Ford v Ferrari (2019) review

As its title suggests, Ford v Ferrari delves into the heated rivalry between two of the most prominent manufacturers in the automobile industry. On one side, you have the Ford Motor Company, whose founder Henry Ford invented the first ‘affordable’ automobile, the Model T, and revolutionized the process of assembly-line production for his company’s line of cars. On the other side, there’s Enzo Ferrari and his prestigious brand of Italian sports cars that quickly became a staple of auto racing, especially in the 1960s when it won the annual race event known as the 24 Hours of Le Mans in Le Mans, France for six straight years. Ford v Ferrari specifically focuses on the former’s attempt to finally beat Ferrari at this historic event, which it ultimately managed to accomplish in 1966. It is the latest directorial effort from director James Mangold, who has had a considerably lengthy career in the industry with hits such as the 2005 Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line and his 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma. In recent years, however, Mangold has also become known for his major contributions to the superhero genre through the two films that he made with Hugh Jackman starring in his iconic role as the legendary X-Men member Wolverine. The first of these was 2013’s The Wolverine, which fared a lot better with critics and audiences than Wolverine’s first solo outing in 2009, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and was then followed by 2017’s Logan, which gave Jackman’s version of the character the emotionally satisfying send-off that he damn well deserved. And with Ford v Ferrari, James Mangold ends up having yet another hit on his hands thanks to a finely tuned racing biopic that fully benefits from its dynamite cast, thrilling racing sequences, and all-around sharp direction.

It is 1963 and the Ford Motor Company, as led by Henry Ford’s grandson Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts), is dealing with a severe decline in car sales. To fix this problem, Ford’s Vice President Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that the company should start getting into racing to properly appeal to the current generation of potential car owners, which they can achieve through a deal with Ferrari, who has also been struggling financially. However, when Iacocca proposes this deal to company founder Enzo Ferrari (Remo Girone), the legendary entrepreneur refuses, takes a deal with Fiat instead, and vehemently blasts Ford for “building ugly little cars in ugly factories”. Fueled by this criticism, Henry Ford II launches the company’s new racing division and proclaims that they will defeat Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. To accomplish this, Ford hires Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon), who had previously won the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1959 before being forced to retire due to a heart condition, to run the division and build what ends up becoming the GT40. In turn, Shelby enlists the help of his long-time friend Ken Miles (Christian Bale) with the promise that Miles will be part of the company’s drivers at Le Mans. However, Ford executive Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas) strongly opposes the idea since Miles’ hot-headed nature doesn’t gel with the company’s usual image. Shelby persists, however, since he knows that Miles is quite possibly the only driver that can seriously pose a threat to Ferrari’s success.

Given the nature of this film’s plot, it goes without saying that Ford v Ferrari features some incredible racing sequences. Every single one of them benefits from excellent cinematography and they flawlessly recreate the pure kinetic energy that stems from a day at the racetrack (and yes, they were all done for real). However, this energetic spirit isn’t just limited to the racing sequences. While Ford v Ferrari does boast a hefty 2-½ hour runtime, its strong pacing and impeccably tight editing from James Mangold’s go-to editor Michael McCusker and up-and-coming editor Andrew Buckland (who has also worked on a few of Mangold’s previous films) means that there’s never a dull moment. A lot of this is also thanks to how Mangold excellently handles what can best be described as a ‘David and Goliath’ story on two different fronts. As much as this is a story about how a perennial underdog like Ford managed to dethrone Ferrari, one of the most successful auto racing teams in the world, it’s also very much a story about the two men who played the most prominent roles in making it all happen. They may not have been the kind of guys who flawlessly represent the company’s image, but they knew that going against the norm was the only way that they could possibly beat Ferrari at their own game. All this is especially prevalent when it comes to how the film ends. Without directly spoiling anything (which, I admit, may not be that necessary of a thing to point out since this is a true story), Ford v Ferrari boldly decides to end on a note that, in a different biopic, would’ve just been relegated to the closing text that pops up before the credits roll. But in this case, the decision to include that final plot point is what ultimately gives Ford v Ferrari its most prominent emotional beat.  

The other factor behind this film’s success is its amazing ensemble cast headlined by the potent duo of Matt Damon and Christian Bale. Not only do these two have phenomenal on-screen camaraderie, but they also provide an incredibly fun dynamic that stems from their characters’ radically different personalities. Whereas Carroll Shelby is the smooth-talking, charismatic Southerner, Ken Miles is the cockier Brit who isn’t afraid to express his particularly blunt opinions on any given matter but is also a fully devoted family man. On that note, the film does a nice job of handling the roles of Miles’ wife Mollie (Caitriona Balfe) and their son Peter (Noah Jupe) in the story even though they don’t directly factor into the work that Carroll and Ken do for Ford. Caitriona Balfe benefits nicely from Mollie Miles having just as much of a feisty personality as her husband, thus allowing her to be far more than just a passive supporting character, while Noah Jupe does a solid job with the simple but highly effective arc of a young racing fan who’s forced to learn about the dangers of the sport the hard way. After that, the film is chock-full of excellent supporting turns from the likes of reliable names such as Jon Bernthal as Lee Iacocca, the only Ford executive who doesn’t clash with Shelby and Miles’ ways, and Tracy Letts, who brings the right amount of bold conviction to the role of Henry Ford II.

Ford v Ferrari is easily one of the best films of 2019. Simply put, this is one of those films that flawlessly manages to hit all the right notes when it comes to everything that went into making it. James Mangold’s phenomenal direction sets the stage for an utterly thrilling racing biopic that thrives thanks to its incredible racing sequences and pitch-perfect pacing, with the latter being a vital factor in overcoming the pressure of the film’s weighty runtime. But to be clear, the fact that Ford v Ferrari is 2 ½ hours long is never once an issue because it always maintains an incredibly compelling underdog story with a solid emotional hook thanks to its emphasis on the two men who practically made it all happen. These two men, Carroll Shelby and Ken Miles, are excellently portrayed by Matt Damon and Christian Bale, respectively, as they do, indeed, carry the whole film while still being backed by a phenomenal supporting cast. Because of this, it’s safe to say that these two will be major frontrunners for all the big acting awards during this year’s awards season. And yet, perhaps the best aspect of Ford v Ferrari is that it’s one of those films that’s so universally appealing that you don’t have to be a big fan of auto racing to enjoy it. In other words, James Mangold manages to craft a film that fully succeeds at being both an incredibly well-made awards contender and a good old-fashioned crowd-pleaser.   

Rating: 5/5!

Lady and the Tramp (2019) review (Disney+)

Disney’s brand-new streaming service Disney+ is finally here, granting Disney fans premier access to a vast and varied collection of the company’s legendary filmography along with some exciting new projects from practically every major facet of the Disney universe. And here on Rhode Island Movie Corner, that means that you folks can expect plenty of reviews of Disney+ originals for the foreseeable future, which all begins with a review of the latest entry in Disney’s recent line of live-action remakes. Oh sure, I know some of you probably just rolled your eyes right now given how many of these have been made at this point, but as I’ve made it clear plenty of times by now, I’m all for these new spins on classic Disney stories, which includes today’s installment, a remake of Disney Animation’s 1955 release, Lady and the Tramp. Overall, I’d sum up Lady and the Tramp under the category of ‘Disney classics that, unfortunately, tend to get overlooked sometimes due to some of the other films that came out during that period’. In this instance, Lady and the Tramp, as far as its initial release was concerned, was sandwiched right between two of what are arguably Disney Animation’s most iconic films, Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty. And yet, I think it’s safe to say that this charming little tale of a pampered Cocker Spaniel who falls in love with a street-savvy stray mutt is just as well-regarded as the other Disney classics of its time, especially thanks to its iconic sequence where the titular duo share a romantic spaghetti dinner to the tune of ‘Bella Notte’. This, of course, brings us to its new live-action remake, which is directed by Charlie Bean, a veteran animator who’s worked on several classic shows including Dexter’s Laboratory and The Powerpuff Girls. He also made his directorial debut back in 2017 with the considerably underrated LEGO Ninjago Movie, and here, he delivers an earnest and all-around heartwarming rendition of a classic Disney love story.

In a quaint little Midwestern town, Jim Dear (Thomas Mann) gives his wife Darling (Kiersey Clemons) a Cocker Spaniel for Christmas, whom they name Lady. As time goes on, Lady (voiced by Tessa Thompson) becomes incredibly accustomed to her life of luxury, especially after Jim and Darling give her a new collar. However, things start to change when she meets a stray mutt who’s often referred to as ‘the Tramp’ (voiced by Justin Theroux), who informs her that she isn’t going to be the center of her owners’ universe anymore because they’re about to have a baby, and as he puts it, “When the baby moves in, the dog moves out”. Sure enough, Jim and Darling end up having a baby girl named Lulu and Lady soon finds herself getting much less attention than she used to. To make matters worse, an incident in which Lady gets into trouble with Darling’s dog-hating Aunt Sarah (Yvette Nicole Brown) while Jim and Darling are away results in her ending up out in the streets without a collar and far from home. Thus, when she eventually reunites with Tramp, he offers to help her get home and begins to show her everything that he experiences as a street dog all while avoiding Elliot the local dogcatcher (Adrian Martinez), who’s hellbent on capturing Tramp and putting him in the pound. And in the process, an unexpected bit of romance starts to blossom between this most unlikely pair.  

Like Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin before it, Lady and the Tramp is another case of these recent live-action Disney remakes where, admittedly, most of its big changes are cosmetic in nature. For starters, instead of rarely showing their faces like in the original, Jim and Darling are featured a lot more prominently in this version whereas Aunt Sarah plays a lesser role than she did in the animated film in favor of a generally expanded role for the dogcatcher as the new main antagonist. But easily the biggest change comes via Aunt Sarah’s pair of Siamese Cats, who receive a considerably major overhaul due to their animated counterparts often being considered as racist stereotypes complete with a new song, ‘What a Shame’. The story, meanwhile, is basically the same as the original with the exact same story beats, from the troublesome rat that constantly pesters the family to Lady’s brief tenure in the pound where she learns ‘the truth’ about the Tramp. And unlike the other recent live-action Disney remakes, this one doesn’t really do much to update the story from a modern perspective outside of the previously mentioned revision of the Siamese Cats and the fact that Jim and Darling are a biracial couple. However, this new film still does a very nice job when it comes to its overall handling of this story and consistently maintains the same pleasant atmosphere of its animated counterpart. Yes, even that iconic spaghetti scene is still beautifully executed even with a live-action/CGI coat of paint.

A lot of this has to do with the film’s unique method of bringing its animal characters to life. While it clearly could’ve been quite easy to just have all the dogs portrayed solely through CGI since that is what many films tend to do nowadays for animals, Lady and the Tramp instead manages to go the extra mile by casting real dogs (many of them rescues), with the utterly adorable duo of rescues Rose and Monte taking on the title roles. And while the film does obviously use CG to have them talk and to give them digital doubles for certain sequences, it’s so well implemented that it’s often legitimately rather hard to distinguish between scenes where the dogs are either real or fully CG. It also helps that Lady and the Tramp are given an excellent duo to voice them in Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux, respectively, as both do a wonderful job in making these two incredibly lovable and effortlessly charismatic while also sporting some lovely chemistry. They’re then backed by an equally solid supporting voice cast headlined by the likes of Sam Elliott as Trusty the old bloodhound and Janelle Monáe as Tramp’s flirtatious friend Peg the Pekingese (Monáe, of course, performs the classic ditty that is ‘He’s a Tramp’ and also helped write the Siamese Cats’ new song). As for the film’s human cast, Thomas Mann and Kiersey Clemons have solid chemistry that’s on par with Thompson and Theroux as Jim and Darling even if they still end up playing the same generally passive roles that their characters had in the original. After that, you have some nice supporting turns from Yvette Nicole Brown as Aunt Sarah despite her significantly reduced role in this version of the story and Adrian Martinez as the dogcatcher, who manages to be an effectively menacing villain without being too campy.

Many of these recent live-action Disney remakes have extensively used CGI to help bring the fantastical worlds of their stories to life. Lady and the Tramp is not one of those films since, just like the original, it is still very much an old-fashioned love story set in a practically picturesque Midwestern town like the ones that Walt Disney himself grew up in. As such, its use of CGI is a lot more limited compared to the other films of its subgenre which, even as someone who has loved all these recent Disney remakes, I have to admit is a nice and refreshing change of pace when it comes to these films. In other words, it could be argued that this new version of Lady and the Tramp eschews what has become the traditional process of remaking a Disney classic in favor of a pleasantly nostalgic ‘back to basics’ approach. However, if there is one thing that this film has in common with the other recent live-action Disney remakes, it’s that it’ll ultimately once again be the subject of controversy amongst those who are fully against this current cinematic trend. It also doesn’t help that this version of Lady and the Tramp doesn’t really do much to update its story for a new generation outside of abolishing some racist stereotypes. Ultimately, though, while it may not necessarily be the best of these live-action Disney remakes, Lady and the Tramp still thoroughly succeeds at being an immensely heartwarming crowd-pleaser thanks in large part to its extensive use of actual dogs instead of CG creations. But if you are one of those folks who still prefer the animated incarnations of these Disney classics, you’ll be pleased to know that the original Lady and the Tramp is also readily available for your streaming pleasures on Disney+. In fact, the same can be said for all the Disney classics that have received remakes these past few years. I’ve always argued that these remakes can peacefully co-exist with their animated counterparts and I’m pleased to say that Disney+ is now proving that this is, indeed, possible.

Rating: 4/5

Doctor Sleep (2019) review

There have been countless adaptations of author Stephen King’s works over the years, and yet, amidst all the hits and the misses, there’s one that King has always had mixed feelings about. The film in question is The Shining, the 1980 adaptation of King’s 1977 novel of the same name. Despite attracting generally mixed reviews upon its initial release, the film has gone on to become a staple of the horror genre and one of the many classic outings from legendary director Stanley Kubrick. King, however, wasn’t too pleased with the film due to the many radical changes that Kubrick made to the story, including but not limited to an overall undermining of the main character Jack Torrance’s ‘everyman’ persona in favor of Jack Nicholson’s more unhinged characterization. This then led to King penning the script himself for a more faithful adaptation of the book via a 1997 miniseries, and in 2013, he released a follow-up novel, Doctor Sleep, which continued the story of Danny, the young son of Jack Torrance, as he matures into adulthood. But when it comes to this novel’s new film adaptation, it takes the bold route of trying to combine elements from both Stephen King’s Shining novels and Stanley Kubrick’s iconic yet not quite faithful film adaptation of the 1977 original. This daunting task goes to director Mike Flanagan, who’s become quite a notable horror director these past few years thanks to his work on projects like 2017’s Gerald’s Game (another Stephen King adaptation) and his critically acclaimed TV series adaptation of author Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House. And sure enough, Flanagan manages to land another big hit with Doctor Sleep, which aptly succeeds at being a natural follow-up to one of the most iconic horror films ever made without ever feeling like a direct carbon copy of what Stanley Kubrick managed to accomplish.

It has been nearly four decades since young Danny Torrance and his mother Wendy (Alex Essoe) managed to escape the devastation at the Overlook Hotel in Colorado caused by Danny’s father/Wendy’s husband Jack. Since then, Dan (Ewan McGregor) has struggled to cope with all the trauma that he endured from that incident to the point where he’s even fallen victim to the same drinking habits that his father had. In doing so, he’s also attempted to repress the psychic abilities that he’s had since he was a kid, which the late Dick Hallorann (Carl Lumbly), who also had these abilities, referred to as ‘The Shining’. Dan eventually ends up in the town of Frazier, New Hampshire, where he manages to secure a job as a hospice worker that allows him to use his powers for good. He also ends up meeting a young girl from Anniston, New Hampshire named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who’s also revealed to have the Shining. However, in the process, Abra and Dan end up attracting the attention of a cult known as the True Knot, led by the mysterious Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson), who feed on the essences of young children who have the Shining to maintain their youthful appearances. And through their initial interactions, Rose realizes that Abra might just be the most powerful psychic child that the True Knot has come across in quite some time. Thus, despite his reluctance to get involved in this situation, Dan teams up with Abra to protect her from the True Knot, and in the process, is even forced to finally start confronting the dark past that has haunted him his entire life.

Now, despite what I said earlier about how the film attempts to combine elements from both Stephen King and Stanley Kubrick’s versions of The Shining, it’s clear from the get-go that this adaptation of Doctor Sleep mainly takes inspiration from the latter. While this isn’t a case where the film just relies solely on Kubrick’s film at the expense of telling its own story, the imagery that Flanagan uses to address Dan Torrance’s past always comes from the 1980 film right down to some very impeccable recreations of its key moments. And while Flanagan doesn’t outright mirror Kubrick’s classic shooting style of long takes and wide shots, he and his long-time cinematographer Michael Fimognari do mimic that method in a few select sequences. In other words, not only does Doctor Sleep benefit from having some phenomenal cinematography, it also legitimately feels like the kind of follow-up that Kubrick would have done if he’d made this. The only major instance where the film’s connections to Kubrick’s Shining start to get a little problematic is its finale which, without spoiling anything, basically ends up becoming one big Shining callback after another. At the same time, though, the ending also allows for some nods to King’s version of The Shining, resulting in a unique hybrid of an adaptation that, at the end of the day, does end up honoring both incarnations of its predecessor in a respectful manner. Plus, even though the film boasts a hefty run-time that nearly rivals It: Chapter Two, its story is always a compelling one even with the slow-burn narrative that it consistently maintains.

Like many Stephen King works, Doctor Sleep is also very much a character-driven story, and in this instance, it all begins (and, in many cases, ends) with Dan Torrance. Stephen King has said that one of the main reasons why he wrote Doctor Sleep was because he was curious about what young Danny from The Shining would be like as an adult. As it turns out, Dan ends up becoming quite the tragic but overall sympathetic figure who’s just trying to move on from his traumatic past, and Ewan McGregor does a phenomenal job conveying all the emotional turmoil that Dan has been dealing with since his time at the Overlook Hotel. Newcomer Kyliegh Curry shows the same brilliant sense of commitment to her role as Abra, who could technically be described as this film’s equivalent of young Danny from The Shining given that both are precocious kids thanks to their Shining abilities. However, Curry does manage to differentiate herself from Danny Lloyd’s performance as Danny in Kubrick’s film in some very distinct ways, whether it’s due to her notably spunkier personality or something as simple as the fact that she’s a teenager whereas Danny was only five during the events of The Shining. Rebecca Ferguson, meanwhile, is terrific as the film’s main antagonist Rose the Hat, who brilliantly blurs the line between being manipulatively charismatic and chillingly menacing. This, in turn, helps to make her cult, the True Knot, a genuinely imposing threat right from the very beginning. And then, to close it all off, there’s some solid supporting turns from the likes of Cliff Curtis as Billy, a friendly Frazier local who ends up tagging along with Dan and Abra on their journey, and Carl Lumbly, who manages to be quite the spot-on successor to the late Scatman Crothers as Dick Hallorann.

As embarrassing as it might be for me to admit, it wasn’t until recently (e.g. the day before I went to go see this film) when I finally watched The Shining for the first time. As such, my overall thoughts on the film ultimately ended up falling in line with my thoughts towards John Carpenter’s Halloween. In other words, despite having seen it at a point where I’ve already witnessed plenty of films and TV shows that were either heavily inspired by it or have satirized it in some form, I could still appreciate all the masterful filmmaking that went into it. And even though we’re far removed from the time of Stanley Kubrick at this point, Doctor Sleep manages to be a worthy follow-up to the seminal classic that precedes it. Through this film, director Mike Flanagan crafts a highly compelling and character-driven supernatural thriller that thoroughly respects its predecessor while still being able to do its own thing. And while the film’s reliance on the imagery of Kubrick’s film does mean that this technically isn’t a note-for-note 100% faithful adaptation of its source material, its story and character beats end up being more in line with Stephen King’s original vision for The Shining. In other words, the best way to describe this adaptation of Doctor Sleep is that it’s a film that is done in the style of Stanley Kubrick but with Stephen King’s narrative sensibilities. Because of this, the film manages to do what some may have considered utterly impossible by bridging many of the narrative divergences that were caused by what is still quite possibly the most radically different interpretation of a Stephen King story. And while it clearly must’ve been an incredibly daunting task to try and do a follow-up to one of the most iconic horror films of all-time, Mike Flanagan handles all this immense pressure with ease and continues to prove why he’s one of the most revered horror directors as of late.

Rating: 4.5/5

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) review

The Terminator franchise has gone through quite a fascinating run over the years that has mainly been defined by its repeated yet ultimately unsuccessful attempts at kick-starting a full-fledged franchise. It all began, of course, with the original Terminator from 1984. This low-budget, noir-inspired sci-fi thriller went on to become a landmark entry in the sci-fi genre and effectively launched the legendary career of its director, James Cameron. Cameron would then return to the world of Terminator 7 years later with Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Judgment Day was a far bigger sequel in every sense of the word, and upon its release, it too became a critical and commercial success to the point where it’s often regarded as not only one of the finest films of its genre but also quite arguably a superior sequel to what was already a sci-fi masterpiece. However, this is where things start to get… complicated, since the ending of Terminator 2 was very much a conclusion to the story of the Connor family and their efforts to stop a self-aware artificial intelligence system from starting a nuclear war. And yet, a third Terminator film, Rise of the Machines, ended up getting made in 2003 without any involvement from James Cameron that straight-up retconned its predecessor’s ending. Despite this, however, the film managed to be a decent enough hit with both critics and audiences and ended up spawning its own sequel, Terminator Salvation, in 2009. However, in contrast to its immediate predecessor, Salvation was both a critical and commercial disappointment, most likely due in large part to the controversial decision to opt for a lighter PG-13 rating. To make matters worse, the film’s main production company, The Halcyon Company, ended up filing for bankruptcy two years later, effectively nixing any plans for a follow-up within the context of this current continuity.

Thus, the series ended up getting a major reboot in 2015 with Terminator Genisys. While the film would ignore the events of Terminator 3 and Salvation so that it’d be more in line with Cameron’s films, it would also make the bold move of setting up its own continuity by establishing an alternate timeline a la the 2009 reboot of Star Trek. But just like Salvation’s decision to be a PG-13 rated film, this alternate timeline plot did not go over well with fans of the franchise. This, along with other highly criticized aspects of the production that range from the second trailer’s reveal of its biggest plot twist to the widespread mockery of the ‘unique’ spelling of the Genisys subtitle, ultimately led to the film being yet another disappointment for both critics and audiences. And while the film wasn’t necessarily a commercial underperformer like Salvation (at least in terms of worldwide box-office since it didn’t do so well here in the U.S.), it was once again decided to cancel any follow-ups that would maintain its continuity. Thus, this brings us to what is now the third major attempt at continuing the franchise after Terminator 2, Terminator: Dark Fate. Like Genisys attempted to do before it, Dark Fate, directed by Tim Miller as his first directorial effort after the first Deadpool back in 2016, ignores the events of the most recent films in the franchise to be a clear-cut sequel to Terminator 2. And yet, perhaps this film’s biggest coup was securing the involvement of not only James Cameron as a writer/producer but also Linda Hamilton as the series’ iconic female lead, Sarah Connor. As a result, this does help the film succeed in several ways that the previous films didn’t despite being one of the most egregious examples in recent memory of ‘been there, done that’.

It was in 1995 that Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) and her son John managed to destroy all evidence of the artificial intelligence system known as Skynet to prevent it from wiping out over 3 billion lives via a nuclear holocaust on August 29th, 1997, a date that would’ve become known as ‘Judgment Day’. And yet, even after all these years, that hasn’t stopped Sarah from continuing her efforts to hunt down any of the machines known as Terminators that arrive from the future to eliminate those who stand in their way. Sure enough, in 2020, a young factory worker from Mexico City named Daniella ‘Dani’ Ramos (Natalia Reyes) finds herself being hunted by Rev-9 (Gabriel Luna), an advanced Terminator model who can separate itself into two autonomous units. At the same time, Grace (Mackenzie Davis), a cybernetically-enhanced soldier, is sent back in time from the year 2042 to protect her, with Sarah soon joining the fight as well. It is through Grace that Sarah and Dani learn that, despite the former’s successful destruction of Skynet, a new A.I. system known as Legion ended up taking its place as the catalyst for nuclear Armageddon. And just like how Skynet sent numerous Terminators back in time to kill their greatest enemy, John Connor, Dani is now Legion’s primary target due to her playing a pivotal role in the rise of the future human resistance. Thus, Sarah, Grace, Dani, and eventually an aging T-800 unit that goes by the name ‘Carl’ (Arnold Schwarzenegger) band together to combat what is easily the most dangerous adversary that any of them have ever faced before.

A lot has been said about why the last three Terminator films haven’t been as well-received as the first two, and it could be argued that this was primarily due to some of their ‘questionable’ ways of trying to continue the story. This includes everything from Terminator 3’s implication that the events of Terminator 2 only delayed the inevitable incident that was Judgment Day to Genisys’ decision to flat-out ignore the events of the first two Terminator films in favor of its new alternate timeline that turned John Connor into an antagonist. Dark Fate manages to avoid this, for the most part (aside from maybe one key moment at the very beginning that radically changes the franchise’s dynamic), by maintaining a ‘back to basics’ approach with its narrative. However, there is one notable downside to this since Dark Fate ends up having quite a lot in common with its predecessors when it comes to the plot. Granted, I’m usually not one to ding a film for being ‘derivative’ since I know that it’s hard to be ‘truly original’ nowadays, but Dark Fate literally has the exact same plot as most of the other films in this series save for Salvation and Genisys. A Terminator is sent back in time to kill a target who becomes a major threat to them in the future while another being (usually someone who’s either partially or fully cybernetic) is sent back as well to protect the target. At the very least, director Tim Miller always keeps things moving thanks to the film’s rapid pace even if that doesn’t allow for a lot of moments to take a breather… that and the finale ends up feeling a bit too overlong.  

Right from the moment that the film’s first promo image was released, it was made perfectly clear that Terminator: Dark Fate was primarily going to revolve around its trio of female leads, and sure enough, they’re arguably the best part of the film. Obviously, it all begins with Linda Hamilton’s heralded return to the franchise as Sarah Connor for the first time since Terminator 2 (or Terminator 2 3-D: Battle Across Time if you want to be specific). Prior to this, the character was unceremoniously killed off-screen in Terminator 3, reduced to a voice cameo in Salvation, and was recast twice, with Emilia Clarke taking on the role in Genisys and Lena Headey playing the character in the short-lived TV series The Sarah Connor Chronicles. But now the original Sarah Connor is back in triumphant fashion as Hamilton seamlessly slips back into the role with ease, once again finding that perfect mix of sardonic snark and devastating emotional pathos that defined her iconic turn in the role in Judgment Day. Meanwhile, Mackenzie Davis and Natalia Reyes are both excellent as well in what could best be described as this film’s ‘Kyle Reese’ and ‘Terminator 1 era Sarah Connor’, respectively. Davis’ Grace immediately establishes herself as a formidable action heroine while Reyes shines in what will surely be her breakout role thanks to her wonderful handling of Dani’s character arc where she transitions from an unassuming ‘nobody’ to a far more confident leader. But, of course, you can’t have a Terminator film without Arnold Schwarzenegger, and while he technically doesn’t show up until the second half of the film, Dark Fate does give him one of the most interesting characters he’s ever played in this series as we learn that this T-800 unit has a ‘very specific’ bit of history with Sarah. Finally, to close out the main cast, Agents of SHIELD breakout star Gabriel Luna also does an excellent job as the new main antagonist Rev-9. Like Grace and Dani before him, Rev-9 is admittedly best described as ‘this film’s T-1000’ given the many similarities that he shares with Robert Patrick’s iconic antagonist from Judgment Day. Still, Luna’s take on the character perfectly syncs up with the characterization that Patrick went with as the completely unassuming cybernetic being who could impeccably transition into his real identity as a stone-cold killer in the blink of an eye.

I’ll openly admit that I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Dark Fate going into it and that had a lot to do with my overall experience with the Terminator franchise. Obviously, I love the first two films just as much as everyone else, but at the same time, I’m not afraid to admit that I do like some of the sequels. I think that Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines isn’t as bad as it’s often put out to be, and as long-time visitors of this site may recall, I was one of the rare people who gave a genuinely positive review of Terminator Genisys back in 2015. Heck, it even managed to make my Top 10 that year. As such, there was legitimately a part of me that hoped that they would try to do a follow-up to Genisys but perhaps manage to secure the involvement of James Cameron (since he did go on record stating that he did like the film) so that it could be a lot better. Obviously, though, that didn’t end up being the case, and instead, Cameron and Tim Miller decided to truly take the series back to its roots, for better or worse. In other words, Terminator: Dark Fate does indeed feel like the legitimate follow-up to Terminator 2: Judgment Day in terms of both its story and action beats. However, with that said, the film is somewhat hindered by the fact that it arguably tries a bit too hard to be like Cameron’s Terminator films to the point where it straight-up rehashes their plots practically beat-for-beat. And yet, despite how much it stringently adheres to the franchise’s long-running formula, the triumphant return of Linda Hamilton in the role of Sarah Connor is ultimately enough to make Dark Fate one of the better entries of this series. Let’s just hope that if any of these supposed sequels that Cameron has been teasing end up getting made, they try to do something a little different next time.

Rating: 4/5

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) review

In 2014, Disney released their then-latest live-action remake of one of their animated classics, Maleficent. The film served as a reimagining of the studio’s 1959 film Sleeping Beauty, but as the title suggests, the focus was shifted from the titular ‘Sleeping Beauty’ AKA Princess Aurora to its iconic villainess, Maleficent. However, instead of just simply maintaining the character’s villainous nature from the original film, Maleficent ended up going a radically different route and turned the character into a tragic anti-hero whose actions served as an act of revenge against those who wronged her while also forming a genuine mother-daughter relationship with Aurora. As you might have guessed, this new characterization didn’t exactly go over well with everyone, thus contributing to the film’s overall mixed reception. And yet, that didn’t stop it from being a massive hit at the box-office where it grossed over $758 million worldwide, effectively continuing the financial hot streak of Disney’s live-action remakes. Thus, half a decade after the original’s release, the ‘Mistress of All Evil’ (and yes, I will use that title in this instance even though this version of the character isn’t a villain) is now back in a new film, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, albeit with a notable change in director. Whereas the first film served as the directorial debut of production designer Robert Stromberg, this film is directed by Joachim Rønning, who’s fresh off directing the fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film with long-time directing partner Espen Sandberg (though, to be clear, this one is Rønning only). And while Mistress of Evil does continue to go with its polarizing heroic rendition of its main character, those who were fans of the first film will find this to be yet another solidly entertaining dark fantasy all bolstered once again by Angelina Jolie’s truly excellent turn in the title role.

It has been five years since the powerful Dark Fey Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) saved Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning) from the death-like sleeping curse that she had inflicted upon her as a baby due in large part to the motherly affection that she had developed for the young Princess. Since then, Aurora has dutifully served as the ruler of Maleficent’s kingdom, the Moors, and on one faithful day, her dashing suitor Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson, taking over for Brenton Thwaites from the previous film) asks for her hand in marriage. Despite Maleficent’s objections over this due to her own past experiences with love, Aurora convinces her to travel to Phillip’s home, the Kingdom of Ulstead, and meet with his parents, King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer). However, this doesn’t end up going very well as Maleficent soon begins to feel threatened by Ingrith, especially after she claims that this union will result in her becoming the mother that Aurora ‘never had’. Thus, when Maleficent lashes out at this remark in a manner that seemingly curses King John into a perpetual sleep like she did with Aurora, she becomes vilified by Ingrith, who promptly begins to mount an all-out war against the Moors. During this time, Maleficent also ends up coming across other Dark Feys, led by the duo of Conall (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Borra (Ed Skrein), who find themselves in disagreement over this impending conflict. Whereas Borra is hellbent on wiping out humanity to save their kind, Conall believes that Maleficent’s the only one who can use her powers to unite the two sides.

One of the things that these Maleficent films have always excelled at is their phenomenal production design. Sure, just like practically every other recent live-action Disney remake of the past few years, they mainly utilize CG to craft their environment and the non-human creatures that inhabit it, but they still succeed immensely when it comes to bringing the truly unique fantasy world that they’ve created to life. Plus, when compared to the ‘arguably a bit too dark’ aesthetic of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (not counting its follow-up Alice Through the Looking Glass since it did, at least, brighten things up considerably), these two films manage to achieve a good mix between dark and atmospheric and bright and colorful. But just like the first film, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil stumbles a little when it comes to its story. While it does notably have the benefit of not having to adhere to any specific bit of source material since it obviously did the whole Sleeping Beauty arc in the previous film, everything here is still rather basic in terms of plot. But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this film is that there aren’t as many scenes with Maleficent and Aurora together, which I only bring up because the whole mother-daughter relationship between them was very much the heart of the first film. Thankfully, they aren’t separated for the whole film and the biggest scenes that directly involve the two of them are easily amongst its best moments. Plus, despite boasting a longer runtime than its predecessor (Mistress of Evil runs a little under two hours whereas the first was only an hour and a half long), the film still retains the solidly breezy pacing that served the first film nicely.

But, of course, the biggest highlight of these films is the continuously excellent work by Angelina Jolie in the title role. Even if you aren’t a fan of how these films eschew Maleficent’s villainous characterization from the original Sleeping Beauty, there’s no denying that Jolie perfectly nails the role in every possible way. She obviously has the look down, excellently maintains the character’s classic mannerisms, and in the context of these films, has a solid on-screen camaraderie with Elle Fanning that impeccably illustrates the strong relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. It is this relationship that has arguably made Fanning’s take on Aurora superior to her animated counterpart, and this is well-reflected in the sequel thanks to a noticeably matured turn from Fanning performance-wise. Another key returning player from the previous film is Sam Riley as Maleficent’s raven confidante Diaval, and while the character does get somewhat sidelined in the same way that the film doesn’t have a lot of scenes between Maleficent and Aurora, Riley still excels at making Diaval a fully endearing sidekick. Speaking of sidekicks, the film also makes the wise decision to downplay Aurora’s three pixie caretakers; Knotgrass (Imelda Staunton), Thistlewit (Juno Temple), and Flittle (Lesley Manville). In retrospect, I admit that I may have been a bit harsh on these three in my review of the original Maleficent back in 2014, but I still stand by what I said about how they ended up being one of the weaker aspects of that film due to them being portrayed as far ditsier than their animated counterparts. Sure, the trio of Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather had their silly moments (e.g. their squabble over the color of Aurora’s dress), but the first Maleficent arguably went a bit too far with their humor in its attempt to show that Maleficent was a far better caretaker for Aurora than they were. Thankfully, that’s not as big of an issue this time around because while these three do still maintain their bumbling personas, they don’t play as big of a role in the story this time.  

There is one notable change regarding the returning cast of characters, however, as Harris Dickinson takes over the role of Prince Phillip from Brenton Thwaites due to scheduling conflicts for the latter. Thankfully, this change doesn’t affect the film in any notable way as Dickinson has solid chemistry with Fanning and it also helps that Phillip has a larger role in the story this time (even if it’s still a generally minor supporting role) whereas Thwaites’ Phillip only appeared in two major scenes near the tail-end of the previous film. As for new characters, the biggest addition, of course, is Michelle Pfeiffer as Phillip’s mother and, subsequently, the film’s main antagonist, Queen Ingrith. And while it would’ve been nice to have some more scenes where Pfeiffer and Jolie interact with each other directly (if only for the opportunity to see more of these two iconic actresses together onscreen), Pfeiffer brings a great commanding presence to the role that fits nicely with the backstory and motivations that she’s given. Finally, closing out the new cast of characters is the duo of Chiwetel Ejiofor and Ed Skrein as Maleficent’s fellow Dark Feys Conall and Borra. Both are natural fits in their respective roles, with Ejiofor being the noble leader and Skrein being the fierce warrior. However, you may be surprised to learn that Ejiofor doesn’t factor into the film as much as its marketing may have implied to the point where Skrein arguably ends up having more screen-time than him.

As I’ve been alluding to throughout this review, the overall reception of these Maleficent films is primarily dependent on one’s views of their radically different portrayal of the title character. Thanks to her role in the original Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent has consistently been regarded as one of the greatest villains in a Disney animated film. In contrast to that, the Maleficent films make her the main character of the story and portray her in a generally more heroic manner. Thus, if you’re not a fan of this characterization, you’re better off sticking with the original Sleeping Beauty and various other bits of Disney media that maintain her villainous status; in fact, you’ll probably wonder why this sequel decided to go with the Mistress of Evil subtitle even though it isn’t an accurate descriptor for this iteration of the character. But for those who were fans of 2014’s Maleficent, you’ll be pleased to know that this film does continue to maintain many of the aspects that made its predecessor such a big hit with audiences. Its visual effects and production design are still second to none, Angelina Jolie continues to prove why she was born to play the title role, and it’s easy to appreciate these films’ commitment to their female-led narratives. The only major downside to this film is that it doesn’t provide as many heartwarming moments between Maleficent and Aurora as there were in the first film, which is why I admittedly wouldn’t call Mistress of Evil a ‘superior sequel’. Ultimately, though, this does not prevent the film from being yet another solid live-action outing from Disney.

Rating: 4/5