 10 list. But then I realized that this wouldn’t really be possible because most of the films that do get votes usually end up having a similar number of votes. So instead, I just list all of the films that DID get votes. And one last thing… I know that a lot of people on the internet have been saying that this has been a disappointing summer film season. Trust me, I’ve seen this mindset repeated through numerous online articles. But for the record that mindset will not be reflected in this poll and subsequent post.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WGM8KZ7

Sausage Party (2016) review

(Disclaimer: I don’t usually do this but there are going to be some MAJOR SPOILERS at the end of this review following the rating as I will be delving into how much the film has changed since I saw it at SXSW. Also some of you might have recently heard of the controversies surrounding this film’s production, namely the fact that some of its animators were overworked and underpaid. It’s certainly a troubling situation but I will not be bringing it up in the review.)

It’s time once again to talk more about one of the films that I got to see early at SXSW in Austin, Texas this past March. And this one, Sausage Party, is a particularly noteworthy one because when it premiered there on March 14^th, it wasn’t finished yet. It was shown in ‘rough cut’ form, with some of the animation being unfinished. It so wasn’t finished yet that there was actually a scene that was just storyboards and apparently it had actually been screened sometime prior to that as nothing but storyboards. So because it was only a ‘Rough Cut’, I decided not to give it an official rating in my 2016 SXSW Recap Post. However, now the film is finally out in its finished state, meaning that I now have the opportunity to review it properly. Sausage Party is certainly a unique entry in the animated genre. While it may seem like your typical Disney/Dreamworks affair, namely in regards to the cartoony designs of its main characters that would certainly fit in any other animated film, believe me when I say that this is not an animated film you’re going to want to take your kids to. This is a very much R-rated animated flick that is as crass and filled to the brim with sexual innuendos and pot as you’d probably expect from the duo behind it; Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. But if you can look pass all of the juvenile references, sex talk, and pot jokes, Sausage Party is actually a rather smartly written animated flick that very much takes advantage of its more mature rating, though maybe a bit too much at times, to produce a hilariously dark spin on what, on the surface, would seem like something you’d see in a Disney film.

The film mainly takes place within the confines of a supermarket called Shopwell’s. In this supermarket, its various food items are living beings who dream of being taken by ‘the gods’ [humans] and brought out of the store into ‘the Great Beyond’. One of these foods is a sausage named Frank (Seth Rogen) who dreams of being chosen along with his girlfriend, a hot dog bun named Brenda (Kristen Wiig), so that they take their relationship beyond ‘just the tips’. As fate would have it, they do end up getting chosen together by a female shopper during Fourth of July weekend. However, a jar of Honey Mustard (Danny McBride) that had been previously brought to ‘the Great Beyond’ but was then returned to the store warns them that the ‘Great Beyond’ is nothing but a bunch of BS and jumps off of the cart to his death, ultimately resulting in Frank, Brenda, a lavash named Kareem Abdul Lavash (David Krumholtz), and a bagel named Sammy Bagel Jr. (Edward Norton) falling out of the cart as well following a collision with another cart. Now on their own as the store closes for the night, the quartet decide to journey back to their aisles, all the while dealing with a douche (Nick Kroll, and by ‘douche’ I mean the feminine hygiene product) that seeks revenge against Frank for getting his nozzle bent. It is during this time that Frank begins to learn more about what Honey Mustard was talking about and through a meeting with the ‘immortal’ non-perishables led by liquor bottle Firewater (Bill Hader), Frank finally learns the truth about the ‘Great Beyond’; it is a lie. Even worse, when food is taken by humans, the humans end up “killing their asses”, resulting in Frank having to try and reveal the horrible truth to his peers before it’s too late.

The humor in Sausage Party is very much what’d you expect from Rogen and Goldberg; it’s full of sexual innuendo, pot jokes, etc. And in the case of this film, that also means quite a lot of food-related puns. Pretty much any food pun that you can think of is probably in this film. Now as far as the humor is concerned, I must say that this film actually has a really solid gag-to-laugh ratio. It will legitimately have you guffawing throughout and while on the surface it may seem like a really stupid food version of Toy Story, the writing is actually much more complex than you think. Yes, amidst all of the f-bombs, marijuana use, and many, many, MANY stereotypes that are represented in food form, there’s actually quite a bit of in-depth social commentary in this film, namely in regards to religion as represented by the food of Shopwell’s being led to believe that nothing bad ever happens to food, which of course isn’t true in their cases. Instead, the film promotes unity amongst cultures and taking control of your own life. So yeah… this film basically gives the idea of religion the middle finger. With that said, admittedly sometimes the film can be a little too crass for its own good. I mean, sure, I get it, it’s an R-rated animated film so they do have much more creative leeway to get away with stuff that you would NEVER see in something from Disney, Pixar, or Dreamworks. Still, there are times where it does feel like they’re just relishing in the fact that it’s R, meaning plenty of f-bombs thrown out here and there really for no real reason other than they can. Thankfully, that only happens a few times in the film.

Animation-wise the film is perfectly fine as a film made by a non-Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks studio with a low budget. It’s nothing special, for the record, but it does definitely deserve some credit for the ways in which it brings this world of food to life, mainly through its character designs. It also certainly does its job in giving the film a Disney-esque style with its own cartoonish and colorful style. Heck, they even got Alan Menken, the man who has brought us countless iconic Disney songs over the years, to do the film’s opening musical number. Needless to say all of this gets really hilarious when the filmmakers start to do more adult stuff with the animation, namely in the ending which, without giving anything away, is something that truly needs to be seen to be believed. The same can be said for scenes in which food characters are brutally killed by humans. Obviously it isn’t graphic in the same way that scenes like this would be if they involved humans but it does still provide a hilariously disturbing sight. As for the voice cast, pretty much every one is spot on for their respective roles; Seth Rogen as Frank, Kristen Wiig as Brenda, Jonah Hill and Michael Cera as some of Frank’s fellow sausages with the latter being viewed as a runt due to him being a deformed sausage, Edward Norton as the Woody Allen-ish Sammy Bagel Jr. (no joke, some people at the SXSW screening didn’t even realize it was Norton until the end of the film), Salma Hayek as a lesbian taco shell who harbors feelings for Brenda, etc. Admittedly most of the characters are rather one-note save for a few (e.g. Cera’s character Barry) but the cast does make it all work in the long run.  

Now like I said before, when I first saw this film I didn’t give it a rating at the time because it was only a ‘Rough Cut’. Plus, because the SXSW crowd was so into it (I’m pretty sure there were a few stoners in there… this is a Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg film, after all), sometimes I couldn’t even hear the dialogue. So now I’ve finally seen the film in its final form and overall I must say that it really is a solid animated flick. For one thing, the film is absolutely hilarious from beginning to end; most of the jokes, even some of the obviously offensive ones, do hit. And while on the surface this whole premise of food learning of their true purpose in life may sound really silly, and let’s be honest that’s exactly what it is, the writing can actually be rather smart at times, namely through how it comments on religion and the beliefs that one has through said religion. Pair that with the hilarious mash-up of Disney-style animation with the messed up crap that goes on in this film and the absolutely spot-on voice cast and you just have one absolutely crazy but still highly entertaining animated feature. Like Deadpool and superhero films earlier this year, perhaps Sausage Party will open the door for more R-rated animated films. Clearly people are open for films like this that aren’t afraid to be a bit more mature despite being part of a genre that’s mostly seen PG-rated stories. I’ve seen quite a few great R-rated animated films before; South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, Team America: World Police, etc. So hopefully thanks to this film, we’ll be seeing more down the road, including the certainty that is a sequel to this film, which ends on quite an interesting note that will no doubt set up an even crazier follow-up.  

Rating: 4/5

****

SPOILER SECTION (IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM YET, READ NO FURTHER!!)

So as I’ve been saying throughout this review, when I saw this at SXSW not all of the animation was finished. Some scenes were in the early stages of rendering and some of them didn’t even feature full character animation yet. This was primarily the case during the opening song number and pretty much most of the finale, including the scene in which Frank tries to rally the supermarket food to fight ‘the Gods’ and, yes, even the infamous orgy scene. There was also one additional scene that didn’t end up in the theatrical cut. After the food have their massive orgy, Frank and friends learn from Firewater that they are actually only ‘cartoons’ brought to life by animators and voiced by celebrities like Seth Rogen and Edward Norton. The wise figure that is Gum then reveals that he has built an inter-dimensional device that would allow them to travel to their creators’ world. Frank and co. decide to enter it and they end up in Los Angeles right across the street from a diner where Seth Rogen, Michael Cera, and Edward Norton are having lunch. As the trio talk about doing an animated film about talking food, Frank and friends storm into the diner through the window to attack them. Now for the record I don’t know if this was actually intended to be in the film. The animation in this scene was completely non-existent; it was literally just the 2-D models of the characters on a 2-D plane set against the live-action footage. I mean personally I think it would’ve been a funny little ending tag seeing Rogen, Cera, and Norton get attacked by the food but it’s probably for the better that they didn’t use this scene. Instead, the film ends as Frank and his friends go into the portal. With that said, though, perhaps this scene will be featured on the Blu-Ray. It would certainly set the stage for what will no doubt happen in the sequel as Frank and co. interact with ‘their creators’.   

Batman: The Killing Joke (2016) review

(Disclaimer: Due to the necessity to address certain moments from the plot in order to explain the controversies surrounding them, there will be some minor spoilers in this review. Fear not though, folks, for I will not be directly spoiling anything from the ending for those who haven’t read the graphic novel.)

There have been many iconic Batman storylines over the years and one of the most famous was the 1988 one-shot graphic novel The Killing Joke. Written by legendary comic writer Alan Moore, the man behind other classic stories like V for Vendetta and Watchmen, The Killing Joke focused on the Dark Knight’s most infamous adversary, the Joker. Moore explored the backstory of the Clown Prince of Crime in order to uncover just what it was that led to him becoming a criminal psychopath. The end result was a storyline that many considered to be not only one of the absolute best Batman stories of all-time but also the definitive Joker story. It’s so iconic that both of the modern-era Batman films that featured the Joker, Tim Burton’s Batman and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, were directly influenced by it. Nearly three decades later, fans rejoiced when it was announced that DC would finally be doing an adaptation of Moore’s story in animated form as part of their line of ‘DC Universe Animated Original Movies’. Even better, Batman and Joker were to be voiced by arguably the most iconic duo to ever play the parts; Kevin Conroy (Batman) and Mark Hamill (Joker), who had done the roles for years on Batman: The Animated Series as well as other various forms of DC media like Rocksteady’s Arkham games. Seems like a home-run, right? Well, unfortunately that’s not really the case here. Because while this adaptation does deserve some credit for its effort to stay as faithful as possible to the source material, it ultimately suffers from what the filmmakers had to add to it in order to meet a much more suitable run-time. Said additions were done as an attempt to ‘make amends’ for the most controversial aspect of the comic; how it portrayed the character of Barbara Gordon AKA Batgirl. And yet these additions only end up making the whole situation worse, resulting in an incredibly disappointing affair for fans of the storyline.

The primary addition to this story comes in the form of a 30-minute prologue that is intended to further develop the character of Barbara Gordon AKA Batgirl (voiced by Tara Strong). Having spent much time fighting crime with Bruce Wayne AKA Batman (voiced by Kevin Conroy), she starts to realize that she is close to being taken ‘to the edge’, as Batman calls it, and decides to retire from crime-fighting. Sometime later, Batman comes across a crime scene that could have only been perpetrated by his long-time enemy, the Joker (voiced by Mark Hamill). Unbeknownst to him, the Joker has broken out of Arkham Asylum and has purchased a run-down amusement park as part of a doozy of a plot in order to ‘prove a point’ in that ‘all it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy’. This plan ends up affecting not only Barbara (in a very disturbing way) but also her father, Commissioner Jim Gordon (voiced by Ray Wise). It is during this time where we also begin to learn more about old Joker. As it turns out, a long time ago he was once a struggling comedian who desperately tried to support his pregnant wife Jeannie. Hoping to earn enough money to move them into a nicer neighborhood, the comedian meets with a pair of criminals and agrees to lead them through the chemical plant that he used to work at, before he quit in order to become a comedian, so that they can rob the business right next to it. Unfortunately for the comedian, things only proceed to get worse from there as a string of unfortunate accidents come together to become the ‘one bad day’ that ends up driving him insane.

So yeah… this film’s 30-minute prologue was not part of the original comic… and it shows. This film’s first half hour literally has nothing to do with The Killing Joke whatsoever. Seriously, Mark Hamill’s Joker doesn’t even appear in this part of the film. But the absolute worst part of this sequence is how they portray the character of Batgirl. For those who haven’t read The Killing Joke, the comic was rather controversial in regards to how it portrayed Batgirl. The story saw her brutally shot in the spine by the Joker, paralyzing her from the waist down which subsequently led to her adopting a new persona, Oracle. Part of the story also saw her being stripped naked by the Joker, who then proceeded to take pictures of her in order to torture Commissioner Gordon. So it’s understandable why some people weren’t too happy with how Barbara Gordon was both depowered, and in some cases very much objectified, in the story. Even Alan Moore himself admitted that he went a bit too far with the story in general. But when it comes to the film adaptation, it only gets worse from here. Basically all that this 30-minute prologue does is portray Batgirl as a hopeless romantic who frequently loses focus whenever someone tries to put the moves on her. And yes, as many of you have no doubt heard by now, there is a scene where she has sex with Batman. No comment. I mean in hindsight this 30-minute prologue ‘could’ve’ been effective in regards to actually further developing Batgirl’s character in order to make the tragedy that happens to her in the story even more impactful. But that doesn’t happen.

So how about when the film does get into the actual story of The Killing Joke? Well I hate to say it but even that part feels a little lackluster in terms of how its handled. Now to the film’s credit, the filmmakers clearly spent a lot of effort in regards to staying as faithful to the source material as possible. Save for a few changes in dialogue and how certain scenes are set up, many scenes in the second half of the film legitimately feel like they came straight out of the comic. However, I can’t really explain why but some of these scenes feel off in terms of the emotional impact. One specific scene in which pre-accident Joker learns of his wife’s death due to a household accident is executed differently from how it was handled in the comic and as a result it really doesn’t get across how emotionally devastating this is for him. After all, she and their unborn child were the reason why he decided to work with the two criminals in the first place so when he tries to back out of their agreement, the two force him to still do it and of course it ends up with him becoming the Joker. This is another example of how the longer runtime could’ve been used more effectively. Maybe the filmmakers could’ve bulked up the original story a bit more. Perhaps they could’ve put in a few more scenes between the Joker and his wife, who literally appears in only one scene before she’s killed off. But again, that’s not what happened and instead the filmmakers more or less played it safe. Sure it’s faithful to its source but ultimately it doesn’t really live up to the quality of either that or its legendary voice cast. Heck, the animation ain’t really that great either.

Ignoring the, to be perfectly blunt, rather terribly handled prologue, perhaps the biggest issue with The Killing Joke is that it’s ‘too’ faithful to the source material. The original comic was a pretty short story so obviously it wouldn’t cut it for a feature-length film. And while I’m sure that they could’ve potentially gotten away with just doing a 45-minute short film, instead they decided to add more to the story in order to reach a more suitable run-time. But ultimately they didn’t make any changes to the actual Killing Joke story, which actually sort of ends up being a problem. And yeah… that prologue. Obviously the point of it was an attempt to ‘do justice’ (seeing how this is a DC film, no pun intended) to the character of Batgirl after her arguably questionable portrayal in the original story… and it ends up being a major epic fail on every level. Not only is this arguably the worst portrayal of the character to date, it’s one of the worst portrayals of any superhero character period (DISCLAIMER: None of this, I repeat, NONE of this is the fault of Tara Strong. She’s still one of the greatest voice actresses in the industry. It’s the writers who failed both her and the character.). And as a result, the opening leaves a bad taste in your mouth that unfortunately stays throughout the film, even when it gets to The Killing Joke. I’m actually surprised that this was released in theaters given its rather low quality. I mean I know DC’s animated films don’t have as big of a budget compared to the live-action films but given the prestige of the original story, I don’t see why they couldn’t have given more money to the filmmakers to do the best adaptation possible. In short, this is not that adaptation. But despite all that I’ve said in this review, if you are a fan of the original story, this is still worth checking out if only to see the legendary duo of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill performing this legendary Batman/Joker story… just skip the first 30 minutes.    

Rating: 2/5

Pete's Dragon (2016) review

Up until now, Disney’s current trend of live-action remakes have mainly been based on the studio’s long line of animated films; Alice in Wonderland, The Jungle Book, Cinderella, etc. And as I’ve gone over before, while this current practice has obviously been rather controversial with some fans, at the very least the films have been performing very well commercially and some of their more recent ‘re-imaginings’ have actually been doing really well critically too. But with their newest remake, Pete’s Dragon, things are a little bit different. This time around the source material is not an animated film, well, not entirely at least. In 1977, Disney released Pete’s Dragon, a live-action musical centered on the titular Pete, a young orphan boy, and the adventures that he had with his best friend, a dragon named Elliott. While the majority of the film was live-action, Elliott was an animated character with the film’s animation notably being directed by animation legend Don Bluth. Upon release, the film was a fairly decent box-office hit and although the reviews were mixed at best, it has since gone on to amass a pretty sizable cult following. But now here we are with a brand new take on the story of the boy named Pete and his dragon friend Elliott, brought to us by David Lowery, director of 2013’s indie hit Ain’t Them Bodies Saints. His take on Pete’s Dragon is noticeably different from its predecessor because whereas the original 1977 film was a full-blown musical, this new film is more of a drama. But despite the change in ‘genre’, this new take on Pete’s Dragon is still a very charming and heartfelt story that may seem simple but is full of strong themes that both young and old can admire.

The film opens as a young boy named Pete (Oakes Fegley) tragically loses both of his parents in a car accident while the three of them are on a road trip. The accident ends up stranding him in the forest alone but he soon comes across a large, furry, and friendly green dragon whom he names Elliott (Elliott’s ‘vocals’ are provided by John Kassir) after the title character of his favorite book. The two become best friends and spend the next 6 years living together in the forest. But Pete and Elliott’s peaceful lives are soon interrupted by the growing presence of people from the nearby town of Millhaven, specifically a bunch of lumberjacks from the local lumber mill owned by Jack (Wes Bentley). Pete ends up being found by one of the town’s park rangers, Grace Meacham (Bryce Dallas Howard), who also happens to be Jack’s fiancé. Fascinated by how a young boy like himself was able to survive ‘alone’ in the forest for six years, Grace decides to invite Pete to live with her, Jack, and Jack’s daughter Natalie (Oona Laurence) until they can figure out where he really came from. However, Pete becomes increasingly anxious about being separated from Elliott for too long and Grace realizes that he’s referring to the same mythical ‘Millhaven dragon’ that her father, woodcarver Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), had always told her about when she was younger. And to make matters worse, Elliott soon becomes ‘known’ to the people of Millhaven which then leads to people like Jack’s hunter brother Gavin (Karl Urban) to go after him.

As noted earlier, this film eschews the musical aspect of the original film for a more ‘straight-faced’ approach, which was probably the best move that it could’ve done in order to readapt the story for modern audiences. However, with that said, some have argued that this is really just Pete’s Dragon ‘in name only’ due to how much is changed from the original. However, despite the change in overall execution, this new take on Pete’s Dragon is quite fantastic. Thanks to the indie experience of director David Lowery, the film very much finds the heart within its extremely fantastical story. As a result, the film could certainly remind you of a film from the likes of Steven Spielberg or even more recent efforts like J.J. Abrams’ Super 8. It’s a simple story overall (heck the film is even set in the late 70’s/early 80’s) but one that is rooted in strong themes; family, friendship, etc., and said themes are handled excellently. It also isn’t afraid to go to some dark places at times. After all, the film straight up opens with the death of Pete’s parents (this is a Disney film, after all). But amidst all of the serious moments, the film also very much wears its heart on its sleeve, allowing audiences to be whisked away by the magic of the story. And while it’s very much told from a child’s perspective, both young and old can appreciate it for its charm and lovable characters.

Pete and Elliott are very much the heart of the film. Oakes Fegley does a fantastic job in the role of Pete, displaying a great sense of maturity for his age and showing that he’s perfectly capable of carrying a lot of the film on his own. But of course it wouldn’t be Pete’s Dragon without its dragon and while he is a CG-created character, Elliott proves to be a very believable and extremely endearing character. Just watching Elliott respond to various things, from Pete scaring off a bear in the beginning of the film to when he ends up going into town to look for Pete, is an incredibly charming sight. Their friendship is so strong that, without giving anything away, the ending is most certainly a tearjerker. But they’re not the only great members of this cast. Another young star, Oona Laurence, also shines in the role of Natalie, who quickly becomes Pete’s friend as he adjusts to normal life. Bryce Dallas Howard brings much warmth to the role of Grace, who very much becomes the closest that Pete has ever had to a ‘mother figure’ in quite some time. After all, as Jack notes, Pete being alone in the woods for so long doing his own thing is very much reminiscent of her. Robert Redford also provides plenty of charm in the role of Grace’s father, who unlike his daughter and the rest of Millhaven still believes in magic due to his own experiences with the mythical Millhaven dragon. Finally, there’s Wes Bentley and Karl Urban as brothers Jack and Gavin, who admittedly end up getting the least amount of material to work with in the film. Both Bentley and Urban do excellent jobs regardless but Jack is basically the most thankless part of the story and doesn’t really add much to the proceedings. And as for Gavin, who’s basically the main villain of the film, while he is at the very least not a completely evil ‘mustache-twirling’ villain he’s still a fairly simple villain who’s primarily motivated by greed.

I should probably mention that, at the time I am writing this, I actually haven’t seen the original Pete’s Dragon. I recall watching snippets of it when I was younger as I did own the film on VHS (ah, the good old days…) but never in full. I promise that I will try and get around to watching it in the future but until then, I can only talk about the newer Pete’s Dragon. And remember back in my review of The Jungle Book in which I explained why I’m optimistic about all of these upcoming Disney live-action remakes, saying that if they can be done well and stand on their own merit while still respecting their original adaptations then this slew of upcoming remakes isn’t such a bad thing? Well, now Disney has had three straight hits in a row when it comes to their most recent remakes because Pete’s Dragon is another fantastic Disney flick. As someone who, as noted earlier, hasn’t seen the original, this new film very much stands on its own merit. I mean it pretty much does the smartest thing that any remake can do and doesn’t directly copy its predecessor note for note. Instead of being a straight-up musical like the original adaptation, this new film is more of a drama. But even with the change in tone, the film still maintains a lot of heart, especially in regards to the friendship between Pete and Elliott. Sure in some ways it’s a pretty simple story but sometimes that’s exactly what audiences need, if you ask me. As a result, this is very much a highly recommended family flick that both young and old will very much enjoy. It may seem strange that Disney decided to remake one of their lesser-known live-action films but ultimately it worked out in the long run.  

Rating: 4.5/5

Disney Retrospective: The 80's

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s ongoing series of Disney Retrospectives in which I go over the many films that Walt Disney Animation has produced since 1937. For those who are new to this site, this series started all the way back in November 2013 when I reviewed the Disney Animated films of the 90’s, a time period known as the ‘Disney Renaissance’, in preparation for that month’s release of Frozen. But it wasn’t until last March when I finally started to do more of these. Once again doing so in preparation for the newest Disney Animation release at the time, Zootopia, that month I reviewed every Disney animated film released since 2000, from Fantasia 2000 (which technically is a 1999 film but didn’t see a wide release until 2000) to Big Hero 6. After that post was published, my plan for future Disney Retrospectives was to go back to the beginning (the 30’s/40’s) and finish them in chronological order, having initially started by covering everything since 1990 because those were the films released during my lifetime. But then that plan hit a bit of a snag back in April when Disney’s live-action remake of The Jungle Book was released in theaters. The week of its release, there were 3 videos posted online by Screen Junkies’ Honest Trailers series, Cinemasins, and HISHE on the original animated Jungle Book. And to put it simply, these videos resulted in a collective critical mauling of the film, effectively decimating the legacy of what was very much an animated classic. And yeah, that burned me up quite a bit, so much so that I decided to fast-track the 60’s/70’s Disney Retrospective that I was working on so that I could give the film a much more positive review. But of course that meant that I went out of order again, against my original plan. So as a result, this next Disney Retrospective will be covering the Disney animated films of the 1980’s.

To put it simply, this wasn’t really that great of a decade for the studio, not necessarily in regards to the films released during that time but more in terms of the problems that they had to deal with during these years. Many refer to the 1980’s as the time in history when Walt Disney Animation effectively hit ‘rock bottom’. In 1979, a group of animators, including up-and-coming animator Don Bluth, left the company due to creative differences that emerged during production of The Fox and the Hound. Specifically, Bluth and the other animators were becoming frustrated by the studio’s increasingly growing sense of corporatism that was starting to have a severe effect on their film output. Bluth ended up forming his own animation company, Don Bluth Productions, that same year. Initially an independent company, Bluth and his team then got the opportunity to partner up with Steven Spielberg and his production company, Amblin Entertainment, in 1984. Bluth Productions would soon go on to become Disney’s biggest rival during the decade, with some of Bluth’s films even out-performing Disney’s films at the box-office (e.g. The Land Before Time against Oliver and Company). To make matters worse for Disney, this decade also saw the release of one of their most infamous critical and commercial flops in 1985. But on a positive note for Disney, the decade wasn’t all bad as it ended with 1989’s The Little Mermaid. That film would serve as the beginning for what we now know today as ‘The Disney Renaissance’. But for now, let’s look back upon this rather tumultuous period of time for Disney and the 5 films that came out during all of this.

THE FOX AND THE HOUND (1981)

The Fox and the Hound tells the story of a friendship between the most unlikely of characters, a young fox named Tod who was sadly orphaned at a young age but gets adopted by a kind widow farmer and Copper, the young pup of the hunter who happens to be the widow’s neighbor. But while the two end up becoming friends, that friendship is soon put to the test when the hunter begins to groom Copper into being a hunting dog. The first half of the film, in which the young duo become friends, is legitimately very cute and both of them prove to be very sympathetic characters. But once the two of them grow up (Tod and Copper are notably voiced by Mickey Rooney and Kurt Russell, respectively, as adults), the way their relationship starts to be affected is actually pretty interesting, particularly when Tod ends up inadvertently causing the hunter’s other dog, Chief, to get injured which then leads Copper to angrily seek revenge. Admittedly the film does kind of lose a bit of steam by the end but it’s still really interesting to watch the development of this relationship over the course of the film, starting off with them being, to quote the film’s classic song, ‘The Best of Friends’ to becoming enemies as nature intends them to be. Plus, the film does have some very effective emotional moments, including the scene where Tod’s owner, Widow Tweed, is forced to let him go. As noted earlier, this film had a bit of a troubled production as a result of the departure of animators like Don Bluth due to conflicts between Disney’s original ‘Nine Old Men’, with this film being the last that they were primarily involved with, and a new generation of animators that included the likes of John Lasseter, Brad Bird, and Tim Burton. Still, as traditional as it may be sometimes, The Fox and the Hound is a very enjoyable entry in the Disney canon that very much has a good heart.

Rating: 4/5

THE BLACK CAULDRON (1985)

A loose adaptation of the first two books of author Lloyd Alexander’s The Chronicles of Prydain series, 1964's The Book of Three and the 1965 sequel whose name the film shares, The Black Cauldron was Disney’s first animated feature to be given a PG rating, effectively making it one of the studio’s ‘darkest’ animated features to date… and it ended up being a total disaster for them. Upon release, the film received generally mediocre reviews from critics. Even worse, the film was a major box-office bomb. At the time it had the biggest budget of any Disney animated feature to date at $25 million (though other reports claim that it was even higher at $44 million) and it failed to even make that back at the box-office. As a result, this film is generally considered to be the absolute lowest point in the studio’s history. But is it really as bad as its infamous reputation suggests? Well, yes and no. At the very least, the film does deserve some credit for at least attempting to do a darker and more mature animated feature. Granted, it still has plenty of the typical elements that you’d expect from a more family-friendly Disney film but for the most part this is easily one of Disney’s darkest films. Part of this comes from the animation. While I can’t say that it’s one of the studio’s absolute best-looking films, it certainly stands out with its stylish art direction, which sometimes produces some very creepy imagery. In fact, the imagery was so disturbing at times that following a disastrous test screening where younger audiences were absolutely terrified by it, newly appointed CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg ordered cuts to the film to tone down some of the more graphic sequences.

However, the visuals are really the only noteworthy thing in this film, as the story feels underdeveloped and most of the characters are rather bland. Taran and Princess Eilonwy are fairly standard protagonists, the same can be said for their sidekicks like Fflewddur Fflam and Gurgi (the latter of whom sounds like the precursor for Andy Serkis’ Gollum), and even the main villain, the Horned King, is pretty weak. Sure he can be a rather imposing figure and the legendary John Hurt does an excellent job in the role but for a character that I find many people frequently regard as one of the scariest Disney villains of all-time, he actually doesn’t do that much in the film. Heck, the whole climax in which he uses the mystical ‘Black Cauldron’ to raise his undead army of ‘Cauldron-born’ soldiers is really anti-climactic as both he and his army are dealt with fairly quickly. It seems as if along with the aforementioned graphic scenes that were cut, there were other story elements that were cut out as well that could’ve helped developed the plot and characters more, like a kingdom of fairy-like creatures known as the ‘Faire Folk’ that the protagonists encounter and yet are only in the film for a few minutes. In short, The Black Cauldron is, at the very least, not the absolute worst when it comes to Disney’s animated features. It does deserve some recognition for attempting to do a story geared towards older audiences and it certainly has some eye-catching animation. I can even understand how this film has managed to attract a bit of a cult following over the years. However, it still is one of the studio’s weaker efforts namely due to an underdeveloped story that feels really truncated in places and bland characters on both sides of its conflict. As controversial as this will sound to those opposed to this current trend, this is one Disney feature that most certainly demands a live-action remake.

Rating: 2/5

THE GREAT MOUSE DETECTIVE (1986)

So yeah… The Black Cauldron certainly didn’t turn out so well for Disney Animation, effectively putting the future of the studio in jeopardy as a result of its mediocre box-office performance. Thankfully they turned their luck around immediately with their follow-up, The Great Mouse Detective, released the following year. Simply put, the film fared much better critically and commercially, so much so that even though it’s not technically part of the ‘Renaissance’ era, many consider it to be a ‘Renaissance’ film. And while I’m personally unsure if I can fully agree with that notion, I do agree that it is a very entertaining entry in the Disney canon. It’s a fun spin on the concept of Sherlock Holmes, with the main character Basil being a mouse detective living under the residence of Holmes himself. The main characters are all very likable but the biggest standout of them all is the film’s main villain, Professor Ratigan. Voiced by the legendary Vincent Price, who clearly had a lot of fun doing the role, Ratigan serves as an excellent foil to Basil in the same way that Professor Moriarty is very much Sherlock Holmes’ equal. Pair this with the usual solid Disney animation, which includes a really exciting climax set within the clock tower of Big Ben, and you have an excellent Disney animated feature. Like I said before, I don’t know if I could go as far as to call it a ‘Renaissance’ film but it’s still a very important entry in the Disney canon. After the disaster that was Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective proved to executives that the animation studio could live on, effectively leading to the studio’s era of redemption that was ironically kick-started by two of this film’s directors.

Rating: 4/5

OLIVER AND COMPANY (1988)

As noted earlier in the intro, this decade saw Disney deal with its first big ‘rival’ in the form of Don Bluth Productions following Bluth’s departure from Disney in 1979. And easily the most notable instance of this rivalry came with their respective 1988 outings, Disney’s Oliver and Company and Bluth’s The Land Before Time. The main reason why this particular ‘contest’ was so notable was due to the fact that both films came out on the exact same weekend of November 18^th, 1988. Although Disney’s film did end up beating Bluth’s at the domestic box-office, ultimately it was the Steven Spielberg and George Lucas produced Bluth film about dinosaurs that ended up at the #1 spot that weekend, whereas Oliver and Company only ended up at #4. So what does that say about the final Disney film released before the start of the ‘Disney Renaissance’? Well, despite having the unfortunate distinction of being released in between two of the studio’s most beloved outings at the time, overall it’s still a decent entry in the Disney canon. It’s a loose adaptation of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist but one that envisions the main characters of the story as animals. Specifically, main character Oliver is a young kitten while the crafty Dodger is the grown-up leader of a gang of street dogs. Plus, instead of being set in 19^th century London, this film is set in modern-day New York, which is pretty neatly animated in a cool ‘sketch’-like style. Admittedly the film doesn’t really do much with its Twist connections so fans of the novel may not be too big on the film’s method of adapting Dickens’ story. But even with this in mind, the film is still a very enjoyable affair.

The main cast of characters are all pretty likable and while not all of the film’s songs are that memorable, Dodger’s solo ‘Why Should I Worry?’ (Did I forget to mention that Dodger is voiced by Billy Joel?) has always been one of my favorite Disney songs. The only real weak link of the film is the character of Georgette, the pampered poodle of the family whose daughter, Jenny, adopts Oliver. Despite being played by ‘The Divine Miss M’ herself, Bette Midler, Georgette is a rather extraneous character story-wise. Really her only trait in the film is that she gets super jealous when Oliver is adopted by Jenny and tries to get rid of him in any way possible. This character ends up adding little to the story to the point where I’m pretty sure the film could’ve easily gotten away without her. Plus, her song, ‘Perfect Isn’t Easy’… is basically the weakest song in the film. But aside from that, Oliver and Company is a perfectly decent Disney flick. It’s by no means one of their absolute best but I’m sure that younger audiences will love this film just fine. I remember liking this film when I was younger. Granted I’m pretty sure that I only saw it like once in full when I was a kid but thanks to the ‘Disney Sing-Along’ videos (remember those?) I was introduced to this film through, of course, ‘Why Should I Worry?’. Like I said before, even if it’s not one of Disney Animation’s best films, it certainly has one of their best songs.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE LITTLE MERMAID (1989)

After a considerably long period of under-performing films, both critically and commercially, Disney finally had a major hit on their hands at the end of their roughest decade to date when Ron Clements and John Musker, two of the co-directors on The Great Mouse Detective who would later go on to direct future Disney films including Aladdin and The Princess and the Frog, adapted Hans Christian Andersen’s classic fairy tale, The Little Mermaid, many years after the studio had attempted to make it back in Walt’s days. It is commonly regarded as the film that kick-started the entire Disney Renaissance, though some may even argue that it began with The Great Mouse Detective. But as for The Little Mermaid, it’s admittedly gotten a bit of flak in recent years, primarily in regards to its main character. But really, it’s still an excellent entry in the Disney canon. It has everything you can expect from a great Disney animated film. It has great animation that still holds up today, especially when considering that this was the last major Disney film to be primarily done with traditional hand-drawn animation as Disney would then start utilizing the computer animation system known as CAPS that they had developed with Pixar. All of the main characters are unforgettable, from the delightfully villainous Ursula to the kooky seagull Scuttle, voiced by the legendary Buddy Hackett. And of course the songs by Alan Menken and Howard Ashman are iconic, from the Oscar-winning ‘Under the Sea’ to Ariel’s beautiful solo, ‘Part of Your World’.

So what it is about this film that some people don’t like? Well, as noted earlier, it’s primarily due to the ‘Little Mermaid’ herself, Ariel. Definitely one of the more controversial Disney princesses (in fact pretty much every Disney princess prior to the 90’s has been a polarizing character amongst critics), Ariel has been accused of being ‘too whiny’ and ‘willing to sell her soul to be with a man she hardly knew’. But like another polarizing Disney princess, Cinderella, I think Ariel is a stronger character than some tend to give her credit. After all, her love for Prince Eric wasn’t her initial reasoning to become a human. It was her adventurous spirit and curiosity about the human world, which actually makes her stand out quite a bit from some of her fellow Disney princesses. It just so happens that she came across him one night and fell in love with him, which just strengthened her resolve. Now with that said, I do understand where some of her biggest critics are coming from, specifically the part about her seemingly not showing any remorse for getting into so much trouble with Ursula. But like Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man, I primarily chalk that up to the fact that she’s just a ‘teenager’. At the end of the day, I do think she’s a solid female lead; perhaps a bit immature but still very much likable and Jodi Benson does a phenomenal job in regards to not only giving Ariel her likable personality but also giving the character her beautiful singing voice, which ends up being one of the film’s major plot devices as Ariel is forced to ‘sell’ it to Ursula so that she can be human. So with all of this in mind, The Little Mermaid is another excellent Disney animated feature that helped get the studio back on track after such a long time spent arguably having lost their way.

Rating: 5/5!

And those are the Disney Animated films of the 1980’s. Thanks for following along and before I go, I just want to announce that the remaining Disney Retrospectives are now going to be coming out on a monthly basis. The 30’s/40’s Retrospective will be published next month and this ‘series’ will conclude with the 50’s Retrospective in October. After that, well, let’s just say that I have something BIG planned for November. Until then, what are your thoughts on the Disney films discussed in this post? Be sure to sound off in the comments below.

Suicide Squad (2016) review

Warner Bros hasn’t really been very lucky with their attempts in establishing a cinematic universe centering around the characters of DC Comics a la Marvel Studios and their Cinematic Universe, at least in terms of critical reception. Whereas the Marvel Cinematic Universe films have consistently done well with critics, the ‘DC Extended Universe’ films haven’t fared as well. The first installment of the franchise, 2013’s Man of Steel, attracted generally mixed reviews from both critics and audiences, easily making it the most polarizing film of that year. And then things got even more complicated with the next installment, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Released this past March, the film was absolutely savaged by critics. And while it certainly had its fair share of fans, this time around those who didn’t like it were much more vocal. It certainly didn’t help matters when, before the film was released, it was made clear that the version shown in theaters wasn’t director Zack Snyder’s intended cut. Instead, he was forced to cut more than 30 minutes out of the film, including some very important plot-points, in order to reach a more manageable run-time. As a result, the ‘director’s cut’ AKA the ‘Ultimate Edition’ debuted with the film’s home media release and most people agreed that, at the very least, this was the superior version of the film. Regardless, though, the theatrical release of BvS didn’t turn out as well as the studio hoped, meaning that more pressure was to be put on DC’s subsequent films to fare better critically. And out of the current slate of DC films set to follow in the next few years, arguably the most anticipated of the bunch was the other big DC film of 2016, Suicide Squad.

This truly is one of the most unique installments to come from a film genre that’s unfortunately been getting more and more scrutinized these past few years. And that is because while most superhero films have focused on just that, the superheroes, this film handles things differently and instead focuses on a group of supervillains. Specifically, the film centers on the villains that make up ‘Task Force X’, a disposable black ops unit controlled by the government to do their dirty work for them. Under the direction of David Ayer, writer of Training Day and director of films like End of Watch and Fury, and featuring an all-star cast that included the likes of Will Smith, Jared Leto, and Margot Robbie, the film was no doubt poised to be a smash hit for Warner Bros. For one thing, the marketing for the film was one of the most exciting marketing campaigns in recent memory, implying that the film would be a much different kind of beast compared to BvS, especially in terms of its overall look and feel. However, now the film has come out and, well, unfortunately it ends up sharing one major similarity with BvS and that is that the reviews for it have been absolutely savage. And yet, also like BvS, this is a case where those reviews are making it out to be worse than it really is. Because even though Suicide Squad is undeniably flawed in a few ways, it still manages to stand on its own merits due to its unique style, an equally unique premise that explores some fascinating aspects of a world filled with superheroes and supervillains, and an excellent ensemble cast.

The film opens up sometime after the death of Superman as was witnessed in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. As the existence of ‘meta-humans’ (AKA the term used to describe DC’s superhuman characters) is becoming more publicly known, the government begins to fear the possibility of having to deal with a being like Superman that ‘isn’t’ on their side. It is during this time that agent Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) comes up with a bold idea. Having assembled a wide array of dangerous criminals at the Belle Reve Penitentiary in Louisiana, she proposes that the criminals be put to work for the government as part of a black ops unit known as ‘Task Force X’. To make things easier for the government, this ‘suicide squad’ would be easily disposable if they were to fail their mission. And so the squad is formed under the command of Colonel Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman), with some of the other members of the squad including but not limited to assassin Floyd Lawton (Will Smith) AKA Deadshot and former psychiatrist turned crazed villainess Dr. Harleen Quinzel AKA ‘Harley Quinn’ (Margot Robbie). Their mission finds themselves heading into Midway City under the guise of them rescuing a high-profile mark during an alleged terrorist attack. However, this excursion soon turns into them having to save the world from the real threat, an ancient evil force known as Enchantress, who has taken over the body of Flag’s girlfriend, archaeologist June Moone (Cara Delevingne), and is hell-bent on destroying mankind for ‘imprisoning’ her for so many years. Then there’s also the uncertainty of the ‘wild card’ that is Harley’s lover, the ‘Clown Prince of Crime’ himself, the Joker (Jared Leto).

Like the theatrical cut of BvS, this film’s primary issues mainly stem from the writing and the editing. Now this isn’t exactly like BvS in which certain scenes were forcibly cut from the theatrical cut to the point where it effectively shuttered the story. Though with that said, it has been reported that, once again, there’s been quite a lot left on the cutting room floor, namely scenes that would’ve given more development to certain characters. Ultimately though, in this case the biggest problem with the editing is that it can be a little too erratic at times. By that I mean it sometimes cuts really fast to the point where there are quite a few ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ shots. But even with this in mind, the film still manages to be a really fun comic book flick full of cool visuals and entertaining action sequences. While Batman v Superman was criticized for being too ‘dour’, Suicide Squad is certainly much more light-hearted in tone. Granted that doesn’t mean that this film has the same kind of tone as, say, something out of the MCU but at the very least it does make a greater attempt to inject some humor into its proceedings, which mainly comes in the form of the banter between the various members of the squad. Pair that with an enjoyably flashy color palette, the always solid visual effects that you’d expect from a superhero film of this magnitude, and a really badass soundtrack that’s seriously up there with ‘Awesome Mix Vol. 1’ as one of the best superhero film soundtracks ever and you just have a fun, albeit maybe a bit simply plotted, supervillain-centered adventure that has a style unlike any other film in the genre.

In the months leading up to the film’s release, it was made clear that its ensemble cast had established quite a strong camaraderie during filming, which is certainly a good thing for a film of this nature. And it certainly shows as far as the final product is concerned. The cast is excellent and work off of each other extremely well. And even with some of its story-based shortcomings in mind, it’s still really fascinating to watch the film attempt to find the humanity within a bunch of characters who are normally villainous in nature and for the most part, it actually does manage to succeed in doing just that. Will Smith is pretty much the film’s biggest ‘headliner’ in the role of Deadshot and in a film in which it’s shown that not all of these bad guys are ‘truly bad’, Deadshot is certainly the most ‘layered’ of the bunch in regards to the film exploring his humanity, primarily shown through his relationship with his daughter Zoe. The role’s also a pretty darn perfect fit for Smith as far as him utilizing his ability to make a whole bunch of wisecrack remarks. Viola Davis also shines in the role of Amanda Waller, the Squad’s ‘boss’ who, despite being a part of the US government, can be just as ruthless as those she’s leading. The big scene-stealer, however, is Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. Whereas most superhero film castings have been subjected to some form of pre-release scrutiny from fans, I find that Robbie’s casting had been well-received by most people when it was first announced. And although there has been some controversy over how the character is portrayed in the film, Robbie absolutely kills it in the role, from the mannerisms to the New York accent to her unabashed love for ‘Puddin’.

Speaking of ‘Puddin’, this film re-introduces the character of the Joker to the big screen nearly a decade after Heath Ledger’s iconic, and Oscar-winning, turn in the role in The Dark Knight. So with that said, how does Jared Leto fare in the role? Well remember what I said before about there being quite a lot of deleted scenes? Because according to Leto, many of them involved ‘Mr. J.’ so unfortunately Joker doesn’t factor that much into this film. However, in the scenes that he does appear, I will say that Leto certainly proves to be an entertaining Joker. He certainly gives off the impression of being perhaps the most unhinged out of all of the on-screen Jokers we’ve seen to date. After all, we are talking about a character who’s supposed to be a complete psychopath and it’ll be interesting to see how future DC films will utilize his Joker. As for the rest of the cast, while the film primarily focuses on characters like Deadshot and Harley Quinn, there are a few notable standouts amongst the other members of the squad. This includes Jay Hernandez as El Diablo, a former gang member with the ability to summon fire but is hesitant to use his powers after they caused him much personal tragedy and, believe it or not, Jai Courtney as Captain Boomerang, who gets quite a lot of funny moments primarily based around the fact that the character is basically a straight-up jackass. Don’t expect much of a villain, though, because the ones in here are ‘fairly standard’ at best. By that I mean they’re not absolutely ‘terrible’ but they’re not that ‘great’ either.

As was the case with Batman v Superman, this film’s poor reviews have resulted in quite a considerable divide between fans and critics. And sure enough, this has once again led to the ‘critics are being paid by Marvel’ conspiracy that got tossed around when the previous film came out. But believe me when I say that this clearly isn’t true and keep in mind that this is coming from someone who admittedly can be quite the MCU fanboy most of the time. However, I am starting to sense some unfair bias when it comes to how the DCEU films have been received by critics. Because come on critics, this film isn’t THAT bad. Sure, like BvS, it does have some flaws. In the case of this film, they mainly stem from the occasionally erratic editing and for some elements of the story being a bit underdeveloped. However, at the end of the day, this film still manages to stand out amongst its fellow superhero films on its premise alone. We legitimately have not seen anything like this before when it comes to live-action superhero films and I think it’s really cool to have a film like this that dares to try and make characters who in any other film would be the bad guys the ‘heroes’ of a story. And overall the film does succeed for the most part in finding the humanity in a bunch of bad guys. So in short, I’m all for another adventure with the so called ‘worst heroes ever’. I’d say they earned the chance for a sequel, which hopefully will happen because given the fact that this is the second straight DCEU to get generally negative reviews, once again the future of the franchise is uncertain.

Rating: 4/5

Jason Bourne (2016) review

In 2002, Matt Damon took on what would arguably become his most famous role to date, Jason Bourne, in The Bourne Identity, loosely based on the 1980 novel of the same name by Robert Ludlum. Directed by Doug Liman, the film followed the titular amnesiac assassin as he tried to remember his past while staying on the run from his former employers at the CIA. The film was a solid critical and commercial hit but Liman did not return to direct the next two films due to creative conflicts that he had with Universal during its production. Instead, Paul Greengrass took over as director and the series ended up becoming even more successful, resulting in a solid sequel in 2004’s The Bourne Supremacy and culminating in the highly acclaimed third installment of the franchise, 2007’s The Bourne Ultimatum. That film provided a pretty darn conclusive finale to the original trilogy and for quite a long time Damon and Greengrass made it clear that they weren’t planning on doing another film after that. But there was still talk about a potential sequel and so, under the direction of the series’ head writer Tony Gilroy, 2012’s The Bourne Legacy took the series in a different route, focusing in on a different character, Aaron Cross, played by Jeremy Renner, but still taking place within the same timeframe as the other films. Sadly, the film proved to be highly disappointing for fans of the series and it seems as if plans to continue that specific part of the franchise have dissipated for now. And yet, just a few years ago, an unexpected development occurred when it was announced that Damon and Greengrass would indeed return to do another Bourne film. And so, here we are with Jason Bourne, which continues the story of its titular assassin as he begins to uncover even more about his past.

Over the course of the original trilogy, former CIA assassin Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) struggled to remember his past after a failed assassination mission resulted in him getting shot twice in the back and dealt with an extreme case of amnesia. By the end of it all, Bourne learned that his real name was David Webb and that he himself volunteered for the government program that he was once a part of, Treadstone. He then proceeded to expose many of the government’s black ops operations before going off the grid. This new film opens up a decade after the events of Ultimatum, as Bourne is shown to have been participating in illegal fight rings to make a living while at the same time managing to overcome the amnesia that had been affecting him for so long. Meanwhile, Bourne’s former Treadstone ally Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) hacks the CIA’s servers in order to expose their newer black ops programs, specifically one known as ‘Iron Hand’ that is set to utilize assets from many of their former programs like Treadstone and Blackbriar. During this time, she also comes across more information about Bourne, specifically in regards to his late father Richard (Gregg Henry). The CIA, led by director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones), catches wind of this intrusion and appoints the head of their cyber ops division, Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander), to the job of going after Parsons, who meets with Bourne in Greece to relay the information to him. Sure enough, this soon results in Bourne once again being pursued by the CIA as he begins to investigate this new black ops program and, more importantly, find out the truth about why he volunteered for the Treadstone program in the first place.

After the fairly lackluster affair that was The Bourne Legacy, the return of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass to the franchise is most certainly a welcome one. This of course means that the action sequences are all done in Greengrass’ trademark handheld style that utilizes a lot of fast cuts. As with the previous Greengrass-directed Bourne films, this is a style that you either love or hate and as for me, at the very least I will say that Greengrass’ latter two Bourne films have done much better jobs at controlling this shooting style, as well as the rapid editing, compared to his first, Supremacy. As a result, the action sequences are intense and keep you at the edge of your seat from beginning to end. However, there are a few problems that emerge from the writing, which this time around was handled not by Tony Gilroy but by Greengrass and his long-time editor Christopher Rouse. Maybe this is just the consequence of the fact that Ultimatum pretty much concluded the whole mystery surrounding Bourne’s past but the new additions to Bourne’s backstory, which in this film primarily revolve around his father, feel just a bit tacked on. I’m not saying that they’re absolutely ‘terrible’ plot developments but at this point we’ve already gotten a pretty clear sense of who Bourne used to be before he joined Treadstone. Also, the primary plot revolving around an impending social media platform known as Deep Dream created by Aaron Kalloor (Riz Ahmed) is pretty darn undeveloped as well. Sure it does its job of maintaining the series’ ‘grounded in realism’ feel, especially when taking into account how much time has passed since Ultimatum, but at the end of the day the stuff with Bourne is what really matters more.

Even after nearly a whole decade since Ultimatum, Matt Damon is once again excellent in the role of Jason Bourne. In the months leading up to the film’s release there was quite a bit of talk over a report that claimed that he would only have about 25 lines in the new film and sure enough, that does seem to be the case as he doesn’t say that much in this film. Still, he does get across all of the emotional turmoil that Bourne has gone through over the years just as well as he did in the previous films. As Nicky Parsons, Julia Stiles is the only primary member of the previous trilogy’s cast to return. She too does a good job as well though without giving too much away, her role in the film is very minor. Instead, Alicia Vikander takes over as the film’s new female lead and she’s excellent as is her character’s whole motivation and how she works off of, and in some cases with, Bourne. The same goes for Tommy Lee Jones in the role of CIA director Dewey but for me one of the best additions to the cast is Vincent Cassel, who plays one of the CIA’s assassins, referred to only as ‘the Asset’, that is brought in to go after Bourne. This series has seen plenty of memorable CIA-backed assassins over the years, from Clive Owen’s ‘Professor’ in Identity to Karl Urban’s Kirill in Supremacy. And yet Cassel actually manages to be arguably the most layered of the bunch. It’s established that due to Bourne’s actions in Ultimatum, the ‘Asset’, who was a member of the CIA’s Blackbriar program, had been captured and tortured due to the program being leaked, giving him quite a personal grudge towards Bourne. And, again, without giving anything major away, we come to learn that Bourne has his own reasons to hold a grudge against him, resulting in one excellent conflict between the two.

Jason Bourne is a pretty solid return to form for this franchise, and that of course is primarily due to the return of Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass. Some might argue that this film wasn’t really necessary due to the finality of the ending of The Bourne Ultimatum but at the very least their return is much appreciated, especially after the lackluster attempt at a spin-off a few years ago that neither of them were involved with. As a result of their return, the series very much returns to its roots, namely in regards to its unique though still very much polarizing handheld shooting, fast editing style that produces some incredible and tension-filled action sequences. Admittedly the writing isn’t as strong this time around which, again, could just be a result of Ultimatum wrapping everything up pretty neatly, but the film makes up for it with an excellent ensemble cast and the aforementioned technical mastery of Greengrass’ direction. So in short, I wouldn’t necessarily call this film the best of the series. If I were to rank this film alongside the other three Damon films (not counting Legacy in this case because, well, it’s not really worth bringing up at this point), I’d probably rank it above Supremacy but below Identity and Ultimatum. Still, while the film may not necessarily reach the same amazing heights as its predecessors, it’s still a very entertaining, fast-paced, and overall still very engrossing spy thriller that gives audiences another opportunity to go on an adventure with one of cinema’s most badass action heroes.  

Rating: 4/5

Jason Bourne (2002-2012) Franchise Retrospective

This past weekend saw the release of the highly anticipated return of one of cinema’s most famous action heroes; Jason Bourne. The new film, rather fittingly (or lazily depending on who you ask) called Jason Bourne, sees Matt Damon return as the badass former CIA assassin suffering from amnesia and is once again directed by Paul Greengrass, who helmed the latter two of the franchise’s original three installments. It’s a sequel that not many people were expecting would get made, seeing how after 2007’s The Bourne Ultimatum it seemed as if the two were done with the franchise. An attempt was made to continue the franchise in 2012, with Jeremy Renner starring in the role of a new character in a film that still took place within the world of the previous Bourne films. Unfortunately for many people it ended up being a rather disappointing affair and while there seemed to be plans to continue this part of the franchise, with Justin Lin at one point attached to direct a fifth installment starring Renner’s character Aaron Cross, for now it seems like those plans won’t be materializing anytime soon. But perhaps that’s for the better at this point as the new film finally sees the duo of Damon and Greengrass return to the franchise that they made famous. So today, in honor of the release of Jason Bourne, it’s time we look back at the series of action films that are well-regarded for their attempts at developing a sense of realism while also being rather polarizing in regards to their filmmaking style. And yes, that includes both the original Matt Damon trilogy and the spin-off starring Jeremy Renner. These are the Bourne films…

THE BOURNE IDENTITY (2002)

Believe it or not, the Bourne franchise did not start off under the direction of Paul Greengrass. Instead, the first film in the series, 2002’s The Bourne Identity, was directed by Doug Liman, director of films like 1996’s smash hit Swingers and 2014’s film fan favorite Edge of Tomorrow. And even though it no doubt ended up getting overshadowed by its two sequels, for a while the first Bourne was actually my personal favorite of the bunch. I think this film did a phenomenal job of doing what every good ‘first film’ in a franchise should do. It solidly sets up the story of its main character Jason Bourne, a man who is found floating adrift in the Mediterranean Sea with two bullets in his back. He has no idea who he is and embarks on a journey to figure out his true identity while also staying on the run from the government program that he may have been involved with. The film as a whole is a solid, well-paced, and well-edited spy thriller and we as an audience are immediately hooked by the mystery surrounding Bourne’s past. And while the action sequences weren’t necessarily shot in the same kind of hand-held style of Greengrass’ later two films, they are still very solid compared to what was to come later. Matt Damon, who apparently got dealt with the equivalent of a ‘superhero casting’ backlash upon being cast in the role, does a phenomenal job as Bourne as does Franka Potente in the role of Bourne’s primary ally Marie. There’s also a few solid supporting roles as well from the likes of Chris Cooper, Clive Owen, and Julia Stiles. In short, while I’m not saying it’s the absolute ‘best’ of the series, The Bourne Identity is a very nice start to this franchise. In fact, I have to agree with fellow film critic Chris Stuckmann in that this film is arguably the most layered of the franchise when it comes to story and character depth.

Rating: 4.5/5

THE BOURNE SUPREMACY (2004)

Thanks to the success of Identity, a sequel was put into development and released two years later; The Bourne Supremacy. This time around, however, Doug Liman did not return as director due to creative conflicts that he had with the studio during production of the first film. So instead, Paul Greengrass was hired primarily due to his work on the film Bloody Sunday. And with Greengrass’ hiring, the series truly adopted its trademark style of handheld camerawork, a style that proved to be rather polarizing amongst critics and audiences. As for me, I’ll admit that I too am rather mixed on it. I appreciate what the filmmakers are trying to do in putting us right there in the middle of the action and they do succeed in that regard. However, my issue with this shooting style actually stems with the editing, which is very fast and does a lot of cuts during scenes like this to the point where sometimes it’s hard to tell where everything is spatially. By comparison, while there were some instances of ‘fast cuts’ in the previous film, Supremacy does it much more frequently. Sure this does a nice job of setting up the frenetic nature of the plot but it can get rather annoying at times. And to be perfectly frank, I think Supremacy is the weakest of the original trilogy. Now don’t get me wrong, I still think that this is a well-done spy thriller that is pretty darn well-paced and the main plot of this film, in which Bourne finds himself having to go back on the run when he’s framed for a crime he didn’t commit, during which he finds out more about his past, is still pretty darn engaging. Plus, Greengrass definitely upped the ante when it came to giving the series a nice sense of gritty realism. However, it wouldn’t be until the next film when he truly perfected his style into making a finely-tuned spy thriller based around Matt Damon’s once again excellent turn as Jason Bourne.

Rating: 4/5

THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM (2007)

Now given everything that I just said about Supremacy, some of you might think that I have similar feelings to Greengrass’ second film in the franchise, The Bourne Ultimatum… and yet that’s actually not the case. Ultimatum is easily the best of the original trilogy and quite frankly one of the best action films of the past few years. Because whereas Greengrass’ fast-editing and handheld style sometimes faltered in certain parts of Supremacy, he perfected this style with Ultimatum. As a result, this film flows much more smoothly and while it’s still very much an action-oriented film, this time around the story is structured much better. It does a very nice job at concluding the arc that Bourne (aka David Webb, his ‘real name’) goes through in this trilogy while also making the CIA agents going after him a legitimately threatening force to be reckoned with at every turn. All of this ends up giving the film some incredibly tense action sequences, from Bourne trying to protect a reporter that spilled the beans about him and a new government program, Blackbriar, from the CIA in the middle of the congested crowds of London’s Waterloo Station to the scene where Bourne and ally Nicky Parsons (Stiles) try to escape a Blackbriar assassin in Tangier. Sure the fast-cutting handheld style is still in effect for many of the film’s action sequences but I didn’t find it as annoying as it sometimes got in Supremacy. And that is why The Bourne Ultimatum not only serves as a fitting conclusion to the original Bourne trilogy but is also its finest installment; it’s a well-oiled, fantastically acted, and strongly directed spy thriller from beginning to end. If you recall, initially The Bourne Identity was my personal favorite of the franchise but upon re-watch, I think that honor now goes to Ultimatum.

Rating: 5/5!

THE BOURNE LEGACY (2012)

With The Bourne Ultimatum providing a pretty darn conclusive end to the story of Jason Bourne (at least that was the case until the new film), it seemed very much clear that Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass were done with the franchise. And yet in 2012, Universal moved on without the two of them and attempted to take the series in a brand new direction. Tony Gilroy, who had been the primary writer for all three of the previous films, took over directorial duties for this fourth installment, The Bourne Legacy. This time around, the focus shifted onto Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), an operative in another government program, Outcome. The film opens up around the same time as the events of Ultimatum, which effectively leads to the government shuttering all of their programs and wiping out all of their agents, which includes Cross. In the months leading up to its release, the film’s marketing kept pushing its connections to the original trilogy. I even remember a specific ad in which Cross stated that he was “going to finish what ‘he’ [Bourne] started”. However, that’s really not the case at all with this film. Sure there are a few cameos from the cast of Ultimatum (e.g. Joan Allen, David Strathairn, etc.) but there’s only a few mentions of the events of Ultimatum at the beginning of the film and even then they don’t really factor that much into this film’s plot. And that quote about Cross finishing what Bourne started? Yeah that line isn’t in the film… well, actually it is but it wasn’t at all connected to Bourne. Heck, Cross doesn’t even follow in Bourne’s footsteps whatsoever in this film. Literally the whole plot revolves around him trying to acquire the meds that Outcome agents take to become physically and mentally enhanced government agents.

And that pretty much translates to the fact that this film as a whole is pretty darn dull. It’s very light on action and yet it’s somehow the longest of the series at 2 hours and 15 minutes long whereas the previous three films were all under two hours each. It certainly doesn’t have the same fast pacing of the Damon films, that’s for sure. As for the action sequences that are in there, Gilroy opted to not go with the same handheld shooting style that Greengrass utilized in his films. For those who weren’t that big a fan of that style that may seem like a good thing but in reality that style is what allowed this series to stand out in the first place. As a result, the action sequences in this film are fairly lackluster compared to the other films. Now from a technical perspective, the film is decently shot, edited, directed and what not. I think Jeremy Renner is perfectly fine in the lead role of Aaron Cross. The same goes for Rachel Weisz as Cross’ main ally Dr. Marta Shearing, though with that said their on-screen chemistry is rather weak. Sadly, Edward Norton is quite underused in the role of Eric Byer, the Outcome program’s overseer who goes after Cross the same way that Alexander Conklin (Chris Cooper), Ward Abbott (Brian Cox), and Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) pursued Bourne in each of the other three films. And yet Norton unfortunately doesn’t get much to work with here compared to the other three. He doesn’t even share a scene with Cross, at least not in the main story. The only scene that Renner and Norton have together is a flashback scene that quite frankly didn’t really explain anything about how the two of them are supposed to be connected.

I first reviewed this film way back in August 2012 when it originally came out. I was really looking forward to it at the time and had just watched all of the previous Bourne films back-to-back for three straight nights in anticipation of its release. But when I did see it, I’ll admit that I was rather disappointed by it. Sure I may have given it a 3.5/5 in my review but this is definitely one of those cases where I feel that I was being way too generous in regards to giving it a rating. Ultimately, when I did a post on my ‘Top 5 Most Disappointing Films’ in December of that year, I ended up putting it at the number one spot. And after watching it again in preparation for this retrospective… sadly my thoughts on it stay the same. Is it any wonder as to why this ‘review’ was longer compared to the Damon films? This is an extremely bare-bones thriller. The plot is not only rather simple, especially in regards to its measly attempts to connect to the Damon films, but sometimes even a bit confusing, which is a big problem for anyone going into it that hasn’t seen any of the other films. It may take place in the same universe as the Damon films but it ends up being such an insignificant part of it that nothing that happens in this film ultimately matters in the long run. Like I said before, it’s decently made from a technical perspective and I do feel that Jeremy Renner was perfectly capable of taking over for Matt Damon as the star of the franchise. But at the end of the day, the writing just wasn’t there for him and as a result, this unfortunately ended up being a failed attempt to continue the Bourne franchise without the involvement of its original star and primary director.

Rating: 2.5/5

In conclusion, here’s how I rank these four films;

4. THE BOURNE LEGACY

3. THE BOURNE SUPREMACY

2. THE BOURNE IDENTITY

1. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM