RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: August 30th, 2019

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Biggest Little Farm” (2019)

“The Biggest Little Farm” is a true story about a newlywed couple, John & Molly Chester, whom aspire to create their own thriving farm in California full of fresh produce and livestock. What makes their vision far more unique than other typical farms that do that same sort of stuff is they want their farm to have a full ecological balance that not only meets their needs, but can also be a thriving haven for wildlife; in other words  – Nants’ Ingonyama – the land gives sustenance to life and life gives back to the land as a continuous sustaining process. The biggest challenge, of course, is learning to create that balance without intervening and harming any pests by use of chemical or weapon.

The documentary chronicles the Chester’s farm over a seven-year time span, which is admittedly a lot to cover in a short ninety minute film. Be that as it may, the whole thing is pretty awesome! Not just the story, though that is impressive without question, but just the footage of the trials and triumphs over hurdle after hurdle is both breathtaking and thought-provoking. Some of the shots obviously looked like they were done on either a cell phone or lo-fi camera, but the ones that clearly were professional grade and show all the creatures in their habitats created by this farm - it’s nothing short of gorgeous. This is made more significant by the fact that, since nobody in this film is an actor, most the verbal communication is done by voiceover work, and thus opens the door to up-close and sprawling images to really help the viewer absorb everything in a visually satisfying way.

The only real complaint I have with any of it is the fact that part of this whole mission was predicated on Molly & John providing a forever home for their beloved dog, Todd; a rescue from a house that was overrun by dogs due to hoarding. It’s a nit picky thing, but they wanted to give Todd wide open spaces to roam, which is great, but after that initial introduction, Todd never shows up again until the very end and the documentary is concluded with a narration of promises kept. Again, it’s hardly anything to complain about, but it seems like he should have been in the film more as a sort of spiritual symbol.

Ok, maybe one more. Maybe Molly & John were incredibly patient, understanding people, but in seven years’ worth of footage, there wasn’t a single argument between the two.  I mean, c’mon, there should have at least been one “I can’t believe you talked me into this! I should have married that high-dollar stripper in Vegas when I had the chance. At least then I wouldn’t be broke with swine afterbirth all over me!”

I’m (mostly) kidding. But you have to admit, that would have been funny as Hell.

Other than that, this is a fun little documentary that is entertaining, inspiring, and educational as an example that more people should follow. Unfortunately, we suck as a species, so that will never happen until society collapses and we have no choice.

Definitely check this one out!

“The Biggest Little Farm”: 8.5/10

“The Secret Life of Pets 2” (2019)

Holy shih tzu – it didn’t suck!

***

All I can really tell you from my first and only viewing of the original “Secret Life of Pets” is how much I remember hating it. I’m pretty sure my review of it that is still out there somewhere will back that up. The only good parts were from the trailer, it was staggeringly void of any soul, and Kevin Hart’s bunny antagonist thing was ear-piercingly annoying. Considering the fact that, up until that point, I had been a defender of Illumination Studios and its filmography, I was basically astonished and confused on how they managed to lay such an egg as rotten as that.

Yet, here I am, so clearly I didn’t learn my lesson. The trailer for “Pets 2” suckered my intrigue just as thoroughly as the first, and I didn’t try too hard to fight it. Thank Zeus this sequel, by rare odds, is a mile ahead of the first one in virtually every way. That’s not to say it’s anything transcendent or remotely holds a candle to its animated competition; in fact, when boiled down, it’s rather pointless and survives only on pet puns and sight gags, but at least they managed to do it better this time. Hell, dare I say, I was laughing my ass off a couple of times.

When I say “pointless”, it is not an exaggeration. There’s literally three mini-plots going on throughout the course of the entire film that loosely tie together at the very end for the sake of saying “facing your fears is important”. I guess in order to get that realization we had to see a dog pretend to be a cat in order to save the favorite toy of Max (Patton Oswalt) from an apartment full cats (hoarding is a theme in this Rapid Fire), while Max and his buddy Duke (Eric Stonestreet) are off on a family trip to a farm where Max meets his would-be mentor, Rooster (Harrison Ford – yes, really), and also Snowball (Kevin Hart) has a completely separate random-ass thing where he joins Daisy (Tiffany Haddish), whom employs him to save a tiger cub from a shockingly-sadistic-for-a-kids-movie circus owner/trainer.

Make sense?

Well, it doesn’t really matter because the whole thing goes by so fast you will hardly notice. Plus, the kids in the room will be entertained and I assume that’s the whole point.

The first “Pets” didn’t leave much longing for a sequel, even if it had been good, and clearly the idea well wasn’t that deep with a clear lack of a story to tell here. Still, I feel glad that this sequel was made to bleach out the first’s stain on the underwear of Illumination.

“The Secret Life of Pets 2”: 7/10

“Rocketman” (2019)

Alright whoever is making the David Bowie movie - no pressure! Hollywood saw Freddie Mercury and raised us an Elton John biopic that I would argue is not only more entertaining than “Bohemian Rhapsody”, but definitely wins in the creativity department as well. Ziggy Stardust is going to have a bit of a mountain to climb to be King of Hollywood’s new fascination with rockstars.

It’s a good problem to have.

*** 

“Can you hear me, Major Tom?...Can you hear me, Major Tom?”

Shit, maybe not. Now it’s stuck in my head.

*** 

Ok, all kidding aside, all three legends were legendary for their own very different reasons. No matter how you slice it, no single feature length film will have the ability to capture the full essence of personalities as huge as Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, and with “Rocketman”, Elton John.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” did a lot of things well, some others not as well, though it survived the day thanks to a monster performance from Rami Malek. Taron Egerton as the titular Rocketman also channeled Elton’s immortality for one Hell of a show-robbing display of drama and radiance. What additionally gave this film a leg up over “Rhapsody” was how it was presented more as a “fantasy based on a true story” by using Elton’s songs as a means to tie scenes and various plot points together instead of the tunes merely existing as a byproduct.

By the way, if “Rocketman” doesn’t at least get an Oscar nod for Best Costume Design, there’s more wrong with the Academy than we originally thought. From what I can tell, Elton John did not consult on this film much at all, aside from telling Egerton not to try and mimic him perfectly, so to see all of his out-of-this-world concert threads done so flawlessly deserves a little credit.

Like I said in the beginning, the passage of time is always going to be a flaw with films like these, and “Rocketman” is no exception. The timeline here covers about two decades of Elton – from his start to his pinnacle – so the pacing doesn’t often stop to catch its breath. Keeping in mind this was written to capture Elton’s struggles in his personal life - from disinterested parents as a child to rampant drug abuse and toxic relationships - none of that truly gets a chance to set in before it is off to the next thing. Then again, given his life in the fast lane, I suppose that makes sense in its own way.

It’s kind of difficult to go into much detail without the intention of writing a short novel. “Rocketman” is an experience much like the man it’s based on. If you’re a fan of Elton John already, you’re likely going to get a big kick out of this and want to sing along to every dance number.

Give this one a look; it turned out rather well.

“Rocketman”: 8/10         

NEW REVIEW: "22 July" (2018)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“22 July” (2018)

"You can't call the Prime Minister. And Norway isn't on trial. You are."

“22 July” is the latest biopic from Director Paul Greengrass centered around the terrorist attacks that took place in and around Oslo, Norway back in 2011 carried out solely by Anders Behring Breivik (played here by Anders Danielsen Lie). A member of the “Knights Templar”, a secret nationalist organization that formed shortly after 9/11, Breivik decided it was time to carry out the mission of his so-called brotherhood and attack via a car bomb at the Prime Minister main office building and mass shooting at an island retreat for teenagers whom are also the kids of government officials on July 22, 2011. The reason for this attack, so he says, was due to Norway’s liberal insistence of multi-cultural acceptance of foreign refugees when not everybody, speaking mainly from his own point of view and some others, are not on board because those under the Islam flag are all dangerous without exception.

These events capture what is almost the entire First Act of the film. From there, it centers on main character and real-life survivor, Viljar Hanssen (Jonas Strand Gravli). After barely escaping the aforementioned retreat with critical gunshot wounds, including a round that exploded inside his brain, Viljar must not only summon the courage to recover and accept the fact a few remaining pieces of shrapnel near his brain stem can kill him at any given moment, but also face Breivik during trial so he can tell he side of the story of what happened.

That’s essentially it as far as the story goes; though, “it” is a gross underrepresentation of what is, by the numbers, the most devastating plot against human life Norway has ever known, and truthfully the worst all of Europe has ever known post-World War II. It’s a tragedy that cannot be slimmed down in so few words.

When “22 July” was released last year on Netflix, I vaguely recall some criticisms towards it as a movie, but not so much the social and political side. The main point of contention, of course, was the very upfront presence of Breivik and that the mere portrayal of him on screen was a glorification of his deeds.  To be absolutely clear, I am more than receptive to that concern – to a degree. Of course nobody likes having the bandage of history ripped off when the wound is still this fresh, and yes, thanks mostly to sensationalist media, the killers almost always get the scales tipped in their favor when it comes to the spotlight. Nobody can really be blamed for having a negative reaction to a film having this kind of set up.

That being said, the ugly side of history cannot be swept under the rug. I mean, sure, “22 July” could have started right after the violence and been entirely about Viljar’s journey leading up to the trial, but it could also be argued that approach would rob his redemption of its backbone. To me, it’s all about balance when it comes to these stories and this has been the calling card of Greengrass his entire cinematic career, sans the “Bourne” films. The First Act is an unsettling thing to see, and while it does have that Hollywood-esque suspense polish to it, Greengrass does a good job of not making it feel like it should be entertainment, per se, despite the high heartrate it creates.   

The other big complaint is more minor in my view, and that was the fact that the film was in English when, being based in Norway, that wouldn’t be the language traditionally spoken. This is indeed a true instatement, and fine, whatever, it would not have bothered me one little bit if I had to read subtitles instead, but that isn’t at all the point or the reason. “22 July” wasn’t made for a smaller crowd of people like myself whom don’t care what language a film as in as long as there are subtitles; it was made for a wide global audience, most of which would likely understand English, so that’s what Greengrass decided to do. It’s over, it’s done, please move on.

Seeing as this film is all things human-driven drama, the caliber of performances is what stands out the most, and they are quite good. Lie doesn’t exactly pull off the look of Breivik in real-life, but I can see why the casting crew went after him – he’s a seriously intense performer. A native of Norway himself, as well as most of the cast, I cannot fathom how hard it must have been to mentally prep for a role like this knowing it was going to get some backlash. It is abundantly clear, however, that he was sold hard into the vision that Greengrass was trying to create, and his character oozes that hateful naivety created from fear of a world he doesn’t understand as much as thinks he does.

On the flipside of the narrative coin, Gravli is also excellent as young man whose world is turned upside down and now literally has no idea when he’ll die, but it could be at any moment from one bad shake to the head. At first I thought his performance was inconsistent in a negative way, but now after reflecting, I think I liked him more because of that fact. Viljar would have been going through a myriad of emotional mood swings as Gravli tried to bring to life in his own way (Viljar Hanssen is quoted as saying this film got it right in the accuracy department), so it was fitting to see fluent acting mixed with some rigidness. This film most likely does not work very well at all if these two fell short in any areas, so it’s great to see that not be the case.

If it wasn’t obvious already, the pacing side of things is going to be perhaps less forgiving depending on what you’re expecting. The film practically plays out as the experience of a roller coaster ride in reverse; instead of waiting in line to get on the ride, you immediately get to ride the roller coaster, and then wait in line to exit. That’s a really crappy example, but I think you get the idea. That’s how it went down in reality so there’s not much else to be done with it, but just be ready for a lot of quiet after a brief stint of big noise.

One area I do feel fell oddly short is the lack of attention to Lara Rashid, another survivor of the retreat whom lost her sister in the attack, and ultimately, has the foreign background that drew Breivik's ire. Obviously that would have made for a much different, longer film, but the context of it alone hould have made her much more than Viljar's shoulder to cry on. 

At the end of the day, a film like this even being made is going to ruffle some feathers either before or after it is seen. I can only imagine that was anticipated well in advance, because, as I said, this is Paul’s territory. This is what he does, and he’s damn consistent at it. I’ve heard there’s an equally good, if not better, documentary already out there. I liked this one enough that I cannot believe there’s a wrong choice going either way.

This isn’t the sort of film that one really “recommends”, but if you like giving your history itch a good scratch, this is at least one stop you can make along that road.

“22 July”: 8/10

NEW REVIEW: "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” (2019)

 "This town has told stories about me; horrible stories. 

But they don't realize, I have scary stories of my own"

I know it is way, WAY too soon to start thinking about Best lists for 2019, especially with so much of the year left and its entire artsy drama faire still coming down for award season. That being said, when that magical time of year does draw nearer, I will definitely have “Scary Stories” in the hat for consideration.

It’s really that good.

***

Okay, yes, I usually play an introduction like that out sarcastically, most often with horror, before I drop a bomb on it and send it to the dusty closet where it belongs. This time, however, I am being completely sincere - “Scary Stories” is a great fucking time, and the most fun I’ve had watching horror probably since “IT” back in 2017. The film does have its flaws, and I will be sure to cover those later on, but they didn’t stop me from grinning ear-to-ear as I was leaving the theater.

Taking into consideration that the original book of stories by Alvin Schwartz came out way back in 1981 – ugh – and Hollywood’s obsession with adapting novels and shorts of all stripes, I’m genuinely surprised it took almost forty years for a filmmaker to make a pass at “Scary Stories” and put it on the big screen.  I know a documentary has been made at some point in time, and I intend to get that checked off the list, but this third major feature by the incredibly talented Director Andre Ovredal and screenwriter Guillermo Del Toro couldn’t have been in better hands given the curious nature of its nostalgic revival. Hell, when “Goosebumps” got the same treatment back in 2015, all I really hoped for was something that slightly resembled the book series that completely consumed my imagination and free time back in my childhood, all the while keeping in mind that it was likely going to be light and geared towards those twenty years younger than me at the time.

The results of “Goosebumps” were silly and mixed, and I probably would have had the same expectations for “Scary Stories”, that is, until I saw Del Toro’s name attached. Being one of my favorite fantasy/horror filmmakers, I always have faith that he is going to take the material serious and do it justice. Besides, the infamous artwork by Stephen Gammell is just as creepy now as it ever was and is so incredibly perfect for Del Toro’s sensibilities that I have to believe he’s been waiting for the right moment to pounce on this project. Combined with a rising star like Ovredal and enough faith from CBS Films to give “Stories” a respectable budget to work with, the results are a tense, atmospheric, (mostly) realistic-looking, and effectively creepy batch of ghost stories rolled into one linear narrative that never loosens its grip once it gets rolling.

Said narrative focuses on a trio of teenage friends: Stella (Zoe Colletti), August (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), on Halloween in 1968. After a somewhat successful attempt at a prank against school bully Tommy(Austin Abrams), they inadvertently add a fourth member to their group – the mysterious Ramon (Michael Garza) – after he helps the three friends hide from Tommy in a drive-in movie theater. Stella immediately starts taking a shine to Ramon and asks if he’d like to join them to check out an old, creepy mansion that is said to be haunted by a local legend named Sarah Bellows. Sarah, among other things, was most notorious for keeping a book of scary stories that she wrote and told to children of the town through the walls of her cruel, dark prison-esque cellar bedroom that her abusive family kept her in. After stumbling upon Sarah’s book of stories, Stella – an aspiring horror writer in her own right – takes the book home to read and enjoy Sarah’s cryptic musings.

Soon after returning home, Stella discovers that Sarah’s spirit is not only still alive and well, but perhaps angered by the theft of her writings as brand new stories begin to fill the book each night in front of the kids’ eyes; each one written about them in a manipulation of nightmares or inner fears that each character carries. From there, various monsters and ghouls from the book, including The Toe Monster, Jangly Man, Harold the Scarecrow, and the Pale Lady, begin taking down the group one-by-one as they rush to try and find a way out of the curse that Bellows has placed on them.

Now, some of the kid/monster scenes are more effective than others – Toe Monster would likely be my favorite – though the one thing they do have in common is Ovredal’s exceptional ability of setting each confrontation up by making full use of the set pieces therein. For a plot that progresses such as this, adequate execution of suspense is crucial due to the audience knowing well in advance that someone or some-thing evil is coming. Anyone familiar with Ovredal’s previous title “The Autopsy of Jane Doe” should find this attention to detail familiar and is as refined as ever.

Getting into the flaws of the film, I would say most are rooted in the story itself. A bulk of the First Act truly takes its time getting the audience acquainted with the main characters and their respective personalities. There’s nothing incredibly grandiose about the proceedings, though I can always appreciate a horror film that doesn’t insist on narrative minimalism for the sake hitting the gas as quickly as it can; however, when it comes down to it, the plot itself is still thin at its core, and is something that get more noticeable as the film moves on.

Fortunately, all four of these young actors are so absolutely game for their roles that the lack of depth on the story side doesn’t end up mattering all that much, and I was highly impressed with how well they sold it. There isn’t too much attention paid to each of their individual backgrounds, and while that could have been beneficial to the emotional tones of the film, Del Toro is already trying to cram in as many monsters as he can for when the narrative does make the hard left turn into Nightmareland, that it likely would have come off pretty forced if he tried to slow all of that down for the sake of character reflection.

The motivational arc for the antagonist, Sarah Bellows, was a curious one as well. I won’t spoil any of it, but as everything started to come to a head at the climax, the less sense her actions made.  Sure the perspective of it could be twisted and contorted into a way that does work better, but it would be a stretch at best. Again, it doesn’t really lessen the impact of her as a villain; although, if there is anything about this film that is going to bug me forever, it’s going to be that.

When it comes down to it, though, I am much more forgiving of these things in horror films when it gets all the juicier stuff right, and “Scary Stories” does absolutely get it right where it matters and does its own title total justice. It delivered everything I could have expected from it and then some, and yet I was still practically begging for more. What can I say? I am prepared to admit that this one gave me a good jump in my seat, and that is a rare mark on the scoreboard.

This project is dripping with nostalgic pandering, but for once, it doesn’t feel like a cheap thing. The source material was strong enough as it was, and there was genuine love and respect for the craft put into this by Ovredal and Del Toro that was evident not only in the technical aspects, but in the human side of it as well. I can only imagine how many doors this is going to open for Ovredal in the future, and I will definitely be keeping a close eye on his future endeavors. After kind of being in the gutter for a while, it’s nice to see that the genre has a bright future ahead of it with all the creative talent starting to crop up.

Long story short, as I have rambled enough in admiration as it is, the point is that “Scary Stories” without a doubt deserves to be seen. There are a few bumps in the road, sure, but it never loses its momentum.  Understandably, it’s easy to shrug off a PG-13 horror flick these days, but I can assure you, that button is pushed to the maximum, and it does get a few uncomfortable blows to the gag reflex that wouldn’t necessarily be expected walking in to it.

This one earns one of my highest recommendations of the year up to this point.

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark”: 9/10

NEW REVIEW: "A Dog's Journey" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“A Dog’s Journey” (2019)

"But first, I need to get a few things out of the way. I need to play. 

I need to wrestle. I need to bite a few faces." 

Just in case you’ve lost track with all of the films that have come out in the same vain as this one the past few years as quickly as a kid goes through a Pez dispenser, “A Dog’s Journey” is the sequel to 2017’s “A Dog’s Purpose”, which are both based on novels written by W. Bruce Cameron; whom also wrote the book “A Dog’s Way Home” that received its own adapted release in 2019, whilst having nothing to do with these two films. There’s also “The Art of Racing in the Rain” that additionally came out in 2019 featuring a pup with an inner monologue, but I know next to nothing about whatever that is supposed to be.

Hollywood, we get it; people love dogs. Settle down.

***

I do recall being a little harsh on “Purpose” back in 2017 by basically claiming that it was pretty dumb and laid on so much of the sweetness that I need a dose of insulin afterward. It wasn’t by any means an awful film, though with the mix of overdone emphasis on reincarnation, destiny, and dog puns galore, I couldn’t take it seriously no matter how sincere and heartfelt beats it was trying to hit on the target. The human cast was certainly game, to give it due credit, and Josh Gad had proven to be an entertaining voice actor in various different features, so I can’t say I suffered through it, even if I needed to watch something with a bit more testosterone afterwards.

“Journey”, or “A Dog’s Purpose II: The Next Generation”, as either title would appropriately fit the plot, is just about as dumb and sappy, but I will admit is marginally better all around. I got more laughs out of it, the spirituality is toned down to a tolerable level, and the character drama is more engaging to allow for an overall better payoff.

This time around, the story picks up where “Purpose” left off with Bailey (Josh Gad), the loyal canine friend of Ethan (Dennis Quaid), living out his days peacefully on Ethan’s farm, as he and his wife Hannah (Marg Helgenberger) are helping raise their 2-year-old granddaughter, CJ. CJ’s father has passed away, living her young mother, Gloria (Betty Gilpin), bitter, clueless, and neglectful. Thinking that her parents are going to take away her late husband’s life insurance money because reasons – there would be no movie otherwise - she packs up CJ and heads for New York to pursue a music career. At this time, it is discovered that Bailey has a tumor, and before he slips away in death (these films love death), Ethan asks Bailey to find CJ in the next life and protect her. Following a similar rhythm to “Purpose”, Bailey comes back, finds CJ, then dies and loses CJ, finds her again, helps piece together her broken life as she grows up, so on and so forth. Again, ultimately it’s harmless-ish, regardless of its goofy ideologies.

If anything, where “Journey” struggles the most is in its focus; particularly around Bailey’s voice over dialogue in an effort to make sure he has something to contribute. The one-liners do land better in this film, and there were a couple sprinkled throughout that were genuine laugh-out-loud moments. Then, equally as often, the script would try to interject really random jokes from Bailey that had not much to do with anything going on in that moment, and consequently miss the mark. It’s almost as if the screenwriters thought the audience would forget this is a movie where a dog can audibly portray its inner thoughts, so better randomly toss in something that will make everybody think “Ha, it’s funny because dog stuff!” Maybe that will payoff better with others than it did for me, but the flow was doing okay enough on its own that it didn’t require the interruptions.

I won’t spoil the ending, despite it being predictable as all Hell, but while it’s equal parts groan-worthy and sugary, I couldn’t force myself to dislike it. It brings the story full circle in a completely logical way as far as its world is concerned, and I imagine it will leave animal lovers of all stripes assuredly pleased.

Other than that, there’s not a whole lot more I can say about this one. Running at nearly two hours, this sequel sails by pretty quickly without many speedbumps, and while it does play it safe by following a near-identical structure to tell its tale, “A Dog’s Journey” is a non-offensive, feel-good conclusion to a film that really didn’t need a sequel, but makes the first entry almost better because of the boost in character depth it provides. It’s far from perfect, and while I wish it would have taken way more chances off the beaten path that it did to create something closer to my cup of tea, it’s a pretty okay film.

If you liked the first one, check this one out. You’ll probably like this one, too.

“A Dog’s Journey”: 6.5/10

NEW REVIEW: "Brighburn" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Brightburn” (2019)

"TAKE. THE. WORLD..."

I can already tell that I’m probably going to be nicer to “Brightburn” than I should be based solely on the potential that this film had on its own merit, and a teaser it contains for the future that could be so awesomely bad-ass if given the chance to succeed.

I hope I don’t come to regret it.

***

So “Brightburn”, as anyone and everyone likely knows already, is a graphic horror twist on Superman’s arrival on Earth, except this cosmic visitor has a much different and darker destiny when it comes to his superpowers. If this had been provided as a PG-13 romp instead of Rated-R, it likely would have been pretty mediocre and generic; however, since they did go more balls-to-the-walls and let a twelve-year-old kid seriously mess up some people’s shit, it was decently entertaining.

You may have already heard that “Brightburn” doesn’t exact carry a lot of depth, even for a horror film, and those rumors are absolutely true. One could possibly argue that there’s a message behind the curtain about how orphans that are adopted can come with special sets of unique challenges due to multiple kinds of unstable backgrounds and upbringings, and regardless of that possibility, they should be loved and nurtured unconditionally no matter what. That, or, Brandon Breyer, the non-homicidal half of the titular character, is merely a spawn of a hostile alien race bent on death and destruction and nothing more. The audience can decide which one better suits them. Personally, the latter is a lot more fun.

In the story-proper, Tori and Kyle Breyer (Elizabeth Banks & David Denman), are a married couple in rural Kansas that have been trying desperately to conceive a child, but as of yet, they have been unsuccessful in doing so. One evening before another round of conception ceremony can begin, a strange foreign object crashes on their property. After inspection, the Breyers discover a tiny spacecraft containing what appears to be a human infant. Clearly alone and defenseless, the Breyers take the child in to raise him as their own.

For the first twelve years, the family grows and prospers really well together. Brandon is a friendly and highly intelligent pre-teen that Tori and Kyle couldn’t love more if they tried. However, on said twelfth birthday, the vessel that Brandon arrived in and has been locked away in storage by Tori and Kyle comes back to life and begins creepily communicating with Brandon’s mind; ushering in a darker and insidious nature within him that quickly escalates to Brandon committing one grisly murder after the next to those that cross his path in a way that he doesn’t like.

There’s obviously a little more that comes along and occurs in the Third Act, but seeing as the plot is already thin, I’ll keep the rest out of here.

The question of course now is – does “Brightburn” work as a horror twist on the superhero genre? For the most part, I think I can say “Yes”. I’m still on the fence as to whether or not it’s so much good as it is an intriguing curiosity. The pacing is certainly fine and consistent, and some of the kills were pretty awesome, too. There was one in particular involving glass that, while I won’t spoil the body part involved, pushed all of my squeamish buttons. Sincerely, it takes a lot to get me unsettled in my chair, and that scene got it done almost embarrassingly easy.

The acting was decent as well, with Elizabeth Banks carrying the bulk of the load as the believably devoted mother to Brandon. Speaking of Brandon/Brightburn, Jackson Dunn turns in a respectable performance as the kind child-turned-killing machine. He’s especially effective during his quieter moments when he has to use icy facial expressions to portray his burning menace. There are some areas that he still needs to grow in, though should this turn into some sort of series in the years to come, I believe he’ll do just fine.

Bringing me to my next point, I couldn’t help but feel that, despite being as violent and gore-heavy as “Brightburn” is, that Brian and Mark Gunn pulled some punches in the screenplay for the sole purpose of being able to up the ante in coming sequels. As I mentioned before, there’s a pretty killer tease in the final seconds of the film that point to a potentially batshit crazy sequel that I’m totally on-board for. When you think about it, that’s not an entirely illogical approach as long as the intention is to continue bringing the unhinged carnage in order to take Brightburn’s world to the next level.

Part of me wants to be a disappointed that this kickoff feature left me hungrier than I’d rather be after a thrill ride. Taking the recent first half of “IT” for example, sure, it made me super anxious for the second chapter in September, but it stands tall as its own film to fill the time between releases. As a piece of the whole, “Brightburn” might fit in cozily with those that may come later, but by itself, it’s not quite something that I can enjoy with multiple views.

Still, it brings a brisk and brutal turn to a cinematic landscape saturated with comic book films, so it’s a welcome change nonetheless.

“Brightburn”: 7/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: August 19th, 2019

 MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Long Shot” (2019)

I’m not sure which part of this is stranger; the fact that Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen play off each other much better than expected, or that fact that Theron does well at all in this movie. Don’t get me wrong, Theron is an outstanding actress, and yes, I know she’s been in comedies before. Whether the directors in past efforts didn’t know what to do with her, or she for some reason is naturally awkward in those situations, her performances haven’t seemed to work very well when trying to be funny. Jonathan Levine seems to have recognized this about her and tailored her arc to fit that characteristic perfectly.

Sure, Rogen is still somewhat typecast as the goofball in Fred Flarsky, but not nearly as much this time around as Fred tries to take his professional life fairly seriously. Theron’s character of Charlotte Field isn’t exactly stuffy, although, being hyper-focused on bidding to be the first female President of the United States makes her enough of an opposite to Flarsky that they mesh rather irresistibly throughout.

Interestingly enough, this film takes enough of an adult drama approach that, at least for me, there weren’t any gut-busting laughs, per se, but still enough comedy that really worked to keep me in a good mood. Also, hey, it turns out you actually can make comedies silly and wholesome at the same time without dick and vagina jokes. How bold!

I will conclude with, while I appreciated them, there were some not-so-subtle jabs at Trump and FoxNews that were more eye-rolling than successful. It’s kind of one of those things where you can’t out-stupid the source material.

I’d say definitely give this one a shot, no pun intended. There are worse ways to spend an evening.

“Long Shot”: 8/10

“The Curse of La Llorona” (2019)

No.

Let me count to you the ways of NO:

The ghoul looks nothing other than the Nun had a costume change.

The acting was okay, but with writing this lazy, it doesn’t matter one iota.

The so called loop into the “Conjure-verse” was cheap and tacky to the degree that I feel as though anybody that paid for a theater ticket should get refunded for such a blatant bait-and-switch.

The only “scares” are jump scares, and you could see every single one of the coming. And they all suck.

Did I mention lazy? Given the source material that could have been taped in to, it makes this piece of shit even more of a shell.

Fine; that one scene with the kids in the car was kind of suspenseful. Almost as suspenseful as when it looks the vending machine isn’t going to give you what you paid for. Almost.

No.

Just. No.

“The Curse of La Llorona”: 2/10

“POKEMON Detective Pikachu” (2019)

To say I’ve been out of the Pokémon loop for a while, I am talking clear back to the GAMEBOY days of “Ruby” and “Sapphire”. After that, they started making Pokémon that were lampshades or something, and I decided I had reached the end of my Pokémon ride. In all honesty, I cannot even remember which GAMEBOY model those two versions came out on without looking it up. I want to say it was the flip one that had the first built in lighting for playing in the dark, but I could be really off.

Look, I know, I’m getting older! Damn it. It has gotten to the point that I don’t even remember the original “Detective Pikachu” that this film is supposed to be based on; should that help paint an impressively more depressing picture.

Anyway, since I have been away from the scene for a while, the first few looks of this film were interesting, but also beyond bizarre. This is definitely one of those scenarios where it was either going to go really right or really wrong, and considering the track record of video game film adaptations, can one really fault anybody for being pessimistic?

Luckily, and perhaps surprisingly, I had a great time with this one. I have no idea why or how Ryan Reynolds works as the token cutest Pokémon, but he does, and he is easily the heart and soul of this movie. Quickly hearkening back to what I was just saying about being older, there were some Pokémon that I didn’t recognize at all and dismissed as easily, but seeing old faces like Charizard, Bulbasaur, Meotwo, Ditto, and a host of others, took me back to my GAMEBOY happy place.

The plot, as these things go, is a little thin despite trying to have something deeper to say about different species living together in harmony regardless of our differences (super subtle), yet I was absorbed up enough in it that I completely missed the main twist that isn’t hard to spot when paying close enough attention.

The CGI is pretty decent too, and the pacing stays nice and crisp enough that the whole thing feels like a breeze by the time it’s over. Other than some general silliness here and there that doesn’t contribute much, this is likely one of the best video game films so far – keeping in mind how low the bar was to begin with.

“POKEMON Detective Pikachu”: 8/10

“Wine Country” (2019)

Eh, I’m not lying when I say this one let me down quite a bit.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before, but “Wine Country” brings an ensemble cast of comedy veterans/friends together for an R-rated road trip story that is supposed to be a celebration of life as each are advancing into middle age, but instead all goes to shit because each brings some secret baggage along for the ride.

Truthfully, I am an easy lay when it comes to this, and the draw of Maya Rudolph and Amy Poehler (also directing) was all I needed to look forward to it. Sadly, the screenplay this time around is just not very good, and I mean that as in it’s a tease. Some scenes are an absolute riot; the most memorable one being the handing out of sex toys in a restaurant. That being said, the lulls in-between offer hardly a hint of flavor that I know all these actors are capable of killing without any effort. In fact, “Wine Country” is mostly the opposite – the jokes are entirely too forced and you can see it on the actors’ faces.  Having that happen once or twice is something that can be recovered from, but when it’s over and over and over again, I was out of it with a good twenty-ish minutes left to spare.

Poehler does show that she can be good behind the lens, and while the writing didn’t support this debut, I certainly hope she keeps going after it. Hollywood is in bad need for good comedy these days.

“Wine Country”: 4/10

“The Red Sea Diving Resort” (2019)

White saviors, white saviors, white saviors.

Ok, I got it out early just in case, because god forbid it doesn’t get mentioned.

Yes, there is no real way to spin this film away from the fact that very Caucasian men, and woman, helped save thousands of Jewish refugees from the Sudan. Yes, “Diving Resort” is an extremely loose telling of the actual events that took place, including the location. Nevertheless, I do have to exert some sarcastic retort to the lashings this film took early from mainstream critics, because a lot of Israelites are light-skinned and the real footage that played during the credits only proved that. Still, Chris Evans playing the hero in a story like this is kind of funny in an “eek, that’s severely Hollywood” way. But hey, he gets mostly nude a few times during the film, so small victories if you’re into that.

Putting all of that business aside, looking at “Diving Resort” strictly as it is, it’s a decently suspenseful thriller. It’s certainly not the best of its kind; in fact, the farther along it went, the more it morphed into the light beer version of “Argo”. The performances are good, and Gideon Raff can keep the tension up enough that I didn’t have any worries about seeing it through to the end and whether or not it would be worth it. That being said, there’s not much going on beneath the surface. The film presents itself exactly as it intends to be, and it never strays from that path.

Like I said, for all intents and purposes, it’s not bad. Surely there will be plenty that will want to tear it apart for its representation of various nationalities, and that’s their prerogative. As for me, I enjoyed it, but I’ll watch “Argo” instead from here on out.

“The Red Sea Diving Resort”: 7/10

NEW REVIEW: "Loving Vincent" (2017)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Loving Vincent” (2017)

In one word: Amazing.

In three words: A must see.*

In far more words: …

*** 

As soon as the end credits began to roll for “Loving Vincent”, I wanted to jump up and punch into this review that this is the coolest film I have ever seen. Before, however, I could make it up the stairs to my laptop, I had to take a breath to focus and realize that would be a far too general term for cinema. Then, I thought perhaps the coolest-looking animated film I have ever seen would be more appropriate, and if it’s not on top, it is sure as Hell in the Top Three.

“Loving Vincent” is not only awe-inspiring in presentation, but also a slightly better story short of a ninety-minute masterpiece. To my knowledge, this type of movie has never been done before, and truthfully, I’m astonished it was ever funded to exist in the first place. In this era of filmmaking, could one really imagine a pitch consisting of filming a feature about Vincent van Gogh where real life actors play out their respective parts, and then have all the scenes done over by a few hundred painters to make the entire film look like an in-motion Van Gogh painting? I guess in Europe, where hand-drawn animation is still a respected medium, that answer was a resounding “Yes!” For that, I can safely say, the film world is a better place thanks to it.

While the story of “Loving Vincent” obviously hearkens to the life of Van Gogh, and in this case specifically, rural France one year after his supposed suicide, the focus is more on Armand Roulin (Douglas Booth), whom is tasked by his postman father to deliver a letter written by Vincent to his brother Theo a few weeks before his death. Since apparently it was not illegal at this time to go through other people’s postage, the story of suicide feels odd to Armand since the tone in Vincent’s letter comes off as entirely too upbeat for someone considering the path of taking his own life.

Almost immediately, the plot turns from another routine mission for Armand into a plausible mystery caper or sorts. While at first it goes in a “What happened?” approach as to why Van Gogh would do such a thing to himself, it slowly becomes darker and more suspicious with each passing conversation Armand has with those that were with or spoke to Vincent merely days before his untimely end. Leads and stories passed on to Armand give the impression that perhaps it wasn’t a suicide at all, but instead, cold-blooded murder either out of jealousy for his remarkable talent or out of petty misunderstandings for his curious, introverted behavior. Eventually, Armand becomes so absorbed in finding the truth that he grows a complete disregard for his normal life to the point of losing his employment and his ability to afford proper housing.

I mentioned in the introduction that “Loving Vincent” was just short of a masterpiece due to its story, and while that is true from where I sit, it is still good enough. At no real point in time did I ever get the feeling that there was drag in the pacing or any particular scenes were time-wasting filler; however, I was left wanting more. Not necessarily in the way of anything needing to be added, but clearly there was enough material here to have made Vincent more present on the screen. Seeing as he’s the one we’re made to bleed our hearts out for, he was strangely absent.

It was pretty obvious by the end that the goal narrative-wise was to pull some tears out of the audience, and, sure, the man died in his prime and came across as a decent human being, so it’s going to be sad by default to a degree. I only speak for myself on this because I am a pretty tough egg to crack when it comes to the “feels” and getting the waterworks going in earnest, so it was a little disappointing that I didn’t get that soul tug that I was hoping would happen. Nevertheless, though, like I said, it is a story that is engaging enough, thanks in part to a solid performance by Douglas Booth, whom had carried nearly the whole thing. The supporting cast consisting of Saoirse Ronan, Chris O’Dowd, and Jerome Flynn were top-notch as well.

Moving on to the animation side of this review; this is where I would usually start geeking out, but honestly it’s difficult this time around. Sure, I could go on about how the wonders of rotoscoping helped these filmmakers painstakingly churn out easily one of the most original film visual concepts ever made, but I trust anybody reading this can use Google without my assistance.

What I can say is that, at least for me, this particular style takes a few minutes to get used to. I don’t know if any of you are trained in seeing oil paints move at high speeds with its various textures and contrasts of light and dark colors, but let’s just say it can be, for lack of a better term, dizzying. Fortunately, once that settles and eyes are adequately adjusted, the experience is a rather unforgettable one as one scene fluidly transforms into another. Even the expressiveness on the characters’ faces come through astonishingly well considering the slick, glossy appearances of the paint. This was my main concern going in, and I am very impressed with how well it translated. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s flawless, though I am certainly not artistically gifted enough to complain. Still, I think it’s safe to say that if Vincent were alive to see this, he would be proud.

You may have noticed the disclaimer asterisk that I placed up top with the statement of “Loving Vincent” being a must see. I put that out there for those whom are likely to know right off the bat if they are the type of viewer for a film like this. It’s not at all complicated and overly contemplative, but it is an art film, and those don’t generally appeal to mass sensibilities. However, if this does appear on the surface as something you’ve been curious about but haven’t pulled the trigger on yet, I strongly urge you to do so. This is the kind of project that makes film exciting; not just as it is, but what it can also become from here.

This is a feature that deserves all kinds of praise, and I certainly stand behind mine. Highly recommended!

“Loving Vincent”: 9/10

NEW REVIEW: The GODZILLA Anime Trilogy (2017-2018)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters” (2017)

“Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle” (2018)

“Godzilla: The Planet Eater” (2018)

Ah, anime – a medium that could take material like Godzilla to places it has not yet gone before in its decades-long history. It could have, and based on that alone, I think you know what’s next.

*** 

It is redundant to even complain about what passes for writing in a Godzilla film in 2019, right? As the series has moved along and grown over the years, the general acceptance appeared to be that audiences wanted to see Godzilla & Co. fight each other and destroy things while having just barely enough bad narrative to get by. The results were often silly, but hey, with continued advancements in technology and body suits, the entertainment factor held up nicely.

Now, with this new trilogy from Toho Animation, imagine roughly about ninety minutes worth of story stretched to nearly five total hours with some of the briefest and blandest Godzilla encounters mixed in with missed opportunities on top of missed opportunities. It is one thing for it to essentially be a rehash of the 1954 original “Godzilla” story about how the beast is a living embodiment of Earth’s revenge against the sins of humanity, except this time it is told through a newer, more colorful light. That’s completely fine with me, and to the screenwriters’ credit, there are a few items checked off in the Weird category; such as, Mechagodzilla taking the shape of a city and yet is somehow a living organism, and also, yes, really, an alien death cult. For a single feature-length film, that is not half-bad. For three films, however, it takes an eternity to reach its pinnacle with a finale you can see coming towards the end of “Planet of the Monsters”.

To flesh this out a little, the overarching story focuses on Haruo Sakaki – and Earthling that was forced to flee the planet as a small child due to Godzilla’s murderous rampage. With the humans finding it increasing difficult to sustain life on their ship and other planets, Haruo pledges to go back to Earth and rid it of Godzilla, for whom he has a seething hatred for and is his sole motivational arc throughout this entire trilogy, in order to give humanity a fighting chance to “take back what is theirs”. One of the only allies Harou has in this venture is Metphies, an alien priest whom uses his calm demeanor and so-called truths of a higher power to spark the spirits of what little military the humans have left to help exterminate Godzilla. Metphies has an unmistakably shady demeanor from the get-go, and when the battle with Godzilla finally starts to reach its breaking point, he adds a whole new dynamic of mammoth proportions to the fray that is kind of awesome.

I could easily add a few more odds and ends to the synopsis, but I’m not joking when I tell you that this is the main framework built to sustain a trilogy. Sure, Metphies can be interesting on occasion when he’s not spouting off the same religious lines over and over, but until literally the last twenty minutes or so of “The Planet Eater”, there’s not much for him to do other than to set brief plot devices in motion. It’s really kind of a shame, because he easily could have been used to add some much needed flavor to the first two installments.

Instead, we get to follow Haruo around the entire time – lucky us. Let me just say that if a one-note rage machine that tries to yell at and fail at killing Godzilla multiple times while on his path to pseudo-enlightenment, then by all means, get on the Haruo bandwagon. I may have lost count at some point due to my rapidly shrinking ability to give a crap anymore, but I’m fairly certain that at least twice during these three films, it is literally told right to Haruo that “THIS is why Godzilla is here. THIS is humanity’s fault”, and being the deductive being that he is, Haruo’s only response, as was his response to everything - “Fuck Godzilla!” I’m paraphrasing a little, but the dialogue could have used some F-bombs to keep the mood light.

There are of course other humans and characters in this show, although, seeing that they were all nothing by exposition-spewing robots, I am going to skip over all of that.

Moving on, let’s talk about the reason why anybody really watches these movies in the first place – The King. The Myth. The Legend. The One and Only GODZILLA. And the magnificent What-The-Fuck these films tried to make him out to be.

I have no idea how an animated Godzilla could have been created and approved to be this boring.

Not a single clue.

Allow me to paint the picture for you and save some time: He’s massive (cool), barely defined outside of his basic shape (not cool), never does anything outside of walking in a straight line slower than drying paint (seriously), and occasionally blast things (cool maybe the first two times). Should that not tickle you enough, he does engage in one Monster v Monster battle with Ghidorah in “Planet Eater”, and I say “Ghidorah” loosely seeing as he’s merely a three-headed hologram from a different dimension with no body. In case you are still somehow possibly wondering at this point, Ghidorah’s creature design is also about a dull as Godzilla’s, but hey, at least Ghidorah glows. Hoorah.

Basically, in a nutshell, the Godzilla anime trilogy is about humanity trashing the Earth and then getting pissed off and desperate that the Earth fought back to restore balance in the form of Godzilla; an alien death cult looking to destroy civilizations one-by-one with their Ghidorah deity for some dumbass reason; and a human named Harou right in the middle yelling at things and being emo in a way that’s supposed to tie up the first two points. Good God, er, Ghidorah?

Lastly, to end this review on a high note, not even the animation as a whole was much to write home about. It’s certainly nothing outside what the “Final Fantasy” or “Dead Space” films have already done. I feel like a broken record at this point, but how many synonyms are there for “bland”, “boring”, “listless”, “lifeless”, etc.?

Hopefully some Godzilla fans out there were able to get more out of this trilogy than I, but this has to be, without a doubt, one of the biggest disappointments on my viewing list so far in 2019. To be fair, it had moments here and there, and the whole occult vibe had something going for it had it not been half-baked. I am truly and utterly amazed what little was done with a palette of limitless possibilities like this. It’s damn near criminal.

“Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters”: 4/10

“Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle”: 3/10

“Godzilla: The Planet Eater”: 4.5/10

NEW REVIEW: "The Lion King" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Lion King” (2019)

Alright, let’s do this thing.

I didn’t see the new “Lion King” until the second weekend of its run, and even then, there were about eighty new reviews per day on social media ranking it, on average, as either “pretty good” or the “worst thing Disney has ever done”. Intentionally, I waited to put my take out until the dust had a chance to settle from both the masses and in my mind, because this remake was a momentous event in cinema regardless of emotions pre- or post-viewing. I honestly loved sitting back for a while and watching the film community buzz the loudest it has in years, regardless of negative or positive commentary.

As everyone and their dead relatives know by now, since this new version of “The Lion King” wasn’t altered all that much from the original 1994 material, I’m going to approach this review a little differently than I usually do as there’s not much benefit in rehashing on what does and doesn’t work with the story and its various beats. Instead, I am going to list out what my favorite and not-so-favorite things about this remake were, and put a nice bow on it afterwards.

Cool?

Cool.

THE POSITIVES:

-          The Animation – Duh. The trailers for this film alone were enough to indicate that this was going to be one of the most jaw-dropping studio animation productions ever made. For somebody like me that is a dork when it comes to these things, “The Lion King” was nothing short of mesmerizing. I wouldn’t say it was entirely “realistic” across the board, especially with the lion cubs, and oddly, adult Nala for some reason, didn’t quite look as solid as Mufasa, Scar, and the other background wildlife. Nevertheless, from the crawling ant, the leaping antelope, and all the way down to the giraffe dung ball carrying Simba’s fur (super cool scene), this was a job well-done for the ages and will be taking home all kinds of hardware during award season.

-          Scar – I fucking LOVED Scar in this remake. Oh, he doesn’t sound like Jeremy Irons? Well, for the rest of my life, there will now be the Jeremy Irons “Scar” and the Chiwetel Ejiofor “Scar”, and they will live together in harmony. I thought his design in this film was brilliant, and he even got a few new shadow scenes that were borderline scary. Additionally, Ejiofor brought a Shakespearean touch to the role that I felt totally worked. Considering this was the dynamic of the film that I was most concerned about seeing that Scar is my favorite character in the original, this reworking far surpassed my expectations.

-          The Hyenas – If we had gotten about another thirty minutes in their world, I would have been fine with it. To attach the term “bad-ass” to any character in this film, it belongs to none other than Shenzi. Sadly we only got a few glimpses of her in that position, but to have her in her own alpha dynamic – including over Scar if you think about it – she was both intimidating and commanding of all her scenes. Realism was clearly one of the top goals of this movie, and should one watch a National Geographic documentary or two, hyenas are not to be taken lightly in the wild even when it comes to lion competition. While I think this could have been pushed further to the forefront, the film overall did a good job of making the pack something to be feared whilst still keeping some of comedy of the first film intact.

-          The Voice Acting – Obviously I’ve already spoken to Ejiofor, but some of the other standouts were Donald Glover (Adult Simba), James Earl Jones (Mufasa again), Alfre Woodard (Sarabi), Florence Kasumba (Shenzi), John Oliver (Zazu), Billy Eichner (Timon), and Seth Rogen (Pumbaa). There were of course others that were good as well, but in my mind, this batch best embodied their respective creatures. I know this film has been much maligned for the animals’ inability to emote; however, taking into consideration how difficult it must have been to rely solely on voices to carry out all the emotion and character vibrancy, this group did a fantastic job doing just that. On an added note, I’m not at all shy to say that Glover took Simba to a whole new level of sexy and suave that Matthew Broderick could not. Oh, and before anybody gives that look of “’Sexy’ in a children’s film??” you know damn well there were crushes on ’94 Mufasa. Don’t even try to lie to me.

-          The Music – Alright, before you bite my head off on this one, it only applies to a few. “The Circle of Life” came back just a strong thanks to a lovely performance by Lindiwe Mkhize, which isn’t at all surprising given her already awesome performance of said song in the Broadway production; “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” worked pretty well considering the animals weren’t dancing on top of each other in an acid trip of colors; lastly, I got a big kick out of “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” and the montage of animals joining in the fray to add some volume.

-          Jon Favreau’s Brass Kahunas – Look, no matter your perspective on this project and its legitimacy in film culture for years to come, you have to at least appreciate the magnitude of this risk Jon Favreau took on here. Something like “The Jungle Book” is easier to get away with, and clearly boosted his confidence to take on a project like this. Even if he received a massive paycheck and “The Lion King” turned out be a massive piece of garbage, a move like this can be a career-burner. Sure, not all audiences and critics loved this one, but I like that Jon went against the odds and came still smelling pretty rosy.

THE NEGATIVES:

-          “Be Prepared” – I keep going back and forth on this one, because I highly doubt that the same theatrics during this number in the 1994 version would have carried over  to this one very well at all, so I can understand the thought process behind the “spoken-word” approach. That being said, it still didn’t work and ultimately felt entirely too limp for such an important scene. There’s not much more I can say about this missed opportunity to bring more heft.

-          Cringe in the Gorge – I am mainly referring to the flashback of Simba’s “NOOO!” scene where the camera panes away in cheesy awfulness. If you’ve not seen this film yet and you still plan to, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to suffer through that three seconds like the rest of us.

-          Adult Nala – This is going to sound like nitpicking, and that’s probably because it is. I didn’t have any issues with her character or Beyonce’s voice work. Both of those were fine. In fact, they made some rather positive adjustments to her overall presentation to make her bolder and stronger. I’m not entirely sure how they would have done any differently, but every time her mouth moved on-screen, it looked mechanical, whereas most other animals looked more natural, as ridiculous as that sounds. No matter what the angle or lighting, Nala, to me, just didn’t look right.

-          “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” – Beyonce’s and Glover’s voices went together like hot gravy on mashed potatoes. It was in the afternoon, though. Why? Why, Jon?

-          The Absence of the “Morning Report” Song – I’m just messing with you. That song sucks. Thank Neptune it wasn’t in here.

Assuredly, there are a few things in both categories that I am forgetting or that you feel you should be in there, but I think that covers most of it.

Overall, I dug this reboot, and I do not say that often when it comes to reboots – even Disney. As far as 2019 goes, I didn’t care for “Dumbo” at all, and “Aladdin” was mostly decent, but it had flaws up the wall, too. “The Lion King” does perhaps benefit from playing it safe and sticking close to the original script. Also, taking into account that different doesn’t necessarily mean better nor good, I have to counter the claims that this version is “soul-less” and call bullshit on it – this version is different. It had to be, and frankly, I don’t understand why that’s somehow automatically a fault.

Would dancing animals not look slightly ridiculous in something that is trying to look like it came straight from location in the African savannah? Did everyone want the animals to look like they did in “Mowgli”, i.e., terrifying (no offense, Serkis)? Given the amount of effort that went into this production, “soul-less” would seem more like a projection, no?

At the end of the day, this film it what it is. I’m pretty good at compartmentalizing and seeing two films with the same name in two different packages. I believe this one was made with enough care and style that I will sometimes want to watch this one instead of the 1994 version; just like I’ll want to watch the 1994 version ahead of this one. Depending on my mood, that is likely how it’s always going to be for now on.

The big question now, for me, is what Disney is going to do with these achievements moving forward. Make no mistake; the studio was flexing its muscles with this one, on the beach, lathered in baby oil, without a scrap of shame. That’s all well and good, but will they do more with it? We know they can, and really from here, they must. Stick this technology and dedication to a new idea, and movies will be taken to the next level just like “Avatar”, “Jurassic Park, “Jaws”, etc., did back in their day. Both “The Jungle Book” and “The Lion King” can be seen as the pioneers that started the next evolution, but Disney and other such giants cannot let the opportunity rust with more of the same.

You’re move, Hollywood. We the Audience are waiting.

“The Lion King”: 8/10