If there was ever a shared cinematic universe that has yet to be properly exploited, it’s the one from the mind of author Stephen King.  King, the modern master of horror, has churned out novel after novel over nearly 50 years of writing and with all that has created one of the most prolific canons ever in literature.  What’s even more surprising about all of his novels is the fact that many contain a shared mythology.  Sure it’s a convoluted and bizarre mythology that loosely ties his stories together, but it’s there and it’s very much a product of his imagination.  But those ties have never really been explored too deeply on the big screen, because as much as Stephen King has a devoted fan base and a body of work worth a dozen or so franchises, King’s relationship with Hollywood has been a sometimes contentious one.  Very protective of his own work, King often oversees the adaptations of his books into film himself, ensuring that everything he values from his own writing makes it onto the screen in tact.  Because so many of his novels run on the long side, he often forgoes taking his books to the big screen in favor of creating television mini-series instead, because the longer format gives him the time he needs to include everything from the books.  This often has come with it’s own downside, as King has had to compromise the more graphic elements of his stories in order to meet television standards, but it’s a compromise he has been willing to make in order to retain his control over the adaptation.  This probably stemmed from the 1980 adaptation of The Shining by Stanley Kubrick, which King famously hated because of all the changes Kubrick had made to make it more “theatrical.”  The receptions of his television adaptations have been fairly mixed over the years, from positive (Under the Dome) to very negative (The Langoliers).  But if the was one that proved to be a standout, it was probably his 1990 miniseries of his most famous novel; IT.

For a novel with a title as simple as IT, it is remarkably monstrous in size.  Running the length of a Bible, IT is peak Stephen King, in both the best and worst ways.  For one thing, it has some of the most surreal and frightening imagery that he has ever committed to the page.  One the other hand, it is also bloated and meandering, and just plain weird for weird’s sake, showing the author at his most indulgent.  The novel is famous for a lot of things, but perhaps it’s most famous creation is the titular monster at it’s center; the demon clown who also goes by the name Pennywise.  Even the novel’s most ardent critics will admit that Pennywise is one of King’s most enduring creations.  Anyone who’s already afraid of clowns will no doubt be traumatized by the mere thought of this character, which makes the novel all the more famous, because of the often provocative covers of the novel, which continue to display the demented smile of the monster, even to this day.  Stephen King’s TV mini-series adaptation ran for two nights shortly before Thanksgiving in 1990, and it very much was a TV event.  In retrospect, it hasn’t aged very well, and does feel like a neutered version of the original novel (with good reason considering some portions).  But again, it was Pennywise that was the standout, with actor Tim Curry giving a now lauded performance.  While satisfying to Stephen King, a lot of fans of the novel felt that the mini-series left a lot to be desired and that a movie version was needed to do the book justice for real.  But how do you take the immensity of the novel IT and do it justice on the big screen.  The answer came 25 years later when director Andy Muschietti came up with the idea of taking the two time periods of the novel (when the main characters are children and adults) and splitting them into two separate movies.  The novel intertwines the time periods, and the mini-series more or less stuck with that structure too.  But Muschietti’s approach worked very well and the first film, IT (2017), which focused on the characters as children, broke box office records.  Now, this week, we are presented with the final, It: Chapter Two, and the question now is was the cinematic approach taken effective enough?

IT: Chapter Two begins right after the close of the first chapter, with a rag tag band of pre-teens who call themselves “The Losers Club,” recovering from their near death encounter with the demonic Pennywise the Clown (Bill Skarsgard).  The all swear to each other that if Pennywise ever returned to their hometown of Derry, Maine, they would as well in order to destroy “it” once and for all; no matter what.  27 years later, after a mysterious murder is committed in Derry, with all the tell-tale signs of the Clown’s handiwork, a grown up Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa) begins to call up the friends that he hasn’t seen in years, delivering them news of the day they hoped never would come.  Among them include prolific writer Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy), comedian Richie Tozier (Bill Hader), successful entrepreneur Ben Hanscom (Jay Ryan), insurance risk analyst and hypochondriac Eddie Kaspbrak (James Ransome), and deeply scarred Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain).  They meet in a Chinese restaurant back in Derry, and fondly reminisce, until they realize that one of their friends, Stanley Uris (Andy Bean) is not there with them.  They soon learn that Stanley had that same day taken his own life, and the painful memories that they had surprisingly forgotten all start flooding back.  And then, Pennywise’s mind tricks begin to manifest.  Some of them want to flee as quickly as possible, but Mike claims he has found a way to entrap Pennywise and seal him away for good.  It involves them making a sacrifice a token of their past in a ritual, so each of them sets out to find something in town they had left behind.  However, the longer they stay in Derry, the easier it becomes for Pennywise to begin playing with their minds again.  On top of that, the former bully who tormented the Losers Club as children named Henry Bowers (Teach Grant) has been broken out of an insane asylum with Pennywise’s help, tasked with killing each one of the Losers.  Whether hunted by evil living, dead, or otherwise, the Losers Club are determined to put an end to Pennywise once and for all, which becomes all the more difficult as the Clown only grows more powerful the more fear he spreads across town.

The first IT from 2017 was a surprise hit that year, breaking every conceivable record for a horror movie during it’s run, as well as setting new high water marks for the month of September and the fall movie season in general.  It benefited greatly from the book’s long standing reputation, and also from a strongly emphasized theme of nostalgia at the heart of the film.  Since the first movie depicted the story of the main characters in the past, it made sense to have it set in the past (the 1980’s to be exact) so that Chapter Two could have a contemporary setting.  Because of this, there was a lot of 80’s flavor added to the movie that gave it some extra character, not unlike the Stranger Things TV series that owes a lot of it’s inspiration to the works of Stephen King itself.  Given how well the first movie resonated with audiences, the pressure was on to follow it up strong with the inevitable Chapter Two.  And I have to say, director Andy Muschietti met the challenge and then some.  When comparing the two, I have to say that I found Chapter Two to be even better than the original.  Though I liked the first IT well enough, I thought that it was a bit uneven in tone, fluctuating wildly between moments of sincerity and moments of absurd over-the-top insanity.  IT: Chapter Two follows much more the unhinged weirdness of the latter, and it benefits greatly from that.  I think that in the time between films, Andy Muschietti realized the best way to approach the story was to really embrace the zanier aspects of King’s novel, and avoid the melodrama altogether.  The first film at times felt like a mash-up of Stand By Me (1986) and Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), which often made it feel distractingly sporadic in tone.  Here, the movie sticks with the creepiness and keeps the sentimentality to a minimum.  And it’s a formula that for the most part works.

One thing that I actually found myself really impressed with about this movie was how well paced it is.  IT: Chapter Two  remarkably has a run-time of nearly three hours, which is unheard of for a horror movie.  The first IT also ran at a bulky 2 1/2 hours, and when you combine the two, that makes for nearly 5 hours total devoted to this story.  But, given the length of King’s novel, it’s understandable.  Even so, Muschitetti manages to never make this movie feel it’s length, and he does so by constantly delivering new set pieces to drive the story along.  Every character is given their own standout segment of the movie, some more frightening than the others.  I haven’t read the novel myself to compare how much of what ended up in the movie came from the book itself, but each encounter with Pennywise in the movie is thankfully diverse and keeps revving up the tension up until the end.  I especially like a scene with James McAvoy’s Bill attempting to save a child trapped in a Hall of Mirrors maze while Pennywise is on the other side of the glass.  It’s an especially creepy scene with incredible atmosphere, which is owed a lot to the movie’s exceptional production design.  There’s very little of the movie that feels rehashed, even from the original movie, and that helps to give it an identity all it’s own.  In some ways, the movie owes just as much inspiration to the work of director Sam Raimi as it does Stephen King, as it balances the juxtaposing tones of humor and horror with a great amount of skill, something Raimi excelled at with his Evil Dead films. It works much better than the Spielbergian overtones that director Muschietti tried to incorporate into the first IT.  You’ll definitely be finding yourself laughing at this movie just as much as you’ll be clutching the armrest of your seat in anticipated terror.  Few movies can strike that balance, and I felt that Chapter Two did better than most.

The other thing that I also found really remarkable about the movie was just how well cast it was.  For one thing, this is a very strong ensemble of adult actors, with impressive bodies of work of their own.  For one thing, Jessica Chastain is one of my favorite actresses working today, and it is nice to see her here in the very crucial role of Beverly, elevating the part beyond just being the token girl of the Losers Club.  James McAvoy always delivers solid work no matter the role, and it’s especially pleasing to see comedic actor Bill Hader given such a meaty role in a big movie like this, helping to boost his stock as a film actor.  But, what is especially impressive about this cast is just how close they all look like their younger counterparts from the original IT.  You put these actors side by side with the young actors who played the same characters in the other film, and you could definitely believe that they are the same person 27 years apart.  There’s even one incredible moment in the movie when the picture dissolves from the face of James Ransone playing Eddie in the present day to the face of young Jack Dylan Grazer playing Eddie in the past, and the similarity is uncanny.  Andy Muschietti probably intended to cast for lookalikes, but you rarely see it done this well in movies.  There are moments where the movie does have to remind you that we are seeing different time periods at play, and surprisingly we revisit the past quite a bit in this movie.  You can tell at some points that some of the young actors had short window to film their scenes before their bodies changed too much; such as Finn Wolfhard (Young Richie) and Wyatt Oleff (Young Stanley) who both grew several inches between movies.  But the effect still works for the most part and the movie goes between different time periods with ease.  It also has to be said that the one constant for both films, Pennywise, still remains strong.  Bill Skarsgard looks like he’s having a blast playing this character, which is something he has in common with Tim Curry’s iconic take on the character.  It’s always hard to portray terror with the guise and personality of a clown, but he nails it and becomes both terrifying and hilarious at the same time throughout his performance.

All this being said, the movie is not without it’s faults either, which keeps it from becoming an all time great as well.  The interesting thing is that the problems with this movie come less from the crafting of the movie and instead comes from the story itself.  Even with an expanded budget and more time to devote to the material, I still think that no amount of time and money could make everything from Stephen King’s novel work on the big screen, and there are moments in Chapter Two that I still feel could have been changed or excised completely.  One is the completely unnecessary Henry Bowers plot cul-de-sac which is as pointless here as it was in the original mini-series, and I assume in the book as well.  It even culminates in an underwhelming resolution, which just made me wonder why it was even deserving of being here in the first place other than just as a way of remaining true to King’s novel.  You know, there was a reason why Kubrick took the living hedge monsters out of The Shining, because he rightly knew that it wouldn’t have worked on film, and that it would have been an unnecessary addition.  King should understand that while his books are amazing creations, not every single idea in them is golden, and that definitely becomes apparent by the film’s end.  There’s a running joke in the movie where people’s common complaint about the books that Bill writes, saying that he’s terrible at writing endings, which is a self aware nod to the often universal complaint about IT‘s almost universally hated ending.  But, even despite making a self-aware joke, even this version still can’t overcome the silliness of it’s climax, which is another example of the filmmakers perhaps adhering too closely to the source material.  At least this time around, they try a little harder to make the ending work; they do it better than the mini-series anyway.  But, yeah, it’s still the weakest part of the movie, but not enough to undermine what had come before.  And the novel is even weirder than what we see in the movie (no giant cosmic turtle in this one I’m afraid) so I commend them for trying to fix as much of the original story’s problems as they could, but even still, Stephen King’s novels unfortunately have just as many problems as they do their strengths, and that even extends into the best adaptations of his work.

For the most part, as a horror film and an adaptation of Stephen King’s writing, IT: Chapter Two is a success, hindered solely by shortcomings of the original story itself.  I thought that this movie did fix a lot of the uneven tone that undermined the first movie in the series, and I was especially impressed by how well it utilized it’s nearly three hours of run-time.  You really don’t feel those three hours at all, which is a triumph in itself.  The cast is uniformly excellent and I was impressed with how well each matched their younger counterparts from the first movie.  Bill Skarsgard definitely deserves a lot of praise for creating a memorable version of Pennywise for the big screen.  Filling Tim Curry’s big clown shoes is not easy, but I feel that Skarsgard’s Pennywise is on par with the original.  The only thing I would say Curry’s version has over his is the voice, with Tim’s natural baritone coming off a lot more sinister than Skarsgard’s squeakier tenor.  I also appreciated that the movie embraced it’s sillier tone at times, never taking itself too seriously, which allows for the zanier Stephen King elements to land more effectively as the movie goes along.  Again, the faults in the film have more to do with the fact that King wrote too much into the original story to begin with and also, in a way, had no idea how to wrap it all up in the end.  King is much better at crafting ideas than a full, perfectly constructed narrative, and that often has been something that has been a blessing and a curse for him as a novelist.  At least now, thanks to Andy Muschietti’s valiant efforts, we do have a cinematic version of it spread over two films that probably be the closest we’ll ever get to a perfect adaptation of this monumental novel.  I for one am happy to see an earnest attempt like this of bringing Stephen King’s writing to the big screen and my hope is that we see more like this in the future.  There have been many King adaptations over the years, but few actually do the books justice, or even elevate beyond what King envisioned, so with IT Chapters 1 & 2, it is pleasing to see someone take the biggest and most complicated book of them all and actually deliver something worthwhile with it.  And that’s no laughing matter.

Rating: 8/10

Producing a remake of a movie presents a whole lot of issues with regard to audience reception, but one thing that should be on the mind of every filmmaker who attempts it is; is it worth the effort.  When embarking on a remake, you have to be aware that you are walking down an already laid out path for you, and sometimes that can inhibit your ability to be creative.  Suddenly, you are dealt with the choice of either following the original formula to the letter, or veering off into something different.  The best thing that a filmmaker can do when they produce a remake is to allow their version to stand on it’s own, separate from the original.  There are plenty of good examples out there of great movie remakes, like John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), Sergio Leone’s A Fistful of Dollars (1964), to the Coen Brother’s True Grit (2010), to all those many A Star is Born which seem to always come out every generation.  But to be successful, remakes need to either do one of two things; exceed expectations, or milk all the nostalgia for the original that they can get.  Sometimes movies that do the latter end up being criticized as evidence of creative bankruptcy, merely exploiting a known property purely as a cash grab.  And one studio that is facing current scrutiny in this regard is Disney.  For the past decade, starting with Tim Burton’s remake of Alice in Wonderland in 2010, Disney has been dipping into their library of animated classics and looking at potential ways to remake many of them in “live action.”  The action is understandable, given how well these movies have done at the box office, but at the same time, long time fans of the originals are complaining that the remakes being made by Disney lack anything original and it feels to them like Disney is just cashing in on their properties rather than adding anything meaningful to their brand.  It all comes back to that question of whether the remakes justify their existence or not, and sadly for many it’s only taken away from their enjoyment of the originals and not added to them.

This year in particular has raised that question even more, as Disney brought three new remakes to the big screen this year; the overall primary tentpoles of their fiscal year.  Thus far, the results have been mixed.  The first remake was of one of the Walt era classics, Dumbo (2019), with Tim Burton again returning to remake another animated film.  The movie was widely panned by critics, and barely resonated with audiences, making it a rare box office dud for the studio.  But then, on Memorial Day weekend, Disney released a remake of Aladdin, which many had worried about due to the initially off-putting transformation of actor Will Smith into the Genie via CGI.  Though not universally beloved, the movie still found it’s audience and managed to hold strong all through the summer, making nearly $1 billion in worldwide ticket sales as of this writing.  But, these were only warm ups to the remake to the undisputed king of all Disney animated classics; The Lion King.  If there ever was a movie remake that was sure to get attention, this one is it.  The original 1994 classic was a monster hit, becoming the highest grossing animated film of all time upon it’s initial release, and it still holds a strong place in the Disney legacy 25 years later.  The only thing is, how do you take a movie with an all animal cast and make it “live action.”  Well, I put “live action” in quotations because the answer that Disney found was to use animation of another kind, only this time use it to make everything look like it was in “live action.”  Pioneered in 2016 in another Disney remake of The Jungle Book, this new photo-realistic CGI animation tool allowed for actors performances to translate into realistic looking animals, which enabled Disney to retell their version of The Jungle Book, but with a level of visual authenticity that almost mirrored real life.  Now, they are taking this same technique and applying it 100% to the world of The Lion King, making everything from the creatures to the environments completely from CGI animation.  The only question is, does it do enough to stand on it’s own, or is it animated in all the wrong ways.

If you were a kid who grew up in the 1990’s, the story of The Lion King will already likely be ingrained in your memory.  The Pridelands, realm of the wild animals of the African Serengeti, is watched over by the lion king known as Mufasa (James Earl Jones, reprising his role from the original).  Him and his mate Sarabi (Alfre Woodard) have borne a new cub named Simba (JD McCrary) who will one day take Mufasa’s place as king, which is a prospect that doesn’t sit well with Mufasa’s bitter younger brother, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor).  Simba desperately wants to prove his bravery, which leads him on a dangerous excursion beyond the borders of the Pridelands, and into the Elephant Graveyard, realm of the hyenas.  His run-in with the hyenas puts him in danger, along with his best friend Nala (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and caretaker Zazu (John Oliver).  Mufasa saves them, but the incident bruises what self-esteem Simba has.  Meanwhile, Scar has been conspiring with the Hyenas, hoping to use them as a means of eliminating his brother and the future king so that he can take the Pridelands for himself.  With the hyenas help, Scar tricks Simba into standing in the middle of the path of a wildebeest stampede.  In the attempt to save Simba, Mufasa puts his own life on the line.  Simba is saved, but Scar pushes his brother back into the stampede, killing him, out of view of a horrified Simba.  Simba believes he is responsible for his father’s death, and Scar convinces him to flee into exile.  Though the hyenas are sent to finish Simba off, they give up their pursuit once Simba is out of sight.  Simba, completely alone, eventually reaches the outer edges of the Pridelands, beyond the desert sands, and there he encounters two new friends, Timon (Billy Eichner) the meerkat and Pumbaa (Seth Rogan) the warthog.  They take Simba in and teach him the philosophy of Hakuna Matata, meaning no worries.  Years later, a grown up Simba (Donald Glover) reconnects with a grown up Nala (Beyonce), who has escaped the tyrannical rule of Scar, and she tries her hardest to convince Simba to go back and assume his rightful place as king.

Perhaps more than any other remake from Disney, this was going to be the hardest one to get right.  Not only is it a logistical challenge making this movie as close to live action as possible, but there’s also the fact that the original movie is so universally beloved and, some would say, untouchable.  Now, Disney can indeed take one of their classic films and create a remake that stands well on it’s own.   I for one thought the remake to Cinderella (2015) was exceptionally well made, and the remake to Pete’s Dragon (2016) is I dare say an improvement over the original.  There are other examples of remakes to classics that, while they come nowhere close to being as good as the original, still manage to be entertaining, like The Jungle Book and Aladdin.  And then you have the movies that fail to ever justify their purpose for existing, like Maleficent (2014), Dumbo, and Beauty and the Beast (2017).  The biggest knock against the worst of these movies is that they merely rehash the original, adding nothing new of substance and exist purely to remind you of their superior originators.  My hope was that this Lion King would rise above that, and the fact that Jon Favreau was overseeing it gave me hope, seeing as his Jungle Book remake was one of the more passable ones, and probably the most impressive visually we’ve seen.  Sadly, those hopes are dashed almost immediately from the opening seconds of the movie.  The film opens with a near shot for shot reconstruction of the “CIrcle of Life” sequence that also opened the original, and though it is impressive to look at, it quickly dons on you the viewer that you are just going to watch the same movie over again with nothing new added.  This movie was a crushing disappointment for me, as I saw what was essentially a cover band version of one of the greatest animated films ever made, devoid of all the heart that made the original so special in the first place.  Favreau, whose work I usually love, appears to have been told by the powers that be at Disney that he could not deviate one inch away from the formula of the original, and so the entire movie just feels like deja vu.

Let me get right to the absolute, biggest problem with the movie, and that’s the animation itself.  The original Lion King uses the medium to it’s fullest potential, which allows for the suspension of disbelief to be more palatable as we watch animals talking and singing and expressing very human like emotions.  The exaggeration in expressions is something that we take for granted a lot in animation, because it’s just something that has always been a part of the animated medium.  With the squashing and stretching of hand drawn characters, as well as what’s allowed in modern day computer animation, you can make even members of the animal kingdom capable of carrying heavy drama or lighthearted comedy, because it plays out so much in the extreme expressions that animated models can project.  However, when a movie goes out of it’s way to stick so closely to true life in the way that it’s characters look, it unfortunately restricts that freedom that animation can allow.  That’s what happens in this version of The Lion King, and it is painfully distracting.  Here’s the thing with creatures like lions, hyenas, birds, warthogs, and meercats; they all have expressionless faces in real life.  They can’t show a range of emotions like human beings can through facial gestures, because their bodies aren’t made for that.  Unfortunately, the animators here went too far into the direction of authenticity when it came to creating realistic looking animals, and what happened was that all the characters have dead, expressionless faces.  It especially becomes a problem in a moment like Simba mourning over the death of his father.  In the original, you felt Simba’s anguish because it was drawn so well on his face, completely with tears running down his cheeks.  In this movie, you can hear the pained vocal performance from the actor, but the animated Simba just looks like an empty, emotionless vessel.  And that’s just one distracting example out of many.

The animation not only robs the movie of it’s emotional weight because of the loss of expression on the characters’ faces, but it also robs the impact of the vocal performances as well.  Disney put together a stellar all star cast for this movie, but unless you knew who all these people were ahead of time, you wouldn’t even recognize their presence in this movie.  Donald Glover, it turns out, does not really have a distinctive voice, and he comes off a whole lot less charismatic here as Simba than he does in so many other roles where he’s present both in body and voice.  Beyonce fairs a bit better as Nala, who is the only character that’s given a bit more development in this movie, but even she suffers from the lack of emotional range given to her animated character.  And though it is pleasing to know that Disney wanted no one else to play Mufasa than the one and only James Earl Jones, it sadly squanders his presence here by just having him read the same exact lines that he read for the character 25 years ago.  You can especially hear the passage of time in his voice too, as his vocal performance doesn’t quite have the same power to it.  The one saving grace for this movie is, strangely enough, the comic relief.  Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan are perfectly cast as Timon and Pumbaa, and though their digital models are just as stiff as the others, they at least are allowed to act more exaggerated.  Their moments are also the only parts of the movie that veer off script from the original, as they rely more heavily on their improv skills to deliver the humor, and it was a breath of fresh air that helped to distract from the lack of originality elsewhere.  Even John Oliver gets in a few laughs, again using improvisation to his advantage.  The script is credited to Jeff Nathonson, but it probably should have credited the original film’s scribes (Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts and Linda Woolverton) too, since about 80% of the script is exactly word for word the same, which is very distracting in the  movie and shows just how little effort was put into making this movie stand on it’s own.  If only everyone else was allowed to improvise like the comedians were, then we might have had a more interesting movie.

Essentially, it seemed like the primary concern on the part of Jon Favreau and his team was to show off what they could do with their new animation technology.  Apparently this movie was made with a special Virtual Reality process, which allowed Favreau and his crew to create a fully animated simulation that they could enter with VR headsets and shoot like a real movie, choosing shots like they would on a live set.  Sure, it’s all impressive and ground-breaking, but when you put all the effort into that and none into the story and helping differentiate your version from the previous one, well then all you’re doing in the end is just making a glorified tech demo.  And that’s essentially what happened here.  I wonder if Jon Favreau would have been better served taking this style of life-like animation and applying it to an original movie concept; one that isn’t just a remake of something else.  I will say that he used it to impressive effect in his direction of The Jungle Book, which did feature some jaw-dropping animation.  But that movie had the advantage of a real, live action kid playing Mowgli who could give the audience a reference point to compare the animation with.  With The Lion King, there is nothing to offset the expressionless faces of the animals with.  Couple this with a script that seemed too afraid to take any chances and the movie just misses the mark at every opportunity.  I will say, the environments do fair a bit better.  When you realize that every blade of grass, every rock pebble, and every drop of water was rendered through a computer in this film, it does give you pause.  We are getting closer than ever to breaking through that uncanny valley when it comes to environmental construction.  But, even with that, it still lacks the grandness of Disney’s original.  The ’94 Lion King was epic in scope, in ways few animated film have ever achieved, and it’s amazing that the same exact scenes feel less grand the more realistic they are reconstructed.  The Wildebeest Stampede for example feels far less grand in the new version.  CGI can do amazing things, and bring previously impossible things to life.  But what it can’t do is capture the majesty of the painted image through a photo-real lens.  It just reminds me of Jeff Goldblum’s line from Jurassic Park (1993), where he said, “You got all caught up in whether or not you could, you never stopped to think whether or not you should,” and that really explains the folly of trying to make a “live action” Lion King.

It’s hard to say if this is the worst of the Disney remakes.  I will say, as disappointed as I was in this film, it didn’t draw the same ire that I had for Beauty and the Beast (2017).  That film was not only inferior to the original in every way, it was also unpleasant to look at, with garish ugly designs for all the characters in that film.  The Lion King, apart from the appalling, emotionless character animation, the movie is colorful and competently crafted.  But, I will say that it feels like the laziest of the Disney remakes that we’ve seen thus far.  There was no effort at all to do anything different with this story; it is just the same exact film repeated, minus the heart and emotion of the original.  I was frankly stunned by how little this movie deviates from the original.  Entire scenes are repeated to the letter, and there are no surprises whatsoever.  Beauty and the Beast at least attempted to write some new things into it’s script to make it a little different.  They were all terrible ideas, sure, but it was at least some change.  If you’ve seen the original Lion King, and I’m sure most of you have, than you probably know every beat of the narrative, and it will all play out exactly the same way in this version.  The movie adds nothing, and in fact, it only takes things away in some bafflingly unnecessary ways.  The songs especially suffer, because they lack the flights of fantasy that you could get away with in the original.  The villain song “Be Prepared” is whittled down to just a short, half-spoken verse, which should really enrage fans who love that particular song.  It’s the very definition of a movie that exists solely to make money and play upon our nostalgic memories of the original.  You could say that about any of the other Disney remakes too, but at least some of them have justified their existence for being and stood just fine on their own.  This one will never, ever replace the original, and I pity the poor person who has this version be their first exposure to the story.  Please, just stick with the original.  25 years have not diminished the shine of that classic one bit and even this remake won’t damage it either.  Watch it again and forget this new Lion King, because it’s lion’s roar is nothing but a whimper.

Rating: 5/10

One of the most interesting aspects of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that it was able to be built on the shoulders of some of the less familiar heroes from the Marvel canon; or should I untried on the silver screen.  It’s interesting that the core group of Avengers that laid the foundation for all else to follow was made up of Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hulk, Black Widow and Hawkeye, of all people.  Up until the launch of the MCU with Iron Man, only the Hulk had been tested on the big screen, and not very well I might add.  Yet, these were the characters that producer Kevin Feige and Marvel Studios were willing to bet the farm on, instead of the Marvel characters that had already had varied success before like the Fantastic Four, Wolverine and the X-Men, and most importantly Spider-Man.  The reason for Marvel Studio’s exclusion of these well known characters was pretty apparent; years of licensing out their characters to other studios created a rights issue nightmare once Marvel had established a permanent home at Disney.  To their credit, they managed to survive without these other characters and elevated the once unproven heroes into A-list names on their own, which then forced the other studios to consider playing ball, once they saw all the money that Disney and Marvel were making.  Sony stepped up first, working out a shared profits agreement with Disney that would allow for Spider-Man to participate in the Avengers crossovers, while at the same time allowing Sony to keep the rights to the character for his own standalone franchise, only with Marvel taking creative control.  This agreement has proven to be a win win for both sides, as Marvel can now include Spider-Man as a part of their universe, and Sony can benefit from the residual good fortune that his presence there brings back to his own series.

One of the things that has really mattered the most for this compromise is in how they’ve dealt with the character as part of the cinematic universe.  To work him into a continuing story-line that connects all the other films as Marvel had been doing with their universe, the makers of this new Spider-Man had to consider where he would be at in this point of his life.  So, it was decided to dispense with the backstory of the character (how he got bitten by a radioactive spider and witnessed the murder of his Uncle Ben) and just jump strait to him using his powers.  This helped to bring him smoothly into the MCU, with his debut in Captain America: Civil War (2016) winning many raves.  We didn’t need to watch him grow into Spider-Man; that story had already been told, twice.  This was Spider-Man being welcomed into the family.  What it also did was  introduce an interesting new character dynamic that most people weren’t expecting, which was the mentor/apprentice relationship between him and Tony Stark, aka Iron Man.  Since Iron Man was the one who recruited him, it makes sense that the two would form a closer bond, which became a central theme in the first solo film for this new version of the hero, called Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017).  The casting of youthful looking Tom Holland in the role also helped to reinforce this new aspect of the character, because he brought an exuberance to the character that played very well off of Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man; acting very much like the eager intern wanting to impress the boss.  It worked out so well that their relationship resulted in probably the most emotional moments from both Avengers: Infinity War (2018) and Avengers: Endgame (2019).  It safe to say that even though he was late to the party, Spider-Man has become an essential and beloved part of the on-going MCU, and we are about to see what comes next in his second, stand alone feature titled Spider-Man: Far From Home.  Is it another triumph for the young hero, or does he get caught up in his own web?

It’s hard to talk about some aspects of the movie without discussing spoilers from Infinity War and Endgame.  I’ll assume that enough time has passed to talk about the ending of Infinity War here, and the fact that this movie exists at all should tell you a little bit about what happened at the finale of Endgame.  Still, I’ll keep things slightly vague and warn you now; some spoilers ahead.  Okay, so unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last year, the MCU concluded the events of Infinity War with the villain Thanos wiping out half of all life in the universe.  This event was undone during Endgame, but five years had passed for those who were left behind.  Just as quickly as all the victims were wiped from existence, they magically reappeared again in the same place in an occurrence that people now refer to as “The Blip.”  Peter Parker (Tom Holland) was one of those blipped, as was his best friend Ned (Jacob Batalon), MJ (Zendaya) the girl he has a crush on, Flash Thompson (Tony Revolori) a school bully, and Peter’s Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), all of whom are having to readjust in a society that has aged 5 years without them.  Having helped the Avengers defeat Thanos, and saying heartfelt goodbyes to fallen comrades in the process, Peter just wants to put the Spider-Man to rest for a while and enjoy a vacation away with his friends.  His school takes a class trip to Europe, where Spider-Man is not well known and never needed, so Peter finally feels free of the burden.  That is until the director of S.H.I.E.L.D, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) calls upon Spider-Man for help.  Fury introduces Peter to a new superhero named Quentin Beck, who goes by the persona Mysterio (Jake Gyllenhaal).  Mysterio warns them that ancient beings called the Elementals have destroyed his home and are intent on wrecking havoc in Europe as well.  Peter now must make a choice; does he put his vacation R&R on hold to save the day once again, or does he leave the Super Hero responsibility behind?  In addition, can he also fully trust this Mysterio character as well?

It’s pretty clear that the expectations for Spider-Man: Far From Home are pretty high.  Not only was Spider-Man: Homecoming heralded as one of the best Spider-Man movies to date, but in between these franchise films we’ve even been treated to one of the best animated films in years centered on the character with the Oscar-winning Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse (2018).  Not to mention, we’re also coming off the high of both Infinity War and Endgame, which Spider-Man also played a crucial part in.  So, a lot is to be expected now.  Kevin Feige even stated that Far From Home is actually the official close of Phase 3, acting as sort of a feature length epilogue to Endgame.  The only question is, does it live up to all that?  Yeah, in a way.  I did enjoy this movie quite a bit, but I wonder if I might have enjoyed it better had it not come with all this baggage attached to it.  If the grandiosity of Endgame had not preceded it, this movie might have resonated a little more, but instead it merely just serves it’s purpose and nothing more.  My expectations were met, but were never really exceeded.  I don’t want to sound negative, because the movie is not a disappointment by any means.  As a sequel, it does work as a great companion piece to Spider-Man: Homecoming.  But, as a part of the MCU, especially in presenting a post-Avengers level event, it is par for the course.  This won’t count as one of the all time great Marvel movies, but if you’re looking for just a fun romp with your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, than this is more than satisfying.  It might be that the expectations for the character have almost outgrown what he is capable of delivering now, since so much has gone right for the character as of late.  The last thing you’d expect at this point right now for Spider-Man is go less epic and grandiose and more intimate and farcical, but that’s exactly what we get, and in a way, it kind of makes sense given everything else we’ve seen.

Far From Home plays it’s story a little closer to the core of Spider-Man’s character; having him struggle with identity in this new unfamiliar world that he’s been absent from for so long.  One of the movie’s surprising aspects is in how it deals with the aftermath of Endgame.  It surprisingly takes a humorous spin on the horrific event early on, but at the same time, it never forgets that the world has changed in the absence of these core characters.  In particular, the movie gets at it’s most interesting when Peter struggles with how his coming to terms with the aftermath is far more profound than with everyone else.  It makes him a little more careless, selfish, and emotionally distant than we’ve seen him be before, and that is an interesting exploration to take with the character.  This is Spider-Man completely un-moored, left uncertain about his future and it makes him in a more cynical state than before.  I’d say that the only fault that the movie has is that it sometimes looses that focus on this aspect of the story, choosing to conveniently drop it whenever the story needs it to.  We start with Peter clearly wanting to distance himself from Spider-Man for while as he begins his trip abroad, choosing to leave the suit at home (though Aunt May has other plans), however the moment the Elementals make their first attack in the city of Venice, Peter doesn’t hesitate to step in.  I guess Peter’s inclination is to always help out even when he doesn’t want to, but I think it would have been more interesting to see how not acting the hero would have impacted his character.  Things get more interesting in the second half of the movie once Mysterio and Spider-Man’s relationship takes center stage, and I quite liked how the movie built that up as the central conflict of the story.  It will be interesting to see how opinions on this movie may differ depending on how people view this interpretation of Mysterio.  I will say that the character is faithfully adapted from the comic, and that could be a blessing or a curse depending on how familiar you are with the source material.  For me, it became the thing that fueled the movie to it’s high points and I ended up enjoying the character quite a bit.

One thing that this movie certainly does is reinforce the fact that Tom Holland is probably the best actor to have ever filled the role of Spider-Man.  Tobey Maguire certainly did a fantastic job as well in his trilogy, and Andrew Garfield gave it his best shot in movies that unfortunately were sub-par, but Holland just captures every aspect of the character to perfection.  He has probably come the closest to embodying exactly what Stan Lee and Steve Ditko imagined in their minds when they first conceived the character.  And, as I stated before, what I liked best in Tom’s performance here was how well he portrays the emotional toll that the Infinity War Saga has put on this character.  There’s a wonderful scene between him and Jon Favreau’s Happy Hogan (another great holdover from past Marvel Phases), where Peter reaches his breaking point, to which Happy helps to console him and lift him back up for the next fight.  It just shows how much range he’s managed to bring to this character, perfectly balancing the film’s more light-hearted moments with it’s heavier dramatic ones; something that he’s demonstrated several times already in the MCU.  The introduction of Mysterio into this series is an interesting choice, and I’m happy that Marvel is choosing to spotlight the villains in the Spider-Man rogues gallery that we haven’t seen yet; as opposed to just revisiting that Green Goblin well once again.  Jake Gyllenhaal is a surprising choice for the character, but when you see both sides of the character revealed, it makes perfect sense why he was cast.  He had to portray the character as relatable, and yet at the same time, duplicitous and self-indulgent, which is very true to the character’s origins in the comic.  I also love how much Marvel embraces the original character designs from the comics and that we get Mysterio brought to life in all his dome-headed glory.  The returning cast all bring a lot of fun energy to the movie, and I especially like the fact that MJ is more fleshed out in this film which is very much needed knowing how important her character will be in future Spider-Man story-lines.  The movie also gives us a couple surprise appearances from key figures in both the world of Spider-Man and Marvel in the end credits scenes, but I don’t want to spoil those other than to say seeing these characters brought a lot of joy to me and the audience in the theater.

One other great thing about Spider-Man: Far From Home is how well it looks.  The movie was shot mostly on location in many authentic European locales, and the film makes great use of them all.  Even in between the action scenes, the movie shows off the beauty of Venice, Prague, Berlin, and London with a travelogue like sensibility.  The whole movie is colorful, probably more than we’ve ever seen from any other Spider-Man movie to date, and it uses it’s widescreen canvas very well.  The film also takes some interesting flights into fantasy whenever we see Mysterio’s illusions come fully to life.  There’s one confrontation between him and Spider-Man where the illusions become so bizarre and out there that it’s like a nightmare come to life, which itself is very close to how these scenes play out in the comic books.  Those scenes in particular are something that I’ve never seen before in any Spider-Man movie, and it helped to set this movie apart from others in the MCU.  It explains why they chose a character like Mysterio for this chapter in Spider-Man’s story, because it’s a threat that he hasn’t learned to deal with yet.  This is a visually inventive film, and it shows that director Jon Watts and his team are really finding their voice as a part of the MCU, and more importantly, putting their own stamp on the character of Spider-Man.  More than anything, this has been the most confident approach to the character that we’ve seen yet, not bound to a director’s own personal style like the Sam Raimi films, nor desperately trying to follow a trend like the grittier Amazing Spider-Man movies.  Far From Home and Homecoming take their cues from the comic pages themselves, embracing both the absurd and the profound straight from  the page and putting it there on screen.

In the larger sense, I’d say that Far From Home matches it’s predecessor as a cinematic follow-up.  In the grand scheme of the MCU, it might come off as a little small, especially when it’s the follow-up to Endgame, which is an epic on a biblical scale.   But, it has it’s heart in the right place and doesn’t disappoint when it comes to the character himself.  I love the fact that the movie does explore the toll that the previous film’s events have taken on Peter Parker’s well-being, and how that is challenged by his encounter with Mysterio.  I love how faithful the movie is to the character of Mysterio himself, not being afraid to portray the more outlandish parts of the character as well as going all in on the costume as well.  In addition, we get our first ever look into what Marvel has planned for it’s future, which they’ve been pretty mum about up to this point.  The movie closes with a pretty shocking revelation in it’s mid credits scene, and it will be interesting to see where they take the character of Spider-Man from there.  Given that the actors are growing older with each new film, I’m happy to see that one of themes of the film was about maturing, and learning to rely upon ones self when that’s all you can do.  Future Spider-Man films will need to further explore that continuing maturity, and leave the high school setting behind.  I think that’s been the best thing about these more recent Spider-Man films; that they’ve explored the experience of growing up and finding your own path as an adult.  That’s what Peter Parker’s story ultimately has to be about, not just what challenges he must face with each new villain.  It’s all about that immortal line penned by Stan Lee all those years ago on the comic page, “With great power comes great responsibility.”  Spider-Man’s story explores that idea more than any other Marvel superhero, because as we’ve seen in this version, he’s still a child trying to find the right way to use his powers for good, and it’s through the friends and foes that he meets that he grows into the hero that we all need.  Far From Home retains that idea, and gives the audience a fun time in the process.  Hopefully we be swinging around again soon with this friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.

Rating: 8/10