Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) review

2017’s Wonder Woman doesn’t always get the credit that it deserves from the DC Extended Universe fandom for everything that it did for the franchise. At a time where most DCEU films were utterly savaged by critics, Wonder Woman was the franchise’s first genuinely well-received outing. In fact, it still stands as the best-reviewed DCEU film to date with a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and while certain parts of the DCEU fandom will feverishly try to deny it, the reason why it succeeded where films like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice didn’t was because it was very much the antithesis of the early DCEU films. Instead of being an overly dour and overstuffed superhero epic, Wonder Woman was a predominately lighthearted but still emotionally powerful superhero adventure that was fully bolstered by Gal Gadot’s fantastic performance in the title role. Sure, she had already made a great impression when she made her franchise debut in Batman v Superman but it wasn’t until her solo film when she was truly given the chance to shine in a film that fully understood the importance of character and story. Ultimately, though, much of what made the film work was thanks to its director, Patty Jenkins, who made history as the first female director of a superhero feature from a major studio. Thus, Jenkins was wisely brought back to helm a sequel, which takes Princess Diana of Themyscira from the trenches of World War I to the more high-tech landscape of the 80’s, hence the title Wonder Woman 1984. And while it ended up facing the same unfortunate struggles that other blockbusters have faced thanks to COVID (i.e. getting delayed multiple times), WW84 has finally managed to see the light of day via a simultaneous theatrical and streaming release that allows those who are unable to see it in theaters to watch it at home via Warner Bros.’ streaming service, HBO Max. But no matter where it’s seen, Wonder Woman 1984 is another top-notch outing from Patty Jenkins that, just like its predecessor, is a prime example of the DC Extended Universe at its best which, given all the franchise’s early struggles, is very much a good thing.

It is 1984, and in the bustling metropolis of Washington D.C., Amazonian demigoddess Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) continues to operate as Wonder Woman, albeit in a relatively secretive manner that doesn’t conflict with her public persona as an anthropologist working at the Smithsonian. One day, Diana and her coworker Barbara Minerva (Kristen Wiig) come across a mysterious artifact known as the ‘Dreamstone’ that can grant those who find it the one wish that they desire the most. And sure enough, Diana and Barbara both end up inadvertently utilizing the Dreamstone’s abilities. Whereas the introverted Barbara wishes to become as strong and confident as Diana, Diana’s greatest desire results in the return of the love of her life, pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), who had heroically sacrificed himself during the events of the first film. Unfortunately, these life changing developments are soon upended by the arrival of a new threat in businessman Maxwell Lord (Pedro Pascal), who seeks out the Dreamstone so that he can become the powerful figure that he’s always dreamt of being. In doing so, Lord ends up becoming the physical embodiment of the Dreamstone, thus allowing him to grant anyone’s wish and take whatever he wants from them in return. Naturally, this results in an endless array of conflicts that span the entire world, resulting in Diana and Steve embarking on a quest to stop Lord from going overboard with power and destroying the world in the process. And as Diana, Barbara, and Max all soon discover, their greatest desires come with even greater consequences.

 

If there’s one thing that can be said about this film, it’s that the 1984 part of its title is a 100% accurate indicator of what it truly is. Wonder Woman 1984 may be a modern blockbuster, but in execution, it is the spitting image of an 80’s film from the intentionally gaudy but still incredibly vibrant color palette that it sports to the overly extravagant outfits that the characters wear (e.g. Chris Pine in parachute pants… need I say more?). This is also reflected by the film’s primarily lighthearted tone which is then matched by its unabashedly old-school superhero plot with clear-cut heroes and villains. And while those two aspects of the film have admittedly been a major source of contention amongst critics and audiences, I’d say that they’re the key reason why it works as well as it does. In other words, while some may find this film to be overly goofy and cliché, it could very well be argued that it perfectly encapsulates what most of the films and TV shows from the 80’s were like from a tonal perspective. It should also go without saying that Patty Jenkins excellently maintains the same strong atmosphere that made the first Wonder Woman film such a hit, resulting in a highly entertaining homage to classic 80’s adventure flicks that’s full of great bits of humor that never overshadow the story’s powerful emotional beats. And just like the first film, Wonder Woman 1984 also boasts a lot of great action sequences and a suitably epic score. Whereas the first film’s score was done by Hans Zimmer protégé Rupert Gregson-Williams, this film’s score was done by Zimmer himself who, of course, was largely responsible for bringing the title character’s iconic theme to life in Batman v Superman.

 

It’s been well-documented at this point that Gal Gadot has basically been the DC Extended Universe’s MVP as far as its ensemble cast is concerned. As Wonder Woman, she has consistently established herself as a wholly charismatic leading lady and an indisputably badass action heroine, and sure enough, all this is once again reinforced by this film. Here, she trades in the innocent fish out of water character arc that she went through in the first film for one where, despite being emotionally hardened by everything that’s happened to her since she left Themiscyra, she’s still very much the kind-hearted heroine that we know and love. As for the heavily talked-about return of her long lost love Steve Trevor, the film’s handling of this plot-line feels like a natural way of doing the ‘resurrection’ concept that has always been common in the world of comics. And just like the first film, Chris Pine does a great job of being just as charismatic as Gadot without ever overshadowing Diana’s status as the main protagonist. This then brings us to the film’s main antagonists, and if there’s one advantage that Wonder Woman 1984 has over its predecessor, it’s that it has much stronger villains. It all starts with Pedro Pascal, who is delightfully over-the-top as the charismatic con-man Maxwell Lord while still managing to make him a surprisingly sympathetic tragic figure. This also applies to the other antagonist of the feature, Kristen Wiig’s Barbara, who gradually evolves from a meek introvert into the “apex predator” that is Wonder Woman’s classic foe from the comics, Cheetah. And while her final transformation may be a bit lacking visually, Wiig does an outstanding job at being Diana’s foil since her wish to become just like her comes at the cost of the good-natured and all-around sociable personality that she had before she used the Dreamstone..

 

I won’t be going over what I’m about to mention too much as I finish up this review, but I will say that I find it fascinating that a film that was shaping up to be one of the best-reviewed films of 2020 about a week ago… has suddenly become one of the year’s most polarizing releases. Yes, Wonder Woman 1984 has attracted some, to put it as nicely as I can, intense reactions from both critics and audiences. Basically, from what I can gather, it’s gotten a lot of flak for its light-hearted tone to the point where it’s been accused of being way too goofy instead of being a more serious and darker sequel. And yet, as I noted earlier, I’d say that this makes it a perfect representation of the era in history in which it’s set; plus, as I’m sure that I’ve made it clear at this point, I tend to prefer the superhero films that aren’t trying to distance themselves from the medium’s typically lighthearted proceedings. Case in point, Wonder Woman 1984 is a highly entertaining addition to the genre that, just like its predecessor, is fully bolstered by its terrific ensemble cast and Patty Jenkins’ excellent direction. In short, it’s another example as to why the DC Extended Universe has been a lot better than how it was when it was first starting out when it remembers that, when it comes to this genre, strong characters and a good story are always more important than whatever ‘cool’ action sequences those characters partake in. Simply put, no one does DCEU films quite like Patty Jenkins, and if you ask me, it’s about damn time that the DCEU fandom gives her the credit that she deserves for all that she’s done for the franchise.

 

Rating: 5/5!

The Prom (2020) review (Netflix)

 

On November 15^th, 2018, a new musical titled The Prom officially opened on Broadway at the Longacre Theatre. With music by Matthew Sklar, lyrics by Chad Beguelin, and a script by Beguelin and Bob Martin based off an original concept by Jack Viertel, The Prom tells the story of a young lesbian student who is banned from attending her high-school prom but is helped in her efforts to fight back against this ruling by a group of Broadway stars. The musical was largely inspired by a similar incident that happened to Constance McMillen in 2010 when she was a senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi, which attracted a bunch of supportive responses from celebrities. And upon its debut, the show proved to be a solid hit with critics. It was the first musical of that Broadway season to earn a Critics Pick honor from the New York Times, and while it didn’t win any Tony Awards, it earned 7 nominations including one for Best Musical. It also attracted plenty of attention at the 2018 Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade when stars Caitlin Kinnunen and Isabelle McCalla partook in the first LGBTQ kiss in the parade’s history. And now, in 2020, it’s been brought to life on film in a star-studded adaptation directed by Ryan Murphy. While it’s only his fourth feature-length directorial effort, Murphy has been touted as one of the most prominent creative forces in television having created hit shows like Glee and American Horror Story while also being a champion for the cause of greater inclusion within the film and television industry. The Prom serves as one of the first major projects that Murphy has developed for Netflix via the lucrative $300 million deal that they signed him to in 2018, and with a delightful cast and a great execution of its source material’s timely themes, we have ourselves a truly heartwarming musical extravaganza.  

In the conservative-minded town of Edgewater, Indiana, high-school student Emma Nolan (Jo Ellen Pellman) finds herself in an utterly devastating situation when her desire to attend her high-school prom with her girlfriend Alyssa Greene (Ariana DeBose) results in the local Parent-Teacher Association canceling it entirely, thus turning her into a full-blown social pariah. And if that wasn’t enough, the head of the PTA happens to be Alyssa’s mother (Kerry Washington), who is completely unaware of her daughter’s relationship with Emma. However, when all seems lost, Emma finds herself blessed with the most unexpected showing of support in the form of a quartet of actors from Broadway; specifically, self-centered stars Dee Dee Allen (Meryl Streep) and Barry Glickman (James Corden), long-time chorus girl Angie Dickinson (Nicole Kidman), and Julliard alum Trent Oliver (Andrew Rannells). In the immediate wake of a disastrous opening night for their latest Broadway production that results in them being labeled as a pair of narcissists by various critics, Dee Dee and Barry learn of Emma’s predicament and, along with Angie and Trent, decide to head to Edgewater on her behalf. But while they’re initially in it solely for the intent of salvaging their reputations by partaking in ‘a cause’, the group genuinely begins to bond with Emma and, with the help of her highly supportive principal Mr. Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key), begin working tirelessly to make her prom dreams come true.  

Right off the bat, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it truly delivers on its strong themes that couldn’t be any more relevant given everything that’s been happening in the world recently. Obviously, one’s thoughts on how effective content like this is in highlighting the LGBTQ community may vary, but in this instance, I do believe that The Prom (which I would personally describe as a ‘modern-day version of Footloose’) is very much genuine in its themes of love and acceptance. And when paired with a filmmaker like Ryan Murphy who, as noted earlier, is big on inclusion, you get an adaptation that hits all the right emotional beats from the cathartically heartwarming to the utterly devastating. Admittedly, I can’t say much about how effective the film is as an adaptation of the musical since I haven’t seen the latter, but aside from expanding upon some plotlines such as Barry Glickman’s own struggles as a gay man and how it impacted his relationship with his parents, it seems like the film is as faithful to its source material as it could possibly be. Sure, it probably could’ve benefitted from some tighter editing here and there to make up for any parts of the film that start to drag a bit, but as a musical, it goes without saying that this is where The Prom shines the most. Matthew Sklar and Chad Beguelin’s songs are undeniable earworms and are a great mix of grand showstoppers and emotionally powerful melodies. And under Ryan Murphy’s solid direction, we get a film that, simply put, is just a highly entertaining musical comedy anchored by its lovable bunch of main protagonists.

That said, though, while the film does sport a star-studded ensemble cast, said cast has admittedly garnered some controversy from fans of the musical over the decision to have A-listers play the lead roles rather than Broadway stars. There are some Broadway alumni in this, to be fair, such as Andrew Rannells and Ariana DeBose, but it’s primarily headlined by those who have more experience in film than they do in theater. Still, for what it’s worth, practically everyone involved is clearly having a lot of fun in their respective roles. Whether it’s Meryl Streep being her usual scene-stealing self or Keegan-Michael Key serving as the straight man to all the shenanigans that the Broadway stars get into, you can’t fault this film for having an incredibly fun ensemble. However, when it comes to the film’s biggest standout, that honor goes to its biggest newcomer, Jo Ellen Pellman. It is almost entirely because of her that we care about Emma and her endeavors because she makes her a wholly sympathetic heroine right off the bat. In other words, she’s very much the heart of the film. But now we must address the elephant in the room that is the biggest source of controversy that this film has been attracting in the wake of its release; the casting of James Corden as the gay leading man of Broadway, Barry Glickman. Simply put, unlike Barry, Corden is not a gay man whereas the other LGBTQ characters in this story are more accurately cast (ironically, one of Corden’s main co-stars is Andrew Rannells and he’s playing a character whose sexuality is never made explicit). Now I’m not going to get into this whole situation that much since, as I’ve noted in the past, I usually don’t like to talk about sociopolitical matters such as this in these reviews. So instead, I’ll just say that while I’m not defending Corden’s performance in this, I’d argue that the rest of the cast makes up for any shortcomings that directly stem from him. Was he the ideal pick for the part? No, not at all, but at the same time, I also wouldn’t call this a case where his performance derails the film entirely even though Barry is arguably the most prominently featured member of the Broadway quartet.

I’ll admit that I don’t have a lot of experience with the world of Broadway, which could largely be attributed to the fact that I don’t live in New York where, at least before COVID became a thing, I would have a lot more opportunities to see Broadway shows regularly rather than just occasionally seeing a touring production of a popular show at my local theatres. And yet, as some of the past reviews that I’ve done for this site have arguably proven, I’m a big fan of the musical genre and have liked a fair share of adaptations of Broadway musicals such as the ever-enduring classic Grease and Tim Burton’s delightfully twisted take on Sweeney Todd. As such, it should probably go without saying that I thoroughly enjoyed the film adaptation of The Prom. While I admittedly haven’t seen the original show at the time of this review’s publication, the fact that all three of the key figures behind it (Matthew Sklar, Chad Beguelin, and Bob Martin) were involved in the film’s production makes it clear that this adaptation was in the right hands, and because of this, The Prom is the very definition of a feel-good film. With powerful themes, undeniably catchy tunes, and a great cast, The Prom is a film that very much wears its heart on its sleeve. I mean, there’s really nothing more that I can say about this film other than the fact that it’s a highly entertaining musical that excellently represents the wonderfully diverse nature of our ever-expanding pop cultural landscape. And to be perfectly blunt, folks, in the utterly terrible year that has been 2020, I’d argue that this is one of the best examples of a film that I can easily recommend to anyone out there who’s in desperate need of a pick-me-up.  

Rating: 5/5!

Freaky (2020) review

Much has been said about how the horror genre has been experiencing a major resurgence over the past few years, especially when it comes to those who have helped make it happen. Filmmakers like Jordan Peele, Mike Flanagan and Ari Aster have been responsible for some of the most critically acclaimed horror projects in recent memory, from Peele’s Get Out (which won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay) to Flanagan’s TV series adaptation of Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House. However, if there’s one filmmaker who has largely flown under the radar when it comes to their noteworthy contributions to the genre, that would be Christopher Landon. While Landon has been involved in the film industry since the mid-’90s, he truly got his big break in the 2010s when he started working for what has arguably been the horror genre’s most prominent studio of the past decade, Blumhouse Productions. There, he penned the screenplays for the second, third, and fourth installments of the studio’s massively successful Paranormal Activity franchise, which then led to him directing the fifth film in the series, 2014’s Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. However, his biggest hit with Blumhouse would come in 2017 when he directed Happy Death Day, a horror-themed spin on ‘time loop’ stories such as Groundhog Day and Edge of Tomorrow in which a college student is killed on her birthday and finds herself reliving the same day until she finds out who her killer is. Bolstered by its status as an online viral sensation, the film was a major commercial hit and was also generally well-received by critics. It was then followed by an equally successful sequel in 2019, Happy Death Day 2U, and a third film is currently in the works. But until then, Landon has crafted another horror film based around a non-horror concept (in this case, a body-swap comedy inspired by Mary Rogers’ 1972 novel Freaky Friday) with Freaky, in which a teenaged girl finds herself switching bodies with a notorious serial killer. And with a pair of great performances from its two leads, Freaky proves to be another smash hit from both its director and its studio.

In the town of Blissfield, Millie Kessler (Kathryn Newton) is your average teenager who’s just trying to deal with the daily struggles of high school. It’s also been a year since the death of her father, which has led to her having strained relationships with both her mother Paula (Katie Finneran), who’s resorted to daily bouts of drinking ever since, and her older sister Charlene (Dana Drori), a local police officer. And if that wasn’t enough, Blissfield is soon threatened by the return of a notorious serial killer known as the Blissfield Butcher (Vince Vaughn), who was long considered to be nothing more than an urban legend. Millie ends up running into the Butcher one night after her high school’s homecoming football game, and while she does manage to survive this ordeal, she quickly learns that this will not be the end of her troubles. Since the Butcher used an ancient Aztec dagger known as La Dola when he tried to kill her, it causes the two of them to switch places, with Millie ending up in the Butcher’s body and the Butcher in hers. And despite the initial struggles that he faces in adapting to his new body, the Butcher immediately sets off on a new killing spree, with Millie’s classmates at the top of his list. Thus, with only 24 hours to switch her and the Butcher back to their original bodies, Millie and her best friends Nyla (Celeste O’Connor) and Josh (Misha Osherovich) find themselves in a race against time to retrieve La Dola and use it on the Butcher before Millie’s stuck in the Butcher’s body forever, especially since his identity has now been made public.

Just like the Happy Death Day films, Freaky fully relishes in being a horror-themed spin on its traditionally non-horror premise. Despite a bit of a slow start, the film then proceeds to produce a lot of great humor which, naturally, stems from all the hi-jinx that ensues from the main protagonist trying to adjust to her new body. With that said, this film very much belongs to Vince Vaughn, who’s utterly fantastic in the role of a teenaged girl trapped in a middle-aged man’s body. But while she doesn’t get to work with the film’s comedy as much as Vaughn does since she’s primarily playing the killer in the main protagonist’s body, Kathryn Newton is just as excellent whether she’s playing the sinister antagonist or the sympathetic protagonist. On that note, another thing that director Christopher Landon has been incredibly successful at when it comes to his recent films is his ability to craft some highly effective moments of emotional poignancy. In the case of Happy Death Day, it was by way of the arc that main protagonist Tree Gelbman went through after initially starting out as an utterly shallow ‘mean girl’. Freaky takes this in a slightly different direction by having Millie be a wholly endearing heroine from the start though, like Tree, her character arc also revolves around a strained relationship with her family members. Plus, whereas the Happy Death Day films were under the limits of the wider-appealing PG-13 rating (to be clear, though, that’s not a bad thing in their case…), Freaky is very much an R-rated affair and fans of the genre will be pleased to know that it features some delightfully crazy kills. And so, because of all this, Freaky is a solidly entertaining horror flick that’s fully bolstered by Vince Vaughn and Kathryn Newton’s phenomenal performances in the lead roles, and while he may not necessarily be a household name yet as far as the horror genre is concerned, it’s nice to see that Christopher Landon has arguably found his niche within it.

Rating: 4/5

Mank (2020) review

 

While it has admittedly been more than half a decade since his last film, Gone Girl, came out in 2014, the arrival of a new David Fincher feature is always guaranteed to be a big deal for the film fan community. After all, that’s simply what’s to be expected when you’re talking about a filmmaker who’s been responsible for some of the most critically acclaimed films of the past few decades such as Fight Club, Se7en, and The Social Network. But as for his newest feature, Mank, Fincher has a considerably personal connection to this screenplay since it was written by none other than his father, Jack Fincher. A biopic that explores screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz’s experiences while developing the screenplay for Orson Welles’ 1941 feature Citizen Kane (AKA the film that is widely regarded as the ‘greatest film ever made’), David Fincher had originally planned on making it after finishing his work on 1997’s The Game. Unfortunately, those initial plans (which would’ve starred Kevin Spacey (pre-scandal, of course…) as Mankiewicz and Jodie Foster as Hollywood starlet Marion Davies) weren’t able to come to fruition due to Polygram, the studio that Fincher worked with on The Game, being uneasy about his intent to shoot the film in black-and-white. And if that weren’t enough, Jack Fincher sadly wouldn’t live to see his script get made as he died on April 10^th, 2003 after a yearlong bout with cancer. But now, fresh off his work on the second season of the crime thriller series Mindhunter, David Fincher has finally brought his father’s magnum opus to life as the latest Netflix original release. Simply put, it’s a film that will certainly attract some major attention during awards season; granted, I don’t think that it’s Fincher’s ‘best’ film, but at the same time, it gives you everything that you’ve come to expect from one of the industry’s most revered filmmakers.

The year is 1940 and prestigious screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) has just begun working on his next project. Despite recently suffering a leg injury in a car crash that leaves him almost entirely bedridden, he is approached by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write the screenplay for his first feature film with RKO Pictures, who have given him full creative control over the project. Due to his injury, Mankiewicz is brought to a secluded ranch in Victorville, California where he can both rest up and write the screenplay at a location that thoroughly bans alcohol, which is an important thing for Mankiewicz since he regularly suffers from an addiction to it. Despite this, however, Mankiewicz soon finds himself slipping back into his old habits, which is a problem that both Welles’ producer John Houseman (Sam Troughton) and Mankiewicz’s secretary Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) must deal with. And to make matters worse, Mankiewicz then becomes embroiled in some major scandals over the content in the screenplay (namely, the potentially hostile reactions from those who the characters are ostensibly modeled after), which gets to the point where he and Welles get into some heated arguments over who should receive the screenwriting credit. While all this is going on, the film also delves into some key moments from Mankiewicz’s past such as the conflict of integrity that emerged between him and his superiors at MGM, founder Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and executive Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley) over their substantial involvement in the 1934 election for the Governor of California. And then, of course, there’s also the matter of his tense relationship with the country’s most prominent media tycoon, William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), for whom the main character of Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane, is clearly based on.

As I noted back in the intro, Fincher’s insistence on shooting this film in black-and-white to honor Citizen Kane’s cinematography was the main reason why he was never able to get it made when he originally wanted to. Now that the film has finally come out, it’s safe to say that this goal of his was completely worth it in the end because this film’s cinematography (done by Erik Messerschmidt, who worked with Fincher on Mindhunter) is fantastic. The film’s amazing technical merits don’t stop there, however, as Fincher and his team go above and beyond to make it look and feel like a classic 40’s picture. Whether it’s the frequent appearances of film projection cue marks (or, as another Fincher film called them, ‘cigarette burns’) or Fincher’s go-to composers, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, creating a more classical score rather than their usual electronic pieces, Mank is a figurative and literal ‘period piece’. And overall, a lot of this does make up for some of the film’s narrative shortcomings; namely, the fact that its proceedings can often feel a bit dry. It is worth noting that the film’s plot is largely inspired by one of the most controversial pieces in the history of film criticism, Raising Kane, a 1971 essay written by Pauline Kael that argued that Herman J. Mankiewicz was solely responsible for Citizen Kane’s script. However, Kael’s arguments have since been discredited by several sources, and to this film’s credit, Fincher and producer Eric Roth did make some changes to his dad’s script so that it doesn’t completely vilify Orson Welles. Still, because the film focuses so much on Mankiewicz’s efforts to write the script, it feels like we’re not getting the whole story behind everything that went into the film’s inception, like how the lives of folks like William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies were impacted by them being the inspiration for the film’s characters.

Granted, it goes without saying that this is not a film about the making of Citizen Kane. Instead, it’s about the man who went through hell and high water to bring Orson Welles’ masterpiece to life, and with that in mind, the film does get its points across on everything that ultimately made Herman J. Mankiewicz a tragic figure. But because of the lack of some key bits of context regarding Citizen Kane’s impact, some of the film’s messages end up feeling rather muddled since they aren’t quite fully articulated. That said, though, I will give the film credit in that one of its key subplots in which Mankiewicz uncovers a conspiracy where his superiors are filming bits of propaganda to hinder their political opponent… is scarily relevant. And, of course, Mank’s biggest selling point is that it’s very much an ‘actor’s showcase’ feature headlined by Gary Oldman who, as to be expected, is outstanding in the title role as he brilliantly encapsulates Mankiewicz’s persona as someone who can be both the smartest person in the room and one whose life and reputation ends up being tragically undone by his raging alcoholism. He’s then backed by a pair of excellent performances from Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins as the film’s female leads, Marion Davies and Rita Alexander. While the film largely focuses on Mankiewicz, both Seyfried and Collins manage to hold their own against Oldman, namely by being some of the only people who can reasonably put up with Mankiewicz’s drunken antics. After that, there are plenty of strong performances from the rest of the film’s supporting cast, including Arliss Howard as the conniving Louis B. Mayer and Tom Pelphrey as Mankiewicz’s more level-headed brother Joseph. Finally, while he’s not in the film that much (which ties into the issue of the film not properly elaborating on Hearst’s influence on Citizen Kane), Charles Dance makes the most of his limited screen-time as the emotionally composed but utterly imposing media tycoon.

Now despite some of the things that I’ve said in this review, I want to make it clear that I don’t ‘dislike’ this film. David Fincher’s Mank is a well-directed and terrifically acted biopic that thoroughly succeeds in being an earnest but not overly sentimental tribute to classic Hollywood. On the surface, it’s easy to see what this film is primarily trying to do; namely, honoring the legacy of Herman J. Mankiewicz, a man who, despite his many flaws, was clearly ahead of his time as a writer. However, as noble as its intentions are, the film doesn’t exactly do the story behind the conception of the ‘greatest film of all-time’ justice. Overall, it feels like an incomplete retelling of this important moment in cinematic history since it’s almost entirely focused on Mankiewicz’s side of the story. And while it does boast some good messages such as the importance of integrity and giving credit where credit’s due, the lack of proper subtext results in the impact of these themes not being as effective as the film wants them to be to the point where the whole film ends up being emotionally empty. It’s not a dull watch, by any means, but despite how fully admirable it is that David Fincher wanted to stay as true to his dad’s original script as he possibly could, it really could’ve benefitted from some additional rewrites (and not just the edits made by Fincher and Eric Roth that I mentioned earlier). Still, while its dry proceedings may prove to be a bit much for casual viewers, Mank is a wholly impressive technical achievement that feels like it was lifted directly from the cinematic era in which it takes place. For fans of David Fincher, this is obviously an absolute must-watch as it dutifully upholds his distinguished track record as a director despite its flaws. At the same time, though, those flaws are the main reason why I wouldn’t necessarily call this one of the best films of the year.

Rating: 4/5

Austin Powers Trilogy Retrospective

Thanks to the continuing devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, practically every major blockbuster that was set to come out this year (apart from Tenet and Mulan) has been pushed back to 2021. This includes what was quite arguably the first big release to get pushed back once COVID rolled around, No Time to Die, the 25^th installment of the James Bond franchise and, by all accounts, Daniel Craig’s final foray as 007. Originally set for an April 2020 release, it was pushed back to this month… but was then pushed back again and is now set to come out a full year after its pre-COVID intended release. But to make up for the absence of what is arguably the most prominent spy franchise in all of pop culture, today I decided that it’d be fun to look at a franchise that was greatly inspired by James Bond. Yes, folks, today we’re talking about the grooviest of franchises, baby, the Austin Powers films. There have been several works that have parodied the James Bond franchise over the years such as the Johnny English trilogy and even some of the unofficial Bond films like 1967’s Casino Royale (obviously not to be confused with Daniel Craig’s first outing as James Bond from 2006). And yet, there are arguably none that are more prominent than the adventures of the spy whose mojo is wholly unmatched, Austin Powers. The series, created by SNL alum Mike Myers, largely parodies the Bond films of the 60’s while also paying homage to the various bits of ’60s and 70’s British pop culture that Myers was raised on thanks to his dad. Myers, of course, headlines the franchise as the titular Austin Powers but also portrays several of the villains that he contends with, including his arch-nemesis, Dr. Evil. Three Austin Powers films were released from 1997 to 2002, and while the critical reception towards them was generally varied, they were all huge hits financially. And while nothing’s been set in stone yet, Myers and series director Jay Roach have frequently hinted at the possibility of a fourth film. Until then, get ready to live dangerously as we look at the James Bond franchise’s most famous spoof, the Austin Powers trilogy. Yeah baby!!!

AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY (1997)

The film that started it all for this franchise, 1997’s Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, is exactly that, a franchise starter. It does its job of setting up many of the franchise’s most definitive aspects that were then promptly expanded upon in the sequels. Overall, though, this film is mostly just… average. As a Bond fan, I do appreciate all the comedic riffs on the franchise, such as its take on the cliché of the villain putting the main protagonist in an “easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death”. But as far as the humor is concerned, this film can admittedly be hit-or-miss when it comes to its jokes. Part of this can be attributed to the main character himself, Austin Powers. He does have some standout moments here and there, but at the end of the day, I think many would agree that he’s not the main reason why these films were such a hit. Instead, that honor goes to Mike Myers’ other lead character from this franchise, Dr. Evil, a character who’s just as delightfully sinister as he is hilariously dorky. Any of the scenes in which he interacts with his associates, whether it’s his allies such as Number 2 (Robert Wagner) and Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling) or his emotionally distant son Scott (Seth Green) are easily the best parts of the film and they do make up for any of its lesser moments. Still, like I said before, this first Austin Powers film is only ‘okay’. I’ll admit that, from a personal perspective, this is probably because I’m not really part of the generation that ‘grew up’ with this series nor am I that familiar with classic British pop culture aside from the Connery-era Bond films. Case in point, my recent viewing of this film was the first time that I ever watched it in full. As such, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it’s a decently entertaining spoof of the James Bond franchise but there’s not much else to it aside from that.

Rating: 3.5/5

AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME (1999)

The best way to describe the second Austin Powers film, The Spy Who Shagged Me, is that it appropriately mirrors the evolution that the James Bond franchise went through after Dr. No. You see, as much as Dr. No is responsible for kick-starting 007’s cinematic adventures, newcomers to the franchise may be surprised to learn that it doesn’t feature some of the most common elements of a Bond film (e.g. a proper opening titles song, getting gadgets from Q, etc.). Instead, it was its immediate follow-ups, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger, that were largely responsible for incorporating many of the things that made the franchise a cultural phenomenon. And sure enough, the same can be said about The Spy Who Shagged Me as it introduces some of the most standout parts of the trilogy that weren’t in the first film, highlighted, of course, by the introduction of Verne Troyer as Dr. Evil’s clone, Mini-Me. With all that in mind, The Spy Who Shagged Me is a superior follow-up to the original film in several ways. Whereas the original’s heavily improv-based comedy resulted in a film that often felt quite aimless, this one opts for a more traditional plot complete with a time-travel concept that, in an utterly hilarious manner, is something that not even the film tries to take too seriously. And because of this, the humor is a lot more consistent this time around to the point where many of Austin Powers’ bits are just as hilarious as the ones with Dr. Evil and company, which is a huge step-up from the previous film. Sure, it may not be as focused on being a Bond spoof as its predecessor was, but it certainly one-ups it when it comes to having a stronger sense of humor. As such, it’s easy to see why this one is often considered to be the definitive Austin Powers film, especially since it is the highest-grossing entry of the trilogy having grossed over $312 million worldwide. While International Man of Mystery was a solidly entertaining Bond spoof, its gags were largely hit-or-miss. By comparison, The Spy Who Shagged Me is a bona fide comedic riot throughout and is the very definition of a better-made and all-around superior sequel.

Rating: 4.5/5

AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER (2002)

Boasting the largest budget of any film in the trilogy with $63 million, Austin Powers in Goldmember is very much the ‘blockbuster’ of the trilogy as it’s a film that fully embraces its franchise’s popularity any chance that it gets. But while it was a smash hit financially like The Spy Who Shagged Me and wasn’t outright panned or anything, it seems like most Austin Powers fans tend to ignore this one and there’s one easily discernable reason why. As far as these films are concerned, Goldmember is a blatant case of ‘been there, done that’ as it rehashes practically all the biggest gags from the previous two films. It’s also worth noting that, at this point, the series is more focused on satirizing pop culture in general rather than being a Bond spoof. And so, because of all this, the film is ultimately more on par with the generally hit-or-miss International Man of Mystery than it is with the consistently funny Spy Who Shagged Me even though it is following many of the same beats that worked so well for the latter. Now, in the film’s defense, this doesn’t mean that its humor is non-existent or anything because there are some solid gags such as the sight of an in-universe Austin Powers film directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise in the titular role or the scene in which Austin keeps misreading subtitles. Plus, the film also brings in Michael Caine, who’s great as always in the role of Austin’s equally suave father Nigel. Overall, though, Goldmember ends up being a considerable step down in quality in the wake of The Spy Who Shagged Me. And since International Man of Mystery was, at the very least, not the latest installment of an ongoing series, that means that Goldmember basically ends up being the worst installment of the trilogy by default because of how shamelessly routine it is. Again, this doesn’t mean that I think that it’s downright terrible, but at the same time, if that potential fourth Austin Powers film ends up getting made, Myers and company are going to need to shake things up considerably so that it doesn’t end up feeling like an outdated revival of a popular franchise from the 90’s.

Rating: 2.5/5

And that concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective of the Austin Powers trilogy. As I noted earlier, while I’m technically part of the generation that grew up with these films, this was the first time that I ever watched them. So, with that in mind, for those who have obviously watched these films a lot more often than I have, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of this franchise. Until then, thanks for following along and to paraphrase the man himself, remember to stay groovy, baby!

The New Mutants (2020) review

 

Over the years, there have been numerous instances where a film had to be pushed back from its originally intended release date. The reasons for this can often vary from film to film and range from scenarios such as the need for reshoots after poor test screenings or, on a more somber note, circumstances caused by outside forces that are completely beyond their control like, say, a global pandemic. But while this is often a natural thing for films to go through, today’s film, The New Mutants, is quite possibly one of the most infamous films in recent memory if only because of how utterly long it took for it to get released. To put all this into perspective, the latest installment of the X-Men franchise was filmed in the summer of 2017 and was originally set to come out on April 13^th, 2018. It ultimately came out… on August 26^th, 2020. How did this happen, you ask? Well, when its first delay was announced, it was reported that the film was set to undergo some reshoots that would allow it to further embrace its horror elements. However, by the time that the reshoots were set to happen, 20^th Century Fox was purchased by Disney, which meant that the X-Men franchise was now under the control of Marvel Studios. Thus, this retroactively made The New Mutants the final installment of one of the superhero genre’s most prolific franchises as it awaits its inevitable reboot as part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And yet, after several months without any major developments, it was reported that the film was finally set to come out on April 3^rd, 2020, with its director, Josh Boone (The Fault in Our Stars), revealing that the final cut of the film would largely be in line with his original vision… and then came COVID-19. Thus, like almost all the other blockbusters that were set to come out this year, the film was pushed back yet again before finally being set for an August 28^th release, officially putting an end to its release schedule woes. And while it may not be the kind of film whose quality matches its highly publicized reputation, I will still give it credit for what it could potentially do for both the X-Men franchise and the superhero genre going forward.

After an incident involving a mysterious force that ravages the Native American reservation that she lives on, teenager Danielle ‘Dani’ Moonstar (Blu Hunt) finds herself in a hospital run by Dr. Cecilia Reyes (Alice Braga). Reyes informs Dani that she was the sole survivor of this attack and that she’s been brought to her facility because she’s part of the mutant race and must learn how to properly control her abilities. Dani soon meets the four other teenaged mutants at the facility, including Rahne Sinclair (Maisie Williams), who can transform into a wolf, sorceress Illyana Rasputin (Anya Taylor-Joy), Samuel Guthrie (Charlie Heaton), who can propel himself like a cannonball, and rich kid Roberto da Costa (Henry Zaga), who can manipulate solar energy. And just like her, they’ve all experienced moments in their lives where their abilities have resulted in unspeakable tragedies. Through their interactions with one another, the quintet begins to speculate that Reyes is preparing them to be transferred to Professor Charles Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters so that, naturally, they can join the X-Men. At the same time, though, they also start to get inundated with disturbing nightmares revolving around the inciting moments of their traumatic pasts. Because of this, they soon begin to realize that Dr. Reyes’ facility is not the mutant sanctuary that they were led to believe it was. Instead, they discover that Reyes is working for an organization that plans on using their abilities for sinister purposes. And as it turns out, they’re particularly interested in Dani because while she doesn’t quite know what her powers are, they may have something to do with whatever caused the destruction of her home.

One of the biggest selling points of The New Mutants is that it’s a horror-themed superhero film which, if we’re mainly talking about the films that have been released since 2008, is an approach that the superhero genre hasn’t really tackled, for the most part. Now, obviously, there have been plenty of horror-themed superhero projects over the years such as the ongoing Marvel Zombies series and the horror genre, in general, has been a major part of the comics industry for quite some time. However, when it comes to, specifically, films based on Marvel and DC characters, the last major horror-themed superhero films to come from either company were the Blade trilogy, 2005’s Constantine, and the Ghost Rider films starring Nicolas Cage… all of which were made in the time before the Marvel Cinematic Universe truly redefined the genre. With all this in mind, The New Mutants deserves quite a bit of credit for its willingness to tackle a genre that superhero films of the cinematic universe era haven’t really addressed yet. Obviously, one’s thoughts on how effective the film is at being a horror film may vary, but overall, it does deliver some solidly effective horror imagery, which isn’t too surprising given that its cinematographer, Peter Deming, has worked for the likes of Wes Craven and Sam Raimi. And while I’ve very much gone on record about how I’m not much of a comic reader, it seems like making a horror film with these particular characters is an appropriate enough route to take given the serious nature of the source material. This also means that this is a superhero film that intentionally doesn’t try to be a big-budget, action-oriented outing like most of the other films in the genre. As neat as this is, though, the film does suffer from being a bit undercooked in some places when it comes to its story. Nothing in here is ‘badly written’, for the record, but at the same time, those long-rumored reshoots probably would’ve smoothed out a bunch of its rough edges.

It’s also clear that this film was heavily influenced by the classic teen films that were made by John Hughes in the ’80s. Case in point, you very much get a Breakfast Club vibe from these proceedings straight down to it being about five main characters who overcome their differences as they confront their current predicament and the adult authority figure who oppresses them. Overall, it’s nice to see an X-Men film like this that’s based entirely from the perspective of younger characters (and no, not in the X-Men: First Class way), and sure enough, this film’s leads all do great jobs in their respective roles, with the biggest standout of the bunch being the story’s main protagonist, Blu Hunt as Dani Moonstar. Right from the get-go, Dani is immediately established as the most sympathetic protagonist of the bunch, a status that is then further exemplified by the touching romance that forms between her and Maisie Williams’ Rahne. In other words, these two are very much the heart of the film, which is good considering all the dark paths that are taken regarding the main characters’ tragic backstories. Stranger Things’ Charlie Heaton is another solid standout as Sam who, like Dani and Rahne, is one of the more sympathetic leads whereas the other two, Roberto and Illyana, start off by being rather vindictive towards Dani. Illyana is usually the more mean-spirited of the two although this is offset by her having the most disturbing backstory of them all… plus, she’s the one who gets to headline all the film’s big action sequences. And while Roberto (a character who was previously played by Adan Canto in X-Men: Days of Future Past as one of the young mutants in that film’s dystopian future) is arguably the least focused on member of the group, he still manages to provide some solid comic relief by way of his nonchalant persona. Finally, closing out the main cast is Alice Braga as Dr. Reyes, who does a wonderful job of effectively blurring the line between being a seemingly helpful mentor and the malevolent agent that she truly is.

At this point, it’s probably safe to say that The New Mutants will ultimately be known more for all the time that it spent off the release calendar rather than anything in the film itself. Reviews for it have been mediocre at best, but as can often be the case, its low score on Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t quite reflect its overall quality. Yes, I will agree that this is a rather average entry in the superhero genre, but that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘bad’, per se. It’s just that, in this instance, the reshoots that were planned for this film but ultimately never happened probably would’ve been quite helpful in expanding upon some underdeveloped plot-threads. And yes, I stand by that statement even though reshoots have been a controversial subject when it comes to recent Fox-produced Marvel films such as Dark Phoenix and, most infamously, Fan4stic due to how much they have impacted the quality of their films. For what it’s worth, though, The New Mutants benefits greatly from its solid cast and for its noble efforts to be one of the first big superhero horror films of the genre’s modern era. And so, with that in mind, the best thing that I can say about this film is that, while it’s far from perfect, it could very well serve as a great showcase for two potential ways in which the superhero genre can evolve going forward. For starters, I can only imagine the possibilities for future superhero films that embrace the horror genre, especially given the recent rise in quality that the horror genre, in general, has been experiencing. In fact, the MCU is already developing a horror-themed superhero film of their own by way of the upcoming Doctor Strange sequel right down to getting Sam Raimi, one of the most iconic horror film directors in the industry, to direct it. Another key aspect that could help influence future superhero films is the fact that this is a film that largely revolves around a younger cast. Granted, this technically isn’t something that’s new for the genre as it has been applied to films like Spider-Man: Homecoming and Shazam, but if we’re specifically talking about X-Men, I do think that this could be a unique way to redevelop the Children of the Atom for their future debut in the MCU. If anything, it could help remedy one of the most common criticisms that fans have had with the X-Men films in that they often focused on a select few characters (namely, Wolverine, Professor X, and Magneto) rather than emphasize the franchise’s team dynamic.

But on that note, I also want to point out that one of the most surreal aspects of this film is the fact that, as I noted earlier, it is, officially, the final installment of the X-Men franchise. Now, obviously, this isn’t that big of a surprise given that it was the last film in the series that was made before Disney purchased Fox, but it’s still quite fascinating that the final installment of one of the most prominent franchises in the history of the superhero film genre… is a relatively minor spin-off. And to be clear, it’s not like this film doesn’t try to connect itself to the franchise because it does even if its primary connections aren’t the things that drive the plot (i.e. while not directly mentioned in the film, Anya Taylor-Joy’s Illyana is, technically, the sister of X-Men mainstay Colossus). Still, you’d think that the distinction of being the last X-Men film of the franchise’s original run would go to a mainline entry like Dark Phoenix or, heck, even one of the Deadpool films given how successful they were. And yet, given that Dark Phoenix was also subjected to a largely negative reception, some have noted that how the series ultimately concluded mirrors the typically mixed results that it often yielded. In other words, this is a franchise that has had both the highest of highs (e.g. the Deadpool films, Days of Future Past, Logan, and X2: X-Men United) and the lowest of lows (e.g. Dark Phoenix (even though, as you may recall, I personally liked it), X-Men Origins: Wolverine, and X-Men: The Last Stand). Thus, as I alluded to earlier, we’re at a point now where most folks are just waiting to see how the Marvel Cinematic Universe adapts these characters after it had spent the last 12 years operating quite well without them. And yet, as much as I am looking forward to seeing the MCU incarnations of these classic characters, I must admit that the conclusion of the original X-Men franchise makes me rather sad. Sure, I only truly got into it during the latter half of its run, but films like First Class and Days of Future Past helped shape my love for the superhero genre just as much as the MCU films have done. And, of course, regardless of one’s thoughts on these films, they were essential to the process of shaping this great genre into what it is today.

Rating: 3.5/5

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) review

 

In 2000, Sacha Baron Cohen experienced the breakout hit of his career with Da Ali G Show. The show ran for three seasons, starting on Channel 4 in the UK before moving to HBO in the U.S., and consisted of real interviews with unsuspecting subjects conducted by a trio of eccentric journalists. Over the next decade, these three characters would end up appearing in their own films, including Ali G, a wannabe gangster and the star of 2002’s Ali G Indahouse, and Bruno, a gay fashionista who starred in his own titular film in 2009. However, the third of these is quite arguably the most famous of all the characters that Sacha Baron Cohen has created in his career… his name-a Borat. Yes, we’re talking about Borat Sagdiyev, a television journalist from the glorious nation of Kazakhstan. He was the focus of the 2006 ‘documentary’ Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, in which he traveled to America to learn about American culture, and to quote the man himself, it was a “great success”. On just an $18 million budget, the film grossed over $262 million worldwide and was touted by many as one of the funniest films of the year. Granted, the film did end up spawning a whole bunch of controversies ranging from lawsuits brought upon by the unwitting subjects featured in the film to the generally negative reception that it got from Kazakhstan itself, but nevertheless, it promptly became one of the most iconic comedies of its time. Not long after the film’s release, however, Sacha Baron Cohen announced that he was planning on retiring the character even though he did end up reprising the role for a few cameo appearances here and there. But then, in both 2019 and 2020, he was spotted in character, resulting in many speculating the possibility of a second Borat film. And sure enough, it is now upon us with Borat Subsequent Moviefilm: Delivery of Prodigious Bribe to American Regime for Make Benefit Once Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, which was finally revealed to be happening back in September as an Amazon Prime Original and proves that Sacha Baron Cohen’s subversive humor still shines after all this time.

It has been 14 years since Kazakhstani TV journalist Borat Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) released his self-titled documentary. But while it was a great success in America, it made the nation of Kazakhstan a full-blown laughingstock, thus turning Borat into a social pariah who is then promptly imprisoned in the local gulag. But then, in 2020, Premier Nursultan Nazarbayev (Dani Popescu) gives him a new assignment in which he’s to deliver Kazakhstan’s Minister of Culture (and their most prominent porn star), Johnny the Monkey, to U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration so that the country’s reputation can be restored. But since Borat infamously defecated at Trump Tower in New York during his previous visit to America, he is primarily instructed to give Johnny the Monkey to Trump’s second-in-command, Vice President Mike Pence. Once Borat returns to America, however, he learns that his daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova), who he had only recently learned about, has stowed away with him… and is revealed to have eaten Johnny the Monkey on the way there. Not wanting to return to Kazakhstan as a failure who will be promptly executed, Borat decides to have Tutar be the gift that he’s meant to give to Mike Pence. And so, Borat begins to turn Tutar into the kind of woman who would be the perfect match for Pence, resulting in exactly what the former has always been known for; a series of encounters with random folks across the U.S. who are effectively weirded out by their bizarre antics. Along the way, though, Tutar, who aspires to become a journalist herself, begins to come into her own as she learns that women in America have a lot more freedom than the women in Kazakhstan which, naturally, ends up causing a rift between her and her patriotic father.

At this point, Sacha Baron Cohen’s style of humor is well-established. Just like its predecessor, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm mainly consists of a series of skits where the title character interacts with both regular civilians and famous folks in an unabashedly crude and stereotypical manner that always leaves his ‘co-stars’ completely dumbfounded by what they’ve gotten themselves into. And while many of these are usually done in an unscripted manner, it wouldn’t be too surprising if some of this film’s sequences were staged this time around given the first film’s popularity (which, yes, does play a factor in this film’s proceedings since Borat is forced to don multiple disguises because of how easily recognizable he is). Nevertheless, amidst all the gross-out jokes and numerous instances where Borat and his daughter act like overly exaggerated foreigners, the film dutifully maintains its predecessor’s ability to deliver some hilariously terrific satire on the current state of American politics. And while some have argued that it doesn’t quite capture the same lightning in a bottle that the first Borat managed to achieve, it manages to avoid being nothing more than a carbon copy of its predecessor by way of the cultural landscape in which it was released. The first Borat, released in 2006, primarily skewered the Bush administration and the general paranoia and overblown displays of patriotism that were sweeping the country due to the War on Terror. As for Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, it takes aim at Donald Trump’s administration and his cultish group of supporters along with the current chaos that is the COVID-19 pandemic. And in this instance, any joke that doesn’t hit is only due to it being a grim reminder that the attitudes displayed here are, unfortunately, quite accurate.

As always, much of what makes these Borat films work so well is Sacha Baron Cohen’s utter commitment to the bit. It goes without saying that he slips back into what is arguably his most famous role with ease, but as many others have pointed out over the years, he also deserves quite a lot of credit for how truly fearless he is when it comes to pulling all these stunts off, especially given the potential dangers that stem from those who are the unwitting subjects of his pranks. After all, he has gone on record stating that filming this sequel was a far more dangerous task than anything that he did in the first film thanks in large part to the, to put it as nicely as a non-Trump supporter like me possibly could, ‘enthusiastic’ behavior of Trump’s most dedicated supporters. Despite this, though, he still manages to pull through to deliver some pure comedic gold. However, he’s not alone this time around as the film also features one of the best breakout performances in recent memory from Maria Bakalova as Borat’s daughter Tutar. This is one of those roles that requires a complete dedication to all the wackiness that ensues from a production that’s headlined by Sacha Baron Cohen, and sure enough, Bakalova flawlessly commits to this film’s endless array of shenanigans. But at the same time, the addition of Borat’s daughter also brings a unique new layer to the traditional Borat proceedings, thus giving it something that I guarantee most people wouldn’t expect to see from a film of this nature, some genuinely effective moments of emotional poignancy. And yes, I recognize how ridiculous that might sound to some of you given the title character’s usual antics, but it truly is the case here. For all the instances in both Borat films in which Borat openly mocks the idea of women being equal to men, the arc that Tutar goes through in this film serves as a great reflection of the widespread push for stronger female roles in the film industry. Plus, given that the first Borat was admittedly a male-dominated feature, it’s nice to see more of a female perspective this time around.

I must admit that it was only recently when I watched the first Borat for the first time in its entirety. Despite this, however, I was very much aware of the impact that it had on pop culture in the mid-2000s because, simply put, it was everywhere. Calling it one of the most successful comedies of its time would be a massive understatement, and because of this, I can only imagine how intense the expectations were for its sequel, especially since it was released 14 years after the original. And yet, against all odds, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm is a top-notch sequel that is arguably even funnier than the original. Now admittedly, the second half of that statement may have been largely influenced by the fact that I’m more familiar with our current political landscape than anything that happened in 2006, thus making Borat’s jabs at his most noteworthy targets in this film a lot more satisfying on a personal level. But for what it’s worth, this film does manage to be its own thing even though it is very much the same kind of mockumentary-style comedy that its predecessor was. This is mainly thanks to the great addition that is Borat’s daughter Tutar (not to mention a terrific star-making turn from Maria Bakalova in the role), who brings some genuinely unexpected heartfelt moments to this intentionally crude comedy. And when paired with Sacha Baron Cohen’s sharp sense of humor, you get a film that’s just as smartly written as it is utterly bonkers. It’s also worth noting that this film was released at the perfect time, with Sacha Baron Cohen having gone on record stating that he intentionally wanted it to come out right before the 2020 election to properly illustrate how truly disastrous things have been for this country the past few years thanks in large part to you-know-who. It is, after all, one of the main reasons why he ultimately decided to bring back the Borat character after all this time, and seeing how this review ultimately got published after the results of the 2020 election were made official… well, let’s just say that this film accomplished its mission.

Rating: 4.5/5

The Witches (2020) review (HBO Max)

 

When it comes to some of the most prominent authors in literary history, one whose work has consistently stood the test of time is Roald Dahl. From 1942 up until his death in 1990, Dahl was responsible for penning a whole bunch of classics such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, and Matilda. To date, his various novels and short stories have sold over 250 million copies worldwide and are widely touted for their creative imagery and their unabashed knack for dark humor to contrast with their primarily whimsical nature. Many of his works have been adapted to the big screen over the years although it is worth noting that, when he was alive, Dahl was usually quite critical about them for the various changes that were made to his stories. This included the last adaptation that was released before his death, 1990’s The Witches, which was directed by Nicolas Roeg and notably produced by none other than Jim Henson. Dahl, however, was not too pleased with this adaptation of his 1983 novel, namely due to its drastically different ending. Nevertheless, the film was well-received by critics and while it wasn’t exactly a box-office hit, it has since gone on to become a cult classic of its time. But now there’s a new adaptation of The Witches upon us, and just like the 1990 film, this one is star-studded on both sides of the camera. For starters, the cast is headlined by a pair of Oscar winners in Anne Hathaway and Octavia Spencer. And as for the behind-the-scenes crew, the film serves as the latest outing from director Robert Zemeckis, AKA the man who’s given us films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump, and this reviewer’s favorite film of all-time, Back to the Future. However, Zemeckis isn’t the only big-name filmmaker attached to this project as it was originally proposed as a stop-motion film directed by Guillermo Del Toro, who instead serves as a producer alongside his good friend Alfonso Cuaron while also being one of the credited screenwriters alongside Zemeckis and Black-ish creator Kenya Barris. And while it may be far from being the best project that any of these men have ever worked on, it still manages to be a decently charming family flick that delivers a solid new take on Roald Dahl’s classic story.

In 1968, a young boy (Jahzir Kadeem Bruno) loses both of his parents in a car crash. He’s then sent to live with his grandmother (Octavia Spencer) in Alabama, and while it does take a while, she does help him start to overcome his grief. However, their idyllic lifestyle is soon threatened when the young boy has his first encounter with a witch. And since his grandmother is quite familiar with witches after seeing one when she was a child, she tells him everything that he needs to know about them; namely, that witches are really demonic creatures and are notorious for hating children and doing anything they can to get rid of them. Thus, to avoid any further witch-based encounters, the young boy and his grandmother promptly decide to take a vacation and stay at a prestigious hotel. Unfortunately, they end up arriving at the exact same time as a whole group of witches led by the most powerful witch in the world, the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway). The young boy ends up eavesdropping on their meeting, where the Grand High Witch reveals her newest scheme to get rid of all the children in the world by using a special potion to turn them into mice. And to make matters worse, the young boy is then discovered by the Grand High Witch, who immediately uses her potion to turn him into a mouse. Now stuck in mouse form, the young boy crosses paths with two other kids that were recently turned into mice, food-loving Bruno (Codie-Lei Eastick) and a girl named Mary (voiced by Kristin Chenoweth), who is revealed to be the mouse that the young boy had been keeping as a pet for the past few months. With both their help and his grandmother’s, the young boy now finds himself in a time-sensitive situation as he and his friends work to stop the Grand High Witch’s sinister plan before anyone else ends up suffering the same fate as them.

While it may be easy to simply call this film a ‘remake’ of its 1990 counterpart, this new version of The Witches does manage to avoid being a straight-forward retelling of its classic story, whether it’s by having African-American protagonists or revealing that the kid’s pet mouse was a transformed kid as well. Plus, if there’s one advantage that this film has over the previous film, it’s that its ending is a lot more faithful to the book since, as noted earlier, Dahl took significant issue with the 1990 film for having a more traditional ‘happy ending’. Granted, the changes that this film makes does mean that it takes a lot more liberties with its source material than even the 1990 film did, but at the very least, this isn’t a case like Artemis Fowl where the changes that were made significantly alter the story beyond recognition. At the end of the day, most of these changes are simply from a cosmetic standpoint, and for the most part, the film does an excellent job of maintaining Roald Dahl’s whimsical style that delivers a good-natured adventure where the kids are the heroes but is still allowed to have the delightfully twisted dark humor that Dahl was well-known for. And while I’m aware that the film has gotten some criticism for supposedly being ‘too scary for children’, I’d argue that it’s relatively tame compared to all the other family-friendly films over the years that have gained notoriety for their darker moments (and yes, this includes the 1990 adaptation of The Witches). All this makes up for the fact that the film ends up feeling like a routine affair for the filmmakers who are attached to it, especially Robert Zemeckis. It’s not that the film is ‘bad’ or anything since, if Zemeckis’ past work wasn’t enough of an indication, he’s not that kind of director. It’s just that, like what happened when Tim Burton made his remake of Planet of the Apes in 2001, this is one of those instances where, if you didn’t know that this was directed by the guy who made Back to the Future, you probably wouldn’t have figured that out until the credits because it could’ve been done by anybody.

For many people, one of the best aspects of the 1990 film was Angelica Huston’s standout turn as the Grand High Witch. But while that may have been an undeniably tough act to follow, Anne Hathaway proves that she’s more than capable of taking on that daunting task. With an over-exaggerated accent that’s matched by an equally over-the-top performance, Hathaway is clearly having a lot of fun as the main antagonist. And sure, it’s completely understandable if some may find her performance to be a bit too campy at times, but at the end of the day, she’s still one of the best parts of this film. This strong performance from Hathaway is then perfectly matched by Octavia Spencer’s equally terrific turn as the main protagonist’s grandmother. Spencer has always been well-known for playing characters like this who are very much good-natured protagonists but can still dish out some tough love when necessary, usually through some delightfully spunky snark. And while he’s not in the film too much, we also get the always-reliable Stanley Tucci as the manager of the hotel that all the main characters end up at who mostly spends his time trying to deal with the eccentric gestures of the Grand High Witch. Finally, to close out the main cast, we have newcomer Jahzir Kadeem Bruno as the main protagonist who, just like in the original novel (and not the 1990 film where he was named Luke), is unnamed. He is credited as ‘Hero Boy’, however, which is rather ironic because that makes him the second main character in a Robert Zemeckis film to be called that since that’s also what the main protagonist of The Polar Express was credited as. Nevertheless, while this may only be his first leading role in a film (that and his character is a mouse for half of it), Bruno instantly makes a strong first impression with some solid charisma for his age.

While it’s admittedly been a while since I’ve done so, I did read The Witches when I was younger. It was one of many Roald Dahl books that I read growing up alongside other classics such as Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. However, you may be surprised to learn that I never watched its 1990 film adaptation. Simply put, it was just one of those films that was never on my radar back then. As such, it goes without saying that I don’t have the kind of connection to it that many others from my generation have, which has clearly had a major influence on folks’ thoughts towards this new adaptation. I mean, if the usual reception towards Disney’s recent string of live-action remakes wasn’t enough of an indication, folks are always a lot stricter when it comes to remakes. And yet, from the perspective of someone who hasn’t seen the 1990 adaptation of The Witches, I’d argue that this new version of the story is a genuinely harmless affair. It avoids being a direct carbon copy of its predecessor and even manages to deliver a more faithful take on the novel’s ending… even if the changes that it makes everywhere else are more prominent than those from the 1990 film. Really, at the end of the day, the worst thing that I can say about this film is that it’s arguably the most by-the-numbers feature that Robert Zemeckis has ever directed. To be fair, his direction is solid as always, but at the same time, I will admit that I’m curious about how this film would’ve turned out had it been the Guillermo Del Toro-directed stop-motion film that it was originally planned to be. Ultimately, though, the film does manage to be a nice showcase of Roald Dahl’s brilliant storytelling and could very well serve as a gateway for younger generations to experience the rest of his work.

Rating: 3.5/5

Final Destination - Series Retrospective

Every October, I try to do a horror-themed post in recognition of the Halloween season. However, for reasons that even I don’t really understand, I wasn’t able to do one last year. There were only three posts that were published on this site last October and they were all reviews for films that weren’t even close to being a part of the horror genre. With that in mind, I wanted to make up for the lack of horror content last year by making sure that I do have something horror-related for you guys this year. Technically speaking, I already sort of did one a few weeks back with my retrospective on The Addams Family films since, as I noted in that post, the live-action Addams Family films from the ’90s have become staples of the Halloween programming blocks for several networks. However, since that’s more of a family-friendly franchise, I also wanted to do a post that would cover a horror franchise for the older demographic. Back in 2018, I did a retrospective on one of the most iconic horror franchises of all-time, Halloween, just in time for its latest installment. Naturally, this could have potentially led to me doing a retrospective on another classic horror franchise such as Friday the 13^th or A Nightmare on Elm Street. However, when it comes to those franchises in particular, there’s a bit of a complication that fans of both franchises will undoubtedly recognize; the fact that their iconic antagonists had a full-blown crossover film that was released in 2003, Freddy vs. Jason. Because of this, I feel that if I was ever going to discuss those franchises, I’d have to do both so that I can cover them in their entirety, and at this point, I really don’t have any time to do something like that for this year’s Halloween. After all, we are talking about a pair of franchises that have at least 8 or more films to their name. So instead, I decided to cover a franchise that has a much smaller amount of films to cover. Plus, the franchise in question is one that I’m a lot more familiar with as it was one of the first big horror franchises that I ever watched. And so, with that in mind, for this year’s Halloween post on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I’ll be tackling the Final Destination franchise.

As I’ve noted plenty of times over the past few years, it was only until recently that I started to gain a greater affection for the horror genre. Nevertheless, I did watch a few of the big-name horror films in the early 2010s when I was first truly getting into the field of film criticism, and if you were to ask me which horror franchises were the ones that officially kicked things off for me, there were two in particular. First, there were the Scream films, which is a franchise that I covered on this site way back in 2014, and then there’s the topic of today’s post, the Final Destination series. This is a franchise that is based around a simple but effective hook. In each installment, a group of characters ends up surviving a fatal accident such as a plane crash or highway pile-up because one of them has a premonition where they witness it happen. But while they manage to survive that initial brush with Death, they’re eventually picked off one by one in a series of elaborately staged accidents. This premise is what bolstered the franchise for its initial five-film run from 2000 to 2011, and while none of the films were necessarily big hits with critics, they did do quite well with audiences. In other words, all five films were solid hits at the box-office, collectively grossing over $665 million worldwide, and while it’s been nearly a decade since the franchise’s most recent outing, there have been talks of a potential follow-up. It’s also been reported that this new film will shift things up a bit by focusing on first responders who, unlike the traditional protagonists of these films, experience death regularly. But until then, we have the first five films of this series which, as we’ll soon find out, end up varying quite a bit when it comes to their overall quality. With all that in mind, be mindful that death could be around any corner (and yes, I fully recognize that saying that is tragically ironic given our current worldwide predicament…) and remember that, “In death, there are no accidents, no coincidences, no mishaps, and no escapes…” as we look at the Final Destination films.

FINAL DESTINATION (2000)

It all begins, of course, with the original Final Destination from 2000, which was spawned from a script that writer Jeffrey Reddick had written for a potential episode of The X-Files. Said script was then reworked by director James Wong and producer Glen Morgan into the film that we know today. It’s a film that certainly fits the bill of being a ‘franchise-starter’ since it effectively sets up many of this franchise’s definitive aspects, such as its main premise (represented in this instance by a group of high-school students (plus one of their teachers) surviving a plane crash) and its elaborate Rube Goldberg-esque kills. Admittedly, it’s far from perfect, mostly due to some undercooked plot-threads (e.g. the main protagonist being hounded by a pair of FBI agents) and director James Wong’s habit of relying a bit too heavily on foreshadowing. But in the case of the former, it seems like this was mostly due to poor test screenings that resulted in some plot-points being cut and, most notably, a fully reshot finale that, to its credit, is superior to the film’s original ending. With that in mind, the film works quite well as a horror-thriller with some excellent death-centric set pieces that still manage to stand out even when compared to some of the most iconic and FAR more graphic moments from the sequels. It also has one of the better ensembles of the franchise as led by Devon Sawa as Alex Browning, this film’s main protagonist whose deadly premonition is what kicks everything into motion, and Ali Larter as Alex’s fellow survivor and eventual love interest Clear Rivers. There’s also a key appearance by horror icon Tony Todd (AKA ‘The Candyman’) as William Bludworth, an enigmatic mortician who offers Alex and Clear some cryptic insights on Death’s grand design. And so, in conclusion, the best thing that I can say about the first Final Destination is that when compared to its sequels, its admirably straightforward in its approach. While I wouldn’t necessarily call this the ‘best’ installment of the franchise, it’s still a generally well-polished film that, as noted before, effectively got the ball rolling for one of the most prominent horror franchises of the 2000s.

Rating: 4/5

FINAL DESTINATION 2 (2003)

With both director James Wong and writer/producer Glen Morgan occupied with other projects, Final Destination 2 underwent a notable change in direction. Directorial duties were taken over by the late David R. Ellis, a long-time stunt coordinator/second unit director who would then go on to direct 2006’s internet sensation, Snakes on a Plane. Sure enough, Ellis’ background in stunts contributes greatly to this film’s set-pieces, with many of them being some of the best in the entire franchise. For one thing, it certainly helps that they were largely done with practical effects, especially since the same cannot be said for some of the kills in the sequels. However, the best of the bunch is this film’s big accident sequence, which comes in the form of a massive highway pile-up. The film also does a nice job of feeling like a natural continuation of the franchise, whether it’s the reveal that the events of the first film spared the lives of this film’s group of survivors or by having Ali Larter return as Clear, the sole survivor of the first film’s main protagonists. Larter’s return makes up for the film having some of the weaker main characters of the series, although this is technically more of a script issue rather than anything having to do with the actors playing them. Nevertheless, while Final Destination 2 was, ironically, the lowest-grossing installment of the series (it’s the only entry that didn’t gross over $100 million worldwide), it’s widely regarded by fans as a superior sequel, and really, it’s easy to see why. Not only does it feature some of the best examples of what these films are mainly known for (i.e. their kills) but its efforts to expand upon the franchise’s lore results in a film that is arguably a lot more narratively consistent than its predecessor. And because of this, it is easily one of the franchise’s best installments, especially when compared to the next few films.

Rating: 4/5

FINAL DESTINATION 3 (2006)

After being unavailable for the second film, co-writers James Wong and Glen Morgan returned for the third Final Destination film in their respective roles of director and producer. But while Final Destination 2 successfully managed to be a natural follow-up to the first film, Wong and Morgan elected to have the third film adopt a ‘back to basics’ approach. Because of this, Final Destination 3 largely feels like it’s taking a step backward as far as this series’ progression is concerned. In other words, while Wong and Morgan do succeed in making it feel more in line with the first film, that also means that it carries over the same issues from that film which, for the most part, had been fixed in the second film. So once again, some plotlines don’t get the attention that they probably should’ve while James Wong’s over-reliance on foreshadowing is even more apparent here than it was in the first film. And if that wasn’t enough, this is where the one thing that is arguably the biggest problem with some of the later Final Destination films officially starts coming into play; the fact that most of its characters are wholly unlikable and are just there to be killed off. However, if there’s one exception to this, it would be this film’s main protagonist, Wendy Christensen, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead in her first leading role. Winstead does a terrific job in making Wendy one of the more sympathetic protagonists of the franchise, especially since the same cannot be said for all the other characters in this film. Plus, to the film’s credit, it does have its fair share of memorable set-pieces, whether it’s a fiery pair of kills that occur at a tanning salon or this installment’s big accident sequence on a high-speed roller-coaster (occasional gaps in logic notwithstanding). Thus, while I’ll admit that there may be a bit of bias in the following statement since this was the first of the series that I ever watched, I’d say that Final Destination 3 is a decent albeit forgettable entry in the franchise. While it certainly boasts many of the issues that would end up becoming even worse in the next film, it manages to do just enough to avoid being a total disaster. It’s by no means the best film in the series… but it’s also far from being its worst.

Rating: 3/5

THE FINAL DESTINATION (2009)

When it was first released, it was reported that The Final Destination was going to be, fittingly enough, the final installment of the franchise… although this only lasted about a year or so once it was confirmed that a fifth film was in the works. It may have had something to do with the fact that this ended up being the highest-grossing installment of the franchise, especially since it was filmed and presented in 3-D right in the midst of the medium’s resurgence. At the same time, though, it was downright savaged by critics… and they weren’t wrong about this one. Like Final Destination 3, this film is largely undone by how frustratingly by-the-numbers it is. Without any noteworthy attempts at expanding upon this well-established premise, it’s nothing but a rehash of the previous films with some of the most mediocre set-pieces in the franchise’s history. Aside from only a few exceptions, none of them even come close to being as memorable as the ones from previous films (not even this film’s big accident sequence, which is just a simple auto race crash). It also doesn’t help that a lot of them were CG-based with effects that, to be perfectly blunt, didn’t even look good at the time. But just like Final Destination 3, this film’s biggest shortcoming is that you don’t give a single crap about any of the characters. Apart from Mykelti Williamson as a good-natured security guard named George with a tragic backstory, the rest of the characters in this film are way too one-dimensional and, in some cases, not particularly well-acted. Because of all this, it goes without saying that The Final Destination is easily the worst installment of the franchise. Sure, it may have seen the return of Final Destination 2 director David R. Ellis, but overall, it’s basically the antithesis of everything that worked in that film.

Rating: 0.5/5

(And before you ask, I didn’t see this film (or the next one, for that matter…) in 3-D, which means that, just like Jaws 3-D, watching this in 2-D means that we’re left with a film that tries a bit too hard to go all-out with its 3-D effects).

FINAL DESTINATION 5 (2011)

And so, as noted earlier, the commercial success of The Final Destination paved the way for the fifth film in 2011, but for this one, there was another big change in direction. Instead of just maintaining the directorial pattern of shifting between James Wong and David R. Ellis, this film served as the directorial debut of Steven Quale, who was previously known for his work as a second-unit director, most notably on James Cameron’s Titanic and Avatar. And because of this pivotal change in direction, Final Destination 5 is a massive improvement over the franchise’s last two outings in every possible way. For starters, it boasts a whole bunch of terrific set-pieces, including, of course, its big accident sequence involving a bridge collapse. And yes, a few of these are still a bit CG-heavy, but unlike the last film, there is, at the very least, a better balance between practical and digital effects. But perhaps the biggest improvement here is that, after two films that were full of utterly detestable characters who were nothing more than kill fodder, this film features some of the franchise’s better characters. Sure, there are still quite a few one-note meat bags here and there, but the film makes up for this with two of the franchise’s most sympathetic leads, main protagonist Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto) and his girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell). Plus, there’s also a solid human antagonist in Sam’s best friend Peter (Miles Fisher), who’s so affected by these proceedings that he ends up taking some truly drastic measures, and we even get Tony Todd returning for another cameo as Bludworth the mortician. The latter development is especially significant since the character didn’t appear in the last two films (although Todd did make a notable voice cameo in 3). And then, to top it all off, there’s this film’s excellent final twist, which I won’t spoil here for those who haven’t seen it but will note that it does a fantastic job of connecting this film to the rest of the franchise. With all this in mind, Final Destination 5 is, in every way imaginable, the best installment of the franchise. Like Final Destination 2, it successfully manages to be a natural follow-up to its predecessors but it’s also arguably the most polished entry of the bunch thanks to the solid direction from Steven Quale, its great set-pieces, and one of the franchise’s best ensemble casts. Plus, until the long-rumored sixth film comes out, this one allowed the franchise’s original run to end on a great note rather than a terrible one.

Rating: 4.5/5