Mortal Engines

RATING: B-

It's been a while since we've heard from Peter Jackson. When we last saw a project of his, he was going through a George Lucas-esque stage (this makes two reviews in a row I've referenced this now!) and making a pretty poor prequel trilogy out of one book--aka the Hobbit trilogy. Now it seems he's moving on to a different book series--Mortal Engines, a steampunk/sci-fi/adventure series. Of course, now it looks like we'll never get a sequel to this because the movie bombed so badly during the theatrical run. Oh yeah, and although this is really Jackson's project, he did not direct this--Christian Rivers did in his directorial debut. 

Mortal Engines takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where the cities that weren't destroyed by weapons of mass destruction are now surviving... by rolling around on wheels. Or even flying, in one case. And in order to survive, these cities consume each other for supplies and fuel. This may sound like a ludicrous premise, but they mostly make it work--though I'm still unsure on how the destruction of one city fuels another. 

This one mostly takes place on the mobile city of London, where a young scarred girl named Hester attempts to assassinate a high-ranking important person in London--Thaddeus Valentine. One down-on-his-luck apprentice named Tom foils the assassination, and through a series of events, both Tom and Hester end up in basically no-man's-land outside of London. And now they'll have to work together to get back to London and prevent a conspiracy from occurring, which centers around Valentine. 

This was yet another recent film that was unfortunately kind of hurt by its marketing. The film marketed itself as a crazy CGI-fest and also kind of as part of the young adult niche. With regards to the former... that doesn't really happen until the final act (more on that later). As for the latter... I really don't see it. There's some mild similarities here and there (there is a resistance group, for one) but the final film really does not target a limited audience of young adults in my estimate. And really, are we just going to start dismissing every book-to-movie adaptation that's post-apocalyptic as young-adult-only fodder? 

Unfortunately, the film did less emphasizing of some of the cooler stuff in the marketing. Namely, the resurrected cyborg "Stalker" Shrike (who you might have known as Grike, depending upon which version of the book you read--if you read it at all). His design is excellent and he's played quite well by Stephen Lang, and in general he's one of the cooler things about this movie. This is another reason why it's kind of unfortunate there will never be sequels, because there would've been plenty more of those Stalkers. Also, there's the character Anna Fang, who has a few pretty nice fight scenes that are almost Matrix-esque. 

The biggest problems with the movie do crop up in the final act--and unfortunately, some of the problems extend from the book here. The final act deals with an old superweapon called MEDUSA with vaguely defined power--other than that it's destructive. This is where the crazy CGI-fest comes into play. The problem is, the book wasn't really any better at explaining what exactly MEDUSA did either other than destroy things. The final act is also changed quite a bit from the book; some of the changes are negligible and a couple are even welcomed (one likable character who died in the book not dying here), but one decision made very late by Hester seems to go against her character--the character the movie established early on, and also the character that she's supposed to evolve into in future books. (It should also be noted that Hester is quite less scarred in the movie version than in the book version--something that will likely be a point of contention for book purists.) 

Despite having a pretty decent budget, it seems they blew a lot of it on the special effects because the cast surprisingly isn't that high-profile. Besides Lang, the only other actor one may recognize is Hugo Weaving, who we haven't seen much of lately--and it's good to see him in a big role again, and he does quite well with it. Hera Hilmer is also pretty good as Hester. 

Mortal Engines' biggest problem is pretty much the final act, which descends into CGI madness and goes on for quite a while. There's other problems too. The antagonist's motivations aren't really developed as well as they should be. There's also an ill-advised reference early on to Minions, of all things--which is probably not going to age very well. 

Still, it's kind of unfortunate that we're only going to ever get one movie out of this. Because it's a unique and interesting premise, and even if the film is a little more lackluster down the stretch, I would've liked to see how the book sequels would've turned out in film format. Heaven knows we need more book-to-movie adaptations to be successful anyway... instead of Hollywood continuing to produce utterly pointless remakes of old movies. 

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

RATING: D+

It is official. J.K. Rowling has gone the way of George Lucas. 

Now, to the very casual viewer, one might be tempted to blame David Yates for this mess. After all, he's directed every "Wizarding World" movie since Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, including this movie's predecessor. And they wouldn't be totally wrong--it's just that Yates is to blame for this movie's failings for another reason entirely, which we will get to later. But the point is that these films wouldn't exist without Rowling. She wrote these stories / scripts herself. The only difference here is that she's not writing book versions prior. You want to look for the reason as to why we have this mess? Look no further than her. 

Now although the first Fantastic Beasts movie did feel like an unnecessary prequel and return, it wasn't really that bad. In fact, it was even enjoyable at times and it was also more well-focused and easy to follow. And despite the fact that we were going to have to sit through five movies of this, at least we get Jude Law as young Dumbledore and Johnny Depp as Grindelwald, right? Surely this movie will be at least enjoyable for that reason? ...Ugh.

So, in this movie Grindelwald is starting to build up his forces. Part of the key to all this may be one Credence Barebone. Remember him? That one disturbed kid who turned into the crazy magical force called the Obscurial? Also, he was totally dead at the end of that movie, remember? But now he's back and they offer no explanation whatsoever. Albus Dumbledore commissions Newt Scamander to go look for Credence and to help stop Grindelwald. "I cannot move against Grindelwald," Albus says. That may sound bizarre... but the explanation for this is actually one of the few twists in this movie that *does* make sense. A reluctant Newt agrees; obviously he's going to need the help of his friends from the last movie, namely Tina and Jacob. Yeah, Queenie's back too... but her role in this film is more complicated than you'd expect.

This film is kind of an insane mess. There's a ton of subplot threads and twists jacked into this thing, and yet... after Grindelwald's prison escape in the opening, not a whole lot interesting actually happens until towards the end. It's pretty clear that this was supposed to be three movies originally instead of five, because this feels like the way overextended first half of one movie.

But the big problem is how many of the various plot threads and twists really don't even make much sense in the context of the Harry Potter canon. A particularly ludicrous twist at the end concerning the identity of Credence is the worst offender. For some reason, Rowling is feeling the need to make add-ons to her own canon; I don't know how she's justifying some of these twists in her mind, but this is basically everything that's wrong with prequels taken to near-maximum insanity.

Not even Johnny Depp or Jude Law can save this. They're excellent castings for Grindelwald and Dumbledore, respectively; most of the more interesting parts of the movie are when they're on screen. And yet they're not utilized fully; partially because we're stalling for time until the two have their famous duel referenced in the books, but that probably won't happen until the fifth movie, and good grief why'd there have to be five of these things instead of just three?!

What's kind of sad is that the film actually could've been more coherent; apparently, there's an extended cut that actually explains some critical things (for example, how Credence survived the end of the first movie). The problem is, that would extend the length of the movie from 134 minutes to nearly 150. And this movie is already long enough. (That's where you can extend some of the partial blame for this mess to David Yates, by the way--for cutting these important scenes in the first place.) And even if this film was more "coherent," this still wouldn't excuse the outright stupidity of some of the plot threads/twists in this thing.

It's bizarre how this prequel series went so quickly from being unnecessary but mildly enjoyable, to actually angering fans like myself and making us wonder how it's possible that J.K. Rowling has lost her marbles this much. I mean, obviously we've seen this kind of thing happen before. George Lucas and Peter Jackson kind of ruined themselves too with their prequel movies. Hopefully these movies will get better again, because right now I'd watch the Star Wars prequels again rather than watch this particular installment again. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. 

Peter Rabbit

RATING: C

Here's a bit of an odd idea for a movie: making an adaptation of a children's series that doesn't seem to have stood the test of time in terms of popularity--at least not as well as some others, anyway. And then make it one of those live-action/animated CGI hybrids, because people just love those. And insert in lowbrow humor too, because people also just dig that. And make the adaptation of Peter Rabbit a very loose one... I guess? My memories of those Beatrix Potter books from quite early childhood are so far removed I really couldn't say myself. But I will have to trust the word of those who actually are fans, and who say it was not a faithful adaptation. 

For those who aren't familiar with the source material (and it may not matter anyway): this movie centers around a small clan of rabbits who like to steal vegetables from the local gardener's garden. But then the gardener kicks the bucket and his great-nephew General Hux--uh, I mean Domnhall Gleeson--stays in the place temporarily. And becomes friends with the other local human Bea, who adores the rabbits--despite the obvious mischief they get up to. And eventually, Peter decides that the younger farmer MacGregor has "got to go." Insert the words of Bugs Bunny here: "Of course you realize this means war!" 

In this movie's 90-minute runtime, about 30 to 40 minutes of it are basically a cross between Looney Tunes and Home Alone as Peter and MacGregor try to outwit each other with traps, pratfalls, and slapstick comedy. These parts are actually pretty funny at times. The headline gag that comes to mind is when the rabbits somehow re-wire an electric fence so that the house door knobs are electrified (don't ask how)--and the result is MacGregor (or someone else) flying across the room. More than once. Since this is live-action, it looks painful, but it's still pretty hilarious. 

If the majority of this film had been this way, it might've been a little better. But for the most part, this movie's still pretty dumb. It's not as bad as some people make it out to be, but it's still not that good either. Part of the issue is that some of Peter's antics are a bit much over the top. But there's also the fact that this movie can't decide whether it wants to be more serious or not. Some of the scenes which try to make Peter more sympathetic or which try to build up MacGregor and Bea's relationship would suggest the former. Given the concept this movie bases itself around, it would've worked better as the latter; giving us more of the slapstick cartoonish humor (minus some of the more over-the-top lowbrow stuff) and also more of the almost Deadpool-esque narration we get at times from Daisy Ridley. (Yup, seriously.) 

Another thing that doesn't help this film is that it feels like they're making stuff up as they go along at times--namely, when they decide without about 10 to 15 minutes left in the movie that MacGregor can suddenly understand the rabbits. Which also brings up the issue that the film ends a bit abruptly and without really much of a proper final act. Oh, and I should probably also mention the annoying pop/hip-hop soundtrack that crops up often. But I did like how a few times we had a flock of birds attempting to start a musical number--only to get interrupted, usually by getting mowed down by another animal. Again, more of the non-serious/self-aware stuff that this movie should've had more of. 

There's a few parts of this movie that are legitimately quite funny. There's also quite a fair share of dumb material. Again, the problem in part lies in the film being unable to decide whether it's serious or not. Unfortunately, it still doesn't hit all the right notes even when it's not being serious. There's a shadow of an actually fun comedy in here somewhere, even though this film doesn't have much right to be that good. But the kicker may be simply the apparent fact that it's not close to being a faithful adaptation, which may alienate the Beatrix Potter fans out there--and it's not like there's a ton of other people who were going to be watching this anyway. 

Captain Marvel

RATING: B

We still have a little under two months to go until Avengers: Endgame, the follow-up to Infinity War. But until then, we have been given this movie to tide us over--focusing on Captain Marvel, a newcomer to the series. And unlike Ant-Man and the Wasp--which came out two months after Infinity War and was basically meaningless, albeit still fun--this one actually is kind of important, because it introduces to us a new superhero who will likely be playing a big role in Endgame. 

Who is Captain Marvel, exactly? Well, her alias is Carol Danvers--or "Vers," at the start of this movie. She lives with the Kree, who you'll likely recognize from Guardians of the Galaxy or Agents of SHIELD. And she's been infused with some impressive powers--namely photon blasts and impressive strength. Right now, the Kree are at war with the Skrulls, a race of shape-shifters. And after a mission gone awry, she crash-lands on Earth... right in the middle of a Blockbuster Video. 

Yup, this movie takes place in the 1990's. The next clue to that will be when Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury shows up, only he looks a lot more like what Jackson looked like in the 90's, and Fury's still got both eyes. For the time being, Carol is here to help protect Earth from the Skrulls, who have come to Earth as well looking for some energy core MacGuffin (which turns out to be an unexpected source). And she's gonna need Fury's help with that. 

I didn't go into this movie with the highest of expectations; mainly because the marketing really did not do this movie any favors. The marketing somehow sucked out the heart and fun that is actually in this movie. Because this film actually is pretty good. This is not top-tier Marvel material, but it's not low-tier either. It's a perfectly adequate introduction to an important character. 

Brie Larson is generally quite good as Captain Marvel; despite the marketing somehow missing this, she brings a certain liveliness to the character that helps carry the film, while still being appropriately serious when necessary for the most part. She and Jackson also play off each other pretty well. Actually, one of the better things about the movie is its humor; including some of the various 90's culture references. Anyway, also notable in the cast is Jude Law, who plays a different character than usual for him, but does it quite well. 

Perhaps the main issue with this film is the fact that by the time we get to the climactic action scenes, there scarcely feels like there's any stakes--because of how overpowered Captain Marvel becomes. This wouldn't have been a problem if they had given her an equal opponent (like Thanos will presumably be), but they really don't. Instead she basically obliterates everyone all too easily once she unlocks her full powers. It's fun to watch in its own right, but it robs the final act of any tension. 

There's also a trope of sorts that they kind of run into the ground but that never really pays off. Carol is constantly told--at multiple times in her life--to control her emotions, for one reason or another. After we get enough scenes of this and some flashbacks which cement this, you'd think there'd be some kind of payoff, or at least a purpose for why they fed us all that. But there isn't. It ultimately means nothing. 

Still, this is a fun movie and a good installment in the MCU. Besides introducing Captain Marvel, it does tie into the franchise in other ways too, so it's certainly worth a watch and it actually means something in this series--which was my primary issue with Ant-Man and the Wasp. This movie isn't anything special, but it suffices quite well. 

A postscript of sorts: going back to the issue of Captain Marvel possibly being a bit overpowered. I've noticed that many people are excited about this and what it could mean for Endgame, saying things like "Thanos is so screwed." To me, that would actually be cause for concern. It might be cathartic for some, but if Captain Marvel were to be able to defeat Thanos as easily as she defeated this movie's villains... well, that would be kind of a letdown. We don't go into the finale of a long-running series to see the bad guy get KO'ed in seconds. And we shouldn't expect that either. 

The Grinch

RATING: B

Here we are with our third adaption of the story of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas"--this one being the second film adaptation. Which one you are most partial to may depend. Many people (myself included) like the original cartoon from the 60's with Boris Karloff. Some people like the 2000 live-action version with Jim Carrey. I am definitely not one of those people. Carrey himself was fine, but that film was still a horribly misguided vision; turning the people of Whoville into such jerks that it gets to the point where you actually start rooting for the Grinch to actually steal their Christmas. 

That's one of the first good things about The Grinch--this feels like a much nicer version of Whoville that is more faithful to the original cartoon. The next good thing is that this isn't live-action. Some stories just do not translate well to live-action; How the Grinch Stole Christmas is one of them. 

In this version we get Benedict Cumberbatch as the Grinch, although you wouldn't know this if you watched the film without knowing a thing about it. Because it does not sound like Cumberbatch--it sounds a little more nasally, and we also have Cumberbatch doing an American accent here. It takes some getting used to, and it's just kind of bizarre--you bring in Benedict Cumberbatch, why would you not have him sound like his normal self? (It's worth noting that it was actually Cumberbatch's idea, but that doesn't altogether excuse it.) 

We all (presumably) know the story of the Grinch. Everyone in Whoville liked Christmas... but the Grinch did not. So he plotted to steal Christmas. And so on and so forth. Not much of that changes here. However, to make the film long enough, you still have to add more stuff. The Carrey version took this a little too far; in that movie the Grinch didn't even start *planning* to steal Christmas until halfway through. But one interesting thing it did was introduce a backstory for him--to explain why he is the way he is. 

This new version does that as well, only to a lesser degree. It's more simplistic, and thankfully it doesn't rely on the Whos of Whoville being horrible... uh... Whos. Actually, this one finds the people of Whoville co-existing fairly peacefully with the Grinch in general. 

That brings me to one of the few things this movie doesn't get quite right. This is not fully the same Grinch from the cartoon or even the 2000 version. This is still a Grinch that is antisocial and generally a mean one. But he also shows actual concern for his dog Max on a couple occasions. And when faced with a situation where he could force a reindeer into servitude or let it go with its family... he lets it go. This is something that Boris Karloff's Grinch would never have dreamed of doing. 

Is this really an actual flaw? Difficult to say. On one hand, it's definitely not faithful to the source material. On the other hand, it's perhaps not a bad thing altogether to have the Grinch show *some* glimpses of decency--from a realism standpoint, it can help make his eventual redemption make more sense. (Yeah, yeah, spoiler alert. But it's not like we haven't seen at least one version of this tale at some point in our lives--and if you haven't, then you probably weren't super interested in this one either.) 

But what *does* help set more of that in motion is the Grinch's encounter with Cindy Lou in this version. This is one of the points that is actually an improvement over the source material--it acts as more of a proper catalyst that does help make the Grinch's change of heart make more sense. It's not something we ever really questioned with the original cartoon, but it's a quite welcome addition anyway. 

The truly biggest mistake to be found here is within the musical soundtrack that crops up a few times, which is more hip-hop/rap oriented. Depending upon your musical tastes, that may or may not be a good thing. But the big, big mistake is making a rap rendition of "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch." That is just wrong--and given some of the actual improvements that are made here, it's an incredibly bizarre ill-advised error on the part of the filmmakers. 

But on the whole, this movie is quite enjoyable. It gives a far less cringe-worthy feature-length adaptation of the Grinch's story--and actually tells a genuinely good tale. It also includes some cartoonish slapstick humor, which is quite fun. It just gets a lot more right of what the 2000 version got wrong; and that in of itself is a great thing. 

Some might argue that we still didn't really need a feature-length version of the old cartoon anyway. And that's a fair argument. But I think this at least acts as a good complement to the original. And this is also easily one of the best Dr. Seuss film adaptations we've ever gotten--although that's really not saying much. Regardless, I just hope that people will look back on this Grinch movie with more fondness than the previous attempt.