Mary Poppins Returns (2018) review

Disney’s 1964 adaptation of P.L. Travers’ classic book series Mary Poppins is a film that needs no introduction. With a lovely visual style, iconic soundtrack by the Sherman brothers, and outstanding lead performances from Julie Andrews as the titular nanny and Dick Van Dyke as her lovable sidekick Bert, Mary Poppins is quite arguably the most beloved Disney film ever made. For starters, it achieved a studio record by earning 13 nominations at the 37^th annual Academy Awards (including Best Picture) and ultimately won 5, with Andrews winning the Oscar for Best Actress. And with a total box-office gross of over $102 million achieved through its initial release and additional re-releases, it’s safe to say that this is a film that has continued to stand the test of time. One person who didn’t like the film, however, was P.L. Travers. As dramatized in the 2013 film Saving Mr. Banks, the film’s pre-production mostly consisted of disagreements between Travers and Walt Disney over changes that the latter and his team were making to her story. And because of all these creative conflicts, Travers forbid Disney from ever making a sequel… that is, until 2015, when the studio got the approval from Travers’ estate to do a sequel to the original classic. Under the direction of veteran filmmaker Rob Marshall, who’s no stranger to musicals having directed the 2002 Best Picture winner Chicago and Disney’s 2014 adaptation of the popular Broadway show Into the Woods, Mary Poppins Returns is not just a remake of the original Mary Poppins as many feared it would be when it was first announced. And while this new film does ultimately share quite a few things in common with its predecessor, it still comes together nicely for a truly heartwarming family flick.

It has been twenty-five years since Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the magical nanny who’s ‘practically perfect in every way’, came to the Banks family and changed their lives for the better. In the years since, Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw), who still lives at 17 Cherry Tree Lane, has started a family of his own with three kids, his daughter Annabel (Pixie Davies) and his two sons John (Nathanael Saleh) and Georgie (Joel Dawson). However, since the passing of his wife Kate one year prior, the family has been dealing with serious financial troubles which have only been made worse by the onslaught of the Great Depression. And to make matters worse, Michael is notified by his lawyers that he only has a few days to pay off the loan that he made after his wife’s passing or he and his family will be forced out of their home. To try and fix the problem, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) try to find the certificate that verifies their father’s shares at Fidelity Fiduciary Bank while Michael’s kids attempt to earn the money on their own accord. Luckily for all of them, Mary Poppins ends up coming back into the family’s lives, agreeing to look after Annabel, John, and Georgie while Michael and Jane deal with their current predicament. And just like their father and aunt before them, the new crop of Banks children discover the full extent of Mary Poppins’ magical abilities, which she uses with the help of a friendly lamplighter named Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) to turn their luck around.

Now let me start by saying that, while I usually try not to directly agree with popular opinion, I will admit that I do concur with one of the most common points that are being brought up about this film in that it has quite a bit in common with its predecessor. The main plot isn’t that different from the original save for a more tension-filled climax and a more pronounced villain. Heck, even the songs in this film’s soundtrack have similar set-ups to the ones from the original, from a show-stopping dance number to lighten the mood like ‘Step in Time’ to an uplifting grand finale tune a la ‘Let’s Go Fly a Kite’. And yet, despite all this, the film does a great job of maintaining the heartwarming atmosphere of the original Mary Poppins without being a direct carbon copy of it. Even with a similar plot, this new film is on par with the original when it comes to having a strong sense of emotional depth throughout via the Banks family’s current gloomy predicament and how they overcome it with the help of Mary Poppins. This is then matched nicely with all the whimsical adventures that Mary and the Banks children go on, and just like the original, this film boasts a gorgeous visual style throughout right down to the inclusion of a sequence where the characters interact with traditionally-animated characters. As for the soundtrack, courtesy of Hairspray songwriters Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, it generally matches the Sherman brothers’ soundtrack for the original film in terms of how perfectly well- balanced it is. In other words, there are just as many great emotional melodies in this (e.g. a heart-wrenching solo for Michael, ‘A Conversation’, and Mary Poppins’ big solo ‘The Place Where Lost Things Go’) as there are grandiose show-tunes (e.g. ‘Trip a Little Light Fantastic’ which, as previously mentioned, is basically this film’s version of ‘Step in Time’).

Clearly, a lot of expectations were set upon this film given the pedigree of its predecessor, and perhaps no one felt this greater than Emily Blunt when it came to her taking on the role of Mary Poppins from Julie Andrews. Luckily for Blunt, her take on the whimsical English nanny is a wonderful performance that fully allows her to make the part her own. Specifically, she gets to go off Travers’ books a bit more by having her Mary be a bit snarkier with the Banks family. However, the compassion that she has for them, AKA the one thing that made Andrews’ take on the character vastly different from the books but iconic nevertheless, is still there, providing a unique balance between book and film. And just like Andrews did with Dick Van Dyke all those years ago, Blunt works wonderfully off Lin-Manuel Miranda as this film’s ‘Bert’, Jack the lamplighter. But just like Blunt, Miranda manages to make his character more than just a copy of his predecessor, whether it’s through an opportunity for Miranda to show off his freestyle roots or a sweet little romance that forms between him and Jane. Speaking of the Banks children, both Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer are excellent in their respective roles, with Whishaw getting some of the most understated emotional moments in the film and Mortimer making the most out of what is basically the equivalent of Glynis Johns’ role from the original as Winifred Banks. The new Banks children are great as well thanks in large part to the strong sibling camaraderie between them that is apparent right out the gate. Lastly, just like the original, this film features some highly memorable cameos throughout, including Meryl Streep as Mary’s eccentric cousin/fix-it shop owner Topsy and even the one and only Dick Van Dyke as Fidelity Fiduciary Bank chairman Mr. Dawes Jr., a nod to his secondary role in the original as Mr. Dawes Sr.  

In short, it’s true that the new Mary Poppins has quite a lot in common with the original classic. Not only does it have a near-similar plot to its predecessor, but even its new soundtrack mirrors the original in terms of both song placement and premise. As such, the inevitable argument regarding this film’s necessity continues to be in play, especially given Disney’s current trend of revitalizing some of their classic stories for a new generation. But to be clear, this is not just a ‘remake’ of the original Mary Poppins (believe me, if it was, then it would’ve been dead in the water as soon as it was announced given how intense the internet gets about stuff like this). Yes, it feels like the original in a lot of ways, but considering how great the original Mary Poppins truly is, this isn’t such a bad thing in this instance. Under the solid direction of Rob Marshall, this film nobly follows in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to achieving that perfect balance of thoroughly emotional family drama and whimsical fantasy. The soundtrack by Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman is quite arguably on par with the Sherman brothers’ iconic soundtrack from the original and the film maintains the same great visual style of its predecessor. And with a terrific ensemble cast headlined by Emily Blunt’s phenomenal turn as Mary Poppins, Mary Poppins Returns is easily one of the most delightful films to come out in recent years. Admittedly, I can’t say that it’s ‘better’ than the original, but it’s still very much a worthy follow-up to one of the most beloved Disney films of all-time. And to be perfectly frank, in these dark times that we’re currently facing, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now.

Rating: 5/5!

Mary Poppins (1964) review

In 2023, Walt Disney Pictures will celebrate its 100^th year of operation, and what a century it has been. Since 1923, Disney has produced a countless array of cinematic classics. Obviously, they’re mainly known for their animated features, from the original masterpieces like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio to more recent classics like Zootopia and Frozen. But, of course, Disney’s also produced several live-action films that have been huge hits with both critics and audiences. And in 1964, Walt Disney and his team produced what is arguably the most beloved Disney film of all-time (yes, even more so than any of their animated films…), Mary Poppins. This adaptation of author P.L. Travers’ popular book series was a longtime passion project for Walt Disney after promising his daughters Diane and Sharon that he would make a film about it. However, as generally documented in the 2013 drama Saving Mr. Banks, Disney’s efforts to convince Travers to sign off on the film rights didn’t exactly go smoothly. Specifically, Travers disapproved of many of the changes that Disney and his team made to the story, including an overall dilution of the title character’s strict attitude, the music by Bob and Richard Sherman, and most notably, the big animated sequence involving dancing penguins. Nevertheless, Disney’s vision for the film ultimately won out and it went onto become a staple of the studio’s prestigious filmography, winning five Oscars out of the 13 that it was nominated for (a studio record) at that year’s ceremony. However, because Travers was so disenchanted by her experience with the studio, she forbade them from making any more sequels, a decision that stood for at least five decades. But now, 54 years after the original came out, Emily Blunt will take on the role of the nanny who’s ‘practically perfect in every way’ in the long-gestating sequel, Mary Poppins Returns. Before the new film hits theaters, however, it’s time to finally look at the original that still stands as one of the greatest films ever made.

(FUN FACT: Back in 2016, I was originally planning on including this film as a bonus review in my retrospective of Walt Disney Animation’s output from the ’60s and ’70s mostly due to its prominent animated sequence. However, I ultimately decided not to include it because Returns was already in pre-production at that point and I figured that I’d just save this for when it came out. Plus, given this film’s legacy, a full review of it felt much more appropriate instead of a smaller 1-2 paragraph review in a larger retrospective.)

At the home of the Banks family on 17 Cherry Tree Lane, things are in quite a state of disarray. With their father George (David Tomlinson) fully committed to his job as a banker and their mother Winifred (Glynis Johns) spending most of her time with the suffragette movement of the 1910’s, siblings Jane (Karen Dotrice) and Michael (Matthew Garber) constantly get into trouble due to a lack of any proper supervision. When it gets to the point where the family must find a new nanny, the two kids request one that’s more nurturing than the ones they’ve had before despite Mr. Banks being fully intent on finding a stricter nanny who will keep the two of them in line. Soon enough, their new nanny arrives in the form of the elegant (and ‘practically perfect in every way’) Mary Poppins (Julie Andrews), who matches Jane and Michael’s demands for a kinder nanny while still promising Mr. Banks that she will be firm with them when needed. And as Jane and Michael soon discover, Mary Poppins has quite a few magical tricks up her sleeve (and in her carpetbag) to help straighten them out along with the aid of Bert (Dick Van Dyke), a friendly jack-of-all-trades who they frequently interact with. Along the way, Mary’s magic even begins to rub off on Mr. Banks, who learns to find a greater appreciation for his family.  

Mary Poppins is quite arguably the very definition of a masterpiece. Under the wonderful direction of Disney mainstay Robert Stevenson, every aspect of this film is excellently crafted. Despite the issues that Travers had with the changes that Walt and his team made to her book, the film never loses sight of the heart of its story; in other words, Mary Poppins’ efforts to help revitalize the Banks family’s lives, especially in terms of the relationship that Jane and Michael have with their father. After all, as it was observed in Saving Mr. Banks, this story is arguably more about the redemption of Mr. Banks than the delightful adventures that his kids go on with their new nanny. And while the film’s cheery atmosphere was one of the most notable bits of divergence from the novel, which went about things in a more bitingly sharp manner, it just ends up making this one of the most pleasant films ever made. For starters, there are the film’s wonderful visual effects, which saw Disney and co. do everything from stop-motion animation to the art of combining live-action elements with animation that they’d already been doing marvelously for years. And then, of course, there’s the amazing soundtrack by Bob and Richard Sherman that runs the full emotional gamut when it comes to its tunes. For cheerful songs, there’s the toe-tapping ‘Step in Time’, the delightfully energetic melody that introduced audiences to the one and only word that is ‘Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious’, and the uplifting final melody ‘Let’s Go Fly a Kite’, just to name a select few. But then these tunes are perfectly balanced with some great emotional songs that are perhaps best exemplified by ‘Feed the Birds’, which is widely touted as being one of Walt’s all-time favorite songs.

As noted earlier, one of the biggest changes to Travers’ original story came via the overall characterization of her title character. Instead of the strict, no-nonsense nanny that was seen in the books, the film’s interpretation of Mary Poppins has a much warmer personality as per Jane and Michael’s request. But in this instance, the change does ultimately work because she still manages to be stern with them when the situation requires it while never once coming off as unlikable. Plus, the film still retains one of the character’s most definitive traits from the book through her consistent refusals to explain any of the magical things she does. And, of course, Julie Andrews is phenomenal in the role, exuding nothing but full charm whenever she’s on-screen. She also works wonderfully with Dick Van Dyke as the lovable Bert, and while nowadays his role in the film is arguably known more for his ‘infamous’ attempt at a cockney accent, his commitment to the role and infectious enthusiasm more than make up for it. After that, there are a wide array of memorable performances from main cast members like Karen Dotrice and Matthew Garber, who perfectly convey Jane and Michael’s childhood innocence, to memorable supporting players like Ed Wynn as the jovial Uncle Albert who loves to laugh. But to reference the ideas of Saving Mr. Banks one last time, arguably the biggest unsung hero of the cast is David Tomlinson, who handles Mr. Banks’ redemption arc with the utmost class.

Really, when it comes to this film, what more is there to say about it that hasn’t already been said by all the generations of people who have grown up with it and have then passed it on to their kids? Just like many of the early Disney animated classics like Snow White and Pinocchio, this is Walt Disney and his team at the top of their game, as they come together to craft a film that quite simply has it all. The film’s gorgeous visual style is strong throughout, Bob and Richard Sherman’s songs are catchy and iconic, and the film is stacked with outstanding performances headlined by the charismatic duo of Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. And overall, the film works incredibly well even when considering all the creative conflicts that Walt Disney and P.L. Travers had during pre-production about the changes that were being made to her story. Because while Travers, of course, wasn’t too happy with the final film due to all its deviations from the source material, she would later admit that she eventually warmed up to it as time went on despite it still not being the most ideal interpretation of her work. As noted earlier, perhaps the biggest difference from the book is the film’s overall tone, as it dials back on the book’s harsher elements to create a more light-hearted affair that’s very much in line with the kind of films that Disney has always been known to make. As such, there are some out there who feel that the film is perhaps a bit ‘too’ sweet, even by Disney standards. And yet, when you have a film like this that’s so well-made and is always a delight to watch year in and year out, it’s easy to see why Mary Poppins still stands as one of the most beloved films to come from the world of Disney.  

Rating: 5/5!

Once Upon a Deadpool - A Discussion

(DISCLAIMER: There will be spoilers regarding the plot of Deadpool 2 as I presume that most of you who are reading this have already seen the film. But in case you haven’t, the following link will direct you to my original non-spoiler review of the film from this past May.)

This holiday season, audiences are being treated to a unique kind of gift from the one and only Merc with a Mouth, Deadpool. Earlier this year, Wade Wilson returned to theaters with Deadpool 2, which saw him cross paths with the time-traveling soldier Cable, create the X-Force, and break the fourth wall further than he’s ever broken it before. And just like the original Deadpool, the film was a massive financial hit when it was released back in May. At the time that I’m writing this, it has grossed over $734 million worldwide, effectively making it the third highest-grossing entry in the X-Men film franchise as well as the third highest-grossing R-rated film of all-time. In terms of critical reception, the film ended up faring on par with the original, attracting a generally positive reaction from critics and audiences. There was some debate, however, as to whether the film was a ‘superior’ sequel. As for me, I’m part of the crowd who thinks that it is better than the first film. Despite a few awkward tonal shifts here and there, director David Leitch’s sequel took way more risks compared to the original. To be fair, though, the original Deadpool did do an admirable job working around the limitations of being the first major attempt at an R-rated superhero film post-Avengers. Ultimately, though, Deadpool 2 excels more thanks to more consistent humor, the wonderful additions of Josh Brolin as Cable and Zazie Beetz as Domino, and stronger emotional depth. But now we come to today’s topic, Once Upon a Deadpool, a new version of Deadpool 2 that promises to be the perfect holiday release for the whole family. Thus, instead of a traditional review (because I’ve already done that for this film), today’s post will be more of a discussion about this special re-release.  

For all intent and purposes, Once Upon a Deadpool is indeed the PG-13 rated cut of Deadpool 2. It’s still the same story of Wade Wilson trying to protect a young mutant named Russell from Cable by forming his own superhero team, X-Force. And while most of his new team ends up being eradicated in a hilariously dark fashion, Deadpool ends up finding the one thing that he’s been missing all this time via the most important F-word of all, a family. After all, as he states in the opening sequence, Deadpool 2 is a family film, and Once Upon a Deadpool is easily its most ‘family-friendly’ version. While there are a few instances of heavier curse words, all F-bombs are either censored ‘TV-edit’ style or bleeped via Deadpool’s trusty censoring buzzer. Any instances of nudity (e.g. when Deadpool has his Basic Instinct moment after his legs start to regenerate) are blurred out. And finally, the most graphic bits of violence are obviously toned down. At the very least, most of the action sequences are kept intact, just without showing any blood spurts (e.g. Deadpool dodging Cable’s bullets on the prisoner convoy). But when it comes to the most graphic moments from the film, it does cut away before they happen, with the most prominent example being when Deadpool gets ripped in half by Juggernaut. All in all, the method in which this version of Deadpool 2 is toned down to a PG-13 rating is decently done, for the most part. I wouldn’t call it a complete success as there are a few instances where the censoring attempts are a bit more blatant than others but compared to other films that were originally R-rated but were then toned down to a PG-13 rating at the cost of hastily edited action sequences, it’s still an admirable attempt. And while I obviously don’t want every future R-rated film to have a toned-down PG-13 rated cut just so that they can appeal to a wider audience, it’s acceptable in this instance if only because of Deadpool’s potential appearances in future films.

But, of course, the most prominent addition to this cut of the film is its new framing device. In a homage to the 1987 classic The Princess Bride, Deadpool kidnaps (or, as he puts it, a case of ‘unsolicited location enhancement’) Fred Savage to tell him the story of Deadpool 2 in the same manner that Peter Falk told him the story of The Princess Bride all those years ago. Thus, just like in The Princess Bride, Savage pops up from time to time to comment on the current sequence, leading to some hilarious meta-commentary on everything from the film’s controversial fridging of Vanessa to the unexpected cameo by Brad Pitt as the Vanisher. And sure enough, these sequences are a brilliant addition. Even under the restrictions of the film’s new PG-13 rating, Deadpool’s comedic sensibilities are still on point throughout, which I’d argue is a testament to Ryan Reynolds’ own comedic talents and proves that, yes, Deadpool can indeed work well in a PG-13 environment. And, of course, Fred Savage also contributes heavily to these sequences’ success as his camaraderie with Reynolds is phenomenal. Really, the only disappointing thing about these sequences is that there aren’t more of them, as it would’ve been interesting to hear Savage’s thoughts on things like the abrupt deaths of the X-Force squad.        

In conclusion, Once Upon a Deadpool is admittedly a tough film to come up with an overall recommendation for. If the extreme blow-back to a 2016 petition requesting a PG-13 edit of the first Deadpool is any indication, a lot of fans aren’t exactly on board with the idea of the Merc with a Mouth being toned down to PG-13 material. And yet, with Disney’s impending purchase of Fox’s film division on the horizon, there’s a considerably high chance that it could happen. Granted, Disney CEO Bob Iger has stated that the plans are to maintain the franchise’s R-rating but given that the Marvel Cinematic Universe films are rated PG-13, I think it’s safe to say that Deadpool will be turned PG-13 whenever he makes a cameo in a non­-Deadpool film. As such, it can be argued that the main intent of Once Upon a Deadpool is to see if the character can work within the boundaries of a PG-13 rated superhero film. And as controversial of a claim as it’ll undoubtedly be for fans of the character, I think it works well. Now to be clear, I’m not saying that this is the definitive version of Deadpool 2. Clearly, the film was always intended to be R-rated, so if you want to see the film in its purest form, you’ll be better off watching the original theatrical cut or the ‘Super Duper $@%!#& Cut’ on Blu-Ray. However, the way in which this version of the film is cut down to meet PG-13 standards is, at the very least, better handled compared to other films that were forced down to the more family-friendly rating. Plus, the additional sequences involving Deadpool and Fred Savage are a delightful bonus. In short, as someone who isn’t religiously devoted to the belief that Deadpool should remain in an R-rated environment, I had as much fun with Once Upon a Deadpool as I did the original Deadpool 2. And while several critics have felt that this re-release was ‘unnecessary’, I’d argue that it isn’t because it’s not just a case of the filmmakers being forced to cut their film down just so that the studio can market it to a wider audience. Rather, this is ultimately a case of a film that is being toned down… but in this instance, the filmmakers are totally in on the joke.

Rating: My 4.5/5 rating from my original review of Deadpool 2 still stands even when considering what had to be cut from this version to make it PG-13, as the new scenes with Fred Savage do make up for what was taken out.

Ultimately, though, one of the biggest reasons to see Once Upon a Deadpool is for its final post-credit scene. I won’t spoil it for those who are planning on seeing it but believe me when I say that it’s practically worth the price of admission alone.

Bumblebee (2018) review

There were several hit franchises that dominated 80’s pop culture, with most of them defined by their merchandising and popular animated TV show adaptations. One of these franchises was Transformers, which followed the adventures of the titular autonomous robotic organisms who were embroiled in a war between two rival factions known as the Autobots and Decepticons. The toy line was developed by Hasbro and Takara Tomy and served as a rebranding of the latter’s Diaclone toy line, and in turn, it was the inspiration for the popular animated series The Transformers, which ran from 1984 to 1987. The franchise would then continue over the years with new themes, shows, and even a feature film adaptation in 1986. And in 2007, the series made its live-action debut via director Michael Bay’s Transformers, which was a major commercial hit upon its release amidst decent but overall polarizing reviews. This reception quickly changed, however, once the film starting to get sequels. While they continued to be hits at the box office, critical reception only got worse with each new film, with most critics deeming them as some of the worst films of their respective years of release. But now, for the first time since the live-action series started more than a decade ago, there’s a new Transformers film hitting theaters that wasn’t directed by Michael Bay (who’s still involved as a producer). Instead, directorial duties go to Travis Knight, CEO of the stop-motion animation company Laika who recently made his directorial debut in 2016 with the critically-acclaimed Kubo and the Two Strings. And for his Transformers film, Knight goes back to basics with a prequel/spin-off centered on arguably the most popular Transformer of the series after Autobot leader Optimus Prime, the adorable yellow scout Bumblebee. What follows is a film that could very well win back those who were extremely unsatisfied by the previous Transformers films as Knight’s take on this long-running franchise is quite arguably far more respectable to its source material.

The year is 1986 and teenager Charlie Watson (Hailee Steinfeld) has just turned 18. Frustrated with her current predicament of not having a car, she ends up coming across a yellow Volkswagen beetle at a garage owned by her friend Hank (Len Cariou), who lets her have it on account of it being her birthday. However, as Charlie soon discovers, this is not just an ordinary car. Instead, it is an Autobot scout, B-127, who she ends up naming Bumblebee (initially voiced by Dylan O’Brien before reverting to the character’s film series trademark of communicating via the radio). As the two begin to bond, Bumblebee struggles to cope with a damaged memory core that was sustained following his arrival on Earth, and soon enough, Charlie ends up being roped into the mission that had brought Bumblebee to the planet in the first place. Specifically, a pair of Decepticons named Shatter (voiced by Angela Bassett) and Dropkick (voiced by Justin Theroux) arrive on Earth looking for Bumblebee, who supposedly has information about the current plans of his superior, Autobot leader Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen). Having speculated that the Autobots plan on establishing a new base of operations on Earth, the two form an ‘alliance’ with the government group known as Sector 7 to track down their target, claiming that the Autobots are the ones who will pose a threat to humanity. Thus, Charlie and Bumblebee now find themselves pursued by both the government and the Decepticons as the latter works to follow Optimus’ orders and protect Earth from this new alien threat.

One of the most common criticisms about the Transformers films has been their writing, usually due to instances where they try to over-complicate their plots. That isn’t the case with Bumblebee, though, as it opts for a far more simplified plot that pays clear homage to films like E.T. and The Iron Giant. There aren’t any ancient transformers or crazy government conspiracies to be found in this film; instead, it’s just a story about a girl who comes across an alien robot and the situations that they get into, several of which involve the government. Now with all this said, it should be noted that there are instances where this film is perhaps a bit ‘too’ simple. Its plot is as basic as you can get for a film like this and it’s also rather light on action sequences, with the biggest action set-pieces reserved for the climax. At the end of the day, though, the ‘back to basics’ approach that Travis Knight takes here is one that’s truly worth appreciating. For all intent and purposes, his style of direction arguably serves as a course correction for almost all the major issues that audiences have had with the Michael Bay-directed Transformers films. This film’s action sequences are a lot easier to comprehend and it isn’t overstuffed with Transformer characters. There are only a few in this film and the ones that are there aren’t just giant, grey-colored robots that all look the same. Plus, given that this is set in the ’80s, the character designs are primarily based on those from the era that Transformers fans refer to as ‘Generation 1’ AKA the earliest and perhaps most beloved incarnations of these characters. As such, for those who grew up with the original Transformers toys and their subsequent animated TV series adaptation, you’ll be pleased to know that these classic designs are well-executed in live-action form.

But while the film, in general, does dial back on almost all the extremes of Bay’s Transformers films, it’s still very limited in terms of character development. Simply put, the only two major characters in this film that get any attention are Charlie and Bumblebee. But for what it’s worth, the relationship that these two form over the course of the film is arguably its greatest strength. And while this may seem outlandish to some people given the previous films, it does, in fact, result in a Transformers film with actual heart that’s not just a case of ‘style over substance’. A lot of this is thanks to Hailee Steinfeld, who’s quite excellent as easily the best human lead to come from this series. Not only does she work well off the CG-created Bumblebee, but despite what was said earlier about the film being rather lacking in character development, she does get to work with the majority of what’s there. Most specifically, it’s established that following the recent passing of her father, she’s become quite emotionally distant from the rest of her family, especially after her mother Sally (Pamela Adlon) quickly remarried. And it is through her relationship with Bumblebee that Charlie manages to rebound from her recent loss, an arc that Steinfeld handles very well. As for the rest of the cast, they’re good in their respective roles despite not having as much to work with compared to Steinfeld. Perhaps the most prominent example of this is John Cena as Sector 7 agent John Burns. While Cena’s certainly proven himself as a solid actor in recent years, Burns only serves as an obstacle for Charlie and Bumblebee who had some previous experience with the latter as seen in the opening.

As I’ve noted numerous times in the past, I’m an unabashed fan of the live-action Transformers films. I still have highly positive feelings towards the original 2007 film and I’ve never ‘disliked’ any of the sequels even though I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority on that one. And with all this in mind, while it’s not necessarily my favorite entry in the series, I will agree that Bumblebee is undoubtedly the most well-made of the bunch. Under the confident direction of Travis Knight, almost all the major issues that fans have had with Michael Bay’s Transformers films are practically non-existent here. The action sequences are far more coherent from a filmmaking perspective and the plot isn’t overstuffed with overly complicated plot-lines, disposable characters, and awkward bits of humor (e.g. there are no pot-consuming mothers who wonder if their kids were masturbating in their bedrooms). And while the plot itself is easily the series’ most simplified to date… given the reception of the previous films, it’s safe to say that most audiences will not mind in the slightest. In other words, Bumblebee is a Transformers film made for Transformers fans by a Transformers fan. Not only does it base itself around the most popular era of the franchise, Generation 1, but thanks to a strong lead performance from Hailee Steinfeld, this film does boast the heartfelt narrative that many felt was severely lacking in the previous Transformers films. And while it’s currently unclear right now as to where the film series will be heading next following the underperformance of The Last Knight, if future films are anything like this one, then it’s safe to say that Transformers fans will be in for a real treat.

Rating: 4/5 

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) review

In the world of Marvel Comics, Spider-Man is quite arguably the company’s most iconic superhero. Ever since his creation in 1962 by Stan Lee (R.I.P.) and Steve Ditko, everyone’s favorite web-slinger has made an incredible impact on readers worldwide and has had one of the most prominent roles in Marvel’s comic history. This, of course, has also translated quite well to his run on the big-screen, with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man playing a major part in redefining the superhero film genre when it was released in 2002 and spawning a highly successful trilogy. Admittedly, the franchise then had to go through some tricky times in the early 2010s with an attempted series reboot that ultimately didn’t go anywhere, but the ‘second’ attempt at a live-action reboot is doing well so far. 2017’s Spider-Man: Homecoming was the highest-grossing superhero film of the year, and a large part of its success was thanks to Marvel Studios’ involvement with it. This was thanks to a deal that they made with Sony (who currently own the character’s film rights) that allowed Spider-Man the chance to finally participate in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And while Spidey’s next adventure, Spider-Man: Far from Home, will be hitting theaters next summer, right now we’re getting something a little different from this long-running franchise in the form of an animated Spider-Man film, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. This new film, the latest from Sony Animation, primarily comes courtesy of the duo of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, both of whom are producing it while Lord is the primary screenwriter. And under their influence, Into the Spider-Verse is a highly entertaining spin on the Spider-Man mythos that boasts some of the best animation to come out of a film in recent years.

In the borough of Brooklyn, teenager Miles Morales (voiced by Shameik Moore) prepares to start school at the prestigious Visions Academy. However, while spending time with his uncle Aaron Davis (voiced by Mahershala Ali) one night, Miles is bitten by a radioactive spider that gives him the same spider-like abilities as the beloved hero Spider-Man AKA Peter Parker (voiced by Chris Pine). Unfortunately for Miles, Spider-Man ends up dying at the hands of crime-lord Wilson Fisk AKA Kingpin (voiced by Liev Schreiber), thus leaving Miles with the responsibility of continuing where his predecessor left off. But as it turns out, thanks to Fisk’s recent test of a device known as the Super Collider, the door has been opened to a wide variety of alternate dimensions. And because of this, Miles soon finds himself meeting another Peter Parker, this time a far more disheveled Peter B. Parker (voiced by Jake Johnson), who was transported to Miles’ dimension. Although initially hesitant to serve as the mentor of an up-and-coming Spider-Man, Peter B. agrees to help Miles learn the ins and outs of being a superhero, and together, the two work to ensure that Fisk doesn’t use the Super Collider for his sinister purposes. To do so, they must use it themselves so that Peter B. can return to his dimension after the two realize that he can’t stay in Miles’ dimension forever. This situation only becomes further complicated, however, by the arrival of other Spider-based superheroes from other dimensions, including Gwen Stacy AKA Spider-Gwen (voiced by Hailee Steinfeld).

Much has been said about this film’s animation, and sure enough, it’s undoubtedly one of its greatest aspects. The filmmakers and animators did such a phenomenal job when it comes to recreating, for lack of a better term, the ‘comic book’ style. This may be a computer-animated film, but practically every shot in this looks like it came from a traditionally-animated 2-D film that was straight-up ripped from the comics themselves. And while the main influence behind this film’s animation style is the works of artist Sara Pichelli, who helped co-create the character of Miles Morales with writer Brian Michael Bendis, the film does a great job when it comes to honoring the art styles of all the Spider-Men and Spider-Women who are featured in it. This great attention to detail also carries over well to the story, which is very well-handled especially considering that, on paper, it’s mostly just your basic superhero origin story. Simply put, it does go through all the usual plot developments in a story about a main protagonist who gains superpowers and is then immediately thrust into a situation where he initially struggles with learning how to use them properly. But thanks to the implementation of the ‘multi-verse’ plot-line, this film’s plot does have more of a unique flavor to it compared to other superhero origin stories. And, of course, being a project that was worked on by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, this film’s humor is strong throughout. Whether it’s a bit of meta-commentary on Spider-Man’s pop-culture status or a visual sight gag that pays homage to the comics, this is up there with the likes of Thor: Ragnarok and Deadpool 2 as one of the funniest superhero films ever made.

Into the Spider-Verse has the distinction of being the first Spider-Man feature film to focus primarily on the character of Miles Morales, currently the most famous occupant of the Spider-Man persona aside from Peter Parker. While it has been reported that Morales will be implemented into the MCU in the future (his uncle Aaron appeared in Spider-Man: Homecoming played by Donald Glover, who happened to be one of the main inspirations behind the character), this film is ultimately the place where he gets to make a first impression. And overall, he does make a great first impression as the sympathetic up-and-coming superhero that he is, with Shameik Moore (star of 2015’s cult hit Dope) bringing much personality to the role. There’s also a lot of heart to this character as well, namely thanks to his relationships with his uncle Aaron (especially after Miles learns his uncle’s dark secret) and his father, police officer Jefferson Davis (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry). And as for the OG Spider-Man himself, Peter Parker, we get not one but two great and vastly different interpretations of the character. First, there’s Chris Pine, albeit in a very brief appearance, as a traditional Peter Parker who’s said to be an amalgamation of all the live-action interpretations of the character. And then for the rest of the film, we focus on the more bumbling Peter B. Parker, with Jake Johnson doing a fantastic job as a hilarious and far more apathetic take on this classic character. The other Spider-Man based heroes in this are major standouts as well, including Hailee Steinfeld as the badass Spider-Gwen, Nicolas Cage as the 1930’s-inspired Spider-Man Noir, and John Mulaney as, yes, Peter Porker the pig AKA Spider-Ham. And finally, in a manner akin to Vincent D’Onofrio’s critically-acclaimed take on the character in the recently canceled Daredevil series, Liev Schreiber’s Kingpin is a solid villain whose motivations for using the Super Collider are emotionally-driven.

Alternate universes have always been a long-standing aspect of superhero comics, effectively giving readers a wide array of unique spins on classic characters. On the big screen, however, there hasn’t really been any major attempts at a multiverse story arc when it comes to the current era of live-action superhero films. Granted, it has been done in superhero TV shows like DC’s current lineup of shows airing on the CW, but on film, the most prominent cases of audiences getting a different take on an established character are usually just whenever the role is recast. As such, it could be argued that Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse could potentially pave the way for future superhero films to tackle the multiverse concept. And even if it doesn’t, it is still one of the most electrifying superhero films of the modern era. While its main plot is a traditional superhero origin story, the added layer of the multiverse does give this film a lot more meat to it compared to other entries in the genre. And thanks to the involvement of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, this film’s humor is on point throughout while never losing sight of the heart of the story of how a kid from Brooklyn named Miles Morales became Spider-Man. But, of course, the biggest reason to see this film is for its amazing animation, as its impressive recreation of the classic comic-book style legitimately rivals the likes of Disney Animation and Pixar. As such, it seems like this year’s race for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars is shaping up to be an exciting 3-way competition between this, Ralph Breaks the Internet, and Incredibles 2. Regardless of who wins it all, however, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a big win for Sony Animation… which is a big deal considering what happened last year with The Emoji Movie.  

Rating: 5/5!

Creed II (2018) review

For more than 4 decades, the city of Philadelphia has been closely tied to one of the most iconic film franchises of all-time, the Rocky series. It all began, of course, with the 1976 classic about a local boxer named Rocky Balboa (played by Sylvester Stallone, who also wrote the film) whose journey to fight the heavyweight champion of the world led to him doing the impossible and going the distance. And the film itself went down that same path, surprising everyone by winning Best Picture at that year’s Oscars. The series would then continue on with five more sequels up until 2006’s Rocky Balboa, and while some of the sequels admittedly got rather silly at times, the franchise continues to remain a staple of pop culture, Philadelphia culture, and the sports film genre. And while Rocky’s time in the ring ultimately came to an end after the sixth film, fans of the franchise were treated to a surprise comeback when it was revealed that the series would continue in 2015 with a spin-off titled Creed. Under the direction of Ryan Coogler, the film shifted focus onto Adonis Johnson Creed, the son of Rocky’s original foe, Apollo Creed. And upon its release, the film was a smash hit with both critics and audiences, with many touting it as one of the best installments of the franchise. But now ‘Donnie’ Creed is back in the second installment of his new series, Creed II, which sees him take on his most personal opponent yet; the son of the man who had killed his father more than three decades prior, Ivan Drago. This time, however, Ryan Coogler was unavailable to direct due to his commitment to a certain Marvel superhero flick that lead actor Michael B. Jordan also happened to be involved with. And while it was initially reported that Sylvester Stallone would be stepping in to direct after previously helming films 2, 3, 4, and 6, it was instead decided to maintain the trend of the previous film by allowing a new generation of filmmakers to work on the franchise. Thus, general newcomer Steven Caple Jr. steps in to helm a sequel that, to reference one of this series’ many iconic songs, shows that this franchise still possesses that ‘Eye of the Tiger’.

It has been three years since Adonis ‘Donnie’ Johnson Creed (Michael B. Jordan) successfully managed to overcome the burden of following in the footsteps of his father, the late Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed, with the aid of his father’s foe turned friend, fellow former Heavyweight Champion Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone). And after becoming the new Heavyweight Champion himself, Adonis is more than ready to start off a new chapter in his life with his fiancé, singer Bianca Taylor (Tessa Thompson). However, the past once again comes back to haunt Adonis when a new challenger emerges in Viktor Drago (Florian Munteanu), the son of notorious Russian boxer Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren). Drago, of course, became infamous back in the ’80s when he killed Apollo during a simple exhibition match, and after being beaten by a vengeful Rocky in his home country during a subsequent bout, he now seeks redemption by training his son to take on Adonis. But while Adonis immediately sets his eyes on fighting Viktor and avenging his family name, Rocky warns him that he’s way too dangerous of an opponent given the track record of the man who’s training him. Adonis hastily ignores Rocky’s suggestion, however, and takes the fight which, simply put, does not bode well for him. Dealt with some intense injuries, Adonis now finds himself on the slow path to recovery as he prepares for the inevitable rematch where he seeks to avenge his family’s legacy while, at the same time, being forced to deal with some heavy-hitting developments in his personal life.

I think it’s safe to say that when it was revealed that Creed II would be bringing back Ivan Drago, some were a bit fearful about the film returning to the overall tone of Rocky IV, which is widely considered to be the goofiest installment of the franchise. This was, after all, the same film where Rocky bought an actual robot for his brother-in-law Paulie, featured a full-blown musical performance by James Brown singing ‘Living in America’ and was mostly just a series of montages where Rocky faced off against the equivalent of the final boss in a video game. But thankfully that’s not the case with Creed II, as it does maintain the same serious tone of its predecessor. And in this instance, it’s fitting to have Donnie face off against Drago’s son because it more than fuels this film’s emotional depth given everything that their family did to his all those years ago. True to franchise form, this film maintains a strong emphasis on its main protagonist and the physical and mental struggles that he goes through, and director Steven Caple Jr. does a phenomenal job when it comes to handling the story’s most emotional moments. And while there aren’t any major single-take fight sequences like in Ryan Coogler’s film, the boxing matches in this film are still excellently filmed and edited. In short, both Creed films fully succeed in accomplishing the same thing that the original Rocky films managed to achieve all those years ago. They properly set up their main characters and the ‘underdog’ situation that they find themselves in and then proceed to take their time to ensure that audiences are fully endeared to them. Thus, when the film’s final boxing match does occur, we’re fully behind them as they take on their opponent, resulting in an emotionally satisfying conclusion. Yeah, it’s undoubtedly become this series’ defining formula at this point, but it’s still quite effective in its execution, which is saying something considering that this is the eighth installment of the series.

As was the case with the first film, Creed II primarily belongs to Michael B. Jordan, who’s fantastic once again as Adonis Creed. Even when he ends up diving into a situation without thinking things through first, he still manages to be a highly sympathetic protagonist and Jordan’s charisma is in top form here. A lot of this also comes via his relationship with Bianca, who in just two films has more than managed to become more than just the equivalent of what Adrian was to Rocky in the previous films. Jordan and Tessa Thompson have phenomenal chemistry and one major plotline that revolves around their newborn daughter Amara being afflicted with a serious physical condition provides the film with one of its most emotionally devastating moments. Phylicia Rashad also happens to get a bit more to do this time around as Adonis’ mother (and Apollo’s widow) Mary Anne, primarily thanks to her sharp wit whenever she shares a scene with Jordan. And, of course, there’s still Sylvester Stallone being as great as ever as Rocky Balboa. Admittedly, this one doesn’t give him the same emotionally-charged storyline that he got with Rocky’s cancer diagnosis in the first Creed, but he continues to maintain Rocky’s status as one of the most endearing protagonists in film history. But perhaps the most impressive thing that this film manages to achieve is taking the character of Ivan Drago and effectively presenting him in a serious manner. That’s right, this isn’t the over-the-top goliath of Rocky IV anymore; instead, we get a man who’s deadly committed to regaining his former glory no matter the cost. In other words, it’s easily the best performance of Dolph Lundgren’s career. Admittedly, though, his son Viktor doesn’t get as much to work with character-wise. Granted, Florian Munteanu does prove to be quite the physical foe for Adonis to face and there is some decent characterization with him when it comes to him trying to understand why his father is so desperate to win back those who shunned him after his loss to Rocky. Ultimately, though, he arguably gets even fewer lines than his dad did in Rocky IV.

The most common word that is being tossed around with this film is ‘predictable’. After the whirlwind success of the first Creed, several critics have lamented the fact that this film decides to go for a straight-forward plot that rehashes one of the most notable storylines from a past installment of the franchise. Well, to that I say this… yes, it’s predictable… but is that really such a bad thing? After all, the Rocky films usually aren’t known for re-inventing the wheel when it comes to their writing. And yes, that even includes the first Creed, which literally ended the same way as the original Rocky four decades prior and ultimately worked as well as it did thanks to Ryan Coogler’s strong direction and the outstanding lead trio of Jordan, Stallone, and Thompson. And despite the loss of Coogler as director for this one (though he did stay on as an executive producer), Steven Caple Jr. does an excellent job in his place because he continues to maintain an emphasis on the most important aspect of these films, their characters. Sure, you can tell that things will end up being alright for Donnie and his family, but it’s more about the journey there than the destination itself. Plus, it even manages to take the series’ goofiest villain and find some bits of humanity within him, thus making him just as intimidating as he was in Rocky IV but in a vastly different way. In short, Creed II is another rousing success story for this legendary franchise that, pardon the pun, delivers yet another emotional knockout. And considering the recent announcement by Sylvester Stallone that revealed that this will ultimately be his final turn as Rocky Balboa, that effectively makes this film one hell of a send-off for a true icon of the big-screen right as his new protégé becomes a legend in his own right.

Rating: 5/5!

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) review

In 2012, Walt Disney Animation released their 52^nd animated feature, Wreck-it Ralph. This tribute to both classic and modern video games centered on the titular Wreck-it Ralph, the main antagonist of a classic arcade game in a world where arcade characters can travel to other games and interact with each other via the power strip that their cabinets are plugged into. Having grown tired of being stuck in the role of ‘the bad guy’ for 30 years, Ralph embarked on a journey throughout other video games in the hopes of having his own ‘hero moment’. Upon its release, the film was a solid success with both critics and audiences, grossing over $471 million worldwide and serving as another contributor to Disney Animation’s recent revival when it came to the quality of their films. But perhaps the most notable thing that the film managed to accomplish was earning a genuine rarity when it comes to the studio’s filmography, a sequel. Oh sure, many of the classic Disney animated films have gotten sequels over the years, but they primarily came via the now-defunct direct-to-video division Disneytoon Studios and, to be perfectly blunt, usually weren’t of the same quality. Prior to this year, only two Disney animated films had officially gotten sequels that were given proper theatrical releases; The Rescuers (The Rescuers Down Under) and The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (Winnie the Pooh). Plus, those two films came out several years after their predecessors, which makes this year’s Ralph Breaks the Internet (AKA Wreck-it Ralph 2) even more of a unique phenomenon given that it comes out just 6 years after the original and was made by the same development team. But fear not, folks, as this film manages to maintain the same heart and snappy writing of the original Wreck-it-Ralph even with a major shift in its setting from the ever-changing world of the classic video arcade to the equally ever-changing digital world that is the internet.

6 years since their previous adventure, things have been going quite well for Wreck-it Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), the main antagonist of the classic game Fix-it Felix Jr., and his best friend Vanellope von Schweetz (voiced by Sarah Silverman), the main protagonist of the popular racing game Sugar Rush, at their home, Litwak’s Family Fun Center and Arcade. However, when Vanellope begins to feel that her game is starting to get a little predictable, Ralph’s efforts to fix that unintentionally end up resulting in the machine’s steering wheel to break. And to make matters worse, because Sugar Rush’s developers went out of business years ago, the arcade’s owner Mr. Litwak (voiced by Ed O’Neill) has no choice but to unplug the game, rendering Vanellope and the rest of its residents without a home. Not wanting his best friend to lose her game forever, Ralph comes up with the idea to travel to the internet via the arcade’s newly installed wi-fi router to find a new steering wheel on eBay. But while Ralph and Vanellope successfully enter the world of the internet and find the wheel on eBay, they soon find themselves dealing with another issue when they find that they don’t have the money to buy it. Thus, they decide to respond to a clickbait ad that promises that they can earn money by playing video games and are told to collect a valuable car from the popular racing game Slaughter Race. While their efforts to take the car are ultimately unsuccessful, Vanellope’s racing skills end up attracting the attention of its owner Shank (voiced by Gal Gadot) and the two begin to form a friendship that gives Vanellope a new perspective on life to the point where she considers staying there instead of returning to the arcade. This, of course, ends up being an issue for Ralph, who embarks on his own quest to collect the money that they need by becoming a viral star on the video site BuzzzTube with the aid of its chief algorithm Yesss (voiced by Taraji P. Henson).

Like the first film, Ralph Breaks the Internet presents a story concept that admittedly runs the risk of dating itself given its subject matter. In the first film, that came courtesy of its various references to classic video games that would most likely fly over the heads of younger audiences (e.g. a scene where a character inputs the iconic ‘Konami Code’). And in the case of the sequel, it’s through its internet setting. Because the internet is always changing, trends that are relevant now could end up becoming stale in the future, and this film does have a few references to current internet culture that will probably elicit some groans from certain crowds during future viewings. But just like the first film, Ralph Breaks the Internet manages to work around this thanks to its strong story. For starters, it does treat its internet concept in a serious manner, showcasing both the good and the bad of the global network (e.g. the first rule of the internet, ‘don’t read the comments’). This is then tied excellently into the main plot of Ralph and Vanellope both dealing with forms of insecurity, which then highlights the concept of how friendships change over time once Vanellope begins to express interest in staying in Slaughter Race. As for the animation, this sequel maintains the same great aspect from the first film in terms of bringing the internet world to life in a highly creative manner just like its predecessor did with the arcade world. In this instance, it portrays internet users as Mii-like figures in a bustling metropolis that’s home to all the essential websites, and it’s clear that the writers/animators did their homework when it comes to accurately portraying what these websites are usually like, whether they’re real ones or ones that are satirizing the real ones.

The original quartet of the first film return to reprise their roles and are all great once again. As Ralph, John C. Reilly continues to be incredibly hilarious as the well-meaning but not always bright video game ‘antagonist’. The same goes for Sarah Silverman as the ever-endearing Vanellope, and while Ralph Breaks the Internet is more of a Vanellope story this time around, the film still gives the two of them balanced roles in the story. But as for Fix-it Felix (voiced by Jack McBrayer) and Sgt. Calhoun (voiced by Jane Lynch), fans of the original will be disappointed to hear that they don’t factor into this film as much as they did last time. They do not join Ralph and Vanellope on their journey into the internet and thus, only appear in the beginning and end. At the very least, the two get a decent little subplot in which they find themselves in a tricky situation when they agree to take care of the Sugar Rush racers after their game is unplugged. And while he’s playing a different character this time, Disney Animation’s newest lucky charm Alan Tudyk (whose run with Disney started with the original Wreck-it Ralph, where he played the main antagonist King Candy/Turbo) is yet another standout as the all-knowing search-bar expert KnowsMore. As for the new additions to the cast, the most prominent is Gal Gadot as Slaughter Race racer Shank, a role that allows Gadot to pay homage to her role as Gisele in the Fast and Furious franchise while also giving her some of the emotional gravitas that she excelled with in Wonder Woman. Taraji P. Henson also manages to get some highly memorable moments in as the trend-savvy video sharing site algorithm Yesss.  

But of course, the most talked about aspect of this film is the sequence where Vanellope (who was revealed to be the ‘princess’ protagonist of Sugar Rush in the previous film) meets with all the Disney princesses. Every major member of Disney’s current Princess line (along with Anna and Elsa from Frozen and Moana from her titular 2016 film) makes an appearance in this sequence voiced by their current actresses (save for Snow White, who’s voiced by screenwriter Pamela Ribon). Now for some, this may seem like nothing more than the most blatant example of corporate pandering that Disney has ever put in one of their films. Heck, the sequence in question sees Vanellope travel to the popular Disney fan site Oh My Disney where there are even more cameos from the likes of Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story, Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy, and Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh… and yes, that’s just to name a few. Thankfully, though, this sequence is handled wonderfully, as it allows all these actresses to play off their characters’ common criticisms (and some of the admittedly dated aspects of their respective films/stories) while never betraying anything that made them so beloved in the first place. Plus, without spoiling anything, the scene seen in the marketing where Vanellope visits their ‘backstage area’ isn’t the only one that they appear in. And really, tell me that I’m not the only one who’s been genuinely curious at the idea of seeing all these princesses together in a feature film that’s not one of the Princess franchise’s direct-to-video projects. Because if this film proves anything, it’s that these ladies can indeed headline their own proper Disney film.

When this film’s premise was first revealed and then shown off in its first trailer, I’m sure that there were quite a few people out there who were fearful about Disney entering the same territory of another animated film, last year’s infamous release The Emoji Movie. After all, we’re talking about two films that are heavily based around the internet and feature several pop cultural references and instances of product placement. And in the case of this film, it would feature probably the most Disney-centric moment to ever be seen in a Disney film through the cameo appearances of its most famous female protagonists. Ultimately, though, without beating the dead horse that is the continued bashing of The Emoji Movie, Disney never stoops to ‘that low’ with Ralph Breaks the Internet. Co-directors Rich Moore and Phil Johnston and their writing team do an excellent job of maintaining an emphasis on the story rather than its setting, providing its characters with a unique spin on the concept of insecurity in a gorgeously animated and clever interpretation of the world wide web. In other words, this is not a film that relies solely on its pop cultural references or its Disney cameos; it’s just a well-written sequel that does manage to boast the same amount of heart as the original… possibly more, even. Yes, as is the case with any sequel that’s on par with the original, it’s currently up for debate online whether this is ‘better’ than the original Wreck-it Ralph. And while I personally can’t add to that argument just yet given that I’ve only seen this once, I can safely say that Ralph Breaks the Internet is another wonderful addition to Disney Animation’s current feature film hot streak.

Rating: 5/5!

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) review

In 2001, the first installment of the Harry Potter film series, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (Philosopher’s Stone overseas), officially kickstarted a great new franchise adapted from the beloved, best-selling book series by author J.K. Rowling. One full decade later, the series officially concluded with the second part of the adaptation of the final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and for fans of the franchise, it seemed as if this was the end of the adventures within the Wizarding World… or so we thought. Just a few years later, it was announced that Rowling would be writing a new series of films inspired by the in-universe textbook Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a guide to the various creatures of the Wizarding World that was published for real in 2001. And while it’s safe to say that some may have initially questioned the idea of a film series based around a textbook, Rowling would soon go on to reveal more details about the new franchise. Specifically, it would be a prequel that took place 70 years prior to the events of Harry Potter and would focus on the adventures of the textbook’s author, Newt Scamander. The first installment of this series, which shared the name of its source material, hit theaters in November 2016. It served as Rowling’s first screenplay and saw director David Yates return to the franchise after previously helming the final four installments of Harry Potter. Upon its release, the film proved to be yet another success for the franchise, garnering solid reviews from both critics and audiences and grossing over $800 million worldwide, thus paving the way for this year’s sequel, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, which delves further into the Wizarding World of the 1920’s. And while it does end up suffering a bit from a case of ‘middle chapter syndrome’, there’s still just enough of the things that have made this franchise a staple of pop culture to satisfy its devoted fandom. 

Three months after aiding the Magical Congress of the United States of America (MACUSA) in capturing the notorious dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald (Johnny Depp), zoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) returns home to England to continue what he does best by looking after all the unique magical creatures that he comes across. However, Newt is soon placed on watch by the Ministry of Magic for his ‘unauthorized’ field trip to America and is pressured into assisting their Aurors (one of them being his older brother Theseus (Callum Turner)) in their efforts to hunt Grindelwald again when he ends up escaping from custody. Newt also learns that Grindelwald is specifically looking for Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller), the disturbed young man who, in the previous film, was revealed to be possessed by a parasite known as an Obscurus. And although he was supposedly killed by MACUSA, it is revealed that he survived and has traveled to Paris in the hopes of discovering his heritage. While he initially refuses to help the Aurors, Newt is ultimately convinced to go on his own accord by his old professor from Hogwarts, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), whose unique relationship with Grindelwald prevents him from joining in on the action. Thus, Newt, with the aid of sisters Tina (Katherine Waterston) and Queenie (Alison Sudol) Goldstein and Muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), who’s revealed to have kept most of the memories that he had prior to his alleged memory wipe, embark on a journey to ensure that Credence isn’t swayed by Grindelwald’s dark cause. For as they find out, Credence’s supposedly pure-blood heritage potentially makes him the only one who can possibly equal Grindelwald and his greatest adversary, Albus Dumbledore.

Now admittedly, Crimes of Grindelwald doesn’t always maintain the exact same quality of writing when compared to previous entries in the franchise. While some have criticized it for having a ‘minimal’ plot, I’d say that this film’s biggest issue lies more with its ending. For the most part, this film is clearly meant to be the entry in the series that is primarily intended to set up plotlines that will play a far bigger role in future films, and while I don’t mind the ways in which it sets up those films, it ends up resulting in its own finale being a bit too anti-climactic. Simply put, the big confrontation with Grindelwald that the marketing campaign has been alluding to doesn’t really happen, and what is ultimately there is taken care of rather quickly, which also means that not every plotline and bit of character development is given as much attention as it should be. But even with that in mind, that doesn’t completely take anything away from all the other great things that are in this film. While it does stumble a bit by the end, the rest of the film is very well-paced even if the plot is admittedly a lot simpler compared to some of the other films. And yet, even with that said, this film still manages to maintain what is easily J.K. Rowling’s greatest strength as a writer, her knack for world-building. Once again, this film does a phenomenal job when it comes to creating all the new locations and magical creatures that it brings to the Wizarding World thanks in large part to the always terrific production design and stunning visual effects that only manage to get better with each new film.

But as I’ve noted in the past, easily my favorite aspect of this new franchise is its main protagonists AKA the main quartet of Newt, Jacob, Tina, and Queenie. Even with the expectations spurred from the iconic trio of Harry, Ron, and Hermione, these four proved to be just as endearing as the series’ original leads. Plus, despite where some of the plotlines in this film end up taking them, their chemistry is still just as strong as it was in the first film. Most notably, Newt and Jacob continue to be a wonderful lead duo, with Eddie Redmayne continuing to maintain Newt’s incredibly sympathetic nature and Dan Fogler once again providing the film with many of its best humorous moments. Redmayne and Fogler also continue to have wonderful chemistry with Katherine Waterston and Alison Sudol as sisters Tina and Queenie, respectively, resulting in some of the film’s best emotional moments. As for the new additions to the franchise’s ensemble, easily the most prominent is Jude Law taking on the role of a young Albus Dumbledore. And while it should be noted that Dumbledore doesn’t factor into the plot as much as one would expect, Law still very much shines in the role, nobly following in the footsteps of Richard Harris and Michael Gambon. Other new additions like Callum Turner as Newt’s brother Theseus, Zoe Kravitz as Newt’s former classmate (and Theseus’ fiancé) Leta Lestrange, and Claudia Kim as the transforming Maledictus known as Nagini (who, of course, ends up becoming Voldemort’s snake companion in the Potter books/films) are solid as well.

And then there’s easily the film’s biggest question mark, Johnny Depp as Grindelwald. Ever since he was cast in the role, there has been a ton of controversy because of it. For starters, some fans weren’t too thrilled with the first film’s reveal that Grindelwald had been impersonating Colin Farrell’s Percival Graves, with many arguing that Farrell would’ve been a much better fit in the role. And while Depp’s role in the first film was ultimately quite minor, some predicted that this would eventually lead to yet another instance of his increasingly controversial over-the-top style of acting. But, of course, the biggest controversy to come from Depp’s casting was due to his infamous domestic abuse case in 2016, with many condemning the decision for him to be cast in a franchise that was developed by a woman who’s clearly been known to disapprove of this kind of behavior. And yet, at the risk of attracting some negative attention from those who were against his casting… Depp surprisingly manages to impress in the role of Grindelwald. Contrary to what some may have feared, he never really delves into the same over-the-top acting that he’s been known for these past few years. Instead, he establishes a suitably reserved but incredibly intimidating antagonist who can recruit others to his cause without much issue, and while he does suffer from the story seemingly saving his biggest moments for future films, Depp does make the most out of the material that he’s given. In short, while I want to make it perfectly clear that I’m not ‘defending’ any of Depp’s recent actions, it should be noted that, despite what some may ultimately claim, none of this film’s shortcomings are primarily because of him.

At the time that I’m writing this, Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is the only entry in the Wizarding World saga to attract a mixed-to-negative reception from critics… and yet, it’s seriously not as bad as some of those critics have been claiming. To be clear, though, I’m not saying that it’s perfect because, in the opposite scenario of what happened with Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, this film does fall victim to the dreaded ‘middle chapter syndrome’. While I don’t dislike any of the ways in which the film sets up future installments of the franchise, along with how it often ties itself back to Harry Potter, there are a few plot threads and bits of character development that would’ve benefitted from having more attention given to them. But despite all this, everything else that’s great about the Wizarding World franchise is still on display here. J.K. Rowling’s world-building is still second-to-none and the main characters are just as endearing as ever while being joined by some solid newcomers. And yes, as controversial of a claim as it’ll undoubtedly be, Johnny Depp doesn’t phone it in whilst portraying the title role of Grindelwald. I understand why some have been hesitant about this film because of his involvement, but I hope that it doesn’t completely turn people away from seeing it given those who were involved that obviously weren’t tied to Depp’s incidents. In other words, Depp’s involvement has clearly cast an incredibly dark shadow over this new series that, unfortunately, it might not be able to overcome. But as for me, I’m still very much a staunch defender of the Fantastic Beasts franchise and I look forward to seeing it continue.  

Rating: 4.5/5

The Grinch (2018) review

When it comes to children’s literature, easily one of the most famous authors of all-time was Theodor Geisel, better known through his pen name, Dr. Seuss. From 1937 up until his passing in 1991, he wrote and illustrated more than 60 books that were hailed for their imaginative imagery and wonderful rhyme-based writing, thus paving the way for classics like The Cat in the Hat, Green Eggs and Ham, and Oh the Places You’ll Go. And easily one of his most famous creations was the Grinch, a furry, green creature who despised the holiday season. This character first made his debut in Seuss’ 1957 effort, How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Less than a decade later, Geisel teamed up with legendary animator Chuck Jones for a 26-minute television special that has continued to be one of the most beloved Christmas specials of all-time. The Grinch would then see new life on the big screen in 2000 thanks to a live-action adaptation that was directed by Ron Howard and starred Jim Carrey in the title role. This one, however, was a bit more controversial amongst critics and audiences. While it does still have its fans (namely those who were kids when it first came out… including me), it wasn’t as well-received as its animated counterpart. But now the ‘mean one’ known as ‘Mr. Grinch’ is back in a second feature film adaptation, this time as an animated feature courtesy of Illumination Entertainment, who had previously adapted Seuss’ 1971 story The Lorax in 2012. And although their last foray into the world of Dr. Seuss didn’t turn out so well, this new one works a lot better as a charming little family flick even if it’s still just the same story that we know and love at the end of the day.  

In the peaceful town of Whoville, one holiday is revered more than anything else, and that is Christmas. Every year, the Whos of Whoville go all out with their holiday celebrations, which become even more extravagant this year when the Mayor (voiced by Angela Lansbury) declares that they will have a Christmas that’s three times bigger than anything they’ve ever had before. But while everyone in Whoville likes Christmas a lot, the same cannot be said for the Grinch (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch), a miserable loner who spends most of his time in his mountain lair looking down in disgust upon the town. For the past 53 years, the Grinch has hated the holiday season with a burning passion; a hatred that primarily spawned from all the time that he spent alone at the local orphanage when he was a kid. And when he learns about the Whos’ plan to make their Christmas celebration even bigger, he decides that the time has finally come to do something about it. His ‘wonderful, awful’ idea? Dress up as Santa Claus, find reindeer to lead the sleigh, sneak down into Whoville, and steal all their presents and decorations. Thus, with the aid of his loyal canine companion Max, the Grinch begins working on his plan to give the Whos the worst Christmas that they’ve ever had. Meanwhile, down in Whoville, a young, innocent Who named Cindy Lou (voiced by Cameron Seely) initiates a plan of her own to aid her overworked mother Donna (voiced by Rashida Jones) by finding the one and only St. Nick.

If there’s one thing that you can never fault Illumination films for, it’s for having bad animation. While I do love the live-action Grinch film with Jim Carrey, I will also admit that Dr. Seuss’ creations work a lot better in animation than they do in live-action, and the animation team at Illumination did a wonderful job in replicating Seuss’ style through the locales and character designs. As for the story, though, don’t expect anything new from this classic story. While it does do a different spin on the Grinch’s backstory and Cindy Lou Who’s role in the plot, it’s still the same premise and overall outcome through and through. But for what it’s worth, the film manages to work around this thanks to its laid-back tone and some decent bits of humor here and there. Ultimately, though, the best aspect of the film is Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role. Admittedly, when the first clips of him voicing the character were released, I was surprised to see that his Grinch wasn’t adopting the English accent that was originated by Boris Karloff in the 60’s special and then used, in part, by Jim Carrey in the live-action film. Instead, he goes for a more Americanized accent, but it’s still a solid take on the character and Cumberbatch works well with the film’s humor. Aside from him, there’s a notable supporting turn from SNL vet Kenan Thompson as the overly jolly Who Bricklebaum that the Grinch continually crosses paths with. And as for Cindy Lou Who, I appreciate that this film did the same thing that the live-action film did by giving her a more prominent role in the story. Instead of her struggling to understand the meaning of Christmas in an increasingly commercialized time, her arc in this film is a sweet one as it sees her just trying to find Santa so that he can do something nice for her overworked mother Donna (sadly, Rashida Jones doesn’t get much to work with here).  

Now I went into this film with far different expectations than most people. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of people went into this hoping that it’d be a better feature film adaptation of The Grinch compared to the previous one. But as I’ve noted before, I’m part of the crowd that grew up with the Ron Howard/Jim Carrey version, and I’m not afraid to admit that I still love it. Thus, when it comes to this new version, I was just curious to see what it’d be like compared to its predecessors. And while I do have my doubts about this film going on to maintain as much of a legacy as either of its two predecessors (yes, folks, the live-action Grinch does have somewhat of a positive legacy… even if it depends heavily on who you ask…), this version of The Grinch is still a cute little animated flick. This is, of course, primarily due to Benedict Cumberbatch clearly having a lot of fun in the title role and some gorgeous animation that does a nice job paying tribute to Seuss’ iconic visual style. At the same time, though, there isn’t that much different about this film in terms of its story compared to previous adaptations. And yet, even with that said, I was surprised by how this was a far more restrained affair compared to other Illumination projects. At the time that I’m writing this, I’ve only seen three Illumination films (this, Sing, and The Lorax) and have usually had the impression that they can often be a bit too wacky for their own good. But as for this film, aside from maybe one or two dips into modern-day references, it surprisingly may just be the most respectful adaptation of a Dr. Seuss story to date. And yes, considering some of the previous film adaptations of Seuss’ work (e.g. the infamous live-action adaptation of The Cat in the Hat starring Mike Myers), I know that this isn’t really saying a lot, but I will give this film credit for, at the very least, keeping it simple.

Rating: 3.5/5

Overlord (2018) review

For the past few years, J.J. Abrams has become one of the most prominent filmmakers in the industry. As a director, he played a major role in reviving not one, not two, but three incredibly prominent franchises through his work on 2006’s Mission Impossible III, 2009’s Star Trek, and 2015’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens. And after that, he then proceeded to get further involved with each franchise as a producer, paving the way for incredibly strong outings like Mission Impossible – Fallout, Star Trek Beyond, and Star Wars: The Last Jedi. But, of course, this isn’t all that J.J.’s known for as a producer, as easily the most notable franchise to come from his own production company, Bad Robot, has been the Cloverfield series. What started as the titular 2008 found footage monster film directed by Matt Reeves ended up spawning a new anthology series where the films were connected more by their narratives than their genre. Things got off to a great start with 2016’s 10 Cloverfield Lane, but then the franchise admittedly stumbled a bit this year with the Netflix-released The Cloverfield Paradox. And if you’re wondering, the only reason why I’m bringing up Cloverfield right now is because today’s film, Overlord, was initially reported as being the fourth installment of this steadily growing franchise. However, J.J. Abrams would later state that the film ultimately wasn’t going to be tied to Cloverfield. Instead, Overlord, directed by Australian filmmaker Julius Avery, is its own thing; a stylish, well-made World War II-era horror film featuring zombies… and not just any zombies, Nazi zombies!

It is December 5^th, 1944, just a few hours before the Allies are set to land on the beaches of Normandy and begin their liberation of German-occupied France in what would become known as D-Day. In the skies above, a squad of paratroopers is tasked with destroying a radio tower in a nearby village to aid the incoming troops. However, their plane ends up getting shot down and only a few of the troopers end up surviving the crash; seasoned veteran Corporal Ford (Wyatt Russell), Private Ed Boyce (Jovan Adepo), sniper Tibbet (John Magaro), and photographer Chase (Iain De Caestecker). Now stuck behind enemy lines, the quartet find themselves under immense time pressure to destroy the radio tower before their fellow troops land on the beach, a task that quickly becomes even more daunting given that they’re just four men against a sizable Nazi army. However, as they soon find out, that’s not the only issue that they have to deal with. When Boyce ends up getting stuck inside the Nazi base where the tower is located, he is shocked to find a series of experiments utilizing dead bodies. These experiments come to fruition with a special serum that, although managing to revive the dead, ends up turning them into terrifying creatures with inhuman strength. Now facing a threat that’s unlike anything they’ve ever seen before, the paratroopers, with the help of a local woman named Chloe (Mathilde Ollivier), must now ensure that these horrifying trials never see the light of day.

Now to answer your first question… no, this is NOT a Cloverfield film. Obviously, one of the most prominent aspects of films (and TV shows, for that matter) that are produced by J.J. Abrams is that their marketing campaigns make a considerable effort to be light on spoilers. Granted, this hasn’t always worked for them (e.g. the fiasco of the Khan twist in Star Trek Into Darkness), but I’d say that this ‘mystery box’ tactic does do its job at keeping audiences guessing. But in the case of Overlord, J.J.’s claim that the film wouldn’t be tied to the Cloverfield franchise is 100% accurate, thus allowing it to be its own entity. Plus, it also manages to be two films in one given its premise. As it starts, it fully succeeds at sucking you into its war-time setting, partially because the opening sequence where the paratroopers’ plane gets shot down is a figurative and literal explosion of audio and visuals, easily making it one of the most intense openings to any film in recent years. After that, the film works quite well as a small-scaled war film, hitting just the right notes in terms of setting up the main conflict and the primary characters who get involved in it. The same can be said for how it gradually builds up its plot to get to the big reveal of the Nazi experiments that turn its unwilling subjects into zombie-like creatures. However, the zombie element of this story isn’t as prominent as the marketing implies. Sure, it’s there, thus paving the way for plenty of gory moments to satisfy fans of the genre, but on a whole, it plays more of a secondary role in the plot. In other words, this is still primarily a war film at the end of the day, but one with the added element of the undead.  

Unlike some war films, Overlord only focuses on a small cast of characters instead of a wider ensemble. But while this does prevent a situation where you end up forgetting who’s who, the film is still quite light on character development. Every main character in this film is a typical archetypal protagonist that one would usually see in a war film. There’s the ‘audience avatar’ who’s set up as being so innocent that he wouldn’t hurt a mouse (literally), the hardened veteran who stresses that things be done by the book, the inexperienced soldier who’s clearly out of his depth, the wise-ass who’s there for comic relief, etc. Despite this, though, this film’s cast of generally rising stars do a solid job with the limited material that they’re given. Most of the film sees us following Pvt. Boyce and Cpl. Ford, and Jovan Adepo and Wyatt Russell do a nice job when it comes to conveying how these two serve as foils for each other given their vastly different ideologies. To back them up, there are also solid performances from John Magaro and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Iain de Caestecker as Tibbet and Chase, respectively, and newcomer Mathilde Ollivier as the film’s main female lead Chloe. As for the villains, they too are simply characterized, but there is one major standout in Pilou Asbæk as Captain Wafner, a truly sinister Nazi commander who frequently crosses paths with the paratroopers. Asbæk very much channels Christoph Waltz’s iconic performance as Colonel Hans Landa (AKA ‘the Jew Hunter’) in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds here, resulting in a highly intimidating antagonist.

Over the past few months, I’ve covered quite a few horror films and have repeatedly mentioned what I feel is one of the most important elements to a great horror film, creating characters that we truly care about as they deal with all sorts of horrific obstacles. That doesn’t really apply to Overlord, though, because while this film does sport a good cast, the character development beats that they’re given are as basic as you can get for a film like this. But to be fair, you don’t always need to have fully sympathetic characters to be a great horror film, and Overlord ultimately manages to succeed despite this shortcoming because of how well-made it is. For what is only his second directorial feature ever, director Julius Avery crafts a highly engaging thriller with a solid visual style that works as both a war film (thanks in large part to its incredible opening sequence) and a zombie film. Granted, the zombie element of this film isn’t as prominent as one might think given the marketing, but there are just enough practical zombie effects in this to satisfy fans who’ve witnessed the likes of George A. Romero’s Dead films. And while I’ll openly admit that part of me would’ve been genuinely interested in seeing what this film would’ve been like had it been tied to the Cloverfield franchise, it’s nice that it ultimately wasn’t. Because of this, Overlord is a very entertaining war film with horror elements that serves as another shining example of the high quality of films produced by Bad Robot Productions.

Rating: 4/5