Artemis Fowl (2020) review (Disney+)

Thanks in large part to the massive critical and financial success that Warner Bros has achieved through the Harry Potter franchise, we’ve seen plenty of attempts at film franchises based on other popular young adult novels. And yet, the results have generally varied when it comes to their attempts to become the next Potter. In other words, while franchises like The Hunger Games and Twilight managed to see their stories told to completion, others like His Dark Materials and The Mortal Instruments basically crashed and burned right at the start, thus failing to spawn their potential franchises. But now we’ve come to the latest attempt at a film franchise based on a YA novel with Artemis Fowl. It all began with the 2001 fantasy novel of the same name written by Irish author Eoin Colfer, which introduced readers to the titular Artemis Fowl II, a 12-year-old prodigy who runs his family’s long-standing criminal empire. Upon publication, it did quite well with both critics and audiences and would be followed by seven sequels that were released up until 2012 as well as a few spin-offs. But as for a potential film adaptation of the franchise… it took a little longer to make that a reality. Plans for this adaptation go back as far as 2001, the same year that the first novel was released, but it ended up in development hell for at least more than a decade until 2015, when the one and only Kenneth Branagh was announced as its director. It was originally set for an August 2019 release but was then pushed back to May 2020, presumably due to Disney’s efforts to manage the newest additions to their release schedule that came courtesy of their recent purchasing of 20^th Century Fox. But, as you might have guessed… then came the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced Disney to cancel its theatrical release and instead have it debut on Disney+. And while I’m well-aware of the incredibly notorious reputation that this film has garnered amongst fans of the franchise from an adaptational perspective, I’d say that it still manages to be a decently entertaining fantasy flick.   

Artemis Fowl II (Ferdia Shaw) is a 12-year old genius who lives with his father, Artemis I (Colin Farrell), at their prestigious manor off the coast of Ireland but is emotionally burdened by his father’s frequent trips that he never talks about. But then, on one fateful day, Artemis Sr. suddenly disappears, and thanks to the extensive media coverage of this incident, Artemis is distressed to discover that his dad has been linked to the thefts of some of the most famous artifacts in the world. And if that wasn’t enough, Artemis gets a message from a mysterious figure named Opal Koboi (voiced by an uncredited Hong Chau and physically portrayed by Emily Brockmann, Jessica Rhodes, and Charlie Cameron) who reveals that she has kidnapped his father, who had stolen a powerful artifact from her known as the Aculos. Artemis’ loyal bodyguard Domovoi ‘Dom’ Butler (Nonso Anozie) then proceeds to inform him that his father, like his ancestors before him, has spent several years documenting the existence of magical creatures. And as it turns out, a whole universe of these creatures exists underground in a place known as Haven City. Thus, with only three days to find the Aculos and save his father from Opal, Artemis and Butler enact a plan that sees them capture Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), an elven fairy and member of Haven City’s Lower Elements Police reconnaissance squad (AKA LEPrecon). Holly also happens to be the daughter of Beechwood Short, who is revealed to have been the one who had originally stolen the Aculos for Artemis’ dad despite this resulting in him being deemed a traitor by LEPrecon. Naturally, Holly’s capture attracts the attention of LEPrecon as her superior, Commander Root (Judi Dench), launches a full-scale assault on the Fowl estate to rescue her, completely unaware that this is all part of Artemis’ ingenious scheme to stop the evil being that threatens to destroy both the human world and the magical world.

Right off the bat, the first thing to note about this film is that, in several places, it differs quite a bit from its source material. While the main plot of Artemis kidnapping Holly Short and incurring the wrath of LEPrecon is the same as it was in the book, the set-up behind it isn’t. Instead of being part of his quest to find a powerful magical artifact and rescue his father from Opal Koboi (who, in the books, didn’t appear until the second installment, Artemis Fowl: The Arctic Incident), the book saw him do this simply to collect a massive reward to recoup his family’s fortune. There was also a key emotional subplot regarding Artemis’ mother, which is absent in the film as it’s established that she died sometime prior. So, in other words, it seems like the biggest difference between the film and the book is that the former makes a considerable effort to tone down Artemis’ ‘criminal mastermind’ persona so that he doesn’t come off as an unlikable villain. And yet, based on what I’ve seen from fans of the franchise, it’s safe to say that Artemis’ traditional characterization was never an issue for them, and as you might have guessed, they aren’t too happy with all these narrative and character-based changes. However, what fascinates me the most about this film is how surprisingly modest it is when it comes to one of the biggest aspects of any potential franchise starter, world-building. While it does set up the world of Haven City and the creatures that inhabit it, it doesn’t spend a lot of time there, instead focusing more on Artemis’ clash with LEPrecon at his family’s mansion. Granted, this does result in a rather unique ‘bottle episode’ of a story that’s often been described by Eoin Colfer as a ‘fantasy version of Die Hard’, but it still would’ve benefitted from a greater focus on the magical world of Haven City. To be fair, though, this is probably another consequence of the film’s major changes, especially since films usually don’t get the same amount of time that books get when it comes to setting up their unique settings and their eclectic casts of characters.

Despite this, however, the film fares a lot better in other aspects of its production, which I primarily attribute to Kenneth Branagh’s traditionally solid direction. While action sequences are still far from being Branagh’s strongest suit as a director, the film does boast some nice production design, especially for the fantastical world of Haven City. And thanks to its breezy 95-minute runtime, its pacing is generally decent throughout even if it does sometimes come at the cost of story and character development. It also sports a solid cast that, even with some big names like Judi Dench and Josh Gad to headline the ensemble, primarily lets newcomers Ferdia Shaw and Lara McDonnell have their time to shine in the lead roles of Artemis and Holly, respectively. And overall, these two do manage to hold their own against their famous co-stars even when taking the changes to their characters into account. Obviously, Artemis is the most radically different compared to his book counterpart, but Ferdia Shaw still manages to do a nice job in maintaining Artemis’ persona of a kid who’s very much wise beyond his years. Again, it may be a far cry from how the character is portrayed in the book, but it works fine enough for this specific take on the story. The same goes for Lara McDonnell as Holly Short, who arguably fares a bit better than Artemis does when it comes to withstanding the changes to her character since they’re more story-based than character-based. As for their co-stars, Judi Dench is her usual dignified self as a gender-swapped Commander Root (and yes, that’s the second time in a row that she’s played a character like that) while Nonso Anozie, who’s quickly becoming a Branagh regular, continues to showcase his talents as a top-notch supporting player as Butler. But as for the biggest standout of the film, that honor goes to Josh Gad as Mulch Diggums, an ‘oversized dwarf’ and kleptomaniac that LEPrecon brings in to aid in their attack on Fowl Manor. As you might have guessed, he ends up being the film’s best source of comic relief.  

In conclusion, I should probably note that when it comes to the YA-oriented novels that I read when I was growing up, Artemis Fowl wasn’t really a part of that group. Instead, it was headlined by the likes of Hunger Games, Percy Jackson, and of course, Harry Potter. My family did own copies of the first two installments of Artemis Fowl… but I’ll freely admit that I only got a few chapters into the first book before putting it down. For reasons that I simply can’t explain, it just didn’t click with me the same way that something like Harry Potter did even though fantasy is very much one of my favorite genres. As such, I went into this film as a complete newcomer which, given what I’ve learned about all its controversial changes, was probably for the best. While Artemis Fowl does maintain the general plot synopsis of its source material, it isn’t as faithful when it comes to how that plot comes together. But while fans won’t be the least bit happy with how radically different it is when compared to the book, Artemis Fowl manages to be a decent little fantasy flick even if it is rather hindered by being a bit too simple-plotted for a supposed franchise starter. While most have focused on how much it deviates from the source material, I’m more fascinated by how it ends up being surprisingly light on world-building since it doesn’t spend as much time as it could’ve in the underground world of Haven City. Simply put, the first installments of other franchises based on YA novels have done a far better job when it comes to that sort of thing since that’s usually what’s expected from them. Ultimately, though, while it’s far from being a masterpiece, it manages to get by thanks in large part to its solid cast. However, I think it’s safe to say that its fate as a Disney+ release means that we probably won’t be seeing any sequels. To be fair, though, I have the feeling that if this film was released in theaters as originally intended… its poor reception would’ve easily led to it becoming one of the year’s big box-office bombs.

Rating: 3.5/5

Cats (2019) review

Your eyes aren’t deceiving you, folks… I’m about to review what has easily been the most infamous film of 2019, the film adaptation of the long-running musical, Cats. The musical made its London debut in 1981, five years before composer Andrew Lloyd Webber unleashed his biggest smash hit on the world, The Phantom of the Opera, and was inspired by the 1939 collection of poems titled Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats written by T.S. Eliot. A year later, it would make its Broadway debut, and both versions of the show ended up being massive financial hits. To date, Cats is the fourth highest-grossing musical of all-time with a worldwide gross of over $2.8 billion, and it is widely regarded as the first ‘mega-musical’ AKA the theater equivalent of a cinematic blockbuster. Over the years, however, the overall reception towards the show has varied due to its many bizarre aspects, and sure enough, this mindset carried over to the announcement that a film adaptation was in the works as practically every major aspect of its production became a prime source of internet mockery. Sure, it was set to be directed by Tom Hooper, who had previously directed 2010’s Best Picture winner The King’s Speech and the 2012 adaptation of another legendary musical, Les Misérables, but the overall mixed reception towards the latter and the growing criticism of Hooper’s directorial trademarks didn’t help. And once the first trailer for the film was released, the internet recoiled at the sight of the bizarre project that was set to hit theaters which, when it ultimately did, was widely panned by critics and immediately regarded as one of the most disastrous films in recent memory. Thus, today we’ll be going over all the reasons why Cats is the utterly fascinating mess that it ends up being.

One night, a young white kitten named Victoria (Francesca Hayward) is abandoned by her owner on the streets of London. Immediately, she is approached by a group of alley cats who refer to themselves as ‘Jellicle’ cats. Through them, Victoria learns that tonight happens to be the biggest night of the year for the Jellicles, the Jellicle Ball. Every year, the Jellicles’ wise leader, Old Deuteronomy (Judi Dench), selects one member of their tribe who will ascend to the mythical place known as the Heaviside Layer and be reborn. And so, Victoria and the rest of the Jellicles begin to witness some of the most prominent members of the tribe compete for this honor, which includes everyone from the bourgeois Bustopher Jones (James Corden) to the elderly theater performer Gus (Ian McKellen). At the same time, however, the Jellicles must also deal with the actions of the sinister Macavity (Idris Elba), who will stop at nothing to ensure that he’s the one who gets chosen. And really, folks… that’s about it for the plot. As I’m sure those in the theater community will agree, Cats sports the very definition of a bare-bones plot that’s basically just a series of vignettes in which new characters are introduced and they have their big solo numbers. And while I can’t say much about how this translates to the stage since I’ve admittedly haven’t seen Cats in its original musical form, I have the feeling that it works a lot better there than it does on film. Here, that kind of plot makes the whole thing quite repetitive and it also doesn’t help that the film speeds through the story at a surprisingly rapid pace, which means that there’s never a point where it slows down to let us properly fathom any of its utterly bizarre moments.

But, of course, the one thing that will forever define this film’s reputation is how it brings the story’s feline characters to life. Ever since its debut, the musical has always relied on elaborate costuming and makeup to accomplish this. But as for the film, it opted to go the CGI route and utilize motion-capture to turn its cast into cats. And as you might have guessed, this was the main reason why the film’s initial trailer ended up becoming so notorious as many felt that its CGI designs were one of the most blatant examples of imagery that falls into the uncanny valley. And while I personally never found these designs ‘scary’ like the rest of the internet regards them as (in a year which also saw that same description apply to the sight of Will Smith’s Genie in his traditional blue form and the initial cinematic design of Sonic the Hedgehog), even I can agree that this wasn’t the right way to go when it came to bringing Cats to the big screen. Simply put, practically all the big stars in the film get some incredibly unflattering CGI makeovers. And despite all the behind-the-scenes videos that emphasized how the production utilized some genuinely impressive larger-than-life sets, this is a very CGI-dominated film in general, which means that the weaker effects don’t just apply to the characters. However, given the various reports that came out after the film’s release, this is ultimately something that you can’t really fault the VFX artists for since it’s now been well-established that this film was beyond rushed and they had an incredibly tense relationship with director Tom Hooper. In fact, it was so rushed that the studio had to send out a new version of the film to theaters (during its opening weekend, no less) to fix some glaring visual effects errors, namely the appearance of Judi Dench’s wedding ring on her hand in certain shots. However, from what I’ve read (and based off the version of the film that I watched on VUDU), this ‘updated’ cut didn’t make any noticeable changes, which means that, yes, you can still see Judi Dench’s wedding ring on numerous occasions.

And yet, arguably the most ironic aspect of this film is that, despite all its visual shortcomings and its strict adherence to maintaining the overall weirdness of its source material, much of its star-studded cast is still fully committed to the bizarre antics that they end up partaking in. Going back to this film’s behind-the-scenes videos for a second, the overall vibe that you get from the cast in their various testimonials is that they genuinely wanted to be there, and as crazy as it may sound, this enthusiasm can be seen in a lot of their performances. Legends like Judi Dench and Ian McKellen give it their all and while she may have arguably been a bit young for the role of the withered glamour cat Grizabella, Jennifer Hudson still gives the musical’s most iconic number, ‘Memory’, the emotional powerhouse of a performance it deserves. In fact, Dench’s casting as a gender-swapped Old Deuteronomy is quite significant since she was originally cast as Grizabella in the original London production of the musical but had to drop out at the last minute when she tore her Achilles tendon during rehearsals. But remember what I said earlier about how this is basically just a series of vignettes that jump from character to character? Well, because of that, most of the characters in this film are basically relegated to minor cameos which, in this instance, ends up applying to the most prominent members of the ensemble such as McKellen, James Corden, and Taylor Swift as the flirtatious Bombalurina, just to name a few. Instead, the film tends to focus more on the story’s supporting players, namely the trio of Munkustrap (Robbie Fairchild), Mr. Mistoffelees (Laurie Davidson), and Victoria, whose traditionally silent role in the musical is expanded upon to make her the main protagonist. However, the methods in which the film handles this change are rather mediocre and, at best, she just ends up being a generally passive audience surrogate. Thus, while I’m well aware that many have harped on Francesca Hayward’s performance in the role, this is ultimately another case like the VFX artists where you can’t really blame it on her since, to be perfectly frank, she didn’t have much to work with here.

So, yeah… as you might have guessed, there’s not a lot of positive things that I can say about this film. Now, granted, I’m not as repulsed by this film as the rest of the internet is, but it goes without saying that Cats is one of the strangest films to come out in recent years. Of course, a lot of this has to do with its questionable method of bringing the titular cats to life via CGI, especially since it’s now been made clear that the rushed production schedule that this film ended up having resulted in its effects feeling quite unfinished. At the same time, though, there’s also the matter of how this film ended up taking the musical that it's based on and doing almost nothing to try and work around its most bizarre aspects. Because of this, anybody who isn’t familiar with the musical going in will most likely be left completely and utterly dumbfounded by its strange and simplistic story. And yet, while this may seem like a case where it’d be more accessible to those who are fans of the musical, it seems like even that’s impossible (based on what I’ve heard) because of the radical changes that this film makes to both its plot and several of its musical numbers. It’s worth noting that the original plans for this film adaptation were to have it be an animated feature done by Steven Spielberg’s production company Amblin Entertainment’s animation division, Amblimation. And while this iteration of the project ultimately went nowhere when the division was shut down in 1997, it’s safe to say that this film probably would’ve worked a hell of a lot better had it been animated as originally intended.

Rating: 1.5/5

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) review

When it comes to some of the most famous authors of all time, Agatha Christie is undoubtedly one of the most legendary in that field. Over the span of several decades, the late English author was well-known for writing several classic mystery stories, so much so that she currently holds the record as the best-selling novelist of all time with over 2 billion copies of her work sold. And in her first novel, 1920’s The Mysterious Affair at Styles, readers were introduced to arguably her most famous creation, the Belgian detective known as Hercule Poirot. Poirot went on to appear in 33 of Christie’s novels, her 1930 play Black Coffee, and over 50 of her short stories. But as for the most famous story that he ever appeared in, that honor goes to Christie’s 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express, in which the detective with the well-groomed mustache found himself dealing with, as the title suggests, a murder mystery onboard the titular Orient Express. This particular Christie story has already been adapted to the screen several times over the years, including a star-studded 1974 film adaptation directed by Sidney Lumet and an episode of the long-running British TV series Agatha Christie’s Poirot. But now Poirot is back on the big-screen once again in a brand new take on this iconic story, with Sir Kenneth Branagh taking on the role of the legendary detective. He also serves as the director of this new film which, like the 1974 adaptation, also features a star-studded cast. And overall, despite some of its shortcomings, this new version of Murder on the Orient Express does manage to be a solid adaptation of its source material.

As the film begins, we are introduced to the man himself, Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), the most famous detective in the world. The year is 1933 and despite Poirot’s plans to go on holiday after his most recent case in Jerusalem, he receives a telegram demanding that he return to London to take on a new case. To get there, Poirot’s friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) offers him a compartment on the luxurious Orient Express, which Bouc has just been appointed the director of. Whilst onboard, Poirot is joined by an eclectic group of passengers, including young governess Mary Debenham (Daisy Ridley), American socialite Caroline Hubbard (Michelle Pfeiffer), and immoral businessman Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp). Ratchett ends up approaching Poirot and asks him to be his bodyguard as he fears that he’s in danger. Poirot refuses but, soon enough, Ratchett is found dead in his cabin from several stab wounds. When the Orient Express is forced to make an unscheduled pit stop due to an avalanche, Poirot quickly begins to investigate the cause of Ratchett’s death. Deducing that one of their fellow passengers was responsible for the crime, Poirot works tirelessly in order to figure out which one of them is the murderer. And as he soon finds out, this case ends up having some noticeable connections to a highly public kidnapping/murder case that had occurred a few years back.

Now, just a quick disclaimer; at the time that I’m writing this, I have not read the original Murder on the Orient Express novel. I also haven’t watched any of the previous adaptations of this story, which of course includes the last major feature film adaptation from 1974. And from what I’ve read online, comparisons between this film and its various predecessors have been quite common. Thus, given what I just said about my general unfamiliarity with the source material, unfortunately, I can’t really add much to that discussion. What I will say, though, is that Branagh does do a good job in making this film an engaging murder mystery, and because I didn’t really know anything about the plot before seeing it, it allowed me to go into the film without already knowing the final outcome. With that in mind, however, I am aware that some have been rather mixed on the ending, not because it changes anything (from what I’ve read, it seems like Branagh stayed generally faithful to the source material) but more in the case of how Branagh handles it as director. Some have felt that the ending diminishes the impact of the final reveal by way of how Poirot ultimately responds to it. And despite this being my first major experience with this classic murder mystery story, I will admit that I did find that the ending didn’t quite have the impact that it wanted to leave on the audience. Still, at the very least, the build-up to the final reveal is well-handled and the film is well-made on a technical level, benefitting especially from some great cinematography from Branagh regular Haris Zambarloukos that was shot on 65 mm film a la Dunkirk.

As noted earlier, the 1974 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express featured an all-star cast that included the likes of Albert Finney in the role of Poirot, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud, and Sean Connery just to name a few. The same applies to this new version as well, with names like Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Judi Dench, and Johnny Depp… and again, that’s just to name a few. And, of course, Kenneth Branagh not only directs the film but stars in it as well as the one and only Hercule Poirot. Branagh does a great job in the role, excellently conveying both Poirot’s wisdom and eccentric nature, two traits that very much help him when it comes to solving cases. As for the rest of the cast, they’re all great as well but they admittedly don’t have as much to work with compared to Branagh. Now, to be fair, it can be argued that this is just a consequence of being a story in which there are 12 primary suspects. Still, aside from a select few like Gad and Ridley’s characters, most of their roles in the film are basically just limited to one or two major scenes that they share with Poirot, who interrogates them all one at a time. Ultimately, though, if I had to pick the biggest standouts of the supporting cast, that would include Michelle Pfeiffer as the headstrong Mrs. Hubbard, Judi Dench as the pushy Princess Dragomiroff, and Leslie Odom Jr. as the often put-upon Dr. Arbuthnot.

So as I’ve made it clear, this film basically served as my introduction to Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express. As such, I can’t really say much about how this version of the story compares to other adaptations of it because simply put, I haven’t seen any of them. With that said, though, I am aware that some have been critical of this adaptation for not really doing anything new with the source material. And, of course, some have also taken issue with the ending, which I’ll admit is an argument that I do sort of agree with in terms of how it kind of lessens the final resolution of the main conflict. Still, for the most part, I found this to be a solidly made mystery thriller. While the plot does maintain a ‘slow burn’ style of pacing throughout, there is never a dull moment in this film. And like many of Branagh’s films (e.g. his remake of Cinderella and the first Thor film), this film does benefit from some solid production value, namely in regards to the cinematography, and an excellent ensemble cast. In short, if you’re like me and you’re not too familiar with the original source material going in, at the very least this film serves as a nice way of introducing newcomers to Christie’s work. And given that the film ends with a nod to another Poirot story, the potential is there for a sequel or two adapting other classic Christie novels. But if you are familiar with this story and the previous adaptations of it, this adaptation may seem a bit more questionable given everything that’s come before it. Overall, though, this film does succeed when it comes to being an entertaining popcorn flick that’s worth checking out on the big screen.

Rating: 4/5