Tuesday, July 23, 2019

The Lion King (2019), aka Possibly the Most Unnecessary Movie Ever


RATING: SYSTEM FAILURE

Okay, okay. So I haven't actually gone and watched this movie. As a matter of fact, you probably couldn't pay me to watch this, even if I was a paid critic. I would've just gone and instead watched--*checks the release schedule*--wait, the only other thing came out last weekend in the U.S. was a horror flick called Luz? Ugh.

But wait. Maybe I actually have seen this movie. Because like the vast majority of people, I have watched the original 1994 cartoon. And I have seen trailers/previews of this new one--where they literally compared the footage of the old and the new. And aside from the fact that isn't a hand-drawn cartoon and used photorealistic computer-animation instead, they looked exactly the same. Oh yeah, and the animals could not emote. So I guess I have watched this movie, in a sense.

I try not to gripe on here too much about what people choose to go and pay money to see. But I am truly baffled--no, flabbergasted--at why there would be so much interest in what is practically a shot-for-shot remake. (I know they said otherwise, but c'mon. They really did re-use a lot of the same shots and the plot appears to be exactly the same.) Heck, I am baffled as to why there would be any interest in Disney remaking all their old classics if the originals are so beloved.

Now this may seem slightly hypocritical, given that just last week, I gave a somewhat positive review of this year's Dumbo remake. But there is a *vast* difference between remaking a movie from 1941 that wasn't even all that great to begin with, and remaking a movie that is only 25 years old *and* universally beloved. There's no purpose to serve here (except making money). There's no need to remake a movie that most people feel is basically perfect.

This is creative bankruptcy at its absolute peak. And to me, it is a truly horrifying prospect for cinema when one of the most anticipated movies of the summer not made by Marvel is a remake of a movie that wasn't that old and more importantly, didn't need fixing.

And though I would like to point the finger at Disney (and still will, to a certain extent) for continuing to spit out lazy remake after lazy remake, it's not 100% their fault. They wouldn't keep making these movies if people didn't keep going to see them. Case in point: the new Lion King movie made $191 million on its opening weekend, the biggest opening in July history.

And I ask: why? Why do people go and pay money to watch such a pointless remake like this? If it's because of nostalgia-related reasons, just go and watch the original that you loved so much again (and save money, especially if you already own it). And don't they realize what's happening and what they're doing? By paying money to see a needless remake like this in the theaters, they're just approving and bankrolling Disney to make more of them. And eventually and inevitably, they will screw up one of them super badly and ruin everyone's childhood. Of course, I guess the new Aladdin was close to that for some with Will Smith's genie. But apparently it didn't matter enough, given that it's close to hitting a billion dollars as of this writing. Maybe next year's Mushu-less Mulan will do that instead? Regardless of when it happens, the people will shake their fists at Disney, failing to realize that they brought this upon themselves.

But also what this does is it gives studios like Disney even less incentive than they already have to do more original things--whether it's making an adaptation out of a book or book series that hasn't been done before, or--perish the thought--making a completely new original idea all on their own. Heaven forbid... apparently. And the idea of *remakes* possibly becoming a regular staple of the summer is... nauseating.

Now to be clear, I'm far less concerned about the overabundance of sequels/franchises than I am about remakes. Because while the former can also easily just be a cash grab, there's more potential to do something good and "original," and to do something well-done--even if you're just using the same characters and universe you used in a previous movie. Cases in point--we've sat through six Mission: Impossible movies, and they're only getting *better.* We've sat through 20 MCU movies, and almost all of them have been great.

Obviously examples like that are typically more the exception. And your mileage may vary. And there really are some movies that just don't need sequels, and some "cinematic universes" that just don't need to be. But there's more potential with sequels/franchises, even if it's limited, than there is with this:


Exec 1: "Hey, let's make the exact same movie we made 25 years ago, only this time we'll make it live-action!"
Exec 2: "You're a *genius!* Ideas like that are how we are going to keep making money."
Later: 
1: "Okay, so we're not actually going to make it live-action, we're going to make it photorealistic computer-animation so that it *looks* like live-action, but it actually isn't. Like we did for The Jungle Book."
2: "Even better! You're going places at this company."
Exec 3: "Okay, I have a question. How the heck are we going to make the characters in this movie emote?"
2: "Why does it matter?"
3: "How are we going to make little Simba look sad during the famous 'you've gotta get up!' scene? I mean, we can't do that with a non-cartoon lion.
1: "But it'll look like real lions this time! That's what important here!"
3: "And also... I know this is supposed to be longer than the original, but at its core, is there anything different about this movie from the original?"
2: "Not really, but who cares? The people will line up to see it anyway."
3: "This is starting to sound like a stupid idea."
2: "*You're* stupid. You're fired. Run away and never return."


Bow down to your Disney overlords.

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Shazam!


RATING: B+

If you thought Aquaman was an odd choice for the DC Extended Universe to go next after the failure of Justice League, their next stop is even weirder in theory. This superhero movie centers around a hero who was once known as Captain Marvel back in the comic-book days... until Marvel Comics got more popular and they had their *own* Captain Marvel, whose movie we also got recently. Then he became known as... Shazam. 

Yup, what a heck of a superhero name. Actually, that's not really his name... it's the name of the "wizard" who bestows the powers on the main character, Billy Batson. And the ridiculousness of all of this is noted by the movie. The idea is that you say the word "Shazam," and then suddenly you get embodied with various superpowers like super strength, flight, and being bulletproof. Yeah, that sounds a bit like Superman, but "Shazam" isn't quite as invulnerable... and he's a character that's more easily identified with. And this guy can also shoot lightning out of his fingers. Oh yeah, and if you're a bit young for the whole hero thing--14, for example--saying "Shazam" transforms you into a physically perfected adult version of yourself. 

Yes, our main hero character Billy Batson is actually a 14-year-old. And he's a foster kid who's been in and out of a bunch of them. In this latest one (a group home), he gets paired with Freddy, a guy who's a total superhero nerd. And then one day he gets approached by the aforementioned "wizard," who is actually dying and passes on his abilities to Billy. And now Billy, who knows absolutely nothing about superheroes, needs Freddy's help to figure out the whole superhero thing. Eventually, he'll have to face down his first foes... in the form of one Thaddeus Sivania and... the Seven Deadly Sins. Yes, *those* Seven Deadly Sins. More on that later. 

This movie is quite a bit of fun. There's plenty of humor to be had--whether it's Billy and Freddy testing out possible superhero abilities, or the film poking fun at its own concept occasionally, or just other amusing things. However, there are a couple of key differences here between this and the last couple of DC films which tried to insert this. It's more organic, for one thing; the light-heartedness does not feel out of place, like it sometimes did in Justice League. But this one also becomes the first installment in the DC Universe to adequately balance the light-hearted material with some of the darker material that they're known for. Justice League failed at this, and Aquaman didn't really even try, choosing to opt for the former instead. 

Another area where this movie is an improvement over previous ones in its villain; some people griped about Marvel villains for a while before Thanos showed up, but DC's actually arguably had a much worse rut. Steppenwolf was a complete failure. Aquaman's best villain wasn't even the primary one. And don't get me started on Suicide Squad. But while Sivania isn't spectacular or anything, he's a lot better than anything DC's had in quite a while. This in part because Mark Strong brings a certain presence to the role, but it also helps that this villain has a well-done backstory that helps explain his motivations--or at least, why he's as twisted as he is. 

However, one of the main issues with this movie is the side antagonists--the Seven Deadly Sins. I'm aware that they were part of the comics that this is based on, but given their religious origins, their presence in this is kind of bizarre. Here, they're essentially just generic monsters that are indistinguishable from each other. And there's not exactly a whole lot of connection to the vices whose names they share (although someone does get consumed by Greed--literally). I get that they were a part of the comics, but they could've made these "Deadly Sins" monsters more coherent--or just replaced with them with other supernatural baddies that still turn Sivania to the dark side. 

There's another part of this movie that's a little head-scratching. Basically, Freddy tries teaching Billy how to be a superhero, as previously mentioned. However, in the application of using the newfound powers/testing them up, the two divulge in some non-heroic silliness, taking advantage of the situation (played mostly for laughs as well as part of "the hero's journey"). However, later Freddy calls Billy out on his actions and recklessness--which makes no sense because earlier in the movie Freddy was encouraging (or at least not discouraging) these actions in the first place. 

Despite some such misfires, Shazam is still one of the best things to come out of the DC Universe--and even though that might not feel like saying much, this is still genuinely a good movie. It's fun and exciting, and doesn't stink of mediocrity (Justice League), silly writing (Aquaman), or incoherence (Batman v Superman). The DC Universe now has one more good thing going for it besides Wonder Woman. The DC Universe still feels like it's in a bit of limbo, but it does seem at this point like they're better at stand-alone movies than at trying to rip off The Avengers. 

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Dumbo (2019)


RATING: B-

There are few things I despise more coming out of Hollywood these days than this string of Disney remaking all their old *and* still relatively recent animated classics. It's creative bankruptcy taken to levels of insanity. But I will rant more about that later in a separate post... trust me. (Next week, actually.) 

Anyway, there was *one* remake in the list that caught my mild interest--and that was Dumbo. Why? For starters, because it's a Tim Burton movie. And while not all of his movies are my cup of tea, he is one of the most creative and imaginative minds in Hollywood, so I usually try to give most of his works a shot. 

The other thing is... the original Dumbo actually isn't all that good. It wasn't without a couple good moments, but it's ludicrously short (64 minutes!) and despite that short length, there's still not very much happening in the movie. Dumbo doesn't even learn to fly until near the very end. And it also contained some really annoying side characters. 

Dumbo was one of the very, very few Disney animated classics that could've actually used a do-over. And they got Tim Burton to direct it, which was quite fitting--the story of a character born with some kind of mutation that is actually a gift, but he is an outcast for it. Edward Scissorhands, anyone? 

So yes, this is still the story of the baby elephant (*not* delivered by storks this time--I think) who is born at a traveling circus (led by Danny DeVito) with unusually large ears; and he discovers that somehow with these ears/wings, he can fly. And that's one thing this version gets right--Dumbo flies much, much earlier. The immediate difference here is that instead of being helped out by a talking mouse, Dumbo is helped out by some humans--namely, a pair of siblings whose mother is dead and whose father has just come back from WWI with a missing arm. 

This version does seem to get a lot right particularly in its first half. The story and plot move along more organically. Sometimes it's a little by-the-numbers, but there's never really any annoyances along the way. And some impressive CGI gives us a baby elephant with very expressive eyes, which helps us be endeared to the little guy quickly (if the eyes aren't too "uncanny-valley" for you, that is). 

Of course, given how short the source material is, this version was bound to have make up some completely brand new material. And that--in the second half--is where things get a little off the rails. Michael Keaton shows up to buy Danny DeVito's circus, and then proceeds to play a megalomaniac entrepreneur so cartoonishly villainous, the only thing he was missing was a mustache to twirl. While Keaton does alright at hamming it up, the character is annoying because there doesn't seem to be much motivation behind a lot of his evil actions--not even money at times. 

The other main issue with this film is the fact that they felt the need to re-do the famous/infamous "pink elephants" sequence for some reason. Except this time, it's not an acid trip; it's some bubble-blowing sorcery, and it somehow feels even more pointless. At least this is fairly short, though. 

Still, the film kind of gets its act together again towards the end when it sort of mirrors the end of the cartoon. The result is a short genuinely feel-good sequence with a human element added to it. There seems to be some belief among some that this movie doesn't have the heart of the original, but there was enough for me. And to be frank, I don't remember the original having a dramatic amount of heart aside from that one heartbreaking scene we all remember (which is also kind of repeated here). 

Even though some of the human characters are forgettable, there's still some good performances. Danny DeVito particularly stands out; Colin Farrell and Keaton are fine as well. However, child actress Nico Parker is also notable as of one two siblings who befriend Dumbo. 

Burton's version of Dumbo isn't outstanding or anything, but it's a very rare (almost nonexistent) breed among the Disney remakes in that it actually outdoes the original. And again, it's also a very rare breed among the remakes in that its existence feels more justified. This is worth a watch if you're a fan of Tim Burton movies at all.