Bringing Back the PPPPA, Classic Movie Monday Style

Okay, not quite.  It's a PPPPA of one.  But what is this PPPPA you may be asking?  It's a little club my friends and I created back in High School, and it stood for the Poor Pathetic People of Porterville Association.  It's as awesome as it sounds...

So what did we do?  Well, while other teens were driving the 30+ minutes to the nearest mall, going on fantastic dates, and other really cool stuff, my friends and I would go to Hollywood Video and rent a movie.  (Did we ever go to Blockbuster?!?!  Guess Hollywood Vid was more convenient?  Was Blockbuster already gone?  Why can't I remember?  Dang empty crevices of my mind.)  But we didn't rent just any video, we rented classics and old movies, and in some cases the stranger the better.

Old campy sci-fi.  Once we watched a fantastic random musical that I wish I remembered the name of.  It was great.  Hitchcock's Vertigo.  We rented a silent movie this one time, determined to read every slide with words.  It was fun for the first 30 minutes, until it got old, and I swear that movie was like 3 hours.

So for my PPPPA nostalgia, instead of having a group of people over to watch movies, which sounds fantastic right now, I'm going to seek out to watch old movies and then talk about them.  For "reasons" I've decided not to review new movie releases anymore, and instead write about the old stuff.  It will be fun watching and exploring the classics, and silly campy stuff as well.  Old movies that are new to me, as there's so much I haven't seen, and old favorites I would like to revisit. 

Sarah

 

The Call of the Wild, movie review

Rating: C

The Call of the Wild, a novel by Jack London, is the tale of Buck, a large spoiled dog in California, stolen and sold to the North wilderness during the Yukon gold rush.  Alaska and Canada are shown in great beauty, and ultimately this movie, inspired by the book, is a love letter to the wildness of nature, both in ourselves and the natural environment.

Granted, I haven't read the book, just read a synopsis on Wikipedia.  For lovers of the book there are changes.  It seems the book itself is much harsher.  More bleak.  Cruelty more cruel.  The movie is more child friendly.  The villain at the end of the movie actually dies midway through the book, taking the place of the Native Americans.  In the book Thornton, played by Harrison Ford, is a true gold seeker, another change for the movie.

This is a dogs tale, and we see Buck's character arc from carefree dog in Santa Clara Valley, played up for laughs, to leader of the pack.  Scenes change.  Characters come and go.  Buck is the constant through this movie.

Now to address the elephant in the room.  The CGI dogs.  The animals are all animated.  Buck is essentially a lifelike cartoon character, complete with exaggerated emotional character animation.  This is a plus and a minus.  Taking out real animals takes out the realism, the risk, the wildness.  CGI animals are naturally easier to work with, as unpredictable animal behaviors are eliminated for ultimate control.  And you don't have to worry about PETA or other groups.  Buck becoming an animated character humanizes him, which is the opposite of The Call of the Wild movie's theme.  Though, have to admit, I did find myself crying a little at times, touched by Buck the character.

If you like animal/nature movies, you might like The Call of the Wild, but I'm okay seeing it only once.

MPAA: Rated PG for some violence, peril, thematic elements and mild language.

Sonic the Hedgehog, movie review

Rating: B+

"With great power comes great responsibility!" To quote the wrong fandom.  Sonic is a being with great power, and in the wrong hands his power can cause much harm.  Running speedily around an alien world, Sonic assumes he runs so fast no one can suspect him or pin him down.  But he is discovered, and when a friend sacrifices them self for Sonic's escape, he uses golden rings to travel between Worlds, going from one to the next to hide, and then leaving once discovered.  Sonic finds himself on Earth in a small town, hiding in a cave full of Earthly treasures, reading The Flash comics, and spying on the towns citizens.  Apart yet separate.  He enjoys watching Doughnut Lord, aka Tom Wachowski, played by James Marsden, who Sonic regards as family, though they've never met.  Then Sonic, in a state of frustration, recklessly exposes his power sending the U.S. government and Dr. Ivo Robotnik, played by Jim Carrey, after him.

When the first trailer for Sonic The Hedgehog was released there was a huge outcry from longtime Sonic fans, fans of the game and show in which Sonic is based, over Sonic's CGI character animation.  In all honestly, his design was horrendous.  I won't post a photo here, but the images and trailer are easy to track down.  So what did the studio and director do?  They actually listened to the fans, pushed back the movie's release date, and reanimated Sonic.  For this very reason I went to see Sonic on Saturday, to support a movie that cared what the fans think, who spent money to make it right.

Was their effort in redesigning and then spending money to fix Sonic worth it?  Yes!!!  A thousand times yes.

Was going to see the movie a waste of time?  No, not at all, though I'm a sucker for good family entertainment.  Sonic the Hedgehog is a fun family film with a 90's nostalgic feel.  The movie is modern, but this is the sort of movie that would have delighted audiences twenty years ago when fun family movies were all the rage.  Jim Carrey, who plays the villain, helps with his over the top antics and personality, hearkening to his best loved films in years past, delighting a new crop of youth with his zaniness.

Sonic is a delightful ball of blue, blurry fluff.  Funny, too, with a cute sense of humor.

The whole movie is enjoyable.  Yeah, it's not perfect.  Not groundbreaking.  The middle bit lags a little.  But overall it's a good, escape the World flick, perfect for family audiences wanting something to bring the kiddies to for lighthearted entertainment.

To end this review I'll quote my Mom as she left the theater, "I enjoyed that movie a whole lot more than I thought I would."

MPAA: Rated PG for action, some violence, rude humor and brief mild language.

Knives Out, movie review

Rating: B

Growing up Clue was one of my favorite board games.  It was a race between family and friends on who can solve the murder mystery in as few rounds as possible.  Later in high school I was introduced to the Clue movie in all its kookiness.  Knives Out is a murder mystery full of suspense and subtle humor.  A Clue for modern audiences with Agatha Christie style fun.

The patriarch of the family Harlan Thrombey, played by Christopher Plummer, is found dead, the holder of a great fortune.  His family gather like vultures, eager to pick out leftovers, hoping to benefit from a great inheritance.  When it is discovered that Marta, Harlan's nurse, played by Ana de Armas, who isn't a member of the family, is the sole recipient of the inheritance, mayhem and chaos ensues within the family.  It is up to detective Benoit Blanc, played by Daniel Craig, to sort everything out.

Knives out is written and directed by Rian Johnson, who also wrote Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  Don't really want to get into it as I've already blogged about my Star Wars grievances, but I almost boycotted Knives Out over the fact, still upset over what happened with Luke Skywalker.  The thought kept going through my mind while watching this new murder mystery, trying to separate Johnson's previous work with this new film.  Hold it towards its own merits.  Honestly, I ended up liking Knives Out.

The less I say the better, as the plot is wrapped up in guessing, and the more I reveal the less fun you'll have watching this movie.  Usually I'm pretty good at guessing where such movie mysteries will end up, there's still some fun twists and turns throughout this movie filled with quirky characters.

When it comes down to it I did have fun.  My brother Steven and Dad were talking a few days ago, going over their favorite parts and excited that Knives Out is soon coming to DVD/Blu-ray. 

And honestly I've just ran out of things to say, because I hate spoiling things, and I just don't feel like being flowery with words.  If you haven't seen it yet and love mysteries, you'll enjoy it.  Johnson put out a good movie, so I'll give him kudos.  Credit where credit is due.  And with that I bid adieu.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements including brief violence, some strong language, sexual references, and drug material.

Little Women, 2019, movie review

Rating: B

Louisa May Alcott's tale of the four March sisters--Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy--has been visually delighting audiences for over a century.  The first adaptation was a British silent film made in 1917, though it is now lost, but thankfully a silent film featuring Alcott's real home in Concord Massachusetts was filmed in 1918.  Many films has followed since, including the 1949 version I remember watching as a kid with Elizabeth Taylor as Amy.

2018 alone had both a three episode mini series that played on PBS and a limited modern version that came to select screens.  Though, guiltily, my favorite version is the 1978 television series because it has both William Shatner and John de Lancie, James T Kirk and Q on Star Trek, and as a Trek fan it's just so amusing.  There's also a Japanese anime series called Tales of Little Women, which is currently on Amazon Prime with four seasons, and now I need to watch that.

As I write this I'm watching the PBS version, also on Amazon Prime, because I haven't seen it, and it keeps distracting me.  Also, as I prepared for this review I listened to a 19h 37m Audible book read by Barbara Caruso, having never read the original story, and it took a few weeks to get through, which is why this review is late.

This latest incarnation is nice.

And at the moment feeling redundant.

How many retellings do we really need?  Is this version worth a watch?  I mean, it's not like we don't have options.  The 1994 version is also well loved.

Greta Gerwig has made a beautifully shot film.  A few weeks ago I read an article about how this new version is novel simply for combining the past and present through flashbacks.  Obviously they didn't watch the 2018 modern version that employed the same technique with more success.  This 2019 time-period version gets convoluted with all the time jumps, causing confusion at times, specifically during the scene where Beth gets sick.  Knowing the story is a must with differentiating between past and present in parts.  Whereas the modern 2018 version makes the time jumps much more obvious.  Overall the 2019 version is more successful as a film, the modern 2018 version is cheesy with an overly irate Jo with nice sentiments, but in choosing between the two the 2019 version is superior.

Another aspect of this newer version is the treatment of Amy, softening her, where she is usually shown as a complete brat.  Switching between past and present helps.  We see her mature older self early on, her connection with Laurie, verses a concentration on her bratty younger self.  In the book she really is a brat.  But it was interesting listening to the book, because the Amy character really grows during the course of the two novels (Little Women and Good Wives is typically connected as one).  Seeing Amy get a proper treatment is nice.  And honestly, after listening to the book, more so than this new movie, I don't fault Amy at all for getting the European trip.  Jo was such a jerk during that time that she was her own worse enemy.

One of the major issues I have with this movie is the ending, as we get two endings.  Switching between past and present wasn't enough.  By the time the two time lines catch up, we then get the duel ending.  The ending Jo must write to appease the publisher verses the ending Alcott originally wanted for the novel.  It's confusing.  I picked up on the change and verified this movie's ending online, and then talked to my Mom and Sister-in-law about it, both of whom had no idea and thought the publisher ending is the true ending in combination with the other ending.  As far as they are concerned Jo and the Professor still get married, because the movie's ending is so unclear they can decide for themselves what the ending means, therefore eradicating the new ending Greta wanted to portray.  Both can be true, as by the ending we're used to jumping around.

I can get nit-picky about some other things, but will leave it at that.  The acting is strong.  Saoirse Ronan is a great Jo March.  And now that I've made it through the book I want to re-watch this movie to compare more thoroughly book verses film.  And I want to watch all the other versions, including the anime, but honestly who has the time for all that?  Just getting a hold of all the versions would be difficult.  But it would be interesting to compare all the adaptations.

MPAA: Rated PG for thematic elements and brief smoking.

P.S. I'm halfway through the PBS Masterpiece version, and Angela Lansbury is simply the best Aunt March.  She's such a delight.

Weathering With You, movie review

Rating: C+

Hodaka is a boy on the run, escaping life on a small island for the large city of Tokyo, and since he's a minor there's only so many places he can hide without attracting notice from the police.  It also doesn't help that he finds a gun right outside a club.  Meanwhile Hina is a girl with her own set of troubles, and it is while her Mom is in the hospital that she runs outside, following a ray of light, and stops the rain.  It's been raining in Tokyo.  Nonstop.  All everyone wants is a little sunshine.  Hina discovers she's the sunshine girl, able to bring light to a drenched world.

Weathering With You is the latest movie by writer and director Makoto Shinkai.  He became well known a few years ago with Your Name, though other beautiful works of his precede this anime.  Shinkai has a unique style.  He's able to captor nature elements in such an elegant way that no other animation holds a candle.  His ability to animate and stylize water alone is iconic and extraordinary.  It's one of his artistic signatures.

Shinkai's latest movie is a visual work of art.  Seeing different sides and landmarks of Tokyo was a joy, giving me heart-pangs for another visit.  Someday.  And it's so nice seeing two-dimensional hand drawn animation thriving, though Weathering With You has 3D animation here and there, but there's a life and emotion that can be better shown with drawing verses computers.  Just think of the two versions of Lion King.  Realism is nice, but there's so much more heart in a 2D character plane.  In Weathering With You nature becomes its own character.

Where Weathering With You lacks, and where Your Name was capital, is with the story itself.  The pacing is slow at times.  The plot loose.  It's good when movies breathe, but there was a little too much breath.  Though there are aspects of this movie I did like, and some of the messaging interesting, ultimately I found it rather sad.  There's a spot towards the end where I think it's supposed to be tragic, but members of the audience laughed, and I said with an undertone, "Are you kidding me?"  And then I felt removed, questioning characters, questioning mythos, and wondering what ever happened, long term, to the other maidens.

Weathering With You is a nice movie, and it is worth a watch for anime fans.  Would I recommend this for everyone?  Maybe.  All forms of animation needs to be supported, especially the dying art of hand-drawn.  But if I was to recommend Your Name or Weathering With You, I'd recommend Your Name.

Rated PG-13 for suggestive material, some violence and language.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, the end of the "Chosen One" saga, movie review with spoilers

Rating: C-

Spoiler Warning.

This review is going to be lengthy.

I've got a lot going on in my mind piecing this all together.

I was introduced to Star Wars in the 5th grade.  At that point I was already a well established Trekker as Star Trek: TNG's Encounter At Farpoint was first broadcasted when I was in Kindergarten, and since my parents are both nerds we watched it as a family every week.  Science Fiction and Fantasy were a staple of my youth by the time I watched Star Wars, and it was instant love.  I collected everything I could.  Joined the Star Wars Fan Club.  Got the Star Wars Insider magazine.  Read all the extended universe books I could get my hands on.  Back in the 90's I never once felt Star Wars, or Star Trek for that matter, wasn't for me.  I was a girly nerd and it was cool.

Rumors were already circulating in the early 90's that there was going to be a new Star Wars trilogy.  I wanted so bad for an episode 7-9.  We got the prequels instead.  But I had Timothy Zhan's creations, and that was enough for me.  It got to the point where I was glad Lucas Film never did a 7-9, as I didn't want it ruined.  Then Disney bought Star Wars, and at the time I wasn't terribly worried.  I grew up with Disneyland as well, and Star Tours launched several months before Star Trek: TNG.  1987 was a good year.  (How I didn't get into Star Wars sooner is still a huge mystery).  But Disney could do Star Wars, right?  I was finally going to see Luke, Leia, and Han together again.  Childhood recaptured on the big screen with new adventures.  That's not what happened.

Now we're at the end.  The end of an era.  Everyone is saying that the Skywalker saga is now over.  I would disagree, with The Rise of Skywalker these nine core films central theme isn't the Legacy of the Skywalker's.  It's the Legacy of the "Chosen One."  We just watched the "Chosen One" saga end.  Episode 1-3 is all about Anakin Skywalker being the Chosen One, only to then become Darth Vader.  Episode 4-6 is all about Luke being the Chosen One, and he was until Disney ruined his legacy.  Episode 7-9 is the over telling of Rey being the true Chosen One, the ultimate everything, succeeding where the past failed, bringing balance to the force, erasing the sacrifice and victory of both Anakin and Luke in the process.

By this point there are countless articles filled with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker spoilers, lists, pros, cons, etc all over the internet.  I don't know what difference my thoughts will bring to this sea of opinionated information.  While writing this I just looked over to a paper I've scribbled all over with torn notes placed on top.  It wouldn't be practical to detail them all.  It's Christmas Eve and we all have better things to do.  So here are the things I value most:

It's clear there's no true trilogy arc, no true master plan encompassing episodes 7-9.  The Last Jedi is a very divisive movie, one of which I've felt the extremes of emotions, elation to disappointment as inner analysis sat in.  The first part of The Rise of Skywalker is rough.  Crowded.  The movie leaks spoiled online before Rise of Skywalker was released contains more detailed information than what we got in the film.  Yes, I spoiled the movie before I went.  I went into the theater jaded.  Watching this final movie was bittersweet.  The rashness of Episode 9's opening gives of taste of what JJ Abrams had in mind, retconning parts of Episode 8 in the process.  The more Ep. 9 progressed, the more irrelevant Ep. 8 began to feel.

But it is also the speed of the movie, cramming as much as possible, unclear, over the top conveniences, breaking and creating rules for plot points, jagged editing jumps, characters magically showing up as if teleportation is a thing, that makes this movie feel sloppy.  That makes this trilogy feel unbalanced.  That makes it clear that too many hands were in the pot.  And through it all we're not given a chance to breath.  Repositioning characters.  Reintroducing ideas.  We see Poe, Finn, and Rey working together, which we should have seen last episode.

Nothing is explained, but we're supposed to just accept it, go with it, don't ask questions.  I love questions; I can't not ask questions.  A conglomerate of ideas thrown to the wall to see if they stick or not with no background information, nothing thought out.  Abrams was a squirrel chasing shiny objects, never realizing oak trees, when planted, have roots.  If anything was left for other authors to tackle in comics and books for explanation, that's simply "passing the buck."

How did Palpatine survive?  Who were Rey's parents?  Which one was Palpatine's son or daughter?  Were they force sensitive?  And if it's Rey's maternal or paternal side that wasn't a Palpatine, who were they?  Because Rey's parents sacrificed themselves to save her.  Protect her.  And they died in the process.  More on that later.  Who were those hooded people?  How did the Emperor build 100+ high powered Star Destroyers, fully staffed, without anyone knowing, not even the First Order?  Was the Emperor really just sitting around for 30 years to give his Granddaughter a gift?  He seriously, willingly stayed hidden for 30 years?  Seriously?  And no one "felt" him?  By the way, did we ever find out who the First Order even is?  How did someone know about the Wayfinder, just happen to create a dagger with Sith on it, that extends to show the shape of the Death Star, and Rey just HAPPENS to stand in the right spot??!!  Luke and Lando searched 30 years and couldn't find it. Seriously the dumbest plot device we're just supposed to accept, like mindless children.  Logical fallacies abound.

Rise of Skywalker also messes with Science, as well.  Space horses and people running on top of Star Destroyers, in the upper atmosphere with no protection and obviously no shields.  High winds anyone?  Minimal oxygen.  Freezing temperature. Pressure.  I could go on, but Star Wars is considered fantasy and not science fiction for a reason.

I'm getting off track.  I'm glad Lando is back, just wish he was used more.  Han's cameo made me teary eyed, but as I knew the ending it was just... sad.

Random, but there was a point where my Mom, 3/4ths of the way through, leaned over and said, "I haven't seen Baby Yoda yet." I laughed and told her he's in the show.  (Which I still haven't seen.  I told my youngest brother I was coming over when the season was over to binge watch, which he's cool with).

And unfulfilled character arcs!!  Finn is obviously force sensitive, which was never explored, and it doesn't seem like it's going to be.  Poe was wasted.  When General Hux was revealed to be the mole, I actually got excited.  "This could actually be really fascinating!"  And then he was all like, "I just want Kylo to lose," or whatever, because heaven forbid we can have an interestingly layered character.  But could you imagine if he was a mole this whole time for all three movies?  The ultimate double agent/spy, holding it together and deceiving so brilliantly.  Oh my goodness Disney!!  But that would require planning and proper execution.

One last major detail.  Are Rey and Ben Solo related?  Last year the Marvel comic Darth Vader, issue 25 I believe, shows Anakin traveling through some time and space thing, and he sees his mother, and in this vision of sorts he sees Darth Sidious, Palpatine, manipulate the force around Shmi Skywalker while she was pregnant.  Was he the one who impregnated her?  Or did he simply manipulate the situation?  In the legends Darth Sidious manipulated the force to create Anakin.  The canon comics back this up.  So is it a dream or reality?  And if it's reality, are the Skywalkers simply experiments of Palpitine, or even a bloodline?  If a bloodline that makes Rey and Ben 1st cousins once removed.  If experiments, then Palpitine is truly the ultimate puppet master. (I should note that anything of value should be shown in Live Action and not delegated to other media.) (I found this information in "Anakin's Father finally REVEALED in CANON - Star Wars Theory Comics.")

For the record I don't like the fact that Emperor Palpitine, Darth Sidious was brought back.  The fact that nothing is explained is laziness on JJ Abrams part.  "I have this really cool idea!!  Let's bring back Palpitine!" "How would that work? He died. Fell down a shaft. The Death Star exploded." "I haven't a clue, but we don't have to tell the audience that!" Bright shiny objects.  His bringing back Palpatine really diminishes the memory of Luke and Anakin.

The last few scenes of The Rise of Skywalker was cringe worthy.  My Mom was actually fine with it.  Reading comments all over the net shows many people are fine with it.  But Rey gets EVERYTHING!  Literally.  Rey took EVERYTHING from Luke.  She's the chosen one, finishing what he couldn't.  She gets his ship.  His home.  His name.  His and Leia's saber.  She also gets the Falcon, which was Han's.  (Ben should have lived just so Rey could have given him the Falcon, and it would have once again been owned by a Solo).  And she calls Leia "Master," when Leia never finished her training to become a Jedi, once again disrespecting Luke who wasn't shown being a good teacher.  Rey is the ultimate Mary Sue, which is a caricature of poorly written fan fiction.  It's a shame Rey took the Skywalker surname.  Her parents sacrificed themselves for her, it's clear Rey was loved, and yet Rey doesn't honor them.

And Ben Solo.  Ben Solo.  I never really liked his character.  But the Kylo/Rey connection that began in Episode 8, the only truly interesting aspect of that movie, began to make his character worth watching.  The whole "Dyad" idea is cool.  Ben and Rey being a representative of light and dark.  The battle within themselves.  The parallels.  When his character was redeemed there was so much potential, and then he died.  And he honestly didn't have to die.  He could have lived.  The real adventure begins when you choose to live.  Rey has God like powers and could have saved him in turn.  I don't care what anyone says, he could have lived.  And the continuing character growth Ben Solo could have shown in the future would have been truly interesting to watch/read.  But he had to die.  One of his quotes from the first movie plays as a foreshadowing: "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. That's the only way to become what you were meant to be." He was a Skywalker.  Disney hates the Skywalkers. No living Skywalker's allowed.  And the "Force is Female," so he had to die for that reason as well.  But can you imagine a truly redeemed Ben Solo and a truely developed double agent/mole General Hux meeting up after the fact?  That would have been fantastic!!  Oh my gosh, popcorn.  I would have needed a whole bucket of popcorn for that scene.

Seriously Disney?!!!  You and your missed opportunities.

In 1991 Timothy Zahn published Star Wars: Heir to the Empire, keeping Star Wars alive through strong creative story telling adding fantastic new characters while respecting Han, Leia, and Luke.  The Star Wars extended universe grew and was considered canon.  21 years later, in 2012, Disney buys Star Wars for 4 billion, killing the EU in the process by calling them "legends."  The stories I loved getting washed away by a giant price tag.  If Disney can come in and retcon the EU, who's not to say that a couple decades from now someone can't come in and retcon Disney Star Wars?  That would be poetic justice.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and action.

Jumanji: The Next Level, mini movie review

Rating: B-

Right now everyone is talking about Star Wars as it comes out tonight.  Personally I'm bracing for overwhelming disappointment, not wanting to see my childhood favorite franchise stomped all over in a disgraceful disrespectful way, so I wanted to see something fun.  Lighthearted.  A complete removal from the world, and in this way Jumanji: The Next Level succeeds.  

This latest Jumanji starts off with our previous senior high school students navigating the world of young adulthood.  Everyone is fine.  Everyone loving life beyond the game they survived.  Everyone except Spencer who's struggling in New York.  The idea of going back into a game he nearly died in would be a welcome departure.  He returns home to find he needs to share a bedroom with his grandpa who's recovering from surgery.  Spencer misses the person he was in the game.  Misses the power.  Misses the connection he had with his friends.  In a desperate move he finds the destroyed game console and begins to repair it, and in the process all his friends with a couple new individuals find themselves once again in Jumanji, some more thrilled, or less thereof, than others.

What I loved about the last movie, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, was how fresh it was.  Taking Jumanji from a board game to a video game was cool, the transition fun, silly, and innovative.  In this latest installment we get more of the same.  The movie is still fun and silly, but now it feels formulaic with some new twists, the story not as tight.  The stakes don't feel as high for some reason. 

I love the themes of family and friends with this latest Jumanji.  Bringing in Danny DeVito and Danny Glover as Eddie and Milo was fun, showing friendship from a new angle, and another way to bring ridiculousness to the game.

Junamji: The Next Level is a good family film, though I enjoyed the previous films a lot more overall. Some of the "deaths" felt thrown in for the sake of removing "lives," and because of this carelessness, and a certain repetitiveness of plot, I felt wanting by the end of this film.  Though, if you watch the end, they set up a possible new sequel that could bring freshness to the next movie, if there is one.  I wouldn't mind seeing more Jumanji in the future.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for adventure action, suggestive content and some language.

Frozen II, mini movie review

Rating: A

Frozen. I loved Frozen, the first, when it originally came out.  I gave that movie full marks as well.  But as time wore on I developed Frozen fatigue.  The movie was everywhere, especially in the parks.  It's all my nieces seemed to want to watch, and so myself and other members of the family would occasionally slip in Tangled and Lilo and Stitch as well.  (Actually, they do like Tangled.  Don't know how they really feel about Lilo and Stitch, though that's technically my favorite Disney movie. It's so well structured and so forth.)  When it was announced that Frozen was getting a sequel I had mixed feelings.  Glad for a new installment. Not excited for another Frozen wave.

Frozen II takes place a few years or so after the first, not entirely sure the time frame, but the characters are definitely older, as Olaf mentions throughout the film in cute ways.  We learn more about Elsa and Anna's childhood and parents.  We learn about the North and the magic that lies within.  And through all this Elsa hears a voice calling her into the unknown.

Without getting into spoilers, this movie is the perfect addition to the Frozen universe.  Both movies are good and strong in their own ways.  Different.  The elemental magic system introduced is really cool.  And it was nice learning more about Elsa and Anna's family.  All the characters grow in nice ways that compliments who they are as individuals.

There are more songs to be had in this new version.  Nice songs.  The music in the first installment are stronger, more standout-ish, but I enjoyed the music in this new movie as well.  They compliment the scenes they are in.

Overall I appreciate the new tone of this second movie.  Disney doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to animated sequels, the 90's are coming to mind, but this movie is a breath of fresh air.  More adventure, more mystery, but still clearly within the realm we've grown to love.  Though this is a sequel, and Entertainment is overrun with sequels, prequels, and remakes, I respect the originality and fun found in Frozen II.

Frozen II is a great family film to enjoy over this Holiday season and beyond.

MPAA: Rated PG for action/peril and some thematic elements.

Last Christmas, mini movie review

Rating: B-/C+

Kate's life is mess.  She has one night stands, gets drunk, and avoids visiting home.  She depends on friends for a place to sleep and carries her suitcase everywhere she goes, her life in flux.  The two stable aspects in her life is her love of George Michael and the year round Christmas shop she works.  When Tom enters her life Kate begins to find herself again, regaining the part of her she lost when she was sick.  But is this new love too good to be true?

Last Christmas takes place in London and is named after the Christmas song sung by George Michael.  Don't read too much into the lyrics, or you'll give some of the plot way.  Don't sing it in your head!  Stop it!  Yeah, it's a catchy song that always gets a lot of airplay every season, following you from one store to the next.

These days we live in a sea of Christmas movies.  Hallmark, Hallmark Mysteries, and Lifetime air at a minimum of six new movies every week between the three, starting right before Halloween.  Hallmark Christmas movies is a Holiday staple.  I kinda laughed last year when it was announced that Dr. Who wouldn't have a Christmas episode because they were out of ideas.  Hallmark and Lifetime certainly have no problem with their creativity.

And with Last Christmas we have a holiday film for the big screen.

There are aspects of this movie I like.  Emilia Clarke and Henry Golding have really cute chemistry as love interests.  The Christmas shop is charming, and I seriously want to find one.  The growth of Emilia's character Kate was nicely developed throughout the movie.

What I didn't like was the twist.  I can't talk about it!  I get it, it's different, and in a sea of romantic Christmas movies you've got to be different, but I was left depressed even though this movie's meant to be uplifting.

I'm not going to say you shouldn't see Last Christmas, I'm just saying I would have been happy catching up on all the Christmas movies I have saved up on the DVR.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for language and sexual content.

Midway, mini movie review

 

Rating: B+

Even though I've grown up watching World War II documentaries, I don't know much about what happened in the Pacific during this war.  It's a shame, as I have a Great-grandfather who served in the Navy during both World Wars, and my Grandpa R's brother was a POW under the Japanese.  I don't know much about either.  When my Dad was a Marine he served on the USS Midway aircraft cruiser, named to honor the battle. He wanted to fly planes, but bad eyesight is a family thing, so when he was on the Midway he ate in this room where he could listen to the planes land.  One day he had to do something and missed his routine lunch and an airplane crash, spreading fire in the room where he ate.  His life was saved that day, and that's what I think of whenever I hear "Midway."

As for the movie, Midway shows the escalating conflict between the US and Japan, the tensions, attack on Pearl Harbor, and then the subsequent attacks in the Pacific and beyond.  If you know history, you know how this story goes.

So much historical focus is on mainland Europe and England during this time.  Conflict with Germany and Italy. The holocaust. D-Day. The air raids in London and elsewhere.  The Narnia kids getting sent to the countryside (fiction, but still showing an aspect of the times).  Just that part of the war seems so overwhelmingly massive.  Then throw in the Pacific, Japan, China, and then you realize why this really was a World War.  And it's amazing humanity survived.  We forget.

I've read some reviews that says the dialogue is cheesy and whatnot, but I don't mind it.  As tragic as this time was, I still love the outfits.  The music!  The start of swing dance.  It was a time of rationing. Sacrifice. Human vigor and determination.

There's a lot of characters.  People come and go.  It's war.  And there are moving parts everywhere changing, contributing.  Portraying this one aspect of WWII is a huge undertaking, and yet, even with everything going on, it's easy to follow along and get involved with some of the characters.  And what's nice about this movie is that it focuses on so many real people who actually fought and served. 

War is awful, yes, but we shouldn't forget the past. Learn from the mistakes. Grow from the strength of others. Understand. The battle of Midway was only 77 years ago.  It hasn't even been a century!  And yet I wonder what my Great-grandfather and Great-uncle would think of the fact that my siblings and I love visiting Tokyo and are learning Japanese.  They would think it unbelievable!!

We can't forget.

And it was nice that in the showing I attended there were so many ages.  I thought I was going to be the youngest, but there were high-schoolers there as well.  And everyone in the theater was getting into it, holding their breath at times.  And at the end there was some clapping.  I found myself quite emotional and glad to become more fully aware of this time in history.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of war violence and related images, language and smoking.

The Lion King, 2019, mini movie review

Rating: C+

So when's a great time to finally write a review for the latest The Lion King movie? The weekend Maleficent 2 is released. Heh, seems like a great time to me. :P  I'm hoping to see Maleficent early next week, but my Dad saw it yesterday, and the things he had issues with I'll most likely have issues with.

But with that said, I've been struggling with what to rate The Lion King.  While thinking about this post I just went back and lowered Dumbo's score from C+ to C-, and even then I might be a little generous.  That's the problem I have with reviewing!  And my doubts as a reviewer.  I change my mind!  Like when I saw The Last Jedi and I was like, "Oh my goodness!  It was so good!!!  I felt like a kid again!!!!!!!!!  Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  And then, literally, I finally woke up from the movie high coma a few days later and realized, "What the crap was that!!!!????"  Or the time I gave Austenland a super low rating, out of irritation, and now it's one of my guilty little pleasures.  Because it just is.  It makes me giggle.

So what do I do about The Lion King??  What would I have thought if Disney wasn't out of creativity and remaking everything?  How would I view this new "live action"--*cough* a different form of animation *cough*--movie if the originally drawn feature film didn't exist as comparison?  Would I think higher of it?

The problem with The Lion King (2019) is that The Lion King (1994) does exist.

And I loved the original as a kid.  Sang the songs!  The whole death scene was freaky, but the animation softens the blow.  Making The Lion King look real adds a scary depth that hand drawn animation lightens up.  The meaning is still there, but not so terrifying for children, whom this movie is aimed.  Technically a family film, but still.

Is the movie beautiful?  Yes.  It's gorgeous.  A shot by shot of the original in National Geographic style.  But the movie lost it's charm with the shift to realism.  The facial expressions in the original movie gone.  And this movie proves how sad it is that original animation is being abandoned, a form of story telling that's getting left behind for new technology.

The Lion King 2019 doesn't add anything new.  The song Be Prepared was just bad.  Scary moments are scarier.  And it's such a copy and paste that I have no need to see it again.  Why should I when I own a copy of the original?

MPAA: Rated PG for sequences of violence and peril, and some thematic elements.

Yesterday, mini movie review

Rating: A-

Imagine a world where something you love dearly vanishes overnight.  You're now the only one that remembers Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, or Harry Potter, or Mozart, or Beethoven.   The greatest of Shakespeare never discovered or saved.  Nobody has tried a twinkies or hot dog.  What if Walt Disney's famous creation went by his original name of Mortimer Mouse over Mickey?  What if the computer was never invented?  What if Apollo 11 failed?  What if, what if, what if . . .

Little things you take for granted.  Little things that have enriched your life, a mere memory, and no ones the wiser for it.  Gone.  And you're the only one left who remembers.

What if The Beatles never became The Beatles?

Jack Malik, played by Himesh Patel, is a struggling musician who plays and sings cover songs, mainly classics from The Beatles. There's little fanfare for his honest efforts, and in the corner cheering him on is his manager Ellie Appleton, played by Lily James, who has believed in his talent since they were in school together. Then one night, while Jack gets in an accident, there's a global light outs, and when Jack wakes up in the hospital he discovers he's the only one who knows about The Beatles.  From this springs a scheme, pretending to be the author of The Beatles songs, passing them off as his own.  These brilliant songs catch the attention of many.  Instead of being ignored Jack is now embraced, and as he ventures from one success to the next he begins to feel guilty.  How far will Jack let his stolen fame grow?

Yesterday is this movie, a love letter to The Beatles.  Honestly, even though I have a music degree, I don't know much about The Beatles music!  Shameful, I know.  All I knew was from this old karaoke tape I had as a kid, singing Penny Lane and When I'm 64 over and over again, because they're fun songs, but I didn't seek out anything beyond this.  By the end of the movie I found myself truly understanding why The Beatles are so loved and the brilliance of their music.  True geniuses.  And how sad it would be if our world lost their beloved tunes.

Even though Yesterday came out a few months ago--It's coming to DVD and Blu-ray next week--I often find myself thinking about this movie.  Rarely does a movie leave an impression on my mind.  My Dad has randomly mentioned many times how much he liked Yesterday and wants to see it again.  In an age of remakes, sequels, and prequels it seems rare these days to find an original movie that plays off of an intriguing idea.  The movie is fun.  The music great.  The cast has chemistry.  I can't wait to again watch Yesterday.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for suggestive content and language.

A Wrinkle in Time, mini movie review

 

Rating: C-

A Wrinkle in Time, published in 1962 by Madeleine L'Engle, is a favorite childhood book of mine that I also read a couple times as a young adult.  I related to Meg.  We both had glasses and braces--first reading this book in elementary--and we both felt really stupid, out of place, separated, and different.  Add to the fact that the book has deep symbolism and that I was literally obsessing over Star Trek and Star Wars at the time, with the books science fiction/fantasy elements it was an instant love.

The images this book presents run deep.  The bouncing balls.  The mind control of IT.  The battle between light and dark.  Many hours I spent contemplating these deep meanings in the schoolyard.  And the idea of a tesseract was so deeply intriguing.

When I heard that Disney was making an updated film to A Wrinkle in Time, I was both excited and nervous.  When reports started coming out that the movie simply glosses over Camazotz, the planet in which IT resides, I couldn't bring myself to see the movie in the theater.  How would Disney handle the books religious themes?  In which there are plenty.  How would they handle what is truly presented in the darkness?  The movie was going to be all girl power, so what about Charles Wallace and Calvin?  Will their importance be sidelined?

Finally, with the idea that Disney movies will be leaving Netflix, I wanted to see the movie without having to pay beyond the monthly subscription.  (I still haven't signed up for Disney+, and I'm not currently planning to do so.)  In the last week I listened to A Wrinkle in Time, the book, to bring it to full remembrance.  And then I watched the movie.

In short: Disney's A Wrinkle in Time deserved to flop.

Way too much time is spent on the exposition.  Wasted time.  Meg is turned into a bully when trying to defend herself.  She is described in the novel as being troublesome, but I don't remember if it's fully explained. In the book Meg feels stupid, though told by Charles and her mother that she is special, she's not one thing or another.  She has potential.  The movie constantly attacks Meg's self worth outwardly, whereas in the book it's more of an inward battle.

More time is wasted on how "weird" and otherworldly the movie is.  The book mentions things that are different, explaining the different visuals, which in a movie is dragged on instead of getting to the point.  Time that the kids could have spent on a proper Camazotz.  There's no winged centaurs, opting for a new creation.

Oh, how deep do I want to get into this?  To sum it up.  In the movie Camazotz is a planet of different faces, constantly morphing.  Wasted time showing adventure elements.  The bouncing balls not depicting the boy who fell out of rhythm, and what that later meant.  The man with the red eyes in the book is chilling, and seeing Calvin, Charles, and Meg fight against him with logic is empowering to their characters.  Charles Wallace, who in the book is told to beware of his pride, is shown as weak in the movie while quickly being taken over.  In the book he loses himself to IT, daring to go "in" while boldly thinking he could come out, and all for a meal.  This isn't a quick give in as he's previously tested and succeeds.  Calvin, who is brilliant in the book with the gift of communication, feeling odd though having found a way to fit in, is diminished in the movie to a pretty boy that girls can get jealous over, though he is still a nice character.

And the planet changing from one thing to the next in the movie is a mess.  The beach scene with color, everyone playing, the man with red eyes being over the top.  Notice how no one is in sync in this scene?  There's no pulsing to a controlled beat?  Completely erased.  There's other scenes that completely miss the mark as well.  I get shortening time.  Visual vs printed page.  But the whole final brain sequence was just . . . -_-;;.

The main core religious elements are removed.  The Mrs. are no longer described as guardian angles, messengers who are ancient stars.  In the book scripture is read in a profound moment, which is sacrificed for other quotes.  The book mentions both Jesus and Buddha, whereas Disney only mentions Buddha.   Madeleine L'Engle is more courageous than Disney by mentioning contrasting religions in a positive light.  Also, Camazotz is chilling.  Themes of sameness over the individual is gone.  Are you willing to sacrifice liberty for security?  Erased.  What we end up with in the movie is a Hodge-podge of feel good memes.

What it comes down to is the book is far better and richer than the movie.

MPAA: rated PG for thematic elements and some peril.

Dora and the Lost City of Gold, mini movie review

Critical Movie Rating: B-

Dora and the Lost City of Gold follows the bright eyed wonder of an explorer raised in the Amazon.  When Dora is a teenager her parents decide to search for the famed city of gold, and deciding Dora isn't ready for such an adventure they send her to High School, a jungle of its own.  Dora didn't grow up around other kids, so her optimism mixed with underdeveloped social skills makes her an outcast.  This doesn't bother her, as Dora is unafraid to be true to herself.  Suddenly Dora, her cousin, and a couple mismatched classmates find themselves in the Amazon trying to find Dora's parents and the city of gold.

Dora and the Explorer, the show in which this movie is based, is a generation younger than I.  As a kid I watched Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, and Captain Kangaroo on PBS.  Dora the TV show launched in 2000, and even though I never watched it, I would see jokes pop up about the show in memes.

Crazy as it sounds, I love how Dora and the Lost City of Gold knows what it is, and makes fun of itself while breaking the 4th wall on occasion and having fun.  This movie is a family film, a jumanji for youngsters mixed in with goof ball antics and even a song about poo.  Not joking, there's a poo song, and fart jokes.  Dora was on Nickelodeon, a channel known for green goo.

Is the plot predictable?  Yes.  The characters two dimensional?  In a non-animated sense, for the most part, sure.  But the movie is lighthearted.  This is not a film to take seriously.  There's jokes, but also a good story about family and friendship.

What really makes this movie sing, and I'm not talking about poo, is Dora as a character.  Isabela Moner plays her perfectly.  She's just a really good person with admirable strength.

If you want to see a fun family film Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a good movie, just know it gets really silly at times.  Oh my goodness, that drugged field of flowers.  What the crap was that?

MPAA: Rated PG for action and some impolite humor.
 

Toy Story 4, mini movie review

 

Rating: A

When I heard that there was going to be another Toy Story movie I honestly rolled my eyes.  "Seriously? Another one?" I thought, and went about my day unfazed.  A little time later the trailer came out, and I was still not excited.  What could they do more?  Does this story about toys need rehashing?  How is this not going to be a simple repeat, just with a new kid?

Out of obligation I went.  Dragging my feet a little.

Boy did I have fun!

Andy is in college, and the homage he receives is that of nostalgia and background retailing.  Not too much.  Just enough.  Bonnie is the toys new kid, and they're all still wonderfully together, except for Bo Peep, who we haven't seen in quite awhile, but she wasn't Andy's toy, she was his sister's, and out of no where she disappeared.  I felt her loss back when, but moved on.  Bonnie is the focus now, and she's growing up a little.  Not growing out of toys, but entering a new phase in life: Kindergarten.  In order to cope with this transition Bonnie creates a toy out of trash and unknowingly brings it to life.  Forky.  A spork with doodads.  Forky has an identity crises, and in the midst of a road trip there's much insanity mixed with hilarity.

Toy Story 4 is a charming movie filled with warmth.  There's friendship, forgiveness, love, second chances, all the Pixar good stuff.  And plenty of jokes.  Seriously a ton of "laugh out loud" moments with a giggle here and there.

And we finally find out what happens to Bo Peep!  She's doing well.  Real well.  She's tough.  I really love what they did with her character.

There's plenty of new characters mixed in at a steady rate, adding to the story instead of overcrowding.  The new characters are interesting and fun.    One of them has me laughing on the inside right now just thinking about them.  But all the classic characters are there as well, fully utilized: This is their story.

So, without giving too much away, Toy Story 4 is a nice new chapter.  A great family film.  Worth seeing many times. 

MPAA: G

Pokemon Detective Pikachu, mini movie review

Rating: C+

So . . . I finally saw Pokemon Detective Pikachu yesterday, which is how far behind I am with the movies I want to see, and managed to find a theater showing it.  If you haven't seen this new Pokemon movie yet, finding it in the theater will be a challenge, but it might be available on DVD in August, possibly for streaming in July (but don't quote me on this).

Many, many thoughts.

Tim Goodman, played by Justice Smith, once inspired to be a Pokemon trainer when he was a kid, dreams that faded as reality hit, and now he works in insurance.  In a world where pokemon live freely, appearing everywhere, Tim has become jaded.  He gets a message that his father has passed, traveling to Ryme City, a safe haven metropolis where pokemon and humans live in harmony.  It is here that Tim meats a Pikachu, hot on the case, insisting Tim's father is alive.  But what makes this encounter truly remarkable is that Tim and this pikachu can communicate and understand each other.

The Good:

The first half of the movie is really solid.  Great humor.  The introduction into a live action Pokemon world is brilliant.  Seeing Pokemon wander around, marvelous.  The way the filmmakers captured this reality is beyond what I could have imagined.  Really creative and fun.

Tim Goodman is such a great character, and I really like Justice's portrayal of him.  The only solid element in the entire movie.

The first half of the movie really was great.  It makes me want to see more movies in this realm.  The possibilities of so many stories.  I liked the fact that Tim wasn't a Pokemon trainer.  That he was dubious towards Pokemon, led into a World he didn't want any part.  The relationship between Tim and the pikachu detective is really well done.

I know some people were bothered with Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu, as all they see is Deadpool, but as I haven't seen that movie (no one should be surprised, though I need to see the PG-13 version (Yes, I'm a prude :P )), the Deadpool relation didn't bother me.

Pikachu really is cute!  And very well animated.

Also, I enjoyed the cinematic score.  A nice balance between orchestration and game electronic type tones.

The Bad:

Pretty much the last half of the movie.

And this is where I hit my typical conundrum where I have to be very cryptic so as not to spoil anything.

I have issues where the plot led, and the real villains ultimate choices regarding humans and Pokemon.  Just the logic behind a certain plot point.  How is this true evolution?  Really?  For him, yes, for others, no.  Doesn't make sense.  And there's flaws in that scene with what happens to him verses others.  And that's all I can say.  I think I just said too much.

Okay, and super cryptic.  So, there's this episode of Full Metal Alchemist.  Don't know if it's in the original series or new one, as there's a remake to resemble the manga (like what's now happening with Fruits Basket).  It's either the 3rd or 4th episode with this girl and a dog, and this girl feels neglected by her father, who is trying to get animals to talk.  And there's this monkey who can talk, and what happened to this guys wife.  So, I can't even outright say what happened in that episode without possibly spoiling the movie, but that episode made me sick.  Like, I was seriously nauseous afterward.  Just thinking of the episode makes me feel ill.  Something in my core rejects it.  And I stopped watching that show.  Couldn't bring myself to finish.

This movie left me feeling the same thing.

Instead of leaving the movie feeling joyous, I left feeling creeped, disgruntled.

Back to the movie as a whole: The first half of the movie was fun and brilliant, the second half a let down.

If you love Pokemon, you might like it.  Don't take my word.  These are just opinions.  You may find the entirety of this movie interesting.  I just wish I liked Pokemon Detective Pikachu more.

MPAA: Rated PG for action/peril, some rude and suggestive humor, and thematic elements.
 

Aladdin (2019), mini movie review

 

Rating: A-


Not another Disney remake!  Say it ain't so!

There are so many.

I did like Cinderella; thought this retelling was nice and fresh.  But I didn't care for Beauty and the Beast (some merit) or Dumbo.

How were they going to redo Aladdin and make it fresh?  How were they going to make it without the amazing Robin Williams who created a legend out of the genie?  The first trailer came out, and I wasn't digging it.  Wasn't excited.  It wasn't until I saw a sneak peak at Disneyland last April that I thought, "This could be fun."  And actually saw it twice.

The original animation will always hold a special place in my youthful heart.  Those songs were played on repeat back in the 90's.  I used to replay One Jump Ahead on loop and act out all the parts.  Back then it seemed A Whole New World was getting constant airplay and performed in variety shows everywhere.  Those were the days.

This new Aladdin has so much fighting against it, in addition to the giant hill of nostalgia.

Simply put, I loved this new take on Aladdin.

It's just fun.  Pure fun.  A nice mix of old and new.

There's this one scene, a new scene that I don't want to spoil for those who haven't seen it, that had me laughing so hard in the theater.

Is Will Smith, Robin Williams?  No, and he doesn't try to be, making it his own, which is nice.  No one can replace Robin.

The sets are beautiful.  The costumes dazzling.  And song numbers lively. 

The new song Speechless, performed by Naomi Scott who plays Jasmine, is wonderful.  Alan Menken hits it out of the park again.  (Though, I have to add, even though I had a hard time with Beauty and the Beast, Evermore and How Does a Moment Last Forever are amazing songs).

There are aspects of this new movie I have problems with, but I enjoyed the movie so much I'll overlook them.

Also, I realized that this is the kind of movie I can put on for my nieces and nephew at home when it comes to Blu-ray and walk in and out of the room, enjoying a scene here and there.  Maybe people wont see this as a plus, but its nice having movies that can be enjoyed in pieces, though I enjoy the whole as well.

Aladdin is currently my favorite Disney remake, a fun family film.

MPAA: Rated PG for some action/peril.

Isn't It Romantic, mini movie review

Rating: C+

(Isn't It Romantic Comes to DVD on May 21st, and was released to theaters just before Valentines Day.)

When Natalie, played by Rebel Wilson, was a little girl she dreamed of romance Pretty Women style, only for her to be told by her Mom to give up such fancy notions, as only pretty skinny girls get such attention.  Zoom to the future and Natalie is now cynical towards love and romantic comedies.  Then, thanks to an accident, she finds herself in an alternate reality, smack in the middle of a romantic comedy complete with musical numbers.

All the criticisms and cliches Natalie listed against Rom-Com's she now lives.  New York is no longer dark and dirty, but bright and colorful with flowers and pleasant smells.  Gorgeous guys who once ignored her are now oozing over her.  Her small apartment got an HGTV makeover.  It seems like a dream world.  A great opportunity.  But is it?  Is fantasy really better than reality?

Isn't It Romantic has a lot of fun moments scattered between awkwardness, bad music cues in triumphant moments, and moments that felt empty.  But maybe the empty moments prove another point, fantasy is empty, with no substance, and in the mix of fluff, over-the-top cliches that are cringe worthy, and pastel colors, reality will always be better.

Love isn't meant to be easy.  It's seldom obvious, unless you believe in love at first sight, which, I should avoid going down that tangent.  And really, should we allow ourselves to believe what people tell us?  Whether we are deserving of love or not?  Whether love is possible?

This Rom-Com fantasy exploit has a good message with fun throwback music.  The only downfall is in the execution and flow, particularly during the middle dream section.  It just felt a little off.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for language, some sexual material, and a brief drug reference.

Shazam! mini movie review

 

Rating: A-

In some unknown realm in a hideaway lair sits the Wizard Shazam, aging, alone, desperate for an heir.  The World is on the verge of chaos and a champion must be found.  Meanwhile Billy Batson is a boy on the run, desperate for a family and a home, in and out of foster care.  After a course of events (simply stated, you know, spoilers), Billy is chosen.  A 14 year old boy who, when he shouts "SHAZAM!", becomes an adult superhero. Zachary Levi brings the fun, and seriousness, to this new Shazam, an adult kid learning to harness his powers.

In Shazam! we find ourselves watching a more lighthearted DC superhero movie mixed with a little 1988 "Big", humor, a family tale, and horror fantasy.  But don't let the movie trailers fool you, there is still a darker element to this big screen superhero telling.  It's not all jokes and fun as a boy discovers how to become a hero.  There's a real balance in tone between hero and villain, electric light facing grim envious dark.

Shazam! really is a fun movie.  A nice departure for DC who tends to take themselves seriously at times.  Unlike the other DC heroes we've gotten to know through the years, Shazam is lesser known, but equally deserving of our time and attention.  Though he wasn't in Justice League, I'm glad we got a proper introduction to his interesting origins.

And, with this being a DC film, we get to see the other side of this superhero universe from those on the outside looking in.  There's nods to all the other heroes.  Backpacks.  Memorabilia.  Souvenirs.  Newspaper clippings.  Even if you didn't know this was a DC film, there's acknowledgments here and there to Superman and Batman all over the place.

It's nice seeing a movie focus positively on family, as family is a strong thematic element.  In Shazam! we see a family made up of foster kids, which is really nice to see attention placed on some of the difficulties kids can face in the foster system, but also positive elements as well.

For those with kids, this is a PG-13 movie, and it earns its rating.  You might want to see it first and then decide if you want to take your kids, and then you'd be seeing it twice: win-win.

(PS. Stay for the very end of the end credits.  There's more than just the mid credit scene, and I'm amazed how many people left the theater and missed it!)

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action, language, and suggestive material.