In the pre-Cinematic Universe era of superhero hero movies, you would often see a lot of turn over in the casting of all you favorite superheroes.  The 1990’s for instance saw no less than three different Batmans.  It was a time when brand recognition mattered more than the casting of the characters.  Why keep the same actor when it’s the character that’s the big draw?  Nowadays, there is a whole lot more care put into the casting of superhero movies, with the persona of the actor sometimes becoming a deciding factor in their selection.  You can definitely see that in the current slate of Marvel films.  Can you imagine anyone other than roguish Robert Downey Jr. as the wisecracking Iron Man, or charming Chris Evans as the naively pure-souled Captain America, or even suave, dapper Benedict Cumberbatch as the mysterious Doctor Strange.  Yes, the casting of these characters matter today, and audiences are more keenly aware now than ever when someone is out of place.  Just look at some of the worst casting choices for these kinds of films, like Arnold Schwarzenegger as Mr. Freeze, or Topher Grace as Venom, or more recently, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor.  It’s a good thing in today’s film industry that so much more effort is placed on the construction of these characters to match more closely their print counterparts in order to meet the expectations of fans.  You could argue that the beginning of this era started all the way back in 2000 with Bryan Singer’s X-Men, where they not only took the characters more seriously, but even managed to collect top tier talent to portray them.  The cast of X-Men, with some minor exceptions, is largely praised for capturing faithfully the essence of their respective characters, and chief of all of the most highly praised casting choices for those films would be it’s breakout star Hugh Jackman as the iconic Wolverine.

When Bryan Singer cast the then unknown Aussie actor to play the metal clawed man-beast, I don’t think either he nor Jackman knew just how much of an impact that decision would leave on the character.  Hugh Jackman would prove to be the absolute perfect choice for the part, less physically (he never once has worn the iconic costume) and more in terms of personality. He’s gruff in all the right ways, but still manages to remain charming and assertive.  In time, Wolverine became the face of the franchise and it turned Jackman into a household name around the world.  The first X-Men was successful enough, but the franchise outdid itself with the follow-up X2: X-Men United (2002).  Then came X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), a huge mis-managed failure of a sequel.  In the aftermath, the series had to rethink it’s strategy, and one idea was to begin a series of origin films centered on each of the most iconic X-Men characters.  They again relied on their star to carry this franchise into it’s next phase, but unfortunately, the result was X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), one of the worst superhero films ever made.  After this, X-Men went through another revamp, choosing instead to look into the past and see the formation of the team in X-Men: First Class (2011).  This put the franchise back on solid footing, but even still, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine was kept as a common thread through everything.  With a great cameo in First Class and a key lead role in Days of Future Past (2014), Jackman’s presence gave this disjointed franchise stability it normally wouldn’t have.  In addition, a separate but interconnected Wolverine franchise emerged from the rubble of Origins and actually gave us a far superior sequel in The Wolverine (2013).  But, everything must come to an end, and Hugh Jackman now sees his after 17 years playing the same character over 9 movies, a feat that’s remarkable no matter how you look at it.  And that leads us to the release of his franchise swan song: Logan.

Logan, taken from Wolverine’s actual name, is a loose adaptation of the Old Man Logan Marvel comic event series that focused on Wolverine’s latter years.  The movie only uses bits of that comic’s story-line, along with bits of the “X-23” story-line as well, but it is largely it’s own original take on the material.  Set 10 years into the future, America has nearly wiped out mutantkind through medication and reproductive experimentation.  Only a handful of mutants remain, living discreetly either hiding their identity or living across the border, waiting for their time to come.  We find Logan (Hugh Jackman), working as a limo driver in borderland Texas.  He makes his home in an abandoned mill, where he looks after an increasingly senile and unstable 90 year old Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), alongside Charles’ care-giver Caliban (Stephen Merchant).  We find out that Charles’ telepathic powers are unstable and are capable of causing serious mental harm to anyone in the vicinity if he doesn’t take his medication.  One day, Logan is visited by a desperate Mexican lady (Elizabeth Rodriguez) who begs him to help her transport a girl she claims to be her daughter named Laura (Dafne Keen) across America to the Canadian Border.  Logan is reluctant, but once the woman is found killed, Logan is forced to look after Laura.  Soon, a shadowy group called the Reavers come to Logan’s compound looking for the girl, including their slimy leader Pierce (Boyd Holbrook).  While being attacked, Laura reveals not only a  mutant, but that she has the same abilities as Wolverine, including adamantium claws.  Stuck together, Logan, Charles, and Laura take to the road, hoping to reach the border before the Reavers can catch up to them.

Logan is largely meant to bring closure to the character of Wolverine, and in many ways it does bring the character (at least Hugh Jackman’s version) to a fitting end.  No other actor has come close to being as prolific as Jackman’s Wolverine, though some of Marvel Studios’ iterations are coming close.  You have to give him credit though for being really the first actor of this generation to not only portray the character on the big screen, but to also champion him like never before.  Since Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Wolverine, we’ve seen a lot more actors carry the mantle of their selective heroes with pride and want to portray them for longer periods of time.  So, it’s fitting that Fox and Marvel allowed for Jackman to call the shots on his final chapter, including finally having the freedom to make this an “R-rated” adventure.  There’s no tip-toeing around the blood and gore in this Wolverine film.  When Wolverine cuts into somebody with his claws, it’s in full Peckinpaw-ish detail, complete with gallons of spilled blood.  Also, the movie gets to throw far more f-bombs our way.  It’s not Wolverine’s first time dropping the mother of all swear words in one of these movies, nor is it Charles Xavier’s, but the frequency has definitely increased.  All of these are great and all for the direction of the franchise, but does it translate into a solid movie.  Well, I have to say yes and no to that.  The creative freedom to finally be as gratuitous as the filmmakers want with the violence helps to make the fight scenes more viscerally interesting than ever before, but I felt that the story itself was severely lacking in many areas.  Plot threads are established but never fully realized; character motivations don’t make sense all the time; and there is generally awkward pacing throughout the movie.  None of this is Origins or Last Stand bad, nor are they as disappointing as last year’s lackluster X-Men: Apocalypse (2016), but they prevent this movie from being as good as it could’ve been as a result too.

My chief problem with this movie is the overall conflict.  The basic essential plot point of Logan and his companions getting from point A to B is effective enough, but the danger around them is at times unfocused, unexplained, and just flat out mediocre at times.  The villains in particular are this movie’s weakest aspect.  The Reavers, I hear, are some very interesting bad guys in the comic books, but in this movie, they are no different than any black-ops bands of mercenaries that you see in any other action thriller.  They are mainly there to be lambs to the slaughter for Logan and Laura for most of the movie, which does lead to some admittedly cool looking death scenes.  Boyd Holbrook’s Pierce is also disappointing as the antagonist, because he never shows any depth in character.  He’s just a smarmy asshole whose only purpose in the story is to hunt down our heroes.  We learn nothing about who he is or why we’re supposed to find him interesting.  He’s a far cry from far more interesting villains in this series like Magneto and General Stryker.  In some ways, I feel like the filmmakers themselves realized how weak the villain was in this, so they introduced some new 11th-hour villains late into the movie to liven things up, like a corrupt scientist played by Richard E. Grant, and even he adds completely nothing to the mix.  There’s also the addition of a “creature” meant to rival Wolverine late in the film that I felt was is completely unnecessary, is never fully explained, and by the end just leaves you confused as to why it was created.  The movie also suffers from a story that doesn’t quite know what it wants to be.  It works best when it just stays to the “on-the-run” story-line, but there are unnecessary plot deviations that ruin the momentum and go nowhere.  Charles Xavier for instance mentions a troubled incident in his past that caused him to retreat from the world, but it’s only given the briefest of mentions and almost seems to have been forgotten by the filmmakers, making it infuriatingly pointless.  It’s lackluster elements like this that spoil what could’ve otherwise been a great movie.

Where the film does excel is in the interactions between it’s leads.  Despite the film’s lackluster story, it does have a great heart at it’s center and that’s the bittersweet final days of it’s hero.  Jackman, as always, is exceptional as Wolverine here.  The great thing about this movie is that we get to see a lot more vulnerability from him here than we have before.  This is a version of Wolverine that is on his last legs; not able to heal as quickly as he has before, broken down from the heartache of seeing his species wiped out, and knowing that his long days are finally about to be numbered.  Jackman balances this with the things that he’s been best at in this series this whole time, which are brutal take-downs of his enemies.  You can tell that Jackman knows this is his final chance to bring real emotion out of this character that he’s played for so long, and he really does excel in the film’s more emotional moments.  This is the closest we’ve seen to actual introspective acting from this actor in this series; more embodying the heart and sole of Wolverine, rather than just looking the part.  The movie is also at it’s best when he gets to work off his co-stars.  Partick Stewart is also saying goodbye to his longtime role as Charles Xavier, and it is a touching performance; perhaps the best in the entire film.  Like Hugh Jackman, Stewart gets an honorable farewell here too.  However, the movie does belong to the scene-stealing Dafne Keen as Laura.  Portrayed with incredible intensity for a girl her age, she commands every moment she’s on screen, and does so in a mostly mute role.  She also manages to hold her own against her more experienced co-stars and helps to make them even better as a result.  Of all the new characters introduced in this film, she is easily the best one, and the movie’s one true triumph.  Her character helps to keep this from being an out right disappointment of a movie, and apart from seeing Jackman and Stewart say goodbye to their characters, she is definitely the main reason to watch this movie.

The movie doesn’t disappont with it’s visuals.  After the excessive use of bland CGI in X-Men: Apocalypse and the flat out terrible use of effects in Origins, it’s nice to see director James Mangold keep things simple for this film.  The fight scenes are mostly easy to follow and they get the most out of the extra bit of gore that this movie is allowed to have.  Not only do Logan and Laura get to cut into their enemies, they slice them to shreds, like a weed trimmer to a bush.   This is the most visceral we’ve ever seen the violence in any of the X-Men movies, or any superhero movie for that matter.  Even R-Rated Deadpool (2016) didn’t get away with this much. At the same though, the fight scenes here aren’t completely original either.  We don’t get any standout fight scenes like the bullet train sequence in The Wolverine.  All the ones in this movie are mostly interchangeable, except for maybe the excellent opening sequence or the one where Laura first shows her true abilities.  The final showdown in particular is a let down, mainly because of the choice of adversary that I’ve already discussed earlier.  In the end, it’s nice that Mangold and Jackman got the ability to really test the limits of gratuitous violence this time around, and they do make good use of it in the film.  If only all that freedom resulted in more interesting fight scenes.  Apart from that, the movie does have a nice melancholy tone to it, using the wide open spaces of the American prairie-lands to underline the isolation that these characters are experiencing.  At times, this is a very beautiful movie to look at.  The film excels during the quiet moments of reflection, when we the audience are allowed to soak in the atmosphere, and see the performers really shine through as the characters.  None of the more raucous moments are bad in any way, but more creativity could’ve been given to them in order to make this a more balanced movie overall.

Logan is by no means a bad film.  It does feature some passionate performances from a talented cast, and enables them to finally portray the characters the way they’ve always wanted to.  However, this is far from the best we’ve seen in this series.  I for one far more enjoyed the first two X-Men movies, as well as First Class and Days of Future Past.  Even it’s predecessor The Wolverine felt more consistent as a narrative and movie experience.  But, it is no where near as terrible as Origins or Last Stand, and it does hold up better than the boringly inconsistent Apocalypse.  What works best in this movie are the actors, because you can tell that they are trying their best to leave their iconic roles on a high note.  It’s the story that ultimately lets the film down, with a narrative that never really coalesces into a coherent plot, and is undermined by a underwhelming central threat.  I think another screenplay polish would have worked out some of the film’s shortcomings, taking out some of the more pointless character motivation and actually giving the heroes a real threat to go up against.  That said, if you are a fan of the X-Men franchise, then you’ll probably find this to be a worthwhile sit through.  Jackman and Stewart both conclude their iconic roles in a fitting fashion, reminding us all why we fell in love with their performances in the first place.  It’s really quite an achievement on Hugh Jackman’s part to have stuck with this demanding role for two decades, especially considering that Wolverine is a character that doesn’t age.  The question is, how will Wolverine survive without Hugh Jackman.  My hope is that Fox eventually relents and gives the rights to the characters over to Marvel Studios and Disney.  We probably will never get anything as bloody as this again, but a reboot by Marvel might finally help this character return to his roots; including possibly having him finally wear his iconic head gear.  Nevertheless,  Hugh Jackman will be hard to replace, and this movie works as a fitting, if underwhelming, love letter from an actor to the character that made him into a star.

Rating: 7/10

A year ago, the whole world was deeply anticipating the long awaited return of the Star Wars franchise to the big screen with the release of the seventh film in the saga; The Force Awakens.  This was the first film in a new era for the series; unencumbered by it’s complete control under it’s creator George Lucas.  With the Disney company taking the reins, the Star Wars series was ready for the change it desperately needed.  And that change came in record-shattering fashion with The Force Awakens.  Though the story behind it wasn’t as fresh as people liked (basically it was a rehash of A New Hope for most people), the spirit behind it felt authentic, and it pleased a whole legion of fans young and old.  I for one included it on my best of the year list for 2015, more than anything just for the sheer entertainment value.  And while continuing the main saga of the Star Wars franchise is a pleasing mission to see realized in cinemas today, what Disney also had planned for this property actually is the thing that gives me the most excitement about the future.  What we are going to see from Disney and Star Wars is an endless series of standalone features dedicated to expanding the storyline outside of the main saga.  In other words, the sky is the limit to what can be turned into a feature with the Star Wars universe as it’s backdrop.  Primarily, we will be seeing backstories fleshed out, explore subplots in full length treatments, and experience other worlds that had until now been unseen.  Already Disney has been gearing up an origin story for one of Star Wars most beloved heroes, Hans Solo, which should be in theaters in 2018.  There are also standalone features rumored to feature Boba Fett and Obi-wan Kenobi in the near future.  But, this ambitious plan for an expanded universe must have a solid beginning, and this year, we have that foundation set by the first ever Star Wars Story; Rogue One.

The idea to make this the first in the expanded universe tales seems like a sound one.  It’s taking a subplot from the original trilogy, about the Rebel spies who stole the Death Star plans from the Empire, and finally showing us how it was done and by whom.  If there is one thing that the Star Wars universe hasn’t devoted a lot of time to, it would be the lives and trial of the many people who make up the resistance.  Oh sure, we know about Leia and Han and of course Luke Skywalker, but what about all those nameless heroes who fight alongside them.  Rogue One finally lets us hear their story and learn about the sacrifices and hardships they face in the shadow of the evil Galactic Empire.  The movie also gives us another interesting side story to explore which is the creation of the ultimate weapon; the dreaded Death Star.  The Death Star of course is one of the most iconic pieces of the Star Wars universe, so seeing it again brought to life on the big screen is another thing that I’m sure will please fans.  Also, and more importantly, this movie’s strong sense of nostalgia is going to make it appealing to fans.  It takes place in the same time period as the original trilogy, and borrow strongly from that era’s visual aesthetic.  Because of that, many are hoping that this will be the first true Star Wars movie since the originals, and not the glossy retread that was The Force Awakens, or the garishly over-produced betrayals that were the prequels.  But, straying into the open world of an expanded universe can have it’s own troubling consequences if the stories are not strong enough to support the legacy behind them.  So, does Rogue One fall short of it’s astounding pedigree, or is it a hopeful indicator of the great things to come in the Star Wars universe.

Rogue One’s narrative begins in-between Episodes III and IV of the main saga; Revenge of the Sith (2005) and A New Hope (1977) to be specific.  In fact, it leads right up to the beginning of IV, in a very effective way.  The story introduces us to Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), the daughter of a leading engineer for the Imperial Forces named Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen), who as we learn is the chief architect of the Death Star.  Jyn has spent years living as an outlaw trying to reconnect with her father and her misdeeds against both the Empire and the Resistence forces eventually gets her caught by a band of rebels led by Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and his re-programmed Imperial droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk).  They bring her before the Resistence leaders, including Mon Mothma (Genevieve O’Reilly) and Senator Bail Organa (Jimmy Smits), who enlist her to help them retrieve a message from an Imperial pilot (Riz Ahmed) who had just defected and is in the custody of a rogue Rebel warlord named Saw Gerrera (Forest Whitaker); a former acquaintance of Jyn’s.  They find Saw’s base on the Imperial occupied planet of Jedah, a once holy center for the Jedi Order.  There they encounter Imperial Stormtroopers all around, but are assisted by two resourceful rogue warriors; the sharpshooting Baze Malbus (Wen Jiang) and the blind daredevil monk Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen).  But, while this small band tries their best to discreetly complete their mission, final preparations are being made on the Death Star, with it’s overseeing Commading Director Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn) eager to test out it’s planet destroying power.  Krennic’s ambitions drive him to even more drastic methods than many of the other Imperial commanders; which makes him especially threatening to the Rebels, and a nuisance to some of his superiors in the Imperial force including Grand Moff Tarkin (Guy Henry) and Darth Vader himself (voiced again by James Earl Jones).

As you can tell, this is a heavily packed film with quite a lot of characters and plot threads.  In fact, it may be the most ensemble heavy Star Wars film we’ve ever seen.  So, is that a good thing or a bad thing?  How does this stack up against the other Star Wars.  Well, judging this movie is challenging, mainly because it is part of this legendary legacy.  The Star Wars grading curve is a peculiar one, mainly because the high points of the series are almost insurmountable, and we all know by watching the prequels how low the series can get as well.  My rating of the movie is like this; if it weren’t for the fact that this was another Star Wars movie, I would say that Rogue One is one of the greatest sci-fi adventure movies ever made.  But, because it is a Star Wars , it inevitably has to be judged with the other movies in the series, and that unfortunately brings an unfortunate burden on the film as a whole.  It doesn’t quite have the same kind of flawless spirit that Star Wars  had at it’s height with A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back  (1980), or even the nostalgic heart that elevated The Force Awakens, but at the same time it is still an enormously enjoyable adventure in it’s own right.  The best way to judge this movie is to look at it as a war film instead as a part the Star Wars narrative, and in that regard, it is an exceptional piece of work.  The movie does an excellent job of giving a face to the Rebellion fighters, showing them as more than just screen filler standing around the franchises’ main stars.  They are all vulnerable beings fighting for something they believe in and are willing to accept the cost of even their lives.  There are no Jedis in this movie and only one character wields a lightsaber late in the film (in a truly spectacular moment).  This is instead a battle fought through wits, determination, and blasters and in a way that’s the refreshing thing about this movie that sets it apart from it’s predecessors.

If the film has a major flaw in it, it would probably be with the characters.   None of the cast of characters in this movie are terrible per say, it’s just that very few of them are memorable.  This is one thing that made The Force Awakens a better film; it endeared us to the new characters of Rey and Finn and Kylo Ren with a lot more focus than there was on the story.  Here, characterizations are minimal, mainly because there is so little time to fit all of them in.  The one’s who suffer the most are the two leads; Jyn and Cassian.  The actors playing them do a fine job, but the characters are so underdeveloped that they come off as a little boring.  Jyn in particular is the biggest disappointment as a character, especially considering Star Wars history with strong heroines from Princess Leia to Rey.  The supporting players fare a little better.  I particularly liked the droid K-2SO.  He’s got all the resourcefulness of C-3PO, but with none of the cowardice, and he’s even got a sly sense of humor as well.  Some other great characters are Baze and Chirrut, the two exiled guards of a Jedi temple.  Chirrut is the one character in the movie that mentions the concept of the Force, and he in turn becomes the movie’s spiritual center.  It’s especially fun to see Donnie Yen’s martial arts skills put to good work with the character, especially knowing that the character is also supposed to be blind.  And Jiang’s Baze is just a great bad ass with a really big gun.  I also want to spotlight Ben Mendelsohn as the villain Krennic.  What could have easily turned into a whiny, unlikable villain instead becomes a richly textured character through Mendelsohn intimidating performance.  He even holds his own in scenes with Darth Vader, which is no easy task.

But while the cast of characters is a mixed bag, the visual presentation is beyond exceptional.  This is a spectacular looking film.  The epic scale is on par with Star Wars at it’s very best, and maybe even a little more.  Thankfully Disney and Director Gareth Edwards did not treat this side story any less important than the films in the main Star Wars saga.  In fact, the scale of production feels even greater here than it did in The Force Awakens.  In this movie, we are treated to incredible locals that we’ve surprisingly have yet to see in a Star Wars flick.  A tropical beach becomes a battleground for example, complete with all the classic Star Wars machinery that we’ve come to love over the years, including the mighty Imperial Walkers.  But, the visual give a lot more to the story than to show off, which is something that plagued most of the prequels.  I also commend the filmmakers for trying their hardest to recreate the texture and feel of classic Star Wars.  The movie has a definite lived in feel like the original films, with all the dirt and crime intact.  Some locals from the original trilogy even make a return appearance like the Yavin 4 moonbase of the Rebellion and of course the Death Star itself.  Speaking of the Death Star, this movie allows us to experience something that even the original trilogy was never able to show before, and that’s the true destructive force of it’s power.  In the original Star Wars, we saw the destruction of Alderaan from a wide shot, mainly because that was the only way 1970’s visual effects could portray a planet’s destruction on screen.  Here, we see the Death Star’s power demonstrated from the surface of the planet itself, and it is chilling.  I don’t think we’ve ever seen this kind of apocalyptic imagery shown in a Star Wars film before, and it really helps to elevate the true menace of the Death Star more than ever.

And that’s another thing that I like about this movie is that it does a great job of adding more lore to the Star Wars universe as a whole.  It actually helps to fill in some of the gaps in the overall Star Wars narrative and set things in motion in a very effective way.  Some of the classic characters are also used very well, although there is one distracting element about them that I have to point out.  Some characters who have aged too much over the years or whose actors have deceased since the original film’s release are digitally recreated in a very distracting way.  The CGI used for their faces are not the worst that I’ve seen, but it still falls into that uncanny valley where it just doesn’t look right and it takes you right out of the movie every time it happens.  Think of the de-aging effects they used on Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy (2010), and you’ll get the idea.  It might of been better if they used make-up effects to do the same thing, or even cast someone who looks exactly like the original, like what they did for the character Mon Mothma.  Darth Vader fares much better as a revitalized character in this film.  He’s not in the movie a whole lot, but the few moments he has are spectacular.  You really get the sense of how much he was neutered as a character in the prequels, and this movie finally allows him to be the frightening force of nature that the original trilogy had made him to be.  Also, hearing James Earl Jones voice once again with the character is a true delight.  It all helps to make this film feel like it rightfully stands with the main saga, and best of all, by filling in the gaps in the story, it actually enhances the original film itself.

So, Rogue One may not live up to the stellar heights of the series at it’s very best, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a lot of fun to watch either.  What it lacks in characterizations it makes up for with thrilling action.  Some of the action moments here are among the best that I’ve seen in the series as a whole, including the final battle at the end which may even exceed the dogfight in space from Return of the Jedi (1983).  I commend this movie for it’s sense of scale, and for not pulling any punches either.  This is a dark and sometimes brutal film, and it really gives you a sense of the amount of sacrifice that the Rebels in the Star Wars universe go through in order to stop the Empire.  I think that this is the movie’s greatest contribution to the Star Wars lore; that it gives a face to the faceless rebels that we’ve only seen on the periphery of the main saga before.  These are not special people with special powers; they are merely survivors fighting against the odds and with only their skills and wits to help see them through.  That in itself makes Rogue One a triumph.  It may be rough around the edges and lacks the steady entertainment factor that elevated The Force Awakens, but it still is one hell of a ride, and it especially gives us a lot to look forward to in the future for this series.  Indeed, I’m happy this movie works as well as it does, because it shows us that any story outside of the main saga can hold it’s own on the big screen.  It makes me eager to see the planned Han Solo origin story, and especially excited to watch next year’s continuation of the saga with Episode VIII.   As for now, the force is still strong with Rogue One and it’s absolutely worth the journey to that galaxy far, far away once again for all audiences.

Rating: 8.5/10

Disney’s success in the film medium has come from a lot of factors, but one of the chief ones is their ability to fully reinvent themselves, even while still having a foothold in the past.  When you look over the whole of their film library, primarily among their animated canon, you see a lot of highs and lows in their history, with the high points standing out as the defining elements of their studio character.  While varied degrees of success have come their way, their primary expertise has always been fairy tales and legends.  It would make sense, since that’s how the Disney company started out in features, with the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in 1937.  Since then, any era of advancement in the Disney company usually is marked by the release of another fairy tale classic, like Cinderella (1950) and Sleeping Beauty (1959) in the Golden Era of the 50’s, or The Little Mermaid (1989) and Beauty and the Beast (1991) in the Disney Renaissance, or even in the Digital Era with Frozen (2013).  Each of these successful fairy tale features also built up a lucrative brand for the company dedicated to the Disney Princesses.  The Princess line has allowed itself to be flexible, so that it could include characters outside of fairy tales to fall under the same branding, especially if they are representative of other cultures.  That’s why you see Pocahontas included as a Disney Princess as well as Mulan, despite the fact that neither are royalty in their selective films.  Even Pixar’s Merida from Brave (2012) gets lumped in.  Whatever the reasoning behind each one’s inclusion, Disney’s Princess brand is a powerful one and they are eager to keep it growing, and with the release of their new film Moana, they have added a rather unique newcomer to their club.

Moana tells an original story derived from various legends told in various Pacific Island cultures.  It’s not the first time the company has chosen a setting like this for a movie, or used Oceanic people for their main characters.  However, that earlier film was Lilo & Stitch (2002), a contemporary story about native Hawaiians encountering a rambunctious alien creature.  It was a movie respectful of Pacific Island culture and people, but it only looked briefly into the cultural heritage of it’s characters and instead firmly put them in a modern, homogenized setting.  Moana, on the other hand, puts the culture and legends of it’s setting front and center.  And one thing that is reassuring about Disney’s track record with depicting other world cultures is that they do their research thoroughly in order to capture some authenticity with their depiction.  Sure, Disney does soften cultural traits in order to suit their corporate image (a process dubbed Disney-fication), but they do make their best effort to try to give each cultural group or race a fair place in their overall community.  Moana allows for the many cultures of the Pacific Islands to have their story presented to the world in the spirited Disney way, and the project comes from some top tier talent at the company.  The directors are long time veterans John Musker and Ron Clements, a successful duo at Disney for over 30 years whose credits include hits like The Little Mermaid, Aladdin (1992), Treasure Planet (2002) and The Princess and the Frog (2009).  Moana marks their first CGI feature, as well as their first in the Cinemascope format.  In addition to their legendary directors, Disney also tapped songwriter Lin-Manuel Miranda to pen several new songs for the film, coming off recently from his mega hit Broadway show, Hamilton.  With strong names like these attached, you would expect that there are high hopes surrounding Moana.  But, is it another Disney classic, or not?

Moana sets itself on no specific island found in the Pacific Ocean, but instead portrays a portrait of traditional Islander life in a more classical age.  We meet Moana (voiced by Auli’l Cravalho) who is being prepped by her father, Chief Tui (voiced by Temuera Morrison), to be the next chieftain of their island village.  At the same time, Moana’s free-spirited grandmother Tala (voiced by Rachel House) indulges the girl’s desires to see what is beyond her island and gives her the knowledge of the histories and legends of her people.  Moana learns from her granny that many years ago, the Goddess of creation named Te Fiti had her heart stolen by a Demi God named Maui (voiced by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson).  Upon escaping the island home of Te Fiti, Maui encountered a demon formed out of lava named Te Ka, who fiercly attacks him and causes Maui to drop both the Heart of Te Fiti and his magical fish hook, the source of all his power.  Without her heart, Te Fiti drains the life out of Islands throughout the ocean, and the web of decay has now reached Moana’s Island, causing the crops to die.  Despite her father’s stern warnings, Moana sets off alone to find Maui and force him return the heart stone to it’s rightful place.  By her side is the rooster Hei Hei (voiced by Alan Tudyk), and the ocean itself, which has a mind of it’s own, helping Moana along the way after it has chosen her specifically for the task.  Once Maui is found, the two set off on the journey which includes encounters with the Kakamora (coconut bodied pirates) and a gluttonous giant crab named Tamatoa (voiced by Flight of the Conchord’s Jemaine Clement).  Though she has the ocean as her ally, Moana still has to learn to navigate across the vastness of it, and it’s a quest that will test every ounce of her being, as well as show her exactly the person she needs to be.

Moana is a very pleasurable adventure from Disney, and feels right at home with all of their other animated features.  It is beautiful to behold, and is entertaining from beginning to end.  The only thing that I would say that keeps it from achieving all time classic status as a Disney feature is the fact that the movie more or less is a tad too familiar.  It’s not poorly told, nor does it do anything out of line that sours a good narrative; it’s just that I feel that it could have been just a little better if it took some more unexpected routes in the story.  I think this movie has the disadvantage of following in the wake of Zootopia, Disney’s early Spring release, which was a much more risk-taking film, making it one of the studio’s best efforts in years.  Moana by comparison just plays to more of what you would expect from Disney, and while that’s acceptable, it’s not really revolutionary either.  And, it seems to me that the filmmakers knew that going in too.  There are several jabs at Disney Princess cliches thrown at us within the movie, and they can be quite refreshing.  A particularly funny one comes from Maui halfway through where he points out how Princesses always carry around an animal sidekick with them.  But, even though the movie pokes fun at the cliches, it only reinforces your awareness that they are there, and the movie isn’t daring enough to try to avoid them.  But, even still, this movie is a thoroughly enjoyable experience.  I would even say among the Princess focused films, it’s the best we’ve seen from Disney since the Renaissance; yes even better than Frozen (which was just okay to me).  Cliched or no, you are not going to come away from this movie feeling like it’s a waste of your time.

Perhaps the film’s greatest strength is it’s characters.  In particular, Moana herself.  She is one of the best written and performed heroines to be found in the whole Disney canon, and it’s her journey that makes the whole film worthwhile.  While the journey itself can sometimes be cliched, the growth of Moana’s character is not.  I love the fact that the story foregoes the necessity of making her gender a factor in this story.  Moana is not trying to prove her worth as a girl in society nor is she trying to prove herself as a leader.  Those things are already established for her at the start.  She’s already taking her place as the ruler of her people before her journey begins.  Her growth as a character is more of a personal one of enlightenment, allowing her to discover the person she really is  and help her lose all self doubt that could prevent her from becoming a better leader.  This personal journey is what makes Moana far more interesting than the usual Disney Princess, who tend to not have internal conflicts define their characters.  Auli’l Cravalho does a fantastic job of voicing the character, capturing the spunkiness of youth, but also the depth of a girl burdened by the responsibility that she holds for her people as well as for herself.  Like most other culturally based films in the Disney canon, I applaud them for filling the voice roles with actors representative of those cultures, and Moana is no different.  Multiple Pacific Island ethnicities are represented in the cast, including Cravalho who is Polynesian, Dwayne Johnson who is half-Samoan, and both Temuera Morrison and Jemaine Clement who have New Zealander Maori ancestry.  It all brings a nice authenticity to the voices of these characters.  And the cast is universally strong throughout the movie.  Dwayne Johnson’s on-screen charisma translates surprisingly well into the character of Maui too.  And I especially loved the tender quirkiness of Rachel House as Moana’s grandmother.  Overall, each helps to make this another great addition of characters to the ever growing Disney family.

One thing that I’m sure a lot of people are going to take away from this film more than anything is the music.  Disney of course has left a huge mark on the classic Hollywood musical tradition, and Moana hopes to add it’s own contribution to the great Disney Songbook.  In order to capture the sounds of the Pacific Islander cultures, it seems unusual that they would select a Puerto Rican-American for the job, but it’s understandable when that person is the award-winning Lin-Manuel Miranda.  After completing one of the biggest Broadway blockbusters in recent memory with Hamilton, the timing couldn’t be much better for Disney to have new songs written for their film by this superstar.  And the songs he has co-written with Samoan musician Opetaia Foa’i have that nice mix of contemporary pop and authentic Oceanic cultural influence.  Thankfully, none of the songs here are going to be omnipresent earworms like Frozen’s “Let it Go,” but a few still stand out as catchy and memorable.  I think the real standout is “We Know the Way,” an epic centerpiece song about the history of the Oceanic wayfinders who founded so many of the cultures on the Islands of the Pacific, including Moana’s own.  It’s a song that evokes the same grandeur of a melody like The Lion King’s “Circle of Life,” and more than any other becomes the theme of the movie itself.  I also have a soft spot for the song “Shiny,” which is sung by Jemaine Clement’s Tamatoa.  It would have been a waste to not take advantage of combining the voice of the Flight of the Conchords with the writer of Hamilton, and thankfully Disney did not miss this opportunity.  It’s a great, gaudy tune that sounds like something Tim Curry would’ve performed in his Rocky Horror heyday, and it’s probably my favorite Disney Villain song in quite a long time.  Surprisingly enough, they managed to get Dwayne Johnson to sing in the movie, and while he’s a bit out of his league, I still give him credit for at least trying.  He’s more brave than I would’ve been.  Accompanied by a beautiful epic score by Mark Mancina, Moana‘s music does the Disney Songbook proud.

But apart from the cast and the music, the movie also has the benefit of looking absolutely gorgeous as well.  It’s a good thing this movie is being released in the wintertime, because audiences will feel like they’ve taken a refreshing summer vacation to the South Pacific after watching this film.  The movie puts so much rich detail into every shot of the movie, from the lush greens of Moana’s island, to the bright blues of the sun-drenched skies.  Character details are also pleasing to the eye.  I’m sure that many people are going to have fun examining all the different designs of Maui’s tattoos which cover his whole body, and which come to life through traditional hand drawn animation.  And while the recreation of life on the islands is richly detailed in itself, the movie also indulges in some eye-poppingly imaginative magical sights as well.  The Kakamoura pirates for example are a great, inspired creation; being both adorable and intimidating at the same time.  I also feel that their scene owes a lot of inspiration to George Miller’s Mad Max series; you’ll see why.  Also, the location of Tamatoa’s lair in Lalotai, the realm of monsters, gives the movie a nice surreal experience, where the production designers and animators clearly had a lot of fun coming up with a lot of out there visual ideas.  Apart from the visual design, the animation of the characters is also phenomenal, and shows just how comfortable Disney has gotten with the CGI medium.  Moana herself is elegantly designed, and full-figured which is a nice departure from the Barbie doll look of past Disney princesses.  There’s also some spectacular animation done on the demon Te Ka, making her feel like she’s authentically made out of molten lava.  Audiences will also be stunned by the beautiful way that the Ocean itself is brought to life, especially in an awe-inspiring introduction scene early in the movie, where a baby Moana walks among  ocean walls that have parted for her.  It’s a visual tour de force that lives up to the high Disney standard.

So, is Moana worth checking out this Thanksgiving weekend?  For any Disney fan or animation fan out there, it is absolutely worth seeing, and for the casual viewer, it will certainly be one of the best options out there too.  I do have minor misgivings about the overall story, but maybe it’s just my abnormally high standards with regards to Disney Animation.  It’s definitely on the higher end of the Disney canon, but just a hair short of being one of the all-time masterpieces.  Oddly enough, I think that Zootopia may have been the better Disney effort of the year, despite it’s less epic presentation.  It has to do more with how well the sum of every part works for each movie, and Zootopia just hit the mark more than Moana.  But, that’s not to say that Moana is a disappointment.  I had a good time watching the movie and was absorbed into the rich setting of it’s narrative.  It is spectacularly animated and full of rich characters.  I love the main heroes of Moana and Maui, both of whom will become favorite Disney characters for many fans young and old for years to come.  The songs in particular are what I consider the movie’s triumph; supportive of the story, but not overwhelming either.  I’ve had both “We Know the Way,” and “Shiny” stuck in my head for days now, so that’s a good indicator of how much an impression they’ll leave behind.  They also live up to the high standards of both Disney’s reputation and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s.  Anyone who is a fan of Hamilton owes it to themselves to hear Miranda’s work here as well.  This is also another strong addition to the legendary work of Musker and Clements, who have solidified their reputation as the Disney Studio’s most heralded film-making duo.  Hopefully it’s not their last collaboration, but if it is, then it’s a strong way to go out.  Despite feeling at times a tad too familiar, Moana is still a worthwhile animated feature and you’ll be well served finding your way to your local theater to see it.

Rating: 8/10

The fall movie season is well under way, but so far, the last few weeks have been pretty bare.  With only Clint Eastwood’s Sully being the one breakout hit since summer, movie audiences have been craving something big from Hollywood.  With Snowden, The Birth of a Nation, Inferno, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, and The Girl on the Train all receiving tepid to outright terrible receptions, you have to wonder if it’s even worth it to release anything in the first couple months of Fall anymore.  At this point last year, we had already seen The Martian and Hotel Transylvania 2 hit big numbers, so you would think that now is a point this year that Hollywood is beginning to see some problems.  Thankfully, the second half of the Fall season is here and what better way to kick it off than a new film from the ever reliable Marvel Studios.  Marvel returns to the fall season for the first time since Thor: The Dark World (2013) with yet another film that seems like a big gamble for the studio.  After showcasing dynamic earthbound heroes with Captain America and Iron Man, as well as celestial heroes with Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel now brings us a different kind of flavor to their many interesting worlds, and that’s the realm of the mystical with their new movie, Doctor Strange.  Doctor Strange finally brings to the big screen a long time fan favorite in the comic book world and helps to place him within the larger Marvel stable that keeps growing larger every year.

Created by Steve Ditko in the 1960’s, Strange was definitely a product of his era.  Strange’s mastery of magic and the manipulation of the physical and metaphysical worlds fit well with the psychedelia of the time and made him an instant hit among comic book readers.  But, in the years since, Doctor Strange has been a hard character to sell to the public.  Because of his background in mystical arts, he didn’t quite fit in as a superhero worth investing in on the big screen, like say Superman or Batman, who better fit the action hero mold.  But fans of the comics long championed the character, and he has enjoyed a long history of popularity on the page, becoming a key member of Marvel’s Avengers line in the process.  With the creation of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe (MCU) in the last decade, it finally seemed like the right time to give Strange his time in the sun, but it would have to wait until Marvel’s Phase 3 to actually happen.  But, it’s here and now fans of the comics and casual viewers as well now have the opportunity to see if Doctor Strange is able to work on the big screen as well as his fellow heroes and if he’s another jewel in Marvel’s cinematic crown, or a serious misstep.  It all comes down to whether the character works off of the page and that largely is up to how well the character is cast and if the movie manages to convey the trippier aspects of his mystical realm; neither of which is an easy thing to pull off.  So, is Doctor Strange one more hit for the MCU or have they tampered with powers out of their control and fallen into a metaphysical spiral of their own making.

The movie introduces us to Doctor Steven Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) a talented and successful surgeon from New York City, renowned for his steady hands that makes him exceptionally skilled with complex surgeries.  A car accident one night leaves him severely scarred and unable to use his hands the same way as before.  Seeing his livelihood disappearing before him, he seeks more experimental and unorthodox treatments to help restore his abilities and his search eventually brings him to a temple in Nepal where he has heard of miraculous healings being made.  There he meets a mysterious and powerful woman named The Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), who persuades the cynical Strange that the answers he seeks are not in traditional science, but in the art of the mystical.  Strange trains at the temple and learns how to use trans-dimensional magic to conjure up weapons for combat, open portals across great distances at will, and even manipulate the physical world around him.  He’s also given guidance by the loyal monk Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and the resourceful librarian Wong (Benedict Wong).  But, as his training goes on, he discovers that dark zealots of the same mystical arts are seeking to destroy the Ancient One’s protective temples, hoping to open up a gate to a dark realm where they’ll find immortality.  Led by the sinister Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), the zealots seek to destroy the Sanctums; sanctuaries built in great cities around the world to protect it from encroachment of the Dark Realm and it’s master Dormammu.  Strange soon learns that he is charged with protecting this realm and many others from total annihilation, and with powerful artifacts like the Cloak of Levitation and the time altering Eye of Agamotto, he soon learns that he just might have what it takes to become the Sorcerer Supreme.

The success of this film is by no means a certainty.  After many easy to comprehend heroes like Iron Man, Captain America, the Hulk, and Spider-Man, turning a Sorcerer who practices magic into a viable inclusion to this pantheon seems a little, well strange.  Luckily, Marvel has built up enough confidence through all of their big screen adaptations to try everything they can and thankfully it works spectacularly well here.  Doctor Strange is yet another solid effort by Marvel Studios, extending their winning streak even further.  What could have easily been a mismanaged translation from the page to the screen instead feels right in line with the rest of Marvel’s body of work.  And really, the biggest strength of the film is how well it introduces it’s concepts to the viewer.  Strange feels very fresh in the comic book genre of movies, because we have yet to see this kind of hero specifically carry his own film.  Instead of following the traditional urban action thrillers of the Avengers crew, or the space based adventures of the Guardians of the Galaxy, we learn about magic spells and inter-dimensional travel and the different possibilities found within the universe itself, and we watch as our hero goes from ordinary to extraordinary in ways we’d never expect.  It’s more complex a world than what we’re used to in comic book movies, and yet, the movie never bogs itself down in the details.  Instead, it builds it’s world carefully, revealing itself through the eyes of Strange, as he goes from amateur to expert.  And while we’ve seen much of this hero-building before, it’s never been presented in this kind of fashion, with mysticism at the forefront.  It indeed shows that magic has it’s rightful place within the MCU, along with mutant powers, super suits, and mythological Gods.

Speaking of which, if this movie has a like-minded companion in the collection of Marvel films, it would be the equally fanciful Thor.  And like Thor, a large part of what helps to make the more mystical elements of the film more digestible for the casual viewer is the relatable-ness and likability of the characters.  The casting of Chris Hemsworth as Thor helped to make his film a success, because of how well he was a match for the character, and Benedict Cumberbatch is exactly the same in the role of Steven Strange.  In some ways, the casting seems unusual for Marvel.  Before, they seemed more intent on casting unknowns or unexpected choices in their roles, helping the actors get the boost they need for their careers and cementing their image as the character.  With Cumberbatch, he’s already had a successful career, both in popular franchises and elsewhere, so joining Marvel’s stable was not really anything he needed.  Also, gaining such a familiar face might hurt the chances of him effectively leaving an impression on the character for years to come.  And yet, I can think of no one who could have played the part better.  His performance is what really grounds this movie, making him incredibly magnetic and yet sympathetic throughout.  He starts off as a smartass (much like Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark), but it never feels out of character, and it helps to humanize him too.  I also have to commend the make-up and costume departments for doing such a great job of recreating the iconic look of the character, even with such a distinctive face as Cumberbatch’s behind it all.  The other cast members such as Ejiofor, Swinton, and Mikkelsen are also great in the movie, and continue Marvel’s solid run of great casting choices.  The only one that gets short ended is Rachel McAdams as the, I guess love interest Christine.  She may have been pushed to the side for story purposes, and hopefully it’s something that is rectified in future sequels.  Also, the Cloak of Levitation itself becomes a character in the movie, and it amazes me how well Marvel can find personality in even a piece of clothing like it.

If the movie has any flaw, it would be in the story itself, which is more a less a bi-product of the unfortunate fact that this is yet another origin film.  We all know the routine by now; our hero is broken (either physically or mentally) and finds themselves at a crossroads, until they are suddenly granted new powers that enable them to extraordinary things, but are soon confronted by evil forces that challenge their strength and help our hero to learn that they must use their powers responsibly and for the good of the world.  I’ve just described for you pretty much the plot of 90% of all the Super hero origin films that have ever existed, and Doctor Strange is no different.  While it does do a fine job presenting the formula, it doesn’t add anything new to it either, and that unfortunately makes it feel all too familiar.  I could anticipate plot points in this movie before they even happened, like Strange’s crisis of faith towards the end of the second act, or the breakthrough moment he reaches at the end of the first.  The only subversion of the formula comes from the final act, when Strange is called upon to save the day.  I anticipated that he was going to win in the end, I just didn’t know how, and the way the movie resolved was blessfully surprising.  That’s not to say that you won’t be engaged in the story either.  The film is well paced and offers up plenty of clever plot threads here and there; the best coming from some of the clever action sequences.  But, because it plays it more safe with the formula, it becomes less interesting in the long run and prevents this from being one of Marvel’s absolute best, like the rule-breaking Guardians of the Galaxy.  But, it’s a flaw that doesn’t ruin the movie entirely and you’ll still enjoy it for the most part.  My hope is that with the origin out of the way, they can take more chances in the sequel.

One thing that I will praise highly of the film is the amazing visuals.  This may just well be the most visually impressive Marvel film to date, and that is saying something.  The magical spells are neat to look at enough, but it’s whenever the sorcerers begin to alter the physical realm around them, and turn the world itself on it’s head, that the movie really leave you with a sense of wonderment.  Think the movie Inception (2010), but done on a much more spectacular level.  The movie establishes the idea of a Mirror dimension, where the sorcerers can manipulate world physically without repercussion to the actual world, and that enables them to break the laws of physics in all sorts of ways.  There is a spectacular sequence halfway through the movie when Doctor Strange and Mordo are on the run from Kaecilius in the Mirror dimension, and the dark wizard hunts them down by warping the city of New York all around them, making skyscrapers bend and twist in all sorts of unnatural ways, creating a colossal kaleidoscope of the cityscape.  It’s a sequence that utilizes visual effects better than anything else I’ve seen this year, and really in a long while.  If this movie doesn’t walk away with an Oscar for it’s visual effects next year, I don’t know what will.  And yet, with all the trippy visuals on display, the movie never loses sight of the action.  There’s no Michael Bay level of chaos on display here; the action is as easy to follow as anything else, even with all the eye candy on display.  This is some of the best film-making I have seen from Marvel, and it shows that they still have some new tricks up their sleeve.  A lot of credit goes to director Scott Derrickson for managing such a complex presentation without losing focus on the characters and the story.  Believe me, a less assured director would have turned this into a complete mess.  Doctor Strange thankfully is neither a mess nor a failure.

So, it’s safe to say that Marvel has yet another solid effort to their credit, and Doctor Strange has earned a rightful place alongside his more well known peers on the big screen.  While the story feels a little too overly familiar, the movie does open up so many wonderful possibilities for the future.  An inevitable sequel will help solve some of the first film’s shortcomings, and I honestly can’t wait until Strange plays a larger part in the MCU going forward (by the way, stay during the credits for some extra scenes that tie into that).  It’s especially good to see someone of Benedict Cumberbatch’s talent and charisma within the role (and how well that could play out in the future with the character) and the amazing sense of scale that the filmmakers put into the film.  Visually, this is Marvel at it’s best, even if the plot itself is them on auto-pilot.  I also can’t ignore the complaints that this movie has garnered for the perceived white-washing of the character of the Ancient One.  While it’s a serious issue in Hollywood in general, I don’t think that this movie intentionally tried to change the character for that purpose.  While it’s an excuse that might not please every, the movie does address why the Ancient One is who she is, and it’s an explanation that, at least made sense to me.  Also, Tilda Swinton is such a great actress in the role, that it really doesn’t make you care too hard in the end.  I may not see the controversy in the same way, but it’s there nonetheless.  Hopefully, people will accept the choice for what it is and this controversy will not affect the movie in the long run.  Overall, it’s another great Marvel film, and a blockbuster that Hollywood desperately needs to get this Fall season back on the right foot.  It may not be perfect, but it does enough good stuff amazingly well, that it will leave your movie going experience quite magical in the end.

Rating: 8/10

Timing is an important thing for film releases.  Whenever a studio stakes a claim on a date, their hope is that the conditions are just right for the best possible exposure for their films.  Sometimes a movie has the disadvantage of being released at the wrong time, with outside influences clouding it’s exposure, such as a national tragedy or inclement weather.  But, for the most part, many films are given the right amount of exposure and it largely has to do with the types of movies they are.  Action movies and high concept fantasies typically release in the summer while prestige dramas are given the fall and winter, in anticipation of awards season the following year.  But even with these conditions, studios still want to avoid things that can sometimes be out of their control, such as controversies related to the movie or the people involved.  This is especially true when there’s a movie that Hollywood has high hopes for and yet still are aware that it can turn into a lightning rod for some people.  That seems to have been the recent case with the long road to the big screen for director and star Nate Parker’s new film The Birth of a Nation (2016).  The story of a slave revolt in the South during the pre-Civil War years became the most talked about film coming out of the Sundance Film Festival where it premiered.  It soon turned into a major story when it broke the record for the biggest sale ever made at the festival for one film, with Fox Searchlight paying $17 million for distribution rights.  In the wake of the “Oscar’s So White” controversy, The Birth of a Nation looked like the right film for Hollywood to have the socially aware, African-American centered awards front-runner they needed, but as we’ve seen, a lot can happen in a few months.

Since it’s Sundance premiere, The Birth of a Nation has enjoyed a good amount of exposure even before rolling out into wide release.  The film received a warm reception at the Toronto Film Festival where it also played, and it appeared that it was well on it’s way to being an early front runner for the upcoming awards season.  However, real life events have cast a cloud over the movie, affecting it’s reception just as the larger public is now able to watch it themselves.  Both are unfortunately negative factors.  The first, of course, are revelations of Nate Parker’s possible rape case from his days back in college.  He’s never been convicted, but his accuser took her life some years ago and the charges have been floating around ever since, only now becoming public, just as his career is beginning to take off.  Whether he’s guilty of the crime or not, it still is overshadowing the release of the movie, and may audience members are now confronted with having to try to separate the art from the audience, which is harder to do for some who take this issue very seriously.  The other thing that is affecting the release of this movie is the straight from the headlines stories of African-American men being killed by police officers who are using excessive force across the country.  This is affecting the movie differently from Nate Parker’s own controversies and makes it sadly prescient.  A lot will be talked about this movie in the weeks ahead, and more than likely, both narratives surrounding it’s release will either make or break this film at the box office.  But, now that it’s here for all of us to see, does it hold up to the hype surrounding it, or is it a whole lot of noise for something not all that extraordinary.

The Birth of a Nation tells the true story of Nat Turner (Nate Parker), a literate slave who has been raised to become a preacher for other slaves in the Antebellum South.  His Master, Samuel Turner (Armie Hammer) sees Nat’s elegant sermonizing as useful for helping to keep the other slaves on his plantation cooperative and obedient.  When Samuel’s associate, Reverend Zalthall (Mark Boone Jr.), suggests that he should take Nat to other plantations to “spread his word,” Samuel sees a prime opportunity to bring extra income into his cash-strapped plantation.  Soon, he and Nat travel across the county to every nearby plantation, with Nat witnessing more and more horrific sights committed against the slaves by their masters.  Nat becomes increasingly torn, trying to reconcile what he’s learned all his life from the Turner family, and how it goes against everything his faith stands for.  He reaches a breaking point when his wife Cherry (Aja Naomi King) is brutally raped and beaten by a group of slave hunting mercenaries, led by the ruthless Raymond Cobb (Jackie Earle Haley).  This, in addition to Samuel’s increasingly demanding orders to exploit Nat for his cause, as well as all the other slaves, and Nat resolves once and for all to finally fight for his right to be a free man.  Along with his fellow rebellious slaves Will (Chike Okonwo) and Hark (Colman Domingo), and many dozens more, Nat’s small, bloody revolution begins to unfold and as a result, sends shock waves through the South and through history.  Many Southerners at the time have tried to silence the legacy of Nat Turner’s revolt, but thankfully now it’s coming back to light at a time when it needs to be remembered.

So, with a story this fascinating, and a message more timely than ever, this would appear to be a sure fire awards season favorite heading into the fall.  Unfortunately, this is also a movie where it’s ambition and it’s heart far exceed it’s execution.  Having finally seen it for myself, I can tell you that it is a fairly good movie, but only just that.  It’s not, for lack of a better word, revolutionary, nor is a failure either.  I think the main problem that I have with this movie is the uneven way it is presented.  What should have been stirring and visceral feels instead very muted and conventional.  It’s very clear that this is a movie made from a first time director.  The film is not poorly made, but you can feel the amateurishness of a storyteller who wants to tell a grand story, but is not quite comfortable with all the storytelling tools that are at his disposal.  But, even still, Nate Parker does show a lot of talent behind the camera, and there are several moments in the movie that do stand out.  However, any moment that does land is then undermined only scenes later with what I would call cinematic short-cuts.  There is a lot of heavy handed symbolism in this movie, and some of it is so on the nose that it will drive you crazy.  I think it would have served Parker better if he held off making this his first feature, and instead return to this story after having sharpened his skills on another feature, or maybe entrust his script to another director who has more experience.  This is a story that deserves the most assured kind of execution, and the fact that it falls short of it’s own ambition is an unfortunate result for such a noble effort.

The other negative that’s working against the movie is the inevitable comparison it’s going to have with the Oscar-winning 12 Years a Slave (2013).  The Steve McQueen directed film touches upon many of the same issues and explores many of the same horrific moments that defined this dark era in American history.  But, where the comparison ends between the two is in their distinctive executions.  12 Years a Slave, also based on a true story, for the most part is a far more visceral and impactful film, mainly because it puts you the viewer into the middle of the horror, witnessing the events through the point of view of it’s subject Solomon Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), and it was unrelenting too.  The Birth of a Nation has its eye-opening moments of horror too (even something as quietly unsettling as a little white girl playing with a slave girl who is dragged along with a rope leash around her neck), but it restrains itself by sticking to a biopic convention when telling it’s story.  Where 12 Years a Slave was an experience, Nation just feels like a history lesson, albeit a very valuable one.  But for something that was meant to be incendiary and thought provoking, Birth of a Nation almost seems to hold it’s audience off at a distance.  It’s only until the finale where the revolt actually happens that we see signs of the kind of the kind of rage that Nate Parker wanted his movie to emulate, but to get there, the movie certainly takes it’s time.  That being said, it does do a lot right, even in some better ways than 12 Years a Slave.  The character development in this film is certainly stronger, albeit with a few stereotypical redneck-y bad guys thrown in there.  One can not fault Nate Parker for making this kind of movie so soon in the wake of the similarly themed 12 Years, but some of the shortcomings in his film only feel more pronounced when the comparison is made.

But there is still plenty to admire about this film.  First of all, Nate Parker does get strong performances across the board from all of his cast, and he himself manages to carry the film as well with his role.  I would say that Nate makes a better actor at this point in his career than a director, though he is not without skill there as well.  The character of Nat Turner is a challenging one to pull off, given the often grandiose sermons that he has deliver.  In most other actors hands, I believe the role could have slipped too heavily into pomposity, but thankfully Nate takes a more reserved approach that still feels right whenever he goes for those grandiose moments.  Some of the other performances are also strong.  Though her character is a little underwritten, Aja Naomi King’s performance as Nat’s long tortured wife is still a strong one that really earns your sympathy throughout.  Armie Hammer is also very strong in what ends up being the film’s most complicated role.  What interested me about this movie was how it depicted the slave owners who were masters over Nat and his family.  They are not the worst people in the world and at times they can even be sympathetic; until of course you remember the horrible institution that they are a part of.  Hammer conveys this perfectly in his performance; showing that even decent human beings could be a part of something evil just because it was so ingrained into society at the time.  I like that Nate Parker allowed for that kind of complexity with his characters, although there are some characters like Jackie Earle Haley’s Cobb that are a little too cartoonishly evil and rotten.  Despite some of the problems with how the characters are written, it is good to see the actors making the most of their roles; even those in minor roles like Mark Boone Jr. and Colman Domingo.  If there is anything that’s the movie’s saving grace, it’s definitely the cast.

What I’m sure most people are wondering about this movie is whether or not it’s message is going to resonate with audiences, and for some, spark them into action.  The timing for this movie couldn’t be more perfect as African-American populations are growing more frustrated with the lack of justice given to them after the increasing number of fatal police shootings have dominated the headlines.  A segment of our population being treated like second class citizens is going to find a lot of parallels in some of themes presented in The Birth of a Nation.  Of course, slavery and police brutality are two different issues, but what will resonate for audiences is the way that contemporary society takes a blind eye to their issues, which is reflected in the way that slavery was treated as an institution during the setting of the movie.  Nate Parker’s screenplay does not give a pass to compassionate, patronizing whites in his movie, as some of them are condemned heavily for perpetuating an institution that they know is unjust, and for saying that they know what is best for the slaves time and time again.  Parker’s most incendiary statement made in the movie is showing how scripture was used by many in those days to perpetuate the practice of slavery, with Nat Turner becoming a literal tool in that practice.  Though Turner himself was a man of faith, he sees the malice of his master’s plan and calls them out for it.  By spotlighting this, Nate helps to show the way religion can be mishandled to promote something diabolical, and that the same practices are used today to subjugate and oppress other disenfranchised groups; all making it the film’s most potent message.

One wishes that Nate Parker’s skills as a director could’ve been a little stronger in order to help make the message at it’s center resonate better.  Instead, we get a historical biopic about an important lost figure in American history that is certainly good, but could have been a lot better.  As it stands, it’s a very strong first film for a director with a lot of promise.  I certainly am interested in seeing what Nate will direct next; it might turn out much better, given that I’m sure he’s learned a few new things during the making of this film.  I also do have to admire the passion behind this movie.  You can tell this was a labor of love for him and for the most part it does succeed on shedding light on a piece of history that shouldn’t be a footnote.  But, even still, I can’t overlook the faults that this movie has too.  It’s awkwardly paced, thinly written, and doesn’t quite reach the heights that it’s trying to aim for.  Perhaps with more of a body of work behind him, Nate Parker could have made something truly groundbreaking with this movie, but you can’t fault him for wanting to quickly realize something that he believed in.  All this said, I don’t think you’ll find many people who will outright dislike this movie.  It’s conventional in a way that will please most audiences, though I’m sure there will be a few who don’t think that it went far enough with it’s message.  I for one admire that Nate took the risk to make this in the first place.  It only remains to be seen if the movie can stand outside the shadow of his own past misdeeds.  I believe that it did, but each other audience member will probably feel different.  I think this will fall short of awards season favorite that all the pre-release hype made it out to be, but it still is an honorable film-making effort that’s intent on sparking a conversation this nation desperately needs to have.

Rating: 7.5/10

Love him or hate him, Oliver Stone is without a doubt one of the most unique voices in the film-making industry.  Unapologetic about his sometimes extreme political views, the acclaimed director has been responsible for some of the most celebrated political features in the last quarter century.  From his poignant anti-war statements like Platoon (1986) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), to his hard edged political thrillers like Wall Street (1987) and JFK (1991), to his sometimes gonzo social commentaries like Natural Born Killers (1994), he is a filmmaker that has something to say and say it loud for all to hear.  But, as the filmmaker has aged and gone deeper down the rabbit hole of increasingly fringe conspiratorial beliefs, some have believed that he has lost his focus and with it, the edge that marked most of his earlier work.  His George W. Bush biopic W. (2008) was not as incendiary as some of Stone’s most ardent fans would’ve liked.  His recount of the events of 9/11 in World Trade Center (2006) were too boring and safe.  And of course, his attempt at classic Hollywood epic filmmaking turned into the notorious flop that was Alexander (2004).  Suffice to say, Oliver Stone has spent much of the last decade trying to rediscover that same spark that drove much of his early career.  It’s not that he doesn’t try; I have yet to see an Oliver Stone movie that I outright hated or found boring (yes, even Alexander).   But, Stone is a filmmaker who lives by absorbing new information and keeping up with current events, and that has not always found it’s way into his directorial style.  He is both emboldened by his politics and shackled by them as well.  What he needs now is something that appeals to his interests but also lends itself very well to his style of film-making.

So, he should feel very lucky that something like the Edward Snowden case fell into his lap.   The Snowden incident has all the hallmarks of an Oliver Stone story, with an intelligence insider discovering a huge and illegal government operation at work and finding himself caught up in the middle, leading him to risk his life and career in order to expose the truth and hold powerful people accountable for their actions.  Oliver Stone loves these kinds of underdog whistleblower stories, and the fact that this true life event was still fresh in everyone’s minds gave the filmmaker the perfect opportunity to delve back into what he is good at.  For those unfamiliar (if there are any of you), Edward Snowden is responsible for the largest and most damaging intelligence leak in U. S. history.  In the documents that he released to the press, he exposed evidence of widespread wire-tapping conducted by the government against it’s own citizens, with high-profile communication companies like Verizon, Apple, and many others compliant in the program.  It was a huge black eye for the American government, who quickly had to spin the news to make it appear that they were using the intelligence responsibly in the War against Terrorism.  Despite whether or not Snowden was heroic for his actions, he did spark a debate on the nature of privacy and government overreach with his actions and it has since become a defining moment in recent world politics.  Snowden, today, is still a fugitive from the law, living as a refugee in Russia, but he has gained a following of supporters through all of this, including Stone himself.  Now, Oliver Stone has brought Edward Snowden’s story to the big screen, and it should be a movie that fits perfectly within his wheelhouse.  But, did Oliver Stone fail to live up to the potential of this story, or did Snowden bring his style back to form in a big way.

Snowden tells it’s story much in the traditional biopic way.  We are introduced to Edward (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in his most pivotal moment, holed up in a Hong Kong hotel as he discreetly hands over the stolen documents from the CIA over to a handful of journalists.  The journalists in question are Guardian columnists Glenn Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) and Ewan MacAskill (Tom Wilkinson), along with documentarian Laura Poitras (Melissa Leo); people Snowden hand-picked to speak to based on his faith in their level of discretion and commitment.  As they wait for approval for their story to go forward, Snowden reflects back on what brought him to this point.  We then flash back to his early days as a politically conservative idealist looking for an opportunity to serve his country.  After health concerns force him out of the army, Snowden looks for a job in the CIA as an analyst.  During his training, he becomes influenced by two veteran teachers, Intelligence director Corbin O’Brian (Rhys Ifans) and Agent Hank Forrester (Nicolas Cage), both of whom see a lot of potential in the bright young man, but steer him in different directions.  O’Brien appeals to Ed’s more idealistic leanings, while Forrester appeals to his more cynical side.  Both ideals clash as Snowden falls deeper into the world of espionage and surveillance, discovering just how far the American government will go to stay one step ahead of the rest of the world.  The stress takes it’s toll on him and he becomes more and more paranoid; something that puts a strain on his relationship with his girlfriend Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley).  After several back and forth clashes between him and the agency he works for, once he learns of the full breadth of what the Intelligence community is up to, he resolves to throw everything away in order to expose the truth.

A story like this had to find it’s way to Oliver Stone eventually; if not right now, it would’ve later.  It has all the hallmarks of a traditional Stone thriller and it practically t-balls the situation for Stone to hit it out of the park.  So, is Snowden a return to form for the legendary agitprop director.  Well, yes and no; and more emphasis on the latter.  Snowden unfortunately misses a lot of opportunities to really deliver a compelling thriller, and yet at the same time, still delivers on some of the things that Stone is exceptional at.  I think it’s a movie that perfectly illustrates the unfortunate characteristic of Stone’s latter career; the disconnect between the political and the professional that defines the way that Stone directs.  Oliver Stone becomes a very different person whenever he delivers a sermon in his movies, as opposed to when he’s the storyteller.  In many ways, these are the best parts of his films; whenever he gets political.  And Snowden is no exception.  There’s a montage in the middle of the film where Edward Snowden breaks down exactly what the Intelligence community is doing with all it’s new found power and how that is shaping the political dynamics all over the world.  The montage is an expertly delivered visual essay that really helps to spell out the full picture of the world that Edward Snowden lives in and it’s by far the most intriguing part of the movie.  Unfortunately, most of the rest of the film is generic and unoriginal as a biopic.  This is where the division in Stone’s style begins to undermine the movie.  He clearly wants to deliver an intriguing political point, but it’s buried within too much conventionality to feel important.  Stone’s long history in Hollywood undermines his message here, as his more subdued direction steals the power away from a hot button subject.

But, despite the conventionality of Stone’s direction, it still is fairly competent direction.  Not once was I bored watching this movie.   I especially find it intriguing how someone so critical of the United States still manages to infuse all his movies with a strong sense of Americana.  A lot of waving flags show up in this film.  Some parts are actually quite compelling; especially those within the Hotel where Snowden makes his transfer.  I would’ve liked to have seen more emphasis put on these crucial moments in the hotel, because it’s the point of the movie where Snowden’s life hangs in the balance the most.  Much of the rest of the movie gives perhaps too much focus to his backstory, much of which gets repetitive after a while.  Seeing the interaction between journalists and a whistleblower is a story-line that could’ve been mined more and it’s surprising that Stone chooses not too.  My thinking is that Oliver Stone probably felt that his subject needed more context, considering that Snowden has come under fire and is pre-judged from pretty much everywhere; in the political world and in the press.  That’s why I think he stepped away from his own political ideals and portrayed this story from a more conventional angle.  But, even still, it’s a different approach than what he would have done with the story if it were in his heydays.  In a movie like JFK, Stone pushed aside the broader picture and conventional things like character insight and narrative flow in order to deliver the story that felt right to him, and that resulted in a film that was unconventional and historically inaccurate but cinematically engaging.  I do admire the fact that a more mature Oliver Stone seeks to delve deeper into his characters and their motivations, but it becomes a disadvantage when the film’s narrative has less drive because of it.  The Stone-esque moments that he’s become so good at are there, especially near the end; it’s just that the director is less reliant on them as he used to be.  And as a result, you have a movie with ambition behind it, but not the propulsion behind it to make the narrative as strong as it could be.

But, Oliver Stone’s still strong direction is one of the movie’s saving graces.  Unfortunately it’s undermined by a huge factor that prevents the story from ever taking hold, and that sadly is the character of Edward Snowden himself.  Snowden is fundamentally a weak character in the movie.  Despite what you think about the man, a person who has affected so much change in the political world over the last couple years should be a compelling individual when portrayed on screen, and sadly, this movie fails to make that happen.  Snowden comes across as a boring, stick-in-the-mud boy scout with an unsavory condescending attitude towards anyone who doesn’t see the world his way.  I don’t know if this is the fault of Oliver Stone trying to stay true to the character or perhaps being so reverential to his subject, that he makes him obnoxiously perfect.  Whatever the case, Snowden is not an appealing character as portrayed in this film.  It is kind of reflective of the man himself, who’s been given celebrity status as both a champion of privacy and as a criminal from justice, which he has come to embrace.  I try to avoid taking a political stance on most things but, I do see the validity of both arguments against him.  I for one am happy that his actions have sparked a debate over the ethical dilemmas associated with the government’s secret wire-tapping of it’s own citizens; something which shouldn’t go un-ignored.  But, at the same time, I’m not a fan of Snowden’s cocky self-image that he’s projected ever since then; making himself look like the supreme authority on all intelligence activities conducted by the United States and it’s allies.  He knows more than me, surely, but I think there are still plenty of other intelligence experts out there that could school him on a bunch of things too.  It’s not surprising that Snowden had involvement in this film’s making, which tells me that he wanted to put his best image forward.  But, in doing so, he makes himself appear less interesting and as a result, less sympathetic.  Some heroes are worth investing more in when you see their flaws.  Oliver Stone makes Snowden too one-dimensionally perfect to feel real.

But, despite the unsavory character at it’s center, I will say that Joseph Gordon-Levitt does deliver a solid performance as Snowden.  In particular, he nails Edward Snowden’s accent perfectly.  There’s a point late in the movie where we transition between the actor and the real life person and you see just how much work JGL put into getting the speech patterns right.  He does much better with the voice than with the physical performance, because you never quite shake the feeling that you’re watching an actor do an imitation throughout the movie, but the actor does deliver for the most part and helps carry the film as a whole.  And I’ll say this about Oliver Stone movies; they are always filled with great ensemble casts.  Here you have the likes of Zachary Quinto, Melissa Leo, Tom Wilkinson, and even Nicolas Cage all offering strong performances in the film.  Albeit, most of them get short shifted, but they do stand out as a whole.  In particular, I liked the brief appearance of Justified‘s Timothy Olyphant as a covert CIA agent who gives Snowden a darker window into the world of spy networks.  Rhys Ifans also stands out as Director O’Brien, becoming something of the film’s primary antagonist.  Despite being the story’s villain, O’Brien shows more shades of character in the movie, being both menacing and appealing at the same time, and it makes him a far more compelling character than Snowden in the overall narrative.  The film’s weakest character sadly is Shailene Woodley’s Lindsay, a character who should be the political spark in Snowden’s outlook on life, but instead just turns into a passive tag along on his inevitable road to infamy.  Still, it’s the cast that largely holds this film together, even when the characters are not written well enough to deserve the strong performances given to them.

Overall, the movie is neither the long awaited return to form for Oliver Stone that we’ve all been looking for, nor is it a huge step backwards either.  It’s just an acceptable political thriller with some minor provocative points to make.  I would’ve loved to have seen more risks taken with this material, because it’s a debate worth having and Oliver Stone is the kind of troublemaker that would’ve offered up an engaging statement on the subject.  Unfortunately, by handling his key subject with too much care, he kind of undermines the impact that this story could have had.  Snowden is still a controversial figure, and this movie wins him no sympathy points at all; with his supporters, his detractors, or with people on the fence like me.  If you want more sympathy on your side, don’t be afraid to show a little more character.  Otherwise you just look like an arrogant jerk.  That’s ultimately the failure of this film; a weak main hero.  If you want to see a more compelling account of the Snowden case, watch the Oscar winning documentary Citizenfour (2014), the making of which is dramatized in Stone’s movie.  Laura Poitras’ “you are there” documentation is immediate and compelling, and offers up a much better portrait of Edward Snowden as we witness him in his most vulnerable moment.  There are some moments in history that just come across better in a documentary, and this is one of them.  Still, fans of Oliver Stone probably won’t be too disappointed.  It’s still a competently made thriller, showing that the director hasn’t fully lost his touch.  It’s just that he’s got to take more risks and strike a better balance between his propaganda and his narrative.  It’s good to see you compelled to believe in something again Mr. Stone.  Just don’t be afraid to make it a little messy and a tad bit insane cinematically, because that was always the appeal of your movies before.

Rating: 7/10

There’s a lot to be said about the way that DC Comics is going about bringing their catalog of characters and stories from their many years of publishing to the big screen.  A lot of what defines their work up to now, unfortunately, is that of a company desperately trying to play catch up.  As of right now, DC’s long time rival Marvel is the undisputed champion at the box office, with seemingly everything they touch turning into a smash hit, which also includes sub-tier comic book characters like Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy.  DC, hoping to replicate the same success, have up to now stumbled to repeat what Marvel has accomplished.  For several years, DC was doing fine, riding the wave that was Christopher Nolan’s acclaimed Dark Knight trilogy, but with Nolan’s guidance gone, DC has had to scramble and the results are shaky at best.  Man of Steel (2013) rubbed a lot of fans and casual viewers the wrong way with it’s grim and heavy-handed retelling of Superman’s origins (although I didn’t hate the movie myself as much as other people did; read my review to see what I thought).  Despite it’s mixed reception, Man of Steel did make money, and DC took the next step of building an interconnected universe where all of their characters would interact with one another, just like what Marvel was doing with their Avengers series.  Their first attempt at this, unfortunately, turned into a convoluted misfire called Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  While not the worst Superhero movie ever made, it was nevertheless a movie that did a terrible job of what it was trying to accomplish, which was to build the foundations on which this cinematic universe was going to stand.  Even Man of Steel defenders like me couldn’t excuse the massive logical problems of the story and the uncharacteristic ways that these iconic superheroes were behaving.

The reason why Marvel is continuing to lead the way while DC is struggling is because DC and it’s parent studio Warner Brothers are making it so obvious that they are trying to copy what Marvel is doing.  There is so much studio meddling behind the building of the DC universe (making sure that every movie hints at future films yet to come) that it’s drawing too much attention to itself, making it feel hollow.  With Marvel, we know that much of their movies have connecting threads, but the studio makes sure that each individual movie has it’s own identity and is able to stand on it’s own outside of it’s place within the grander picture.  Batman v. Superman failed because it felt too much like it was there to set things up for later and not a complete narrative in it’s own right.  It was basically a two and a half hour prologue.  And even at that, studio inference continued to hamper what could have been an interesting action film, with an uneven edit of the movie creating enormous plot holes and conveniences that left audiences everywhere confused and dissatistified.  A lot of the fault rest on the director Zack Snyder, who has more visual sense than storytelling sense, but Warner and DC certainly hold a great deal of blame because they’ve launched this massive undertaking without ever feeling totally committed to it.  There are some things that I think works for them, especially taking a darker tone which does differentiate their universe from Marvel’s.  That’s why I think the best thing that they could do right now is to refocus their cinematic universe on a story that suits their darker character, but is able to stand on it’s own and have more fun with it’s characters.  That’s the hope behind Suicide Squad, but is it the shot of adrenaline that DC needs, or is it a further step backwards?

Suicide Squad is a unique entry in the Comic Book adaptation genre in that it doesn’t focus on a team of Superheroes, but instead focuses on some of their rogues gallery.  As the marketing for this movie has stated, most Superhero films are about Good vs. Bad.  Suicide Squad on the other hand is about Bad vs. Evil.  We are introduced to some of DC’s more grounded, human villains as they serve time in maximum security.  They include master sharpshooter assassin Deadshot (Will Smith) and maniacal Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie); both criminals incarcerated after their encounters with Batman (Ben Affleck).  Also in prison are bank robber Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), the vicious Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and the remorseful fire wielding gangster Diablo (Jay Hernandez).  They are collectively brought together under the supervision of Captain Rick Flag (Joel Kinneman), who directs them to assist in a risky mission in exchange for time off of their sentences.  The catch is that if they try to escape, or refuse, or attempt to kill Captain Flag, they will be instantly killed by explosives implanted in their necks.  Their mission, brought to them by high level security agent Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), is to extract an important contact in an area under supernatural attack.  One of Waller’s assets, the god-like supervillain Enchantress (Cara Delevingne), has gone rogue and is attempting to build a superweapon capable of destroying the planet.  The “Suicide Squad” realize quickly that their place in the mission is to purposely be the fall guys in this foolish mission, but as they find themselves deeper into the heart of darkness, they learn that there’s a definable line between the bad things they do, and the greater evils that can threaten them all.  And things get even more complicated when Harley’s devoted boyfriend, The Joker (Jared Leto) gets thrown into the mix.

So, did Suicide Squad succeed or fail at righting the ship of DC’s cinematic universe?  Well, it depends on what you want to see going into this film.  If you are looking for a serious comic book adaptation that rivals the spirit of Marvel’s movies, then you will probably come away from this film very disappointed.  This is not the huge shift in the right direction that DC needed to move away from the issues of their previous films.  Plus there are choices made with these characters and their place in the universe that may be off-putting to some die hard fans of the comics.  But, at the same time, if you are just looking for an action movie that manages to have a little fun with the character dynamics of it’s ensemble players, then you might have a good time watching Suicide Squad.  And that’s the reaction that I came away with from it.  Suicide Squad is a flawed movie to be sure, but not one that left me dissatisfied nor angered by the direction that it took.  I kind of knew going in that this movie was not going to be the “be all end all” of DC’s comic book movies, and that helped to temper my expectations a little bit.  What I wanted in the end, more than anything, was to see a movie that played off of these kinds of characters and stand on it’s own separated from it’s place in the DC universe and in that respect, it worked for me.  As an action movie, it’s got personality and purpose, which is much better executed here than in Batman v. Superman.  Even still, I will acknowledge that it still falls short of Marvel quality entertainment, even with regards to the rival’s less successful efforts (although this didn’t anger me like Iron Man 3 did, so that’s a plus).  It’s flaws don’t ruin the experience completely, but sad to say, it does prevent this movie from truly becoming the success that it wants to be.

I would say that the most obvious flaw of this movie is it’s plot, or rather the way it is handled.  There are a lot of threads that are thrown into this movie, and not all of them mesh together very well. I think that it has to do with the terrible editing job that the film suffers through, which is clearly characteristic of studio interference.  Whenever the movie does begin to pick up and find it’s rhythm, it’s undercut by a poorly handled scene transition or loss of perspective.  The movie also suffers some serious pacing issues in the second act, which meanders through some repetitive action sequences that add nothing to the overall experience.  The movie works at it’s best when it remains focused on the characters themselves and what they are going through, but even here, studio meddling messes with the chemistry.  The many attempts to connect the story with the larger world undermines the story several times, and unless you’re an expert in everything related to DC comics, you might find yourself lost in the process.  What I found particularly problematic was the lack of focus on the real threat of the narrative.  It’s kind of ironic that a movie about a collection of villains would have a problem finding a strong antagonist, but that’s the case here.  Enchantress, despite a decent performance by Cara Delevingne, is never fully developed as a character and her motives make little sense, so she kind of becomes the main villain by default.  It could be argued that Viola Davis’ Amanda Waller fills that role too, but her place in the story never quite reaches that.  Most infuriating is the way that the Joker is shoehorned into the movie.  Some people are going to hate this version of the iconic character.  I was mixed on it.  Leto’s performance is different and an interesting way to take the character, but he has no business being in this movie, and if you cut him out completely, he wouldn’t have been missed.  It’s strange additions like this that make the movie too messy at times.

At the same time, the movie doesn’t fall into the same morose pit that ultimately sank Batman v. Superman, and that’s largely thanks to it’s excellent casting.  There aren’t any wasted performances here; they are only let down by the plot in the end.  It’s to the actors credit that they manage to make us care about this ragtag group of criminals.  For one thing, the headlining star, Will Smith, is well served as the brash Deadshot.  Oh, how I have missed this charismatic version of the former Fresh Prince superstar and it’s so refreshing to see Will have some fun again as a character like this in a big budget action flick.  Better yet is Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn.  While this film let’s down the Joker in many ways, it doesn’t waste the same opportunity of making his beloved Harley a welcome presence here.  She is a fan favorite that people have long wanted to finally see on the big screen, and I truly believe the filmmakers succeeded by her.  Margot does a great job embodying the character, making her twisted and endearing all at the same time.  I especially like the fact that she nails the “puddin'” affectation that has defined the character so much in the comics and her early animated incarnations.  In many ways, Harley is the movie’s shining star, and she owns every scene she’s in. However, I would say that my favorite performance in the movie comes from Viola Davis as Amanda Waller.  Here you have a character with no special powers of her own, and yet she has to project complete authority over everyone regardless of how powerful they are, and Viola nails that perfectly in her commanding presence.  There’s a scene late in the movie where she takes some drastic measures to ensure her security that gets a remark from Deadshot, “That was straight up gangster;” and it certainly is.  It makes me anxious to see where she takes the character in future DC films, because she is definitely a highlight of their cinematic master plan so far.  The remaining cast also does a credible job of portraying their characters, and most importantly, it looks like they are having fun doing it.  Having an engaged cast of characters certainly helps to make some of the more flawed aspects of the movie feel less troublesome as a result.

I also think that director David Ayer should be credited for holding together a production that could have fallen apart with all the weight put on it.  Coming from a background of making thoughtful action films centered around character dynamics like End of Watch (2012) and Fury (2014), and writing scripts for films like Training Day (2001) and Harsh Times (2005), this was a project that was right up his alley.  And the film’s best moments, namely the character interactions and a few standout action sequences, are representative of what he’s best at as a director.  It’s only when elements of the cinematic universe start to converge into the plot that the movie loses it’s focus.  I get the feeling that in order for this movie to appease the wishes of the execs at Warner Brothers and DC, Ayer had to leave a lot of stuff he wanted out of the movie, and that’s probably the reason why the final edit of the film feels so scattershot.  I would’ve loved a lot less backstory forced into the movie, because it ultimately is irrelevant to the story.  These characters are who they are, so why don’t we just see more of them doing what they’re best at.  At the same time, I am pleased that DC is recognizing that this is a problem and significant re-shoots were made to inject more humor into the movie, and prevent this from becoming the depressing slog that Batman v. Superman was.  I believe the re-shoots helped, because the humor does work here.  There’s also a little camp value to the way this movie goes over the top at times towards the end.  Some might find it too silly, but honestly, that’s something that DC should embrace more.  What David Ayer brought was some visual pop and personality, and despite the roadblocks in his way, he managed to make an engaging film.

So, in the end, this will probably be a divisive movie for many people.  Some will embrace it’s quirkiness, and some will bemoan it as another convoluted mess by DC.  While I can’t say that I loved the movie, I at the same time still found myself entertained for most of it.  Is it a flawed film? Absolutely.  There are still many nagging issues that DC has yet to address with their cinematic universe, namely their insistence on force feeding the construction of this world on us, instead of letting it grow naturally.  This especially hurts Suicide Squad in the long run by undermining the separate identity that it wants to establish.  On the other hand, it is pleasing to see the director and cast actually having fun with these characters, and not taking itself too seriously.  In that regard, it is a step in the right direction for DC.  However, what the cinematic universe needed was a giant course correction, and I don’t think that Suicide Squad was the right movie to lay that responsibility on.  This movie probably would’ve worked better had it been made after a longer running cinematic universe had already been established.  Pushing it to the forefront asks a lot more of this movie, and it’s something that audiences just aren’t ready for yet.  I especially think that this movie does a disservice to the Joker character, considering that we know so little of his place in this universe up to this point.  I hope both him and Harley are given more development in future Batman films.  My hope is that this different flavor of film-making enables DC to try different things in their universe.  Variety is good, and already I have high hopes for a strong showing from Wonder Woman next year.  Suicide Squad may not be Marvel quality, but it tries, and it at least is way better than Batman v. Superman, which isn’t such a bad result after all.

Rating: 7.5/10

This year, the Star Trek franchise hits a milestone, as it marks it’s 50th anniversary.  What started off as an ambitious, but admittedly cheesy prime time sci-fi adventure series on televisionin the 1960’s has since blossomed into one of the most influential and recognizable brands in entertainment.  In the last 50 years, the original series has spawned a movie franchise that in total has produced 13 films, albeit with questionable continuity.  It has also led to the creation of 4 different spin-off series, with another currently in development, all of which help to expand on the mythos that Star Trek is built upon and build up it’s legacy further.  And through all this, it’s still remarkable how Star Trek has managed to remain relevant all these years later.  Sure, the devoted fan base of the Trekkie population has always kept the series in the spotlight, but we are also still seeing even the casual viewer taking interest in Star Trek today, still holding it up in high regards.  I think what has helped Star Trek to adapt over the years has been the way it’s been guided by expert filmmakers who bring a bit of their own interests into the series.  When J.J. Abrams was tasked with bringing a re-imagined Star Trek to the big screen back in 2009, he stated that he was coming at it as someone who wasn’t a passionate fan of the series.  Don’t get him wrong, he still respected the Star Trek universe, but what he wanted to do was to create a version of the series that was not geared solely to the die hard fan, but also to the uninitiated viewer who may or may not be experiencing this universe for the first time.  And it was a new direction for the long running series that really paid off in the end.

J.J. Abrams re-imagined the Star Trek universe by bringing it back to it’s roots, with all the original characters, but opened up the possibilities of different directions by injecting the concept of an alternate timeline into the mix.  It was a genius way to allow a new, more up-to-date take on the origins of the Star Trek, but also give the devoted fan base the relief that it’s not rewriting what has happened before it; keeping the original series and films respectfully a part of this on-going franchise (take note Ghostbusters).  The 2009 relaunch of Star Trek was universally praised by both Trekkies and general audiences alike, but this also put pressure on the filmmakers on how they would follow this up.  The sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), encountered a much different reaction when it was released.  While not an outright disappointment, a lot of fans of Star Trek were underwhelmed by the uneven sequel.  The plot made very little sense; some of the cast were very out of character; and the finale of the film shamelessly stole scenes wholesale right out of the beloved Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), showing clear-cut audience pandering that left many fans cold.  While I stated in my review that I still enjoyed Into Darkness overall, I do acknowledge that it had a lot of unsolvable problems that hurt it, namely in the dreary, taking itself too seriously screenplay by Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci and Damon Lindelof.  When it was announced that another Star Trek was in the works, many people feared that the wrong direction that Into Darkness was taking the series into was going to continue, and with J.J. Abrams jumping ship to relaunch the Star Wars series with The Force Awakens (2015), it looked like Star Trek was heading for a downfall, just as it was finding it’s footing once again.  So, with Star Trek Beyond now in theaters, are we seeing the best days of the series long behind us, or will this movie take it back to it’s celestial heights?

The story finds the crew of the starship Enterprise in the middle of their five year mission into deep space, or as famously stated, the Final Frontier.  Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) begins to question his place within the Federation hierarchy as the mundane and thankless missions take their toll on him, and he seriously considers giving up his captain’s seat for a vice admiral position.  At the same time, his First Officer Spock (Zachary Quinto) is torn by his duty to the ship and his desire to help his Vulcan people rebuild their culture, leading him to also consider leaving his position.  Their personal struggles are put on hold when a distress call is brought to their attention, leading them to take the Enterprise out to a remote planet on the edges of the galaxy.  There, the Enterprise is attacked by an immense, swarm-like fleet of ships, which leads to the destruction of the Enterprise and the forced evacuation of it’s crew. After crash landing on the remote planet, the Enterprise crew is split apart and at the mercy of the ruthless mercenary force, led by the mysterious Krall (Idris Elba).  Kirk and Chekov (the late Anton Yelchin) search for answers as to where their lost crew might be, and what Krall is after.  Spock, wounded from his encounters with the alien force, must rely on the help of Dr. “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) to survive.  Sulu (John  Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana) seek to escape the clutches of Krall’s forces as they are confined with the other hostages.  And Scotty (Simon Pegg) runs across a lone wolf rebel on the same planet named Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who may have the means necessary of helping the crew reunite and fight back against Krall.  But time is short for all of them, as Krall seeks to use a weapon in the Enterprise’s possession that could destroy millions of lives at the nearby Federation star base.

A lot of questions were raised whether or not the Star Trek franchise would manage in a post-Abrams direction, and the choice of direction given over to Justin Lin of Fast and the Furious fame seemed to make a lot of fans uneasy.  Thankfully, all of our fears were for not because Star Trek Beyond is a success all the way through; not just as a continuation of the Star Trek franchise, but as a movie in general.  From beginning to end, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film, and probably the most fun I’ve had watching a movie all summer.  The action scenes are phenomenal, and very creatively staged.  The cast is engaged and clearly having fun.  The script is also much more in tone with the basics of what this series is about.  It should be noted that a draft of this screenplay was written by Simon Pegg (who plays Scotty in the movie) and his input brings a renewed focus to the series.  Pegg is clearly a fan of Star Trek and he manages to show that in his writing by essentially crafting a two hour episode of the series.  The crew encounters a strange, new world; do battle with the hostile force; and return home after saving the day as a team; nothing more complex than that, and it works.  Pegg doesn’t have to rely on paying homage to the past or rehashing old ideas in a new context.  Here, he just let’s the story and characters go about their business like they normally would, and that makes for a much more engaging adventure in this universe.  Also, a lot of credit should go to director Lin for managing to keep the momentum going in this series after the departure of it’s high profile director.  Trekkies, rest assured, your franchise is in good hands.

Before I go into the many great things that work in this film, I also want to point out that it’s not 100% perfect either.  I think that the while I do enjoy the direction of Justin Lin in this movie, it can sometimes veer dangerously close to incomprehensibility.  Lin’s style matches the frenetic vibe of the Fast and the Furious series perfectly, but it sometimes clashes a bit with the story being told here.  The pacing for instance suffers a bit from the quick-editing that Lin is more used to, at least in the film’s opening act, where plot points are thrown our way without much time to stick properly.  But, thankfully, when the film reaches the remote planet in the second act, it begins to settle down, and allows the narrative to flow out more naturally.  Lin’s style also helps to make the action scenes more kinetic than in past films, and thankfully it’s not in a way that feels out of place here.  Those of you worried about the image of Kirk riding a motorcycle that was shown in the trailer, be rest assured; it plays out much better in context and is not a forced injection of Fast and the Furious machismo into the Star Trek universe.  The only other negative working against the film is unfortunately the central villain, Krall.  He’s something of a weak, underwritten character who’s motivations are barely explored, and even when we find out more about his past, it’s kind of shoe-horned in very awkwardly.  This is more the fault of the screenplay rather than the actor playing him, because Idris Elba does try his very best and does leave somewhat of an impression.  The character is adequate, but never grabs our attention the same way that Eric Bana’s Nero or Benedict Cumberbatch’s Khan had done before.  Even still, the character could have been much more poorly handled, and it’s to the credit of Elba’s abilities as a performer that he works fine at all in this film.

Perhaps the film’s greatest strength would be the absolute stellar cast assembled for this series.  These actors were given the unenviable task of taking over iconic characters and making them their own, and each one of them has done a superb job.  Given that one of the stars of the film also served as screenwriter, it’s no surprise that much of the movie is devoted to building the interconnected relationships with one another.  What I love best about the film is that it attempts to pair up characters that don’t normally share screen-time together in this series and allows us to see what might happen as a result.  I especially liked the pairing of Spock and Bones in this film, as it gives the movie it’s most amusing subplot.  Spock, of all people, gets some of the film’s biggest laughs, and I thought it was a welcome surprise for this series to use the character this way, yet still remain true.  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, and everyone else continue to impress as these iconic characters; embodying the roles without falling into parody.  I also liked the fact that they’re able to find new angles to explore with them.  News broke earlier that this film was going to reveal that this version of Sulu is gay (something that original Sulu and out actor George Takei objected to, despite it being a special acknowledgement to him), but I was pleased to see that it was presented in a very subtle, non-exploitative way that does not change anything about the character at all; it’s just a nice added detail.  I also liked how well the new character of Jaylah fit into the story, and the character dynamics overall.  She could have easily have been a stereotypical tough girl character, but her determination and resourcefulness really helps to add something to the film, and it makes her a more interesting character as a result.  I think she works especially well because she is paired with Scotty for most of the movie, and their distinctive personalities mesh together surprisingly well.

Star Trek Beyond’s visuals are also noteworthy of praise.  The film supposedly had a smaller budget than Into Darkness, but you wouldn’t know it.  Amazingly, this movie feels quite epic in scope.  The most impressive centerpiece of the film is the Yorktown Space Station, a massive glass enclosed satellite base that’s other-worldly and breathtaking at the same time.  It gives the viewer a sense of awe and wonder that you normally don’t find regularly in the Star Trek franchise.  The Base also provides a perfect setting for the climatic battle at the end, which is a significant upgrade from the previous film, which end in a very lackluster way.  I especially loved the way that the cityscapes of the colossal base seemed to layer on top of one another, making the climax all the more eye-catching.  The planet where most of the film is set also is beautifully realized, and feels at times like a hearken back to the classic series itself; with rock quarries and the remote California deserts and forests acting as stand-ins for an alien world (although this time, Canada served as the location shooting for this film).  Overall it’s a movie that feels big without ever trying too hard to look big.  It’s all in how the visuals ended up being used I guess.  Justin Lin takes the best of what he’s learned from Fast and the Furious and gives Star Trek a consistent, non-flashy identity, and that’s to be commended.  J.J. Abrams sometimes distracting lens flares are no where to be seen this time around, and I think that’s a positive move for the series.  There’s noting groundbreaking in this Star Trek; it’s just pure solid action in service of the story rather than a distraction from it.

So, I would highly recommend seeing Star Trek Beyond.  It may not be the greatest we’ve seen from the Star Trek universe, but it’s a worthy addition that provides great thrills nonetheless.  The characters are all still wonderfully realized, and the movie allows them to play off one another in a very fun and engaging way.  I especially like the new direction that Justin Lin brought to this series, which was in danger of growing stale after Into Darkness seemed to take a step backward.  He gives the movie an impressive sense of scale, while at the same time never overwhelming us with the action either; allowing the characters to drive the story instead.  I also love the way that Simon Pegg brought a sense of fun back to this franchise with his script.  He doesn’t try to be sanctimonious or too smart with the material, which is a good thing.  He knows what Star Trek is supposed to be, and he just let’s it play out like it normally would, making the adventure all the more engaging.  My hope is that this team continues on this road in future installments, because it came together almost perfectly here.  Sadly, they’ll be missing a crucial piece with the sudden passing of Chekov actor Anton Yelchin, who thankfully gets more of a presence in this feature and likewise delivered with a great amount of charm in his role.  The movie also pays tribute to original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, in a respectful way, and how they eulogize him within the film is an incredibly touching moment.  Overall, this was one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had watching a movie this year.  Movies like Captain America: Civil War and Finding Dory may be better overall, but Star Trek Beyond might be the most fun cinematic experience you will have at the movies this summer season.  It’s blockbuster entertainment at it’s finest, and a very worthwhile way to honor the 50th anniversary of this monumental series.

Rating: 8.5/10

One thing that you’ll learn about the making of an animated film is that it takes a very long time.  On average, an animated film takes about 4-5 years to make, depending on the time put into development.  It’s not a medium where you can merely just grab a camera and start shooting.  Everything, and I do mean everything, you see in an animated film is built from scratch, all to create the illusion of life.  It’s painstaking whether you’re working with drawings on paper or pixels in a computer, or even with puppetry.  That’s why you rarely see sequels that are actually as good or better than the original in the genre.  Animated sequels are common, but too often you’ll see studios rush too fast capitalize on an animated hit, and the end result will not be worth it.  That long development cycle is necessary, because it allows the filmmakers to discover whether or not there is more story to tell and if there is more creative ideas left to explore.  But, sadly in the animation market, too many animators get anxious and just fall back onto formula and create sub-par efforts that pale in comparison to their predecessor.  We’ve seen this happen with Dreamworks Animation and their sequels to Shrek and Madagascar, as well as with the mundane Ice Age series.  Disney even managed to disgrace it’s legacy with an era of terrible Direct to Video sequels to their classic library.  Pixar on the other hand takes their time between movies (sometimes over a decade) and the results have worked out very well for them.

You would think that with the remarkable success that Pixar has experienced over the years that they would’ve produced more sequels over the years.  Sure, they have done a few, but Pixar’s history is one of incredible self-restraint.  They don’t just rush a sequel out into the market just because audiences demand it.  They assess whether or not a sequel is warranted and then they devote many years to getting the film done just right.  They have only once failed to live up to this, and that was the rushed-into-production Cars 2 (2011).  The movie became Pixar’s first ever critical failure and it’s a lesson that I’m sure that they’ve taken note of.  A lot of people were also not happy with the Monsters Inc. (2001) prequel Monsters University (2013), though I actually didn’t mind that one so much.  It was a little superfluous (like most bad animated sequels), but the clever visuals and strong characterizations helped to lift it up.  And, for a sequel made 12 years after the original, I felt that it was a more than welcome return for the characters.  And that’s something that Pixar has become especially great at; making such a long wait worth it.  There was an 11 year gap between Toy Story 2 (1999) and 3 (2010), and yet the series built onto itself like no time had passed at all.  Now, Pixar is releasing another sequel after the longest time gap in their history; 13 years.  It is the sequel to one of the studios biggest hits, the underwater adventure Finding Nemo (2003), only this time, the focus is on the original film’s lovable sidekick Dory (voiced by Ellen DeGeneres), appropriately titling it Finding Dory (2016).  The question now is whether or not the 13 years was worth the wait.  Did Pixar manage to live up to the legacy of the original movie, or did Finding Dory just wash away with the tide like it was nothing worthwhile?

The film brings us full circle with Dory as a character.  We see her in childhood with her Mom (voiced by Diane Keaton) and Dad (Eugene Levy), who both adore her as their sweet, innocent child but also fear for her, due to Dory’s debilitating short term memory.  After some time, we see that Dory has lost her family, due to a reason that she can’t even remember and she spends her entire adolescence searching for the answer.  We cut to years later and Dory has found a new home living with Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo (Hayden Rolance).  Despite living a happy life with the clownfish duo, Dory soon has flashbacks to memories of her lost parents, with a clue as to where they may be.  She resolves to go look for them, even though they may be on the other end of the ocean.  Marlin and Nemo tag along and the trio eventually reach Morro Bay, California, where they find a Marine Wildlife Aquarium and Rehabilitation Center.  Unfortunately, Dory is separated from her companions and brought to a quarantine room at the facility.  There she meets a stealthy octopus named Hank (Ed O’Neill) who agrees to help her only if she gives up her classification tag to him, which will get him on a truck destined for an aquarium in Cleveland.  Though they have conflicting interests, the two work together and eventually swim their way across the aquarium meeting other creatures, including a near-sighted whale shark named Destiny (Kaitlin Olson) and a temperamental beluga whale named Bailey (Ty Burrell).  Meanwhile Marlin and Nemo try to find a way to reunite with their friend, helped out by two lazy sea lions named Fluke and Rudder (Idris Elba and Dominic West).  The only question that remains is whether or not Dory is too late to reunite with her parents and whether or not her short term memory will stand in her way of solving the riddle.

The good news for fans of the original is that Finding Dory is a very worthy follow-up to the original film.  One thing that this sequel benefits from is that it was crafted by the original director, Andrew Stanton.  In the intervening years between movies, Stanton created another animated masterpiece with Wall-E (2008), but he also had a disastrous foray into live action film-making with John Carter (2012).  Finding Dory finds Mr. Stanton in his comfort zone once again and you can tell that he put a lot of love and care into the movie.  It’s still the smart, funny, and heart-touching experience that you remember it being, and the best thing is that it’s all done without retreading too much familiar ground.  There are nods to the original movie, but they are used sparingly, and the movie makes a concerted effort to try new things out rather than rest on it’s laurels.  So, does all this make it as good as the original, if not better?  Unfortunately, I can’t say that it is.  It’s a very solid film to be sure, but there are some nagging issues that prevent it from being a near masterpiece like Finding Nemo and many other of Pixar’s best.  The first issue is the fact that the novelty has worn off from the original.  Finding Nemo was a hit because it triumphed as a great story and a groundbreaking visual wonder, creating an unforgettable world to explore that we’ve never seen.  Finding Dory doesn’t really add much to the world it’s created, unlike say how Toy Story  managed to find new avenues to explore within it’s environment; taking the toy heroes out into the open world.  Visually, it’s a continuation and not a reinvention, which is nice, but it doesn’t push the envelope in the same visceral way.  The other problem with the movie, sadly, is the inclusion of Marlin and Nemo in the story.  I still love these characters, but their arcs completed in the last movie.  They have nothing to do here but to just tag along and offer support.  I understand why they’re still here (why wouldn’t they be) but their moments in the film count among it’s weakest points.

Thankfully, there’s still much to praise about the movie beyond it’s shortcomings, and chief among them is the expanded role of Dory.  This isn’t the first time that Pixar has elevated a supporting character from the original film into the central role, and the last time they did, it proved disastrous (making the obnoxious Mater the Tow Truck the central character of Cars 2).  This time it works because the movie thankfully devotes enough time to establishing the stakes in Dory’s quest for answers.  The film also does the very honorable step of taking her disability seriously this time around.  Dory’s short-term memory was portrayed mostly for laughs in the original movie, but not in a mean spirited way.  Here, it’s given more weight and we see the awful effects it can actually have at times.  It’s a very mature examination into how people live with disabilities in their life and the way that things we take for granted become more of a challenge for them.  Sure, the movie still plays up Dory’s forgetfulness for a few laughs, but I did admire the fact that it took the time to address the seriousness of it as well.   Ellen DeGeneres also delivers some of her best work ever here.  The character of Dory has been dear and close to her heart over the years and she campaigned a long time for this sequel to happen.  You can tell that she adored returning to play this character and the movie once again plays to her strengths as both a comedian and an actress.  I especially love the way that the optimism of the character defines ever move she makes, whether she’s in peril or not, and it’s that indomitable spirit that helps to make her expanded role all the more sensible.  She earns the spotlight and it helps to make this a worthier sequel.

Much of the other positives found in the film belong to the exceptional new cast of characters.  If there’s anything that defines the difference between good and bad sequels, it’s the strength of newly introduced characters into the story, and thankfully, each one is a worthwhile addition here.  Thankfully, the movie actually uses very few of the original film’s cast of characters, choosing instead to focus on Dory, Marlin and Nemo.  The rest of the movie gives us a good amount of time to establish the new cast, and they are just as funny and interesting as anyone we’ve seen before.  The best of the new characters would be Hank, the seven-armed octopus, whose character arc is the strongest of all the characters in the movie.  We see him first as a self-interested curmudgeon (something actor Ed O’Neill has plenty of experience playing) and through his interaction with the eternally optimistic Dory, he opens up more and more, becoming perhaps the movie’s most complex character.  It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia alum Kaitlin Olson also makes a great addition to the cast as the clumsy but lovable Destiny, as does Modern Family’s Ty Burrell as the irritated Bailey.  Albert Brooks also makes a welcome return as the voice of Marlin, maintaining the dry witty humor of the character from the first movie, despite losing the central focus on his story.  The movie also makes non-verbal characters just as memorable, including a bizarre helper bird named Becky, who’s one of the film’s funniest additions.  Also, Sigourney Weaver has a great cameo as herself in one of the film’s best running gags.  Overall, this well rounded cast helps to make this a very enjoyable experience.

It should also be noted that this movie is absolutely beautiful to look at.  Of course, that is to be expected at this point from Pixar.  But, keep in mind, Finding Dory has to live up to the groundbreaking visuals of it’s predecessor, and it does so here in a magnificent way.  The first part of the film will feel very familiar to fans of the original, taking viewers back to the coral reef home base of Marlin, Dory and Nemo.  But, even here the filmmakers include sights we haven’t seen in this world before, including a really spectacular sequence depicting a manta ray migration.  The Aquarium scenes are also beautifully represented, with all the translucent lighting and deep color spectrum that you would usually find in a place like that.  The animation is also beautifully handled with all the characters.  Of course Dory, Marlin and Nemo still act the way you’d expect them to, but you can definitely see that Pixar is benefiting from updated digital models that are far more expressive than the ones used in Finding Nemo, showing just how much the art-form has advanced in the last 13 years.  The animation of Hank the octopus in particular is especially astounding.  He has the ability to camouflage himself to appear like any texture and this plays out in the movie in a lot of creative and hilarious ways.  I was especially amazed to see the variety of things that Hank could turn himself into and each reveal is wonderfully realized.  Also, because you can’t see Hank’s mouth for much of the movie, a lot of acting had to be done through the character’s eyes, and the animation team did a spectacular job of capturing a wide range of emotions through the character in this manner.  It may be an entirely different generation removed from it’s predecessor given the technology of today, but this film compliments the original perfectly and they both work together as a unified whole in terms of visuals.

So, despite some minor story issues, Finding Dory is a very welcome follow-up to a beloved classic.  It may not reach the same dramatic heights, but it doesn’t let the viewer down either.  I did love the fact that they gave a lot more weight to the character of Dory, making her much more than just a comic relief sidekick.  The movie also manages to maintain the same sense of fun from the original; never going too heavy into the dramatic parts while at the same time keeping the humor on point and not too distracting.  Pixar has always managed to find that right balance between pathos and comedy, and Finding Dory continues to show their command over these two sides.  There will indeed be moments that will pull at your heartstrings (have those Kleenexes ready) which by now is a Pixar trademark.  The laugh out loud moments are there too, and you won’t be disappointed by them either.  So, it may not have the sublimeness of Pixar at it’s absolute finest, but there’s still plenty of solid moments to like here overall.  As far as sequels to Pixar films go, this one is still a notch below the Toy Story ones, but better than Monsters University; and also infinitely better than the off-road wreckage that is Cars 2.  Even if the movie is a B+ effort from Pixar, it still makes it way better than 90% of the other animated movies released this year (Zootopia being the year’s only other great animated film).  Pixar’s track record remains strong with this sequel, and it shows that little is lost even after 13 years of waiting.  Here’s hoping this proves the be the truth when Finding Dory’s staggeringly long wait record is broken by the 14-15 year gap between Incredibles movies.  In the meantime, there should be nothing to stop you from just keeping swimming over to the local theater to see the delightful animated sequel.

Rating: 8.5/10

Fantasy films seem to go through cycles in Hollywood.  Sometimes they are out, and then sometimes they become hot properties again.  After something of a resurgence in the 1980’s, the fantasy genre went into hibernation during the 90’s, until Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy brought it back in a big way.  Afterwards, it seemed like any Young Adult novel or any original fantasy concept became a profitable investment to make, until it didn’t.  Towards the end of the 2000’s, the fantasy genre seemed to fall by the wayside with Comic Book movies taking it’s place.  And now, it seems like the genre is only being kept afloat by the one studio that has seemingly cornered the market now; Disney.  What benefits Disney is the fact that they’ve built their brand around the fantasy genre, and they have a proven track record of getting it right.  Think of any iconic fairy tale, and more than likely Disney has made the definitive version of that story for the big screen.  But, when we think of the definitive versions of these stories, like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, or the Little Mermaid, it’s usually the animated version that we think about.  So now, it is interesting to see Disney taking their own animated classics and translating them into live action today and in turn becoming the only studio delivering grand scale fantasy films to the market right now.  It’s easy to see why they are doing it; they have an extensive catalog to draw from and each comes with it’s own built in audience.  But, one has to wonder if rehashing their old classics in a new guise is actually beneficial to the Disney brand or not, and whether or not this adds any substance to the fantasy genre as a whole.

So far, Disney’s live action adaptations of their animated films have been mixed.  One of them did hit it’s mark last year in Kenneth Branagh’s retelling of Cinderella, a movie that did a great job of drawing on the nostalgia of the original film while still maintaining an identity of it’s own that worked.  This year’s The Jungle Book did an okay job with it’s adaptation, delivering on the visuals but underwhelming in it’s plot.  And then you get the bad adaptations that missed the mark completely.  2014’s Maleficent disappointed because it took the edge out of one of Disney’s greatest villains as well as missed the point of the original fairy tale.  And then there was Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (2010), the movie that began this recent trend of adapting animated classics.  The concept sounded perfect on paper; legendary Gothic filmmaker Burton taking on Lewis Carroll’s classic absurdist fantasy with Johnny Depp bringing his special brand of hammy acting to the role of the Mad Hatter.  How could it go wrong?  Well, as both an adaptation and a movie, it went very wrong.  Tim Burton’s Alice was no where near as whimsical as it should’ve been, and instead was dour and surprisingly violent.  This Alice had none of the cartoonish zaniness of Beetlejuice (1988) or the visual splendor of The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993).   It’s Tim Burton at his most disinterested, merely delivering on what the studio wanted instead of coming up with something unique.  Still, the movie was a box office hit, grossing over a billion worldwide despite it’s shortcomings.  A sequel was naturally in the works thereafter, but perhaps rightly, Tim Burton decided to move on.  Now a follow-up is here six years after the release of the original, titled Alice Through the Looking Glass (taken from Lewis Carroll’s own sequel to his original novel), and it’s premiering in a decidedly different atmosphere than it’s predecessor.  Did Disney learn some of the lessons of the original or did they just double down and coast on formula instead of doing something different?

The movie takes place only a few years after the adventures in the last film.  For those who haven’t seen the original, it should be noted that the 2010 film was not a remake of the original story, but instead something of a pseudo-sequel, finding Alice returning to Wonderland in adulthood.  This sequel finds Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) in the position of sea merchant, running the same ship that her father once did.  She unfortunately returns home to find that her investment partner has suddenly died and that the deed to her ship is in the possession of his spoiled, entitled heir, who’s looking to fire her.  Alice now finds that her livelihood is in danger, but her dilemma is interrupted when she is visited by her old friend The Catepiller (Alan Rickman in his last film role), now a butterfly who can cross between worlds.  He shows Alice a way back to Underland (their home’s name, which Alice mistakes for Wonderland) through a mirror (or looking glass), where she is greeted by the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) as well as the White Rabbit (Michael Sheen) and the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry).  They tell Alice that the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) has lost his mind and that the only way to bring him back to himself is to find his family, who are believed to be dead.  Alice is tasked with altering the past to prevent the Mad Hatter from losing his loved ones, and to do so, she must steal a device called the Chronosphere from Time himself (Sasha Baron Cohen).  Through her time travels, she tries to save her friend, while at the same time learning about all the backstories of the residents of Underland, all the while being hunted down by Time, looking to get back what’s his.  She soon learns, all the problems facing her friends lead her once again to facing an old enemy; the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter).

So, as you can see, very little of this actually bears any resemblance to the Alice in Wonderland story that we all know.  This is a movie that merely uses the setting and the characters for it’s own purpose.  Now, does this work out as a good thing or a bad thing for the movie?  Well, here’s the situation.  On the whole, this is a better movie than the 2010 original; but not by much.  Using an original plot as opposed to mishandling a familiar one does indeed benefit the film; it’s less pressure to stay faithful to the original source.  That being said, this movie still carries over the same problem of the original, in that this world never once fells right as a representation of Wonderland.  Lewis Carroll’s original 1865 children’s novel was a masterpiece of absurdist literature.  It appealed to readers because Carroll’s Wonderland was a place where all rules of law, manners, and even physics were turned upside down and everyone there was just a little bit “mad”, making Alice’s journey both whimsical while at the same time always perilous.  It’s beloved by anyone who lives outside social norms, embraces the unusual, and let’s their imagination go wild.  The animated form is a perfectly suited medium for Carroll’s vision, because it’s the best way to capture the mad-cap sense of it all, and that’s why Disney’s 1951 feature is as beloved as it is.  So, it makes it all the more baffling why Tim Burton’s film as well as this sequel tries so hard to bring order and sense to Wonderland.  This is a Wonderland that’s fanciful, but in a way that’s forced.  It’s as if the studio was playing it too safe with the material, and in turn, it kind of neuters the vision of Wonderland as a whole.  This sequel sadly falls into the same trap as it’s predecessor by making Wonderland feel like every other fantasy realm we’ve ever seen, and less like it’s own unique world.  If there was ever a time to show off that anything is possible in the realm of fantasy, this would be the film to do it in, and it’s sadly a road not taken by this series.

I believe that a great deal of the problem with this movie and the original is in the screenplay.  Screenwriter Linda Woolverton has had a long history of writing for the Disney company (contributing to the scripts of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King for instance), but recently she’s been tasked with adapting these animated classics into the live action medium and I feel that it’s a task that’s not well suited for her.  A big problem with her writing style is that it relies too heavily on explaining things.  She seems to devote too much time to trying to make sense of a story that doesn’t need to be complicated in the first place.  There’s a lot of “on the nose” dialogue in this film, like Alice’s constant usage of half-baked philosophical musings that have no meaning, such as ” Sometimes I believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”  The way Woolverton plots her movies also tends to lean too closely to fan fiction rather than actual real screenwriting.  Like most low grade fan fics, Alice seems too self-interested in letting uncharacteristic scenarios play out than actually building any weight behind them.  This has led to some bad story-telling ideas at Disney recently like turning Maleficent into a hero instead of a villain (another script written by Mrs. Woolverton), and here, it makes the mistake of turning Alice into a proactive, warrior-like crusader, instead of the wandering traveler that she is in the book.  It’s a weird thing that’s happened to the fantasy genre in the wake of Lord of the Rings, where it seems like each film needs to end with their hero taking sword in hand and fighting in an epic battle, as Alice did against the Jabberwocky in the previous film.  Thankfully, that doesn’t happen in this movie, but Alice’s Back to the Future style time travel adventure doesn’t quite fit well either.

The big difference between this and the 2010 Alice is mostly in the style of film-making.  Instead of Tim Burton directing, this time the reins are given over to James Bobin, who a couple years back delivered a charming new big screen adventure for the The Muppets in their new movie of the same name.  He also started off his career as the co-creator of the cult series Flight of the Concords, which shows that he has a knack for absurdist comedy.  So, allowing him to direct this Alice in Wonderland sequel makes sense.  Unfortunately, Bobin can’t quite overcome the faults of the screenplay.  His management of the story still feels disjointed and at times rushed, not allowing any cohesive character development or tone to take hold.  That being said, he does help improve some of the visual aesthetic for the film.  The Tim Burton Alice not only suffered story-wise, but it was also ugly to look at, with muted colors and garish CGI overkill; only the Oscar-winning costumes by Coleen Atwood stood out.  Thankfully, Bobin does make this sequel look brighter.  The colors pop a lot more and there are some genuinely interesting visual ideas throughout, like Time’s gothic style fortress or the Red Queen’s garish vegetable built  hide-out.  Sadly, most of these visuals are drowned out by the movie’s over-reliance on CGI imagery.  Not only that, but the pacing is so manic, that the movie never devotes enough time to allow these visuals to soak in.  The movie only excels when it’s allowed to embrace the weirdness of this world and that sadly is few and far between.  But, credit is due to James Bobin for at least trying to make this world interesting, as opposed to Tim Burton’s disinterested approach in the last one.

The cast is also a mixed bag.  Mia Wasikowska was decent enough as Alice in the original, and she remains mostly the same this time around too.  Alice has so far been a fairly bland hero in these movies, but that’s more the fault of how she’s written than how she’s played.  Mia at least tries to make the character sympathetic, even when the script calls for her to do some really stupid things.  The same cannot be said for Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter.  This is without a doubt the worst performance that the notoriously eccentric actor has ever created.  Sometimes his acting intuitions generate some interesting roles out of him, and his oddball role as Jack Sparrow in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies is rightly iconic for that reason.  But here, I don’t know what he was thinking.  His whispery voiced, kubuki make-up wearing Hatter is a complete misfire of a character.  He’s not charming nor endearing.  Anytime he’s onscreen, the movie suffers as a result.  I get the feeling that he was just saddled with this role only because it was the only way Tim Burton could get Disney on board and Depp was only helping a friend out, but could never fully grasp the character and this was him just coasting on instinct.  Sadly for him, he’s the character that the rest of the film hinges on, and the lack of appeal for the Hatter reflects badly on the film as a whole.  Fairing better are Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter in their roles as Time and the Red Queen.  These two seem to know what kind of movie they’re in and they are clearly having fun with their roles.  Cohen actually make Time a surprisingly effective new addition to this world; both funny and poignant when he needs to be, utilizing his talents as an actor perfectly.  Carter, the best performer from the original as well, continues to be strong here and gives the single funniest performance, surprising given who her costars are.  It really shows how much the right cast can elevate material they’re given, and I applaud Disney for not only holding on to what they already had, but also expanding it and giving them more to  do.

So, is it worth revisiting this Wonderland yet again.  Well, if you were a fan of the original (which I doubt very few are) I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.  The movie is a mild improvement over the original, but let’s not forget, the bar was low to begin with.  This sequel is still plagued by terrible writing, a way too artificial visual aesthetic, and an uneven cast of characters.  Not to mention, there’s no cohesion to the plot (the story-lines within Wonderland and outside of it have nothing to do with each other) and the time travel element is pointless and never taken to it’s full advantage.  That being said, this film does feel less lazy than it’s predecessor and it thankfully avoids some of the same genre pitfallls.  This movie thankfully doesn’t end in an epic battle like so many other fantasy epics, and instead goes for a somewhat near apocalyptic conclusion.  There’s also the performances of Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter that help to liven up the movie and keep this from being too humorless and dour.  Still, the fact that Disney devoted so much time and effort to create a Wonderland that feels anything but wonderful is not a good sign.  If you’re going to bring Lewis Carroll’s absurdist vision to life, don’t hold it back.  Disney is the studio best equipped to adapt this source material and they did an admirable job of just that in their animated classic.  Sadly, the translation has not panned out in the live action medium and it makes one wonder if Disney’s raiding of it’s animated canon for this treatment is really a good idea overall.  If you want to watch Alice in Wonderland, go with the original animated classic.  Alice Through the Looking Glass is not the worst thing ever, but it’s a far cry from wonderful too.

Rating: 5.5/10