Change Your Image
emmammurphy-77540
Reviews
The Lion King (2019)
About what you'd expect
I was never a huge fan of the original Lion King. I can't exactly place why, but it never appealed to me the same way that it does to hundreds of thousands of other people. I had no desire to watch this movie, nor did anyone else I knew. It was inherently known by most that this remake was unnecessary at the very least. People complained a lot before it came out. People complained a lot after. The movie still made money, and so the circle of lethargy continues.
I just got around to watching it, and I tried to keep an open mind: it's the least I can do, but it's near impossible not to make comparisons to the original film especially when so much cinematography and dialogue is lifted straight out of it.
The first thing you'll notice upon watching it is that it's a very impressive looking movie. Some shots looks straight out of National Geographic, while some are not as impressive those ones are few and far between. There's a variety of environments, all teeming with atmosphere, and life. Everything moved believably too. I was surprised how quickly I got used to this aesthetic.
But it's been pointed out before that this leads to a lack of expressiveness. Traditional animation is typically warmer, more fluid, more inviting than CGI, but compared to other CG films this still feels lacking. It's hard to be invested in these creatures when it doesn't appear that they're invested most of the time. None of the character or charm of the original is found here.
Voice acting is hard. You have to convey a lot using a very limited tool set compared to stage acting, and trust that the performance will translate to the audience. Not everyone here is a voiceover artist - through no fault of their own, it's just a different medium. I don't know if professional voiceover artists could have mitigated this issue: there are line deliveries here that are good, but still felt flat and incongruent with what we're seeing. Without expression, it does push for body language, music, lighting, and environments to convey those missing aspects of the story, and that could be an intriguing creative push. Stories inherently come from characters, though, and if we can't connect to those characters, it doesn't matter what else you throw at your audience.
The other thing straight from the start is that this is a very slow movie. I was looking at my watch at some points, because it can become very apparent what's fluff, what's padding. Some of it felt like it was just showing off the technology, what it could do.
When you see these amazing visuals, you hear these celebrity voices, the one thought that was in my head ad nauseum was "This was a very expensive movie." That really takes you out of the immersion.
What's interesting to me is how they changed the characters. I liked these hyenas more than in the original film. They felt more dangerous, they just had a bigger presence that permeated throughout the film. More autonomy, I suppose. It helps make the ruin of Pride Rock feel more natural, since the hyenas had led their own homeland to ruin.
I grew to be very irritated by Zazu. I like John Oliver, but Zazu wasn't as smart, or as snarky as I remember the original being - traits that also play to Oliver's strengths. Most of his dialogue felt more like a caricature, like this persnickety British worrywort we've seen in countless other movies. It doesn't fit well into this at all. It might've been to make us root more for Simba, but I don't think you should drag others down to make your lead more attractive. Rafiki doesn't have his speech here: he could have been cut from the movie entirely and it would have changed nothing.
I also didn't care for Timon that much. I didn't care for the fourth wall breaks, he always had something negative to say. Pumbaa and him are excellent foils for each other, but Simba feels out of place here. Maybe that's intentional. Timon puts blame on others and refuses to acknowledge his own mistakes - something that Scar does repeatedly, but it's somehow okay for this character?
They spent some time more on Timon's philosophy, where life is meaningless, so you may as well have fun. They also infer that this philosophy is wrong, that there's only one correct way of thinking and that's the circle of life, but without ever explaining why. "It's not like we were concerned for you" - this could have been a message like you're not just living your life for yourself, but for other people as well. If those people help you find meaning in your life, find something to fight for, it could have been a powerful arc that brings the duo to the climax in a more natural way. But they don't do that. They're just there because they were in the original.
I did like the Beauty and the Beast allusion: I wasn't expecting that, and I found it funny. For any other musical number aside from Circle of Life which was the best of the bunch, refer to the original movie, because there is a lot of oversinging and riffing to the point of being annoying.
There were points in the story where I felt like this is very dated, in the sense where some of the dialogue feels especially rooted in modern colloquialism. It's just something that stood out to me. Some of the modernizations work: it's more logical that every lion would fight, I enjoyed seeing Nala leave the Pridelands. I didn't find her as repulsive as everyone else, and I didn't even mind her song Spirit.
But the modern sensibilities only apply to bits and pieces, not the story as a whole. It's still "good versus evil", "right versus wrong".
Scar contradicts himself. He says that he isn't very strong, but raves on about the society he'll build where the mighty get what they want. He also says he's fairly smart, but he goofs up at the end, and it undermines his entire character and everything he did up to that point. He has a big presence on the screen, he's interesting to watch and listen to, but I felt like they could have made his motivation more consistent and deeper than what's shown.
The hyenas are still widely accepted as a malevolent force with no attempts made to unify the two cultures, and no justification for the segregation in the first place. The whole movie still ends in a bout of fisticuffs. Simba still gets the girl even if it doesn't feel like a fitting conclusion this time around.
It felt like I was taken back in time.
They didn't take risks, there were no creative liberties. Which seems... Odd. There's always backlash to these remakes, this one especially was hit hard. Why not have a legitimate reason to make these retellings: something to distinguish them besides the aesthetic?
This is everything that you're expecting it to be, and nothing more.
The Greatest American Hero (1981)
A Classic Full of Wit, Charm, and Heart
I should admit that I was not part of the demographic that watched this series during its original airing, so I don't have the same experience as many reviewers.
Taking a look at popular culture from the past gives us a different perspective on history: it's a commentary from the creators for an audience living in that time. Experiencing any old book or show is likely the most connected you'll ever be to that era. The best kinds of stories transcend time. They will never so heavily dated that the inherent meaning is no longer understood. But how relevant The Greatest American Hero is still came as a surprise.
Superheroes are a dominant cultural force, leaping from the page to television, and movies. I feel like they're especially prevalent in the MCU era, and many content providers are throwing their hat in the ring to cash in on the craze.
Of course, parodies exist. Even without internet culture, there are plenty of shows that poke fun of those tropes. Conceptually, just on the surface level, this show could exist today and fit right in, but few of these kinds of parodies are considered "good".
I consider this show "good", at the very least. Not for the contemporary premise, but for the quality content within it. Despite having tonnes of humour suitable for most ages, the majority of which still is still funny decades later, it's not just joke after joke. For how silly it can get, there is a sense that it's grounded in some reality, occasionally becoming dramatic, suspenseful, and complex. There are no big bombastic supervillains: you have character centred stories, or otherwise high stakes political thrillers that were common during the Cold War. Even the most predictable plots are engaging, and have something worth sticking around for. You get continuity, it isn't just a reset after every episode.
The casting choices are excellent, and they bring a lot of humanity to the show. You do grow to care about everyone you meet. The cast also is surprisingly diverse for the time that it was made: not only representing different people, but giving them important roles, and consistent characterization. The chemistry between the core cast is fantastic, and the show wouldn't be the same without it. Dialogue is pretty snappy, nothing feels out of place or that there are scenes that overstay their welcome.
Music isn't bad either: they write a new song for each episode. Sometimes it fits, sometimes it's a little distracting. The most distracting and overplayed joke is flight, though people seem to remember that fondly, so make of that what you will.
Believe it or not, you'll likely know whether or not this is your cup of tea by the first episode, but it's worth it to continue watching. There's a reason why people remember this show with such fondness, how their eyes will light up at the mention of the title. There are good morals here without being too preachy, the whole atmosphere of the show is uplifting.
If you have the time, this is something worth checking out.
Dragon Quest: Your Story (2019)
What a trip
I have a basic knowledge of Dragon Quest. I played through IX on the DS, and have seen bits and pieces from others. I watched this film with my brother, who played plenty more Dragon Quest than I have, but neither of us had played through V before: the game this movie was based on, and one of the most beloved in the series' long history.
Knowing how big RPGs just as a genre are, it is wholly impressive that this team managed to fit it into an hour and a half. Especially because this story in particular spans about 30 years or so. I think they did the best they possibly could, with one minor exception, but it's pretty clear that this leads to some pacing issues. It's a little slower in the beginning, but even so, everyone is talking to move the story forward: there's never more than two seconds of silence to digest what just happened. They throw a lot of information at you, and they ask for a lot of your attention. Eight years goes by in about a minute, but we don't really have time to explore the world, how it's changed, what impact that has, because we're onto the next mission.
Probably mitigated if you played the game, and are intimately familiar with the plot. There were a few times in the movie where I thought "Wow, this would make for a really great game," but I don't know if the experience translates so well to a feature length film.
I'm not as familiar with anime, but I felt like some of those tropes were a little intrusive: notably choosing the hand of the heavenly bride. That segment in particular, even though it's important in the long run, felt like it was distracting from Luka's main quest in the moment.
Luka himself wasn't too compelling of a character. Much of the beginning was him complaining, or giving in when things got tough. You're going to be much more involved in his circumstances rather than the character, which I guess is true to the silent protagonist. There's no time for real character building anyway.
I thought it was a good call to fast forward through the intro via the video game styled opening. Rather than just used for pandering, it was functional: giving the audience a glimpse into the history of this universe while easing fans into this this new interpretation.
Dragon Quest V never saw a release out in the west until the remakes due to poor sales, and the additional demands an English translation would put on an SNES cartridge. Despite that, a lot of the plot elements are pretty predictable. The series is the gold standard for other RPGs, and it is a thirty year old game. It could be more noticeable because of how condensed the plot is, but I can't say that this is too far off from my DQ experience either. From what I gather, they stay really close to the source material.
But, even so, DQ has always been about experiencing the journey: exploring new worlds with your troupe. There has always been a lot of quirky charm, either through the dialogue, or monster designs. That part is true to form. I loved the soundtrack: this orchestra pulls from all over the series' long history, and even some stuff you wouldn't expect like the bad luck sound effect from Fortune Street. It reminded me of playing the games, and it was just a good, whimsical, wonderful feeling to be sucked back into this world.
This is also an impressive looking movie. I got used to the new designs pretty quickly, but the standout element for me was the textures. You could see unique skin pigmentation, which I can't think of another animated movie that does that. I guess it's one of the benefits of using CGI. The lighting is also great for establishing the tone of the scene, and the visual effects, especially in the last third, are incredible. But everything happens so quickly, and you have to remember so much, that you can't really take it in. Everything is moving. I'm sure the landscapes are also beautiful, but I can't remember more than two establishing shots of locations. We're so centred on Luka and his journey that much of the cinematography is focused on him, so he's almost all I remember seeing two days after initial viewing.
I think the realism in this case works best for the message of the ending.
Most people would agree that the number one rule of creating fiction would be to never acknowledge that the work is fiction. It can feel like an insult to the people who invested so much of themselves and their time into the experience.
However, it's better to keep an open mind: there are always exceptions to these rules. When it's clever, when it's done right, it could work. And it's sort of the point for any creative endeavour to evoke a reaction from people, no matter what that might be.
When the heavenly hero threw the blade through the gate to Nadiria(?) everything went quiet for the first time in the film. Things stopped moving for the first time in the film. Because we were so invested in the story up to this point, me and my brother were completely still as well. For the first time, we weren't exactly sure what to expect. It stopped following clichés of the genre.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that it came completely out of nowhere. Across the last third, you got a few hints that this was a story that happened many times before. They point this out in the dialogue. Initially I thought maybe this was a nod to the other games in the Zenithian arc, but it makes more sense that it was the virus who was corrupting the core programming to be more meta. I imagine you could catch a lot more information in the second or third viewings, not just relevant to this plot point.
I don't know who Nimzo was supposed to be. I can't recall the name of the wizard who was the villain before. But the expectation was that the world was at stake, and I think that expectation was met. Surpassed, even.
"Textures off. Gravity off. Collision data off." No matter how powerful we were told to believe Nimzo could be, I don't think he could have topped that. There was just this unsettling feeling about seeing it happen: this brazen display of power that was so simple for our new villain to do. It was so unnatural to this world, and in that moment, that's when we were able to most connect with our main character.
As an aside, technology going wrong is one of my bigger irrational fears, so I may have gotten some nightmares out of this scene.
The core message is good too. John Lennon said: "Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." and it's applicable here. It's okay to follow your passions no matter what other people think, and it's important to be kind to yourself too. It's especially relevant for today's world.
Just like with the silent protagonist, the audience was supposed to imprint themselves on Luka, to really follow through on the "your story" subtitle, applying it both to the fictitious world, and the real one. It's a lovely thought.
The visuals across the board were great here. It's definitely memorable.
My brother and I both laughed when the slime turned out to be an antivirus program, and then transformed into Erdrick's sword from the first game. It's silly, but that's kind of on brand.
It felt a little anticlimactic too, though.
This part needed more time. But every part in this movie needed more time.
I could definitely see this being divisive, and angering a lot of people who were looking for that fantastical escapism, or looking for a completely faithful recreation of the climax. My brother didn't like it much either.
But then, you might be more encouraged to try out the actual game. Or rather, re-experience it. I feel like the film crew should be allowed to have some level of personalization on this project, and this little love letter to the fans wasn't the worst thing to go out on. It could have been expanded on, for sure, but like the games, it's more about the journey. We definitely went on a journey.
I don't know if I could recommend it to anyone, I don't know if I would watch it again. But I'm happy it exists.
What we got was one of the best video game to movie adaptations that we could hope for. It's surprising how much these films have changed in the last couple years. Games are a big part of our culture, with passionate fans who are just looking for that respect to the source material. Like Luka. I'm glad that the film industry is recognizing that these stories are just as meaningful as books, or comics, or television, so we can have that diversity. Find new ways to enjoy what we love, and introduce new audiences to it.
Frozen II (2019)
An Exciting Time for Film
Any time that you have a story rooted in mythology, likely, the plot itself won't be especially interesting. These stories are thousands of years old, and have been reinterpreted numerous times. Modern storytelling is loosely based on these myths, for example, once you know Superman it's difficult to go back, and watch Disney's Hercules. But having classical mythology be so fundamental, and so to the forefront of the movie makes it difficult to apply many twists and surprises.
So the lacklustre storyline, to me at least, was understandable. That was the direction that they were going with, and I don't think they did it any disservice.
This film joins a pretty exclusive club. Disney doesn't do theatrically released sequels often: the only others are Rescuers Down Under, Ralph Breaks the Internet, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh if you wish to count it. Despite everyone's outcry that sequels are creativity killers, I don't mind the idea of revisiting some of these characters and worlds. I don't think I'd mind too badly if they did more from time to time, so long as it isn't a huge marathon of them like Pixar had down, or currently like their live action remakes.
I was a huge fan of the first movie. I knew that it would be difficult to create a sequel to such a worldwide phenomenon, the expectations would be unfairly high. And I think knowing that this would be John Lasseter's swan song, and the final Disney film of the decade, just set them even higher.
I felt good watching it in theatres, but after I walked out, and started thinking critically about what I saw, things started to fall apart. I wanted to wait until some time had passed, and another rewatch, before I formed a concrete opinion on this film.
There are two areas that I found the most problems with.
Stories inheritly come from the idea that people are interesting. A lacklustre plot is made forgivable if the characters we follow are engaging. These are not the same characters that we left in the last movie, and even if some of these changes feel unnatural, it would be fine if they were given interesting things to do.
The worst offender of this is Kristoff. My personal favourite "Disney Prince" is Naveen, but I have a soft spot for this guy, because I feel like he's a very interesting character, even if the writers don't.
Leading up to the movie, Disney bragged "Oh, isn't this great? We're telling dudes that it's okay to have feelings and to express them," which, although a great lesson, is a slap in the face to the company's vast history of characters. So that also set an expectation.
Kristoff had lived practically alone in the mountains for almost all his life. He wants very little to do with people, even to the point of lacking empathy for them, which is such a great contrast to Anna, and part of why their chemistry worked so well in the first film. It makes sense, because he's likely only seen people harvest nature for personal gain, or in the case of the trolls, only show up when they need something. He also probably has a vast knowledge of nature and magic, which isn't utilized at all.
There was an opportunity in the film where he met Ryder who was genuinely wanted to help him, and had similar interests. This could have broken open his character so much, because it challenges him and his perspective, but it never leads anywhere.
His goal is "Get the girl". That's all. And I thought we moved past that, in this franchise, anyway. His song "Lost in the Woods" is absolutely fantastic in sound and lyric, but they cut him out of the movie right afterwards. I didn't think they meant that title literally. And you need engaging visuals in these songs, and you need to intersperse humour in there, I understand, but the music video cheapened the importance of what they were trying to accomplish. His feelings, and expressing them, turned into a joke, and it's such an outlier visually to anything else in this movie or the last.
But here's the thing. Couples should be a partnership, with equal back and forth. What does Anna offer Kristoff? Each time they're together, she doesn't seem interested in anything he has to say, jumps to conclusions, and pushes him away.
I know that Anna is supposed to be a bit naïve, but this is the only time she's like this, and it's annoying. Every other time we see her, she's much more calm. It's like two different characters. They took away a lot of her charm and humour in order to fit the mature tone, although she has good moments, she doesn't stand out as a character until the very end, where they suddenly remembered "Oh, right, Anna. Doll #2"
Kristoff saves her life on more than one occasion, on top of being genuinely caring about her situations, and working to find a solution for them. Anna gives him nothing. Supposedly she's more cautious, but as soon as he asks for her hand, she says yes. It felt like I missed something, especially because the last guy who asked for her hand betrayed her, I thought she'd be more apprehensive. It would be a better contrast to the flashback at the beginning when she was playing and made every single snow doll marry each other, and show how much she's grown. Instead of marrying purely because she likes the idea of being married. It would suit that more mature tone, and everything she said up to that point, and another good moral, but no. They made this relationship so toxic.
The humour in this film seems artificial and generic compared to the prior film. Lots of moments were cringey. Referencing the first film, using those clips, just reminded me that I could be watching that instead. Even Olaf was more of an exposition machine than comic relief, and I don't think he really added anything to the experience.
My other issue with this film is the ending. Some people love it: taking Elsa from a danger to her kingdom to being its protector. I like that they left elements up to audience interpretation, and it's Anna's finest moment, even if it's super rushed. It's Elsa's sudden deus ex machina that I take issue with.
It's cheap. I don't care for the song "Some Things Never Change", but it was a good mechanism to reintroducing is to this world, where these characters are now, settling us into the themes. Visually there was a lot of foreshadowing to other elements in the film. There was a huge part in that song about Arendelle and how it's flag will always fly, and it was super out of place. There was great importance put on that, but no payoff. They allude to change this whole film, and yet nothing much changes from the beginning of the film. Each character gets exactly what they want with no substantial hardships.
We never see much of Arendelle anyway: we aren't super attached to this kingdom. But we are, or should be, invested in this conflict. Arendelle itself was already in danger of destruction. How interesting would it be if Anna became queen of a kingdom that literally had to start over from scratch? Where she had to rule over bitter subjects with Kristoff at her side as her one comfort? A lasting consequence that challenges the audience, our characters, and provides a possible response to how much responsibility we need to take for our ancestors' actions. What the next right thing really means, and what we're willing to do for it.
Some of the dialogue was great, and we've never seen moments like it before in this kind of movie. I felt like some story elements could have gotten more focus, some a little less, but that's about it for the writing side of things.
It seems like the fans of the first got to shape how this one turned out. I remember a lot of people questioned why the first needed to have a villain, and here, there isn't any. People got upset that Kristoff didn't get a song, and here, he sings three. A huge complaint of the first was that there was no people of colour, and now we have Matias and the Northuldra people. Showing that you value what your audience has to say is really cool.
Every other element is done exceptionally well. The visual effects are absolutely stunning. It's amazing how much technology has changed in the last six years, and I could not give enough credit to that amazing team, because they practically made the whole movie. The locations are beautiful too, even though there isn't a tonne of variety, there is some creativity there, and wonderful colours that allow the costumes to pop. The voice acting is pretty good, though takes a second to get used to the replacement voiceiver artists in the beginning. I mentioned some of the songs already. Some people really like "Show Yourself", but it didn't register in the same way for me. I don't know if I'd say it beats out the original, but I like much of this score.
This wasn't an easy film to make, and I'm shocked how well it turned out to be, despite my issues with it. The trailers delivered almost everything that they promised: uncovering mysteries, character growth, and the promise of high stakes, all while giving us these stunning visual moments. It's clear that they put a lot of effort and care into this film, and I think we can appreciate that as an audience.
I hope this movie leads to more diverse storytelling from the company in the future. For the most part, I liked this direction, and I'd be excited to see them do more experimental projects like this.
It's a new decade. Let's see what Disney does with it.
Birds of Prey and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn (2020)
Does the idea of an all-female Deadpool 2 reboot excite you?
Then you'll probably like this movie fine. Granted, it's not an exact comparison, but the humour, plot elements, character archetypes, themes, even editing decisions are all reminiscent, and for me, it was at the point of distraction. When they were directly copying beats from Deadpool, it felt shoehorned in. The only thing that it doesn't quite copy, oddly enough, is how graphic the violence can be. This movie could be PG-13, and not lose much. It's not necessarily a bad direction: after all, DC has been criticized in the past for being too dark and edgey, and taking itself so seriously. Shazam and Aquaman have started to turn the tides a little.
If you're a casual fan of DC, then you'll likely recognize these characters from shows like Gotham or Arrow, but if you're completely new to this universe, this movie does a great job of summarizing their backstories. One of the largest flaws with Suicide Squad were too many characters with so little time devoted to them that they were difficult to keep track of, let alone form legitimate connections to them. Fortunately, DC learns from their previous endeavours, and responds to their fanbase, which I think is really cool.
Returning from Suicide Squad is Harley Quinn: the Joker's right hand woman. Coming back to this universe after the Joker's solo outing is a little jarring, but Margot Robbie fits the role like a glove. I like the scenario that they gave us. I'm sure it's been explored many times in other media, but I thought that it felt natural to the characters, to the world: it was a great set up, and it was, at least to me, very reminiscent of a comic book in how that aspect was portrayed.
This is also an origin story for the Birds of Prey. We've had a lot of superhero origin stories as of late, and this one is pretty unconventional. Kind of (but not really) like watching X-Men Origins from the point of view of one of the guys they saved. Because so much of this movie is centered on Harley, and granted, she ties most of the cast together, but the core character of each Bird of Prey is a joke, or follows an aspect of patriarchy, with the exception of Cassandra Cain. Badass motorcycle riding crossbow wielding mafia princess? A complete try hard. A cop who's accomplishments have gone uncredited for years struggling to serve her city due to the lack of an encouraging work environment? Only speaks in 80s cop dialogue. Backstories that could have been interesting feel especially glanced over.
Again, at least these characters have recognizable character traits, unlike Suicide Squad. Honestly, I don't even mind their portrayal all that much: the actors do a great job of making their characters feel deeper than the writing allows. It's a way to weave humour in, and allows non-Harley portions to be slightly more engaging, instead of one note slogs. I connected to some characters more than Harley, and though I would have loved to learn more, I think anything extra would have been detrimental to the flow of the movie. What it is works fine.
The movie will halt the story to go back in time to exposit plot information. Having a character as our narrator, it feels a little less awkward than it could have. Some of it feels redundant, and there's one inconsistency that really bugged me throughout, but you're not going to get lost in this story: it's pretty straightforward stuff.
Ewan McGregor is a fantastic actor. His character, on paper, is the blandest villain archetype that you will ever see, with no real motivation, and no surprises. But he does a great job: there are moments with him, one or two in particular, that make you feel genuinely uncomfortable.
It's colourful, the fight sequences are fun. The biggest goal of this movie was to be a female empowerment piece. There's a lot of danger to be had in that, a lot of scrutiny that the movie is putting itself under. It's not a great thing when you have to point out "Look how progressive we're being!", or demonizing half the population to make the other half look more in the right. It's very understandable if you get sick of it. The goal is equity, but examples of that are hard to come across in feature film.
Here are a couple of things that I liked in that regard:
- Showcasing a diversity of women, specifically ages. Not every character is 20 something with perfectly done makeup in skin tight spandex. Most are, but not all, and it's baby steps in challenging the standard for how females are represented.
- Allowing these characters to have imperfect lives. Big greasy breakfast sammies, cocaine, laxatives, and other such aspects that you wouldn't typically associate with female characters. Just little things that ground us in this world.
- Harley Quinn offering Black Canary a hair tie in the middle of the climax. I don't think we've ever seen anything like that before: not only is it practical, but it alludes to this deeper sense of community, this willingness to help one another out no matter who you are. That's a good message. Small gesture, but big meaning.
We should always strive to judge something for what it is, not for what we want it to be. Is this a great film? No. But everyone I went with had the same reaction: "Huh. That was better than I thought." It's not a long film, and the hour and a half isn't completely devoid of anything worthwhile. I probably won't be watching again, but I can't get as angry or hateful as some of the other reviews.
You know what does make me angry? There are screenshots going around the internet of fans of this movie attacking the Sonic movie (which isn't even out as of writing) for having racial and homophobic slurs, allegedly in an attempt to keep Birds of Prey at the top of the box office. Some of them are jokes. Some are not.
If you're one of those fans who are seeking validation, you're not going to find it here. Likely nothing in this review will change your viewpoint, but these actions go against the entire aspiration for Birds of Prey: striving for a better world in which working together, and supporting each other are normalized behaviours.
Films are art, and each person should be entitled to their own interpretation, but it's always better to give it a fair shot first. It's sad when films are bogged down by controversy, especially when it's something so petty, and it's going to leave far more of a bad taste and impact Birds of Prey more than anything in the film's runtime.
The Grinch (2018)
Not bad
I watched this movie a year after it's initial release. All through 2018, from the very first poster, to the latest trailers, people were criticizing this film. I had low expectations when I first started playing it, not enjoying Illumination's The Lorax. Illumination is like a Diet DreamWorks, with it's reliance on celebrity cast, low brow humour, and predictable storylines. I think they have the ability to blend these elements together better than DreamWorks (here, for instance), and there's no denying the influence that their movies have had on pop culture over the years. There's a lot in this movie that mimics other Illumination movies, notably the art style. If you're a fan of the humour in that film, you'll find a lot of it here.
It was brave of them to attempt this movie, knowing that the original story resonates so strongly with so many people. It feels as though they really poured everything they could into this film, celebrating all versions of the story.
The biggest positive for this movie is the portrayal of Christmas. The design of Whoville is absolutely stunning, I love how the town is more vertical so we can really see the whole thing. There are decorations everywhere, though it never feels visually distracting. Since much of the background is white, we have all of these bright vivid colours that really pop. The long swooping establishing shots do such a fantastic job of firmly planting us in this environment, and establishing the atmosphere. The unsung hero is the lighting. On the tree, at night, or the warm glow inside a window: it feels very magical, and very nostalgic.
I was pleasantly surprised by their interpretation of Cindy Lou. This movie gave her more to do, and gave the audience a stronger reason to connect with her. Because we have all this time with her, the climax becomes more impactful, her words have more value as a character foil.
There are two major issues with this movie. One is that it needed more time devoted to the most important aspects.
Cindy Lou's major motivation is her mother, and though we got two scenes establishing that plot point, I feel as though they missed an opportunity. There's a scene right on Christmas Eve where she's tucking Cindy into bed, that could have been drawn out a little longer. Just one more beat of her working hard or how tired it leaves her to emphasize that point, and to make her character go beyond the homekeeper stereotype that she's presented as. All the Whoville scenes are shown from Cindy's point of view, this is how she interprets her mother to be, but I still feel as though there was room to expand.
Because of the slapstick, the Grinch ends up back in Whoville. I think doing that cheapens his plight. There was a lot of build up to this big Christmas tree, but nothing happens with it. We're also briefly shown the Grinch's childhood, but whatever impact that it has is accomplished in other ways: if it's through the departure of Fred the reindeer, or at his toast at the end. This time could have been devoted to putting his plan into action on Christmas Eve, the reaction of the Whos to the event, and his catharsis. The whole third act feels a little rushed, and unsatisfying.
They took the title How the Grinch Stole Christmas literally, by giving him a few days to prepare. Seeing his thought process, and his inventiveness was the best direction they could have taken with this movie. It felt very focused on the original story. It's what a reimagining is supposed to do; recreating the source material with alterations to expand on the established lore (in a way that fits the original tone of the narrative) to rectify plot holes, and to make the piece more palatable for modern audiences.
Both aesthetically, and to his core character, the Grinch changed and this is heavily, heavily criticized. For the story that they wanted to tell, these changes were necessary.
A lot of thought, and intent goes into creature design. The more unrecognizable his features become, the more unsettling he becomes, and that's not the point. We still have the green visual cue that he's an outsider, but the audience can better relate to the character due to his softer design: it makes us take his motivation more seriously, consciously or not. His design works cohesively with the other Whos when he walks among them, and this movie presents that as the ultimate goal.
I personally don't mind how well he treats his animals. People, or substitutes for people, have an inheritly different relationship with animals than with other people. Knowing that Max will never intentionally betray or hurt him makes the dynamic more inviting. If the Grinch does truly fear loneliness, as depicted here, then why would he treat his only companion with malice? Keeping in mind that this movie is intended for children, and because of that, every little thing about it is open to be picked apart. They needed to avoid glorifying bad behaviour, and implement positive morals for that demographic. There were moments of genuine Grinchiness at the beginning which were effective.
I think we have higher expectations for films than in previous years. We expect something visually stunning, and immersive, we expect strong memorable characters. Stories inheritently come from the idea that people are interesting: it would be hard to sit through a movie with a static protagonist for an hour and a half. Because we see "nice" elements earlier on, it's not such a 180 turn when he has his epiphany: we can see that developing the whole time.
It also fits in with the themes of the holiday, which is primarily family, and togetherness, and the message that Illumination wanted to convey. No matter how bizarre their behaviour and values may seem, give people a chance to prove your initial judgement of them wrong. In that vein, it's the most similar to the original cartoon.
The other huge problem that this movie has is the muddled messages. The original cartoon was straightforward in this aspect. The Grinch viewed the Whos as very shallow people who idolized, and celebrated greed and self interest over the needs of bystanders, and Christmas was a huge vehicle for that. That's why he self imposed this exile away from them. When he stole everything, and the Whos adapted, that was when his perception of them, and of the holiday radically changed. Here, the Grinch's motivation isn't very clear. My best guess is that he wants to make others feel bad, because he feels bad. I like the idea that he doesn't quite know why he's doing it, but that's not the impression that I get while watching.
The narrator has a line that goes something like: "Taking toys they didn't even need", and for a narrator who is supposed to be giving us the events as they're happening onscreen, that's a very blatant bias. Where is that coming from? Earlier he referred to the town being like a dream, so this could be a nod to excessive wealth and prosperity, but we know that isn't always the case from Cindy Lou's mother. So who's our narrator? Is it just a reflection of the Grinch's thought process? After he returns the gifts and decorations, he says "I stole your Christmas", so he doesn't learn the same lesson of the original story.
The whole ending, and the expansion of it, I liked a lot. It was amazing how natural those changes felt, and the direction that they were able to take with it. It just needed more time devoted to it.
The Grinch's new motivation is because he's lonely. This could be explained a little better, because we see him going into town, we see people trying to connect with him. There's no reason given for him living so far away, because it's not the people that he particularly detests, at least from what's shown, it's the holiday. I feel like they were trying to tackle past trauma, and mental health, and I'm glad that we're getting that representation, getting diversity, and complex characters, especially in kids movies. They did stumble a little by making light of eating disorders in the first couple minutes, because if some issues matter then all of them should.
Christmas isn't just stuff, everyone deserves to be treated with kindness, it feels like they're trying to take on many morals and themes. I don't know it the whole blend of them together in this movie was successful.
This film suffers from being made in this decade, because you're likely to think "Oh, this is just Green Frozen", or "This is the Lego Batman movie", and that can be very distracting.
There was a remix of You're a Mean One in the very beginning. I could understand why they would choose to have that be an introduction to the character, but I think it should have been moved, if not to the great Christmas escapade, then maybe when he's in town, and we actually see evidence of his behaviour rather than being told at the beginning what to think. It's a different style, and genre, and I could see how it would throw some diehard fans off. Fahu Foris was good. A lot of the music is either traditional carols, which really helps establish the environment, or specially created Christmas raps, which I feel like that's typical of Illumination movies. Not quite sure if those work as well in the context of this movie, with the story that they want to tell.
I feel like it was only natural for Illumination to tackle this story. Christmas is a pretty stagnant time for entertainment, with the same songs and shows on repeat for 60 or so years, so I really appreciate that they brought something new to the table. What they made is charming. It has heart. It means well. There are elements in this that are accomplished better here than in the original cartoon. The inverse is also true. It feels like a pretty tight story that carries some emotional weight to it. It's good for opening up discussions about ways to handle your feelings, and even if that's not what you want to get out of it, it's still a fun, wholesome Christmas movie.
See for yourself.