Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) review

On September 5^th, 1992, Batman: The Animated Series made its official debut on the Fox Kids programming block and would go on to span 85 episodes throughout four seasons that would later pave the way for various spin-offs set in the same universe. Since then, the show has gone on to become one of the most beloved interpretations of the Dark Knight, garnering much acclaim for its dark and mature writing, noir-inspired animation, and strongly layered characters. This, of course, includes the show’s iconic interpretations of Batman’s legendary Rogues gallery headlined as always by his archnemesis, the Joker (voiced by Mark Hamill). However, this series would also see the debut of a villain who quickly turned out to be a fan favorite, Harley Quinn, a former psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum who fell in love with the Clown Prince of Crime and promptly became his fiercely loyal second-in-command. The character was largely inspired by her original voice actress Arleen Sorkin, a college friend of the series’ co-creator Paul Dini who once appeared in a jester outfit on the classic soap opera Days of Our Lives, which would influence Harley’s iconic harlequin look. After making her official debut in Episode 22 of the series, “Joker’s Favor”, Harley became such a popular character amongst fans of the show that she was then properly implemented into the comics. And in 2016, she would make her live-action cinematic debut in the DC Extended Universe’s Suicide Squad, where she was played by Margot Robbie. While the film proved to be a dud with critics, Robbie’s portrayal of the iconic villainess turned occasional antihero was considered one of its biggest highlights.

Because of this, plans were then set into motion for several potential spin-offs featuring Robbie’s take on the character, including one that focused solely on her and the Joker and another that would be based around the squad of her, Poison Ivy, and Catwoman known as the Gotham City Sirens. Ultimately, though, the first official Harley Quinn spin-off would end up being one proposed by Robbie herself based on a different all-female squad known as the Birds of Prey. The Birds of Prey were originally introduced in the mid-’90s by writer Chuck Dixon and former DC Comics editor Jordan B. Gorfinkel and, in the context of the DC Universe, was spawned from a partnership between Black Canary and former Batgirl Barbara Gordon who, at the time, had become known as ‘Oracle’ following the controversial events of The Killing Joke. Since then, other superheroines have been featured on the group’s roster over the years including Batwoman, Hawkgirl, and Power Girl. Outside of the comics, there was a Birds of Prey TV series that aired on the WB from 2002-2003 but sadly only lasted one season due to poor ratings (said series also notably featured a version of Harley Quinn played by Mia Sara). But now the Birds of Prey have been given their own film which, as alluded to earlier, primarily came to fruition thanks to Margot Robbie, who initially proposed it during the production of Suicide Squad. Along with headlining the film in her second official outing as Harley Quinn, Robbie is its primary producer via her production company, LuckyChap Entertainment, and prioritized a female-led crew that includes screenwriter Christina Hodson and director Cathy Yan. Thus, we now have a film that boasts the legendary title of Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn), and sure enough, that elaborate title gives you an exact idea of the unabashedly chaotic and highly entertaining comic book flick that it ultimately is.

(Disclaimer: To avoid having to constantly repeat that long title, any future use of it in this review will consist solely of the Birds of Prey part of it and not the Fantabulous Emancipation of one Harley Quinn subtitle)

Sometime after the events of Suicide Squad, former Arkham Asylum psychiatrist turned crazed henchwoman Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) breaks off her relationship with her longtime boss/lover, the Joker. But while Harley is more than ready to move on with her life, she quickly learns that this now puts her on the hit list of every criminal in Gotham City that she had previously wronged but was always protected from due to her ties with the Joker. At the top of that list is crime boss Roman Sionis AKA Black Mask (Ewan McGregor), who is currently after a diamond that’s embedded with information regarding the elusive fortune of the former Bertinelli crime family. But while he and his right-hand man Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina) end up finding the diamond, it’s then promptly stolen from them by young pickpocket Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco). To save herself from his wrath, Harley offers to retrieve the diamond for Roman but ultimately ends up taking the young girl under her wing instead. In the process, the two also end up crossing paths with a bunch of other women who are tied to their current predicament. This includes Dinah Lance AKA Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), Roman’s club singer turned driver who can project hypersonic screams, Gotham City police detective Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), who’s looking to build a case against Roman, and Helena Bertinelli AKA Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the sole survivor of the Bertinelli family who grew up to become a crossbow-wielding vigilante. Recognizing that they all share a common enemy, Harley proposes that they work together to protect Cassandra from the army of goons that are headed their way.

Much has been said about how Suicide Squad ended up being yet another example of the DCEU’s early installments being hindered tremendously by executive meddling, thus paving the way for its mediocre reception. One of the biggest criticisms directed towards it was that despite its marketing campaign’s promise of being one of the flashiest installments of the superhero genre, a lot of the final film was downright ugly when it came to its visuals. Thankfully, that is not the case with Birds of Prey as director Cathy Yan never shies away from the bright visual aesthetic that has commonly defined the character of Harley Quinn. And instead of the arguably quite cynical tone that defined much of Suicide Squad, Birds of Prey achieves a great mix of wacky hi-jinx and solid emotional drama. This is, after all, a film where Harley Quinn finally breaks off her long-standing relationship with the Joker which, despite being one of the most famous relationships in all of comics… is also one of the most toxic relationships in the history of media. In other words, Birds of Prey deserves a lot of credit for being thoroughly committed to producing a female-led superhero film that takes a full-on sledgehammer to toxic masculinity, and if you ask me, it handles this all very well. Sure, the plot can be a little jumbled at times due to all the story elements that it’s trying to juggle alongside the primary storyline with Harley (more on that in a little bit), but the film still flows at a very nice pace throughout. Plus, it also sports some excellent action sequences, with any sequence that was done during reshoots notably being handled by none other than John Wick director Chad Stahelski.   

Prior to the film’s release, there was some concern from fans that despite being titled Birds of Prey, it would end up being more focused on Harley Quinn given that the marketing primarily revolved around her, and to be perfectly blunt… that’s exactly what the film is. Birds of Prey is very much a Harley Quinn film and the titular squad doesn’t properly come together until the final act. However, I wouldn’t necessarily call this a bad thing in this instance since the film properly follows in the footsteps of Wonder Woman and Aquaman by giving its main character quality material that fully matches her commitment to the role. Margot Robbie was already a fantastic pick for Harley Quinn as evident by her performance in Suicide Squad, but just like Gal Gadot and Jason Momoa before her, it’s ultimately Harley’s ‘solo film’ (even though I do use that term loosely in this case) where she’s truly allowed to shine. And while this does mean that the other female leads in the film don’t get as much focus compared to Robbie, they’re all just as phenomenal in their respective roles. Jurnee Smollett-Bell brings a lot of humanity to the role of Black Canary (who’s arguably the most grounded of the group despite her metahuman abilities), Rosie Perez brings the right fiery tenacity to the role of Renee Montoya, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s Huntress is a great combination of badass action heroics and solid humor that pokes fun at her overly serious persona. And as for newcomer Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, she has wonderful camaraderie with Margot Robbie, whom she primarily shares the screen with given everything that goes down plot-wise. Finally, to close out this film’s excellent ensemble, we have our main antagonists Black Mask and Victor Zsasz. Ewan McGregor kills it in the role of Black Mask, fully succeeding at making him a down-right sleazebag of a villain (with some solid dark humor mixed in as well). And while Chris Messina doesn’t exactly get as much to work with as Zsasz, the partner dynamic that he forms with McGregor is top-notch.

Back when Suicide Squad came out in 2016, I was amongst those who thought that it wasn’t too bad; heck, I even gave it a 4/5 in my initial review of it. It wasn’t until recently, however, when I finally re-watched it, and while I will admit that I’m not exactly as positive towards it as I was back then, I don’t ‘dislike’ it. It is, however, still a prime example of an era of the DC Extended Universe that is thankfully over. Thanks to films like Wonder Woman and Shazam, it’s clear that this franchise has now realized that it’s better to develop its characters first before putting them all together in one film, and sure enough, Birds of Prey nobly continues that trend. Sure, at the end of the day, it’s a Harley Quinn film first and a Birds of Prey film second, but the clearly dedicated effort from producer/star Margot Robbie to highlight some lesser-known heroines in the DC Universe is incredibly admirable. In other words, one of the best things about this film is that it shows the incredible potential for future adventures with the squad of superheroines that it sets up. At the same time, it allows Margot Robbie the chance to firmly establish herself as the definitive live-action interpretation of one of DC’s most popular characters, and if that wasn’t enough, this won’t be the last we see of Harley in the DCEU as Robbie is already set to return in next year’s Suicide Squad sequel. And while I know that there are some out there questioning why Suicide Squad demanded a sequel given how it turned out, I can answer that question in two words… James Gunn. Yes, the man who brought us two of the greatest superhero films of the past few years is in charge this time around, and I’m fully confident that he will give us a superior sequel. But in conclusion, let’s also thank Cathy Yan for starting off 2020’s slate of superhero films on a high note with the delightfully madcap adventure that is Birds of Prey.

Rating: 4.5/5

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

Christopher Robin (2018) review

I’ve gone on record numerous times about how Winnie the Pooh played a major part in my childhood, and I know that I’m not the only one out there who will say that. Ever since Walt Disney acquired the film rights to author A.A. Milne’s classic book series about a lovable teddy bear named Pooh in 1961, Winnie the Pooh has been one of Disney’s longest-running franchises, delighting audiences young and old with its timeless morals and endearing characters. The three initial Winnie the Pooh featurettes that Disney and his team produced in the 60’s/70’s went on to become one of the studio’s official animated features, 1977’s The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. A spiritual sequel, simply titled Winnie the Pooh, was released in 2011 through there were also a few theatrical spin-offs from the early 2000’s like The Tigger Movie and Piglet’s Big Movie. On the small screen, Pooh has been a part of quite a few classic animated series like The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and Welcome to Pooh Corner. And in Disney parks all over the world, Pooh and his friends in the Hundred Acre Wood are the stars of their own attractions, primarily a dark ride inspired by their 1977 feature film debut. But now Pooh and company are back on the big screen in a new live-action adventure, Christopher Robin. While one could technically designate this film as the latest entry in Disney’s current line of live-action remakes of their classic animated films, it’s not really that kind of film. Instead, it’s a genuinely new spin on the franchise as it follows Pooh’s cherished human friend, the titular Christopher Robin, as he ends up reuniting with all his childhood friends who help him regain the imaginative spirit that he had lost after growing up. One thing that hasn’t been lost, though, is the iconic charm and sense of childhood innocence that has defined this franchise from the very beginning and is now represented beautifully in its first major foray into the realm of live-action films.

As a kid, Christopher Robin spent most of his days playing with his friends in the Hundred Acre Wood, including his best friend, a stuffed teddy bear ‘of very little brain’ named Winnie the Pooh (voiced by Jim Cummings). Eventually, though, Christopher Robin ends up leaving for boarding school, and despite promising Pooh that he’ll never forget him and the rest of the Hundred Acre gang, life soon forces Christopher to grow up faster than anticipated. Years later, Christopher (Ewan McGregor) works as the efficiency manager at a luggage company and is so consumed with work that he’s unable to spend quality time with his wife Evelyn (Hayley Atwell) and their daughter Madeline (Bronte Carmichael). This is further complicated when his boss, Giles Winslow Jr. (Mark Gatiss), forces him to come up with a method of cutting costs, which forces him to forego travel plans with his family to their summer cottage in Sussex. But then, out of the blue, Christopher soon finds himself reunited with his old pal Winnie the Pooh, who has somehow managed to appear in London. After learning that Pooh has come seeking his help in trying to find the rest of the Hundred Acre gang, who have all mysteriously vanished, Christopher tags along on the trip back to the Hundred Acre Wood. There, he soon manages to reunite with the rest of his old friends, including the hyperactive bouncer Tigger (also voiced by Jim Cummings), the timid but warm-hearted Piglet (voiced by Nick Mohammed), and the often-depressed donkey Eeyore (voiced by Brad Garrett) just to name a few. But when Christopher finds himself forced to return to London to meet his work deadline, Pooh and the gang embark on an adventure of their own to help their longtime friend and hopefully get him to once again find his sense of imagination that he had lost many years ago.

Some critics have been rather iffy on this film’s overall tone, specifically due to some of the more somber parts of the story. And while I will admit that some parts of this film do give off somewhat of a dreary vibe (e.g. when Pooh and Christopher Robin return to the Hundred Acre Wood, the place is completely engulfed in fog), that doesn’t mean that this carries over for the whole film. Simply put, when this film focuses on Pooh and his friends getting into all sorts of adventures both in the Hundred Acre Wood and out in the streets of London, it fully succeeds at being a delightfully whimsical time. The juxtaposition of these classic characters interacting with people and objects in the real world produces plenty of great comedic moments. Plus, the transition from animation to live-action did not result in these characters losing any of the lovable personality traits that have made them the childhood icons that they are. The CGI used to bring them to life is quite nice, especially when it comes to capturing their trademark ‘stuffed animal’ look. And, of course, being a Winnie the Pooh story, this film isn’t afraid to utilize some of the franchise’s most iconic bits of imagery or some of the classic tunes that came courtesy of the Sherman brothers (surviving brother Richard even returns to write some new songs). Ultimately, though, these primarily serve as complements to an emotionally poignant story that does a wonderful job when it comes to delving into the dangers of growing up too fast.

Headlining the film as the adult Christopher Robin, Ewan McGregor does a wonderful job working off his ‘animated’ co-stars while also working wonderfully with the character’s arc of regaining his childhood innocence even after going through all the perils of adulthood, allowing him to reclaim the special bonds that he has with both the Hundred Acre gang and his wife and daughter. On that note, admittedly Hayley Atwell doesn’t get as much to work with by comparison as his wife Evelyn (technically speaking, newcomer Bronte Carmichael gets more to do as their daughter Madeline), but she does have nice chemistry with McGregor. As for the voice cast bringing Pooh and friends to life, some may be a bit disappointed to learn that the film doesn’t necessarily focus on all of them. Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, and Eeyore get the most screen-time while others like Owl (voiced by Toby Jones), Rabbit (voiced by Peter Capaldi), and Kanga (voiced by Sophie Okonedo) are somewhat relegated to ‘cameo’ appearances. Still, all these voice actors do a nice job in their respective roles, especially given that some of them are newcomers to the franchise. And it’s all headlined, of course, by the one and only Jim Cummings returning to reprise his iconic roles of both Winnie the Pooh and Tigger; roles that, for the record, he has been doing for three decades at this point. For a while, though, it seemed like he was only going to voice Pooh with Chris O’Dowd being cast as Tigger. But after some underwhelming reactions from test screenings, O’Dowd willingly stepped down to let Cummings voice Tigger as well. And simply put, Cummings is still just as utterly delightful as ever when it comes to making these two some of the most beloved characters in all of pop culture.

Well, it should probably come as no surprise that I adored this film. I recognize that there’s probably quite a bit of bias in that statement given my deeply personal connection to this franchise, but Christopher Robin is genuinely quite the heartwarming affair. All in all, it more than fulfills its purpose of being a touching story that tugs at the heartstrings by being a parable about one man’s struggle to regain some of the humanity that he had lost in the transition from childhood to adulthood. It just so happens that this film is also a part of one of Disney’s most beloved franchises, Winnie the Pooh. Thus, for fans of the Winnie the Pooh franchise, this film gives them plenty of great new material with all the characters that they know and love. Yes, there are a few ‘dark’ moments in this film, but nothing worse than any of the ‘dark’ moments that we’ve seen from other facets of this franchise. And just like another recent film that saw classic characters undergo a change in design, 2015’s The Peanuts Movie, Pooh and his friends did not lose any of their charm and heart when they made the transition from animation to live-action CGI characters. In short, Christopher Robin is the very definition of a ‘feel-good’ film, and I think that many will agree that we certainly need more films like this in this current day and age. This one accomplishes that by celebrating some of the most beloved characters of all-time (and yes, I know that I’m directly quoting this film’s marketing campaign), effectively delighting both longtime fans and those who are being introduced to them for the very first time.

Rating: 5/5!

Beauty and the Beast (2017) review

Disney’s been on a roll as of late with their live-action reimaginings of their classic animated films. Granted, this current trend of theirs isn't going over well with ‘everybody’, as I pointed out last time, but, for the most part, films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book have been major successes on both a critical and commercial level instead of just on a commercial one as was initially the case with these films. And for their latest endeavor on this front, Disney revives one of its most beloved stories for a new generation; Beauty and the Beast. The studio’s original animated take on the classic fairytale of the same name from 1756 was the second smash hit of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ era when it was released in 1991. In fact, it was so universally adored that it ended up being the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a feat that has only been accomplished 2 other times since then by, fittingly enough, a pair of Pixar films; 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, which, of course, were released under the Disney banner. So, yeah, one could say that there was a lot of pressure on this new take on the ‘Tale as Old as Time’, directed by Bill Condon, who's no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner, Chicago (not to mention directing 2006’s Dreamgirls, which won 2 Oscars), and features an all-star ensemble cast. After all, we’re talking about one of the most famous Disney stories of all time, meaning that this new film has a hell of a lot to live up to. Thankfully, Condon does do justice to this beloved masterpiece of a story with a highly enjoyable new take on Beauty and the Beast that respects its predecessor without being a direct carbon copy of it.

In a quaint little town in France, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson) is a complete mystery to the rest of the people living there. Never once conforming to the expectations that life tries to set upon her, Belle spends most of her days reading, inventing things, and ignoring the advances of the town’s popular but egotistical local hunter, Gaston (Luke Evans), while also hoping to someday leave the confines of her ‘poor, provincial’ town. That day ends up coming sooner than anticipated when she goes to rescue her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), who had been taken prisoner by a monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens) that resides within a forgotten castle not far from town. To save her father, Belle ends up taking his place as the Beast’s prisoner. But, soon after, she begins to learn the big secret behind the castle and, more importantly, its mysterious owner. As it turns out, years ago, the Beast was a selfish and vain human prince who was cursed by an Enchantress after he had rejected her pleas for shelter. Turning him into a Beast, as well as turning his servants into enchanted household objects, she puts the Prince under the pressure of having to find true love in time before the last petal of the red rose that she initially offered him falls. And, thus, as Belle begins to become more and more accepted by the Beast and his servants, she does begin to fall in love with him, which soon causes problems once Gaston learns of the situation.

Now, admittedly, as far as Disney’s remakes go, this is more like Cinderella than The Jungle Book. By that, I mean that you shouldn't go into this expecting a lot of differences between this new version and the original. It's the same exact story with the same primary plot points. So, with that said, I know what some of you will inevitably say; “Why the hell remake a masterpiece then?” But I'm going to ignore that debate for now because, to me, it all comes down to execution, and I'm pleased to say that this film is very well-made in every possible way. Sure, it's still the same story as the original but I'd say that there are just enough new elements in here, as minor as some may be, that help differentiate it from the original (e.g. a new plotline that reveals why Maurice and Belle stayed in their provincial town for all these years). Visually, this film is a top contender for next year’s Oscar for Best Visual Effects, Production Design, and basically every other major technical award at that ceremony. Yes, a lot of the visuals in this are CG but they are done excellently. And as for the songs, well, what more needs to be said about them? They're the classic songs written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice and are all handled brilliantly in live-action. You'll be tapping your foot along to the beat of ‘Gaston’, marvel at the grandeur of ‘Be Our Guest’, and awe at the beauty (no pun intended) of the title song, ‘Beauty and the Beast’. There's also some great new songs as well, including the sweet recurring melody ‘How Does a Moment Last Forever’, which is sung three times in the film (this includes the end-credits version sung by Celine Dion who, of course, sung the title song during the end credits of the animated film) and the Beast’s new big solo, ‘Evermore’.

One of the best things about the film, though, is its ensemble cast. Because, damn, does this film have one of the most impressive ensembles in recent history. Of course, it's all led by Emma Watson, who does a phenomenal job in the role of Belle. Simply put, she does justice to one of Disney’s most beloved heroines while also doing just enough to provide some nice little updates to the character here and there without ever going against everything that made her great in the first place. And I know that she’s gotten some flak for her vocal performance during the musical numbers but I thought she was fine in that department. Dan Stevens is also fantastic as the Beast, perfectly conveying everything that goes into the character's great redemption arc. As for the villains of the film, both Luke Evans and Josh Gad are clearly having a lot of fun in the roles of Gaston and LeFou, respectively. They ham it up in the best way possible, as Evans perfectly encapsulates our favorite manly but shallow villain while Gad brings new depth to the role of Gaston’s loyal lackey. Kevin Kline is great as well in the role of Maurice, as he portrays the character in a much more toned down manner compared to the original that fits very well with the new plotline that shows why he’s been so protective of Belle all this time. And of course, we can't forget about the Beast’s servants and man did they get a great cast for these iconic supporting roles; Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette (Fifi in the original film), Audra McDonald as Madame de Garderobe the Wardrobe, and Stanley Tucci as new character Maestro Cadenza the Harpsichord.

And thus, Disney is now 4 for 4 with their recent live-action remakes. I mean, admittedly I don't think I can go as far as to say that it's the ‘best’ of these remakes but I can tell you one thing; it's a hell of a lot better than its current 71% score on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. Thankfully, that's still considered a ‘fresh’ rating but I have the feeling that some of the more negative reviews that the film has been getting have been a lot more stringent on comparisons between the two versions of this story. Like I said before, I can see why this is happening. Because this one is arguably the closest to its animated counterpart out of all the Disney remakes released to date, the word ‘unnecessary’ has undeniably been thrown around a lot. Maybe it is… but I don't care. I love the original (it is, after all, my 3^rd favorite Disney animated film of all-time) but I also love this new take on it, as its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, it is a genuinely well-made film in terms of its production design and visuals, not to mention having a fantastic ensemble cast to portray this story’s collection of iconic roles. Simply put, it's just an incredibly satisfying ‘feel good’ film and in this current time, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now. Just ignore all the negativity in the world for a few hours (especially the negativity directed towards a certain element of this film; more on that in a bit) and enjoy a charming new take on a classic that we all know and love. On that note, to those who aren't big on these Disney remakes, don't worry, for the original animated film is still as perfect as it ever was. This new version is ultimately just like the remakes of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon; it's a nice complement to the original source.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. Well, I should probably address the big controversy surrounding this film because… oh boy. So, as many of you are aware, the film has been getting some flak recently from some audiences after an announcement that stated that it would have Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay’ moment involving the character of LeFou. Because of this, there's been quite a bit of heavy blowback from various parties; some countries banned the film unless cuts were made, a theater in Alabama refused to show it, and in Russia, it was given an adult rating. Yes, in Russia, this film is considered nearly as mature as, say, Logan. To all this, I say… this is one of the stupidest and most overblown controversies in recent memory. This moment that everyone keeps talking about is just one SMALL moment at the end of the film. Heck, if it hadn't been pointed out beforehand, I bet most of us wouldn't have even noticed it because the film’s quite subtle about it. Bottom line, Disney isn't trying to force an LGBT agenda down our throats; they're just trying to represent a wider audience. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, this backlash totally goes against the great positive messages of this film, namely, you know, accepting people for who they really are on the inside. So, yeah… this backlash is frigging stupid.)

STAR WARS MONTH: Post #3: Prequel Trilogy (1999-2005)

(Disclaimer: The following post will likely be highly controversial for many people given the general reception of the ‘Star Wars’ prequels. With that in mind, I ask that you please refrain from posting any disrespectful or trolling comments. Just remember that this is all just opinion-based. Thank you!)

Following the release of the final film in the original ‘Star Wars’ trilogy, ‘Return of the Jedi’, in 1983, George Lucas had planned to do a sequel trilogy. However in 1987, after most of his money was lost in a divorce settlement between him and his ex-wife Marcia Griffin, who had been an editor on ‘A New Hope’ and ‘Return of the Jedi’, Lucas decided to cancel this planned sequel trilogy. However, years later, as ‘Star Wars’ continued to maintain its popularity thanks to various things like a comic line by ‘Dark Horse’, a trilogy of novels by author Timothy Zahn, and numerous fan-made films inspired by the series, Lucas decided to start development of a new trilogy after all. But this time, he decided to go backwards in regards to the story and do a prequel trilogy, which would tell the story of how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader. The first film in the new trilogy, ‘The Phantom Menace’, was released in 1999 and the hype leading up to the film’s release was insane. Fans were super excited to see a new ‘Star Wars’ film for the first time in 16 years. But of course, as we all know, all of that anticipation ultimately ended up majorly backfiring on audiences. Sure, this new trilogy of films didn’t get ‘terrible’ reviews from critics but audiences, or more specifically ‘Star Wars’ fans, were far more negative towards them to the point where nowadays they’re pretty much the most hated series of films on the internet.

So with all of that said, some of you might be expecting me to join in on the bandwagon against these films, denouncing them as the terrible trilogy of films that they are that were responsible for ‘ruining’ the franchise. But believe it or not, that’s not what I’m going to do here today; far from it. Even though I recognize that I’m obviously in the extreme minority on this, I’m not afraid to admit the following; I do like the prequels. Now let me be very clear, I don’t think that they’re ‘as good’ as the original trilogy. But at the same time, in all seriousness, they’re not ‘as bad’ as the internet has put them out to be. I’ve seriously seen some people actually refer to these films, mainly the first two, as ‘the worst films of all time’, which is the very definition of an overblown statement. Sure, they have their problems, no doubt about that. But despite all of this, at the end of the day they’re still ‘Star Wars’ films. They still have that same feel and atmosphere to them… minus the great writing of the original trilogy, but still. So today, on Rhode Island Movie Corner for ‘Star Wars Month’, I’ll be looking at this prequel trilogy that most people despise with a burning passion. More specifically, I’ll be discussing the main reasons why this prequel trilogy didn’t work as well as its predecessors… and not always the reasons that the internet primarily likes to target. So without further ado, here are my thoughts on the ‘Star Wars’ prequels. 

STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE (1999)

We all know what went down with this film. It was, and probably still remains as, the most anticipated film of all time. The hype for the film was ridiculous to the point where some people actually bought full-price movie tickets just to watch the trailer for the film and then leave right after that. That just shows how much people were excited for this film. There probably will never be another film more anticipated than this one… well, except for ‘Force Awakens’ but let’s just hope that we won’t have another ‘Phantom Menace’ on our hands as far as audience reaction is concerned. Yet at the end of the day, despite the fact that at the end of its initial run it grossed over $900 million at the box office and would join the billion dollar club when it was re-released in 3-D in 2012, it ended up disappointing a lot of fans and you can still see that today, more than one and a half decades since it first hit theaters. But is it really ‘as bad’ as the internet constantly puts it out to be? As much as I know that some people are really, really going to disagree with me, I can safely say that… no, no it isn’t. Heck, it even isn’t the weakest of the ‘Star Wars’ films, which we’ll get to later.

But before I get into the main reasons why ‘The Phantom Menace’ didn’t work as well as it did, I’m going to debunk two of the main aspects of the film that some people really like to highlight as being the ‘main’ problems with the film when in reality that’s far from the truth. The first of these is Jake Lloyd as young Anakin Skywalker. You really do have to feel bad for this kid given all that he’s gone through since the film’s release. He had the opportunity to be in one of the biggest franchises of all time in the crucial role of Anakin Skywalker. And yet because the film ended up disappointing a lot of fans, suddenly he became a scapegoat for the film and he’s had to live with that ever since. I mean, okay yes I do agree that maybe Anakin should’ve been older instead of being a nine-year-old… but I don’t think Lloyd’s performance is ‘that bad’. I mean, I give him some slack because he was just a kid and let’s face it, George Lucas isn’t really the best ‘actor’ director out there. The other big scapegoat, and boy am I really going to piss off some people here, is Jar Jar Binks. Internet, you REALLY got to get over Jar Jar. For the record, no I’m not defending him as a character. He was clearly a misfire of an attempt by George Lucas to be the film’s source of comic relief. But for god’s sakes, folks, he is not the main problem of ‘Phantom Menace’ for crying out loud. That’s like saying ‘Emo Peter’ is the main problem of ‘Spider-Man 3’. Neither of those arguments are true.

So what is the actual main problem with ‘Phantom Menace’? It’s quite simple, really… the writing just wasn’t up to par with the previous three films. It’s basically a case of style over substance. Sure the visuals are nice and all, but that comes at the expense of the story and the characters. A story based around ‘trade negotiations’ and ‘treaties’ is a little too ‘political’ for a ‘Star Wars’ movie. And then when you get to the characters, there are so many ‘main’ characters in this film that we don’t really have a ‘main character’ in the vein of Luke to follow. It’s not Qui-Gon because, spoilers in the extremely unlikely case you haven’t seen this 16-year old film, he’s killed by Darth Maul in the final duel. It’s not Obi-Wan because he spends a lot of time just sitting around doing nothing up until, again, the final duel. And it’s not really Anakin either because he doesn’t show up until 45 minutes in. Many people, like YouTube personality ‘Belated Media’ (I’ll provide links to his excellent ‘What if Episodes I and II were Better?’ videos below; They really do set up a great outline for what could’ve been really awesome ‘Star Wars’ films), make the argument that Obi-Wan should’ve been the main character through it all and that Darth Maul, the villain who was well set-up and then was wasted by being killed off at the end (for now we’ll ignore his appearances in other forms of ‘Star Wars’ media, including ‘The Clone Wars’), should’ve been the primary antagonist for Obi-Wan given the fact that he killed Qui-Gon… and I agree.

So with that said, are there good things in this film? Yes, there are. Despite not really having the best material to work with, Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor both do fairly solid jobs as Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan, respectively; McGregor in particular really stands out as one of the best elements of the whole prequel trilogy. As noted earlier, the visuals are still pretty solid. Though with that said, re-watching this film on Blu-Ray makes it clear that a lot of the visuals are really starting to show their age. The whole pod-racing sequence is pretty entertaining (it did lead to a great video game spin-off), and the final fight between Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan, and Darth Maul is easily one of the best lightsaber duels in the entire franchise even if it may not necessarily have the same emotional depth as the duels in the original trilogy. Ultimately, I’ll say this; I’m not saying that ‘The Phantom Menace’ is the absolute best entry in the ‘Star Wars’ franchise; it isn’t. But believe when I say that this is not ‘the worst film ever’ as some people on the internet like to refer to it as. Does it have problems? Yes it does, but this just goes to show what happens when you overhype a film too much… it’s not going to please everyone and unfortunately this may happen again with ‘Force Awakens’. I’ll admit that I may be a little biased towards this film as it was the first ‘Star Wars’ film that I ever watched in theaters. I went to go see it in 2012 when it was re-released in 3-D and before you say anything, I never saw the original trilogy when it was re-released in theaters in 1997 (I was 2 at the time) and never saw any of the prequels during their original theatrical releases, so this was my first real opportunity to see a ‘Star Wars’ film in theaters.

Rating: 3.5/5

STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002)

Ultimately, despite its problems, ‘The Phantom Menace’ actually isn’t the weakest of the ‘Star Wars’ films to date. That ‘honor’ instead belongs to its sequel, ‘Attack of the Clones’. Because while ‘Attack of the Clones’ does make some improvements in the wake of its predecessor’s shortcomings, it brings in a whole new set of problems that are actually much more prevalent than the ones in the ‘Phantom Menace’. So first, let’s get the ‘post-Menace’ improvements out of the way. The story is much more focused than it was in the original and is not all about trade negotiations and treaties, though of course the political aspect of the story is still there; thankfully not as much in this one. Also in this film, instead of having too many main characters to the point where there actually wasn’t any distinguishable ‘main’ character, this film limits its primary protagonists to the trio of Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padme. And again, the visuals are fine for the time. Though with that said, it should be noted that this was the start of a trend for the prequels as nearly every major sequence in the film was primarily shot in front of a blue-screen; in other words, most of the environments were computer generated. Sure, they look nice and polished but it’s a lot more obvious and, to put it bluntly, fake-looking. Though to ‘Clones’’ credit, it isn’t as egregious in its use of CGI environments compared to its sequel, as there still were ‘some’ real locations used, like Spain and Italy for scenes on Naboo and the Tunisian desert for scenes on Tatooine.

So what’s the big issue with the film? Well, it mainly stems from the film focusing a bit too much on the growing romance between Anakin and Padme. Now I get what Lucas was trying to do; he was trying to mirror the romance between Han and Leia in the original trilogy. That’s fine, but in execution it’s nowhere near as good as it was with Han and Leia. The romantic dialogue is, well… the line ‘I don’t like sand’ should give you an idea of what it’s like. And ultimately leads Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman don’t really have as great a chemistry as Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford did in the original films. Portman was unfortunately wasted here and basically the whole trilogy in general and as for Christensen, well, I’m not going to be as harsh on him as the rest of the internet is because, let’s face it, most of the big names of the cast, like Samuel L. Jackson and Christopher Lee, don’t really get off any better because, as noted earlier, Lucas really isn’t that great of an actor-director. With that said, though… yeah they could’ve gone with a better choice for Anakin. I mean, we could’ve gotten Leonardo DiCaprio in the role and even with Lucas’ direction I believe that DiCaprio would’ve turned out much better.

But the other big issue of the film, again, comes from the romance in that, as I noted earlier, they spend WAY too much time on it, so much so that the middle section of the film is mostly just Anakin and Padme being all romantic on Naboo. But because of the mediocre dialogue and the fact that this romance is generally bland, that means that the film drags… quite a bit. I mean sure, there are some fairly entertaining action sequences from time to time, namely the scenes between Obi-Wan (once again, Ewan McGregor is one of the few ‘shining spots’ of this cast) and bounty hunter Jango Fett, father of original trilogy bounty hunter Boba Fett (or I guess in this case, his ‘clone son’). But for the most part, most of the best action sequences in the film occur near the end, including the first action sequence involving Yoda. Dare I say it? Even ‘Phantom Menace’ didn’t drag as much as this film. So as is, I hate to say it but ‘Attack of the Clones’ is easily what can technically called the ‘worst’ of the six live-action ‘Star Wars’ films to date. Now let me be clear; I don’t ‘hate’ it. Despite all that I’ve said here, this is still a ‘Star Wars’ movie and it still has that ‘Star Wars’ feel that still shines through even in the weakest entries in the series. But even with that said, there’s a lot of things that bring ‘Attack of the Clones’ down, even more so than ‘Phantom Menace’.

Rating: 3/5

STAR WARS EPISODE III: REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005)

After two less-than-stellar entries in the ‘Star Wars’ franchise with ‘The Phantom Menace’ and ‘Attack of the Clones’, the prequel trilogy at least ended on a high note with ‘Episode III: Revenge of the Sith’. ‘Revenge of the Sith’ is easily the best entry in the prequel trilogy. While it does still have some of the issues that have plagued the entire trilogy, namely some less-than-stellar writing in certain scenes, it does a much better job in feeling more like a ‘Star Wars’ film. This is the best of the prequel trilogy when it comes to visuals, which have aged much better than in the previous two films. Though with that said, as I noted earlier, I’m pretty sure that there wasn’t any actual practical set locations used during filming save for background location shots. Part of me is amazed at how a film like this is able to do that and how the actors are somehow able to make it look believable even though, during filming, they didn’t really have anything to work off of. The whole Obi-Wan-General Grievous sequence was basically just Ewan McGregor working against a green-screen wall. Though even with the whole predominantly green-screen visuals in mind, the action sequences are pretty darn solid, including the duel between Yoda and Darth Sidious and the climactic final duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan, even though the latter goes on maybe just a bit too long.

‘Revenge of the Sith’ was the first entry in the series to rated PG-13. While it’s safe to say that the main reason for this was due to the scene at the end where Anakin gets heavily burned by lava, the film does maintain a generally darker tone than the other films in the franchise. Overall, I liked that the film did take this route as it did make sense given the darker nature of the story with Anakin’s downfall, turn to the dark side, and ultimately his transformation into Darth Vader. With that said though, at times the film is perhaps just a bit ‘too dark’. I mean, keep in mind that this is still a franchise aimed at a generally younger audience and yet there’s a scene where Anakin kills young Jedi. Sure it happens off-screen so we don’t actually see it happening but did we really need to see that in a ‘Star Wars’ film? No, no we didn’t. So in the end, while I can’t really say that ‘Revenge of the Sith’ is ‘as good’ as any of the original three ‘Star Wars’ films, it is definitely the best of the prequel trilogy. It still carries over some of the issues from the last two films, namely in regards to writing, but those aren’t as big of a problem here as they were in the previous two films. The ‘Star Wars’ prequel trilogy may not have turned out as well as many ‘Star Wars’ fans had hoped but if anything, it at least ended on a better note than when it first started.

Rating: 4/5

'What If Episode I was Good?' by Belated Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgICnbC2-_Y

'What if Episode II was Good?' by Belated Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbug3AhYmw