Category Archives: Fantasy

Dune-2021

Dune-2021

Director Denis Villeneuve

Starring Timothee Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac

Scott’s Review #1,282

Reviewed July 29, 2022

Grade: B

Dune (2021) is a film that, under normal circumstances, I would not have seen. I’m not a massive fan of blockbuster, fantasy films. If not for the slew of Oscar nominations the film received, ten to be precise, Dune probably would have flown under my radar.

I needed to see what all the fuss was about.

Paul Atreides (Timothee Chalamet), a brilliant and gifted young man born into a destiny that he doesn’t wholly understand, must travel to the most dangerous planet in the universe to ensure the future of his family and his people.

As malevolent forces explode into conflict over the planet’s exclusive supply of the most precious resource in existence, only those who can conquer their own fear will survive.

My assessment of the film before even viewing it proved correct. It’s an epic-length, science-fiction, fantasy type of adventure film all rolled into one. I liken it to the unwieldy Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) trilogy in tone and content, and it shares a peculiar reminiscence with the popular television series Game of Thrones (2011-2019).

For most of Dune, my attention was squarely glued to the story as well as the astounding cinematic grandiose trimmings. I knew if I didn’t pay close attention, I would quickly be out in a left field (I’ve made this mistake before).

Overall, I admired Dune and struggled to grade it either a B or a B+, finally deciding on the latter. The visuals are astounding and cleverly show off what can be done with enough CGI to make a film a marvelous spectacle.

But, for me, there needs to be more, and I struggled with the plot after a while.

The story is too confusing.

Why do fantasy or epic films often have overly complex plots with too many characters to keep track of? It started okay, and I was clear who Paul’s family is, and more or less who the good guys are. But then other groups like the Fremen (who I think are good) and House Harkonnen (who are all bald and I think are bad) are introduced, and a battle over valuable spice ensues.

To complicate matters, Paul suffers from strange dreams/visions mostly involving a young girl and some battle scenes involving Paul’s connection to a mysterious sword. He can also command without speaking, somehow.

I had no prior history to draw from, which in retrospect did me a disservice. Dune, a novel written by Frank Herbert in 1965, was adapted into a 1984 film directed by David Lynch, which was deemed a disaster.

I probably should have read the book.

The acting is quite good, especially by Chalamet and Isaac, utterly believable as father and son. Their connection and chemistry are pliable, but there is not enough of it; instead, the primary focus is on Paul’s relationship with his mother, played by Rebecca Ferguson.

Chalamet, already an Oscar-nominated actor for Call Me By Your Name (2017), has the chops to carry a film.

Other worthy turns are by legendary British actress Charlotte Rampling as a Reverend Mother, and Javier Bardem as Stilgar, leader of the Fremen tribe.

Despite running for over two and a half hours, Dune does not drag. The bright, sweeping desert scenes featuring a pulsating underground worm were well balanced with darker scenes in the Harkonnen’s lair.

Dune (2021) is incredibly healthy and is a clear spectacle. I found it too similar to other genre films to give it a thumbs up unless you are already a fan of the novel, but this style of cinema may not really be my cup of tea.

Villeneuve, who directed Blade Runner 2049 in 2017, knows his way around the fantasy genre and is perfectly capable. He is directing Dune: Part II to be released in 2023, so I’d expect more of the same.

Oscar Nominations: 6 wins-Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score (won), Best Costume Design, Best Sound (won), Best Film Editing (won), Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Cinematography (won), Best Production Design (won), Best Visual Effects (won)

The Abyss-1989

The Abyss-1989

Director James Cameron

Starring Ed Harris, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio

Scott’s Review #1,210

Reviewed December 19, 2021

Grade: B+

Well before he created Titanic (1997) and Avatar (2009) and became a household name, director James Cameron made the gorgeous, special effects-laden film The Abyss (1989).

The film followed hits like Terminator (1984) and Aliens (1986).

These films undoubtedly allowed him to make a film that he wanted to make with the necessary freedoms.

The Abyss is completely visual, and the interesting cast of characters, with potential for development, is never allowed to shine through, instead feeling stale.

They are usurped by the constant flow of underwater, lush, worldly spectacles that utterly encompass the film.

Even when the central characters get a moment to dig deeper into their backstories, Cameron never goes for the emotional jugular, instead encouraging viewers to focus on the extraterrestrial and science-fiction elements rather than on his characters.

That’s the type of director Cameron is, and I recommend watching The Abyss on the big screen, or the biggest screen possible.

I did not recognize the sheer bombast that a cinema watching would render.

I missed out.

The film, and specifically Cameron, must be heralded for the vast loveliness of the art direction, visual effects, and cinematography.

Forget the convoluted plot entirely and sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio portray Bud and Dr. Lindsey Brigman, formerly married petroleum engineers who still have some issues to work out.

When an American submarine sinks in the Caribbean, a US search and recovery team works with an oil platform crew, racing against Soviet vessels to recover the boat.

Deep in the ocean, they encounter something unexpected, and the American team is determined to find out what it is. Is it the Russians or a deadly and intelligent extraterrestrial force?

The story is overly complicated and riddled with stereotypical plot points.

As the team becomes submerged in their submarine, they encounter the usual troubles: a hurricane, a rogue team leader, a flooded rig, and freezing temperatures.

Harris and Mastrantonio have pretty good chemistry here, but we never fully grasp their marital problems or why there is a distance between them. Thrown together on this mission, they predictably face peril and come close to losing each other.

When they embrace in the final scene, it is a wrapped up as a tight bow sort of ending that underwhelms.

But, man, the visuals are amazing. When the team drops at the alien city in the deepest trenches of the ocean floor, the beautiful underwater camera shots take center stage.

The technical consistency is simply breathtaking and becomes the focal point of the film.

I daresay The Abyss (1989) features the greatest underwater sequences ever seen on film to date, but somehow, decades later, the film feels forgotten or overshadowed by Cameron’s other works.

Perhaps the dated Cold War plotline and the traditional romance have not served the film well in the long run.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects (won), Best Sound

Back to the Future-1985

Back to the Future-1985

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd

Scott’s Review #1,205

Reviewed December 5, 2021

Grade: A-

As a child of the 1980s, I was left with an indelible mark by films like Back to the Future (1985).

I fondly recall excitedly going to the movie theater on a Saturday afternoon with a giant tub of popcorn in tow and enjoying the hell out of this film.

I’ve subsequently seen it several times since.

There exists a magical, futuristic element that left me and countless other youngsters and adults alike with a sense of wonder. And one amazing car!

Michael J. Fox, a huge television star of the 1980s largely thanks to the sitcom Family Ties, powered through to the big screen with the help of this film and others.

The 1980s were a wonderful decade to grow up in.

Small-town California teen Marty McFly (Fox) is thrown back into the 1950s when an experiment by his eccentric scientist friend Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) goes awry.

Traveling through time in an amazing DeLorean, Marty encounters younger versions of his parents (Crispin Glover, Lea Thompson) and must ensure they fall in love, or he will cease to exist.

To further complicate matters, Marty then has to return to his own time and save Doc Brown’s life.

Back to the Future is one of those films that has something for everyone, and the stars are perfectly aligned to make it a blockbuster popcorn hit.

Besides the science fiction elements, there is humor, a cool 1950s throwback vibe, romance, and natural chemistry between Fox and Lloyd, who together carry the film.

It’s hardly an art film and goes for the jugular with mainstream additions like a killer soundtrack led by The Power of Love by Huey Lewis and the News, which was all over top 40 radio in the summer of ’85.

Counterbalancing the current times was another smash hit, Johnny B. Goode, a 1958 Chuck Berry tune.

There is a safe vibe for sure, and director Robert Zemeckis knows his action-adventure romantic comedies. This may be his best work, but he also skews adding much diversity or heavy topics. He creates a fun, entertaining film.

Fox is perfectly cast as Marty, and I cannot imagine anyone else in the role. However, method actor Eric Stolz was the original choice and spent several dismal weeks filming scenes before he was replaced.

Fox is the ultimate boy next door, cute but goofy, and relatable to teenage boys across middle America.

Lloyd is perfect as the zany Doc Brown. He is wacky without being too ridiculous and bridges the gap between generations. The character is presumed to be old enough to be Marty’s (in present-day) grandfather, and the two characters rely on each other.

Back to the Future shows that an unlikely friendship can develop.

The film also effectively depicts the vast differences between the 1950s and the 1980s. At a simpler time, the 1950s are viewed as wholesome, while the 1980s are perceived as the decade of excess, and some fun is poked at both generations.

But both generations can also connect.

In a moment of crisis, Marty helps secure his parents’ bond and ensures he is created. This could be viewed as icky to some, but the romance between the two parents is tender and sweet.

The interactions between all characters are sentimental without being saccharine.

Back to the Future was the feel-good film of 1985 and a must-see for those living in the period. It holds up surprisingly well, with the state-of-the-art special effects not looking dated or laughable now.

It also explores growing up as an adolescent and identifying with one’s parents and the differences they have.

Who can’t relate to that in some way?

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Song-“The Power of Love, Best Sound, Best Sound Effects Editing (won)

Dark Shadows-2012

Dark Shadows-2012

Director Tim Burton

Starring Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter

Scott’s Review #1,203

Reviewed December 3, 2021

Grade: C+

Sometimes a great idea doesn’t pan out. On paper, relaunching the unique and gothic 1960s daytime television series Dark Shadows with a tribute on the big screen with even bigger stars sounds wonderful.

The endless possibilities and the inevitable nods to history are head-spinning.

Sadly, the film version of Dark Shadows (2012) directed by Tim Burton is miscategorized and misunderstood by all involved. It’s billed as a dark comedy rather than horror or even fantasy and comes across as more of a mockery than a real nod to the series.

It’s completely over-the-top and misses any of the wonder and the spookiness that made the long-ago black and white show a daily adventure.

I do not profess to have seen the entire series but I have watched much of the first season and understand the appeal. Fans will be disheartened by Burton’s botched attempts to recreate a great idea.

Depp, a frequent guest star in Burton’s film works, strikes out as the iconic character Barnabas Collins, the eighteenth-century vampire who awakens in the twentieth century though he’s not as bad as he was when he feebly stepped into the Willy Wonka character in 2005.

Yikes.

The only saving grace is the creative and magical visual effects and set design which provides enough imagination and macabre fascination to at least partly save this otherwise messy experience.

The plot gives a brief explanation of the history.

In eighteenth-century Maine, Barnabas Collins (Depp) presides over the town of Collinsport. A rich and powerful playboy, Barnabas breaks the heart of a witch named Angelique (Eva Green) who deviously makes him pay.

Angelique turns Barnabas into a vampire and buries him alive.

Two centuries later, Barnabas escapes from his tomb when builders are erecting a Mcdonald’s and finds the current 1970s Collinsport a very different place. His once-grand estate has fallen into ruin, and the dysfunctional remnants of his family have fared no better.

His resurrection creates complications and drama for the entire family.

Burton knocks it out of the park with the visuals.

The gothic mansion, in particular, is right up his alley and he embraces the possibilities with gusto. Every creak or wind sound heard within the mansion co-aligns with the dark and dreary purples and brown colors.

Frequent candles mark the proper mood and investigating the vast number of rooms was something to look forward to.

Since the rest of the film sucked I had nothing better to do than fully embrace and focus on the art and set designs.

Heavyweights like Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, and Depp do their best but oddly overact in nearly every scene. Their direction must have been skewed toward comedy instead of adding any meat or emotional relevance to the characters.

The original series created something strangely dramatic and compelling on a shoestring budget. There was a delicious haunting and grabbing nature that made you anticipate the next episode and who might fall victim to the vampire.

The film veers into a vastly different territory.

Burton and Depp’s Barnabas struts around emitting one-liners for intended giggles. The other characters appear to be dressed for Halloween and are dumb and morose.

The feeling I got was that of a retread to a situation comedy like The Addams Family rather than a horror soap to be taken seriously.

The sexual references and the occasional bloody vampire effects are okay but seem peppered in to justify the dark comedy.

Even an uninspired cameo by shock rocker Alice Cooper is perceived as a weak attempt to add something frightening or dangerous.

Unsurprisingly, Dark Shadows (2012) performed poorly at the box office and was derided by true fans of the series and almost every other film critic.

This caused Barnabas and his family to slink back into their coffins possibly for good.

What a shame.

Edward Scissorhands-1990

Edward Scissorhands-1990

Director Tim Burton

Starring Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder

Scott’s Review #1,198

Reviewed November 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Edward Scissorhands (1990) is a Tim Burton creation, made possible only after the smash success of his 1989 film, Batman.

A creative and romantic fantasy, it is an unconventional project made as charming and whimsical as its stars were at that time.

The film is part sad, part magical, with enough science fiction and romance sprinkled in to make it work across genres.

The result was another box office hit for Burton, teen idol status for its lead stars, and an obvious Academy Award nomination for the deserving Makeup department.

As unconventional and original as it appears on the surface, the film suffers slightly from being a bit mainstream.

There is a safe, romantic comedy feel that takes the film away from a much darker tone it could (and should) have had.

Still, Edward Scissorhands is entertaining and fascinating.

An eccentric scientist, deliciously played by Vincent Price, builds an animated human being, the gentle and soft-spoken Edward (Johnny Depp).

He dies before he can finish assembling Edward, leaving the poor young man with a freakish appearance accentuated by the scissor blades he has instead of his hands.

Friendly suburban saleswoman Peg (Dianne Wiest) discovers Edward and takes him home, where he falls for Peg’s teen daughter Kim (Winona Ryder).

However, Edward’s hands make him an outcast despite his kindness and artistic talent.

This is a challenge for all of them.

By 1990, Johnny Depp was becoming a huge Hollywood star, and so was Winona Ryder. As the ‘it’ actors, this helps Edward Scissorhands tremendously by not only adding ticket sales but also a fascination with them as a couple.

The chemistry is palpable, and so is the classic good-girl-helping-boy reform. Depp’s Edward is a sympathetic hero and is instantly mysterious and likable.

Wiest, then in her prime, is a hoot as the comical Avon lady who introduces Edward to the joys and pains of suburban Americana. Particularly enjoyable are the perfectly manicured landscapes in Peg’s neighborhood, where she goes door to door selling her products.

As one can easily predict, the beautiful plants and bushes suffer at the hands of Edwards.

The Gothic mansion where Peg discovers Edward is a deliciously creative set piece that has the classic Burton stamp.

The director is so defined by his artistic sets and design that half the fun of the film is discovering and noticing these fabulous creations.

The mainstream part comes with the story, and a smattering of 1982’s E.T. sentimentality is included to win over middle-American audiences. This isn’t bad, but it does lighten the heavy drama and sinister approach that Burton could have honed in on.

Much of the credit must go to Depp because on paper the premise could easily be dismissed as silly, trivial, or outlandish. The actor brings pathos to the role and makes the audience believe in and fall in love with the character.

He makes Edward even more relatable by adding some obvious clichés: Kim’s jealous boyfriend, Jim, played by Anthony Michael Hall, and the eccentric religious fanatic who believes Edward is evil incarnate, played by O-Lan Jones.

Adding these villains and most of the rest of the neighborhood as either clueless or misunderstanding townsfolk further reduces most of the supporting cast to standard stock characters.

Burton, along with Depp, Ryder, and Wiest, gives Edward Scissorhands (1990) heart.

It’s a beautiful fairy tale that feels magical and adventurous, save for some mediocre storytelling. It’s an above-average film that won over audiences at the time of its release.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup

Soul-2020

Soul-2020

Director Pete Docter

Voices: Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey

Scott’s Review #1,172

Reviewed August 18, 2021

Grade: B+

It’s pretty reassuring when a magical animated feature comes down the pike. Too often, the mainstream multiplex summer offerings are trite or too ‘kiddish’ for my tastes.

Soul (2020) is creative, colorful, and sentimental, with a terrific musical score composed by Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails).

The writing is fresh and inventive, with gorgeous animation that feels magical. I did not see the film on the big screen and bet it would have made the experience even more delightful.

Soul is not too dark, nor is it too trivial. It strikes a perfect balance between humanism, darkness, and hope. The title can be construed with a double meaning.

Based on the musical angle, the lead character is a piano player, the soul could mean rhythm, but I’m only half right. An out-of-body or celestial experience and the essence of a living being are also part of his soul.

While watching the film, I kept ruminating over how lovely and inspirational a film like Soul is during a crushing pandemic. It has heart and magic.

Unfulfilled music teacher Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) finally lands the gig of a lifetime at the best jazz club in town, supporting legendary Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett). But his excitement gets the best of him, and he stumbles into a maintenance hole on a New York City street.

Lying in a coma, Joe enters a fantastical place: The Great Before. There, he teams up with Soul 22 (Tina Fey), and together they find the answers to some of life’s biggest questions while embarking on a journey in the switched bodies of Joe and a therapy cat.

Set in the massive Big Apple itself, the film offers a wealth of hustle, bustle, and life. I adored the setting. The smoky jazz club, with its sultry set design and creative music, made me feel immersed in the wonderful surroundings.

The story itself slightly confused me when Joe arrived in the “Great Beyond” as a soul. Assuming this meant death, I was relieved when he backtracked to the “Great Before” and met with counselors all named Jerry. The counselors, I realized, prepare unborn souls for life with the help of mentor souls.

This didn’t resonate with me as much as other aspects of the film.

Foxx and Fey are fine doing the voices for Joe and 22, respectively, but they are not the highlight either. I never really thought of either of them throughout the duration. There were better aspects to focus on.

Disney/Pixar’s feature film, which features a black central character, is worthy of mention, and it is about time. Joe’s family is black, adding an incredible mother figure and supporting characters of ethnicity to the fold.

The music, the music, the music! This makes Soul as good a film as it is.

Trent Reznor’s collaboration alone made me eager to see it. His creative use of keyboards and partnership with fellow Nine Inch Nails bandmate Atticus Ross provide proper ambiance to the metaphysical sequences.

A hallucinogenic, trance-like musical beat is unique and trippy.

Younger children may be perplexed or bewildered by much of the activity, so I’m not sure I’d recommend it for that demographic. However, music fans and admirers of rich stories with a subtext of life will likely enjoy the experience and the subsequent message that Soul (2020) provides.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Animated Feature Film (won), Best Original Score (won), Best Sound

Onward-2020

Onward-2020

Director Dan Scanlon

Starring Tom Holland, Chris Pratt

Scott’s Review #1,164

Reviewed July 23, 2021

Grade: B+

An emotionally satisfying adventure film that the whole family can enjoy, Onward (2020) feels fresh and inventive while still employing some standard plot points.

Pixar/Disney sure knows how to churn out animated features with a nice message and a family sensibility.

There is also plenty of diversity that delivers an inclusive feeling, so hugely important in the modern age.

Kids are impressionable and learn so much from the films they watch, so this quality brought a smile to my face in an otherwise enjoyable experience.

The film also celebrates non-traditional families, showing that not having a traditional mother and father and a pet dog doesn’t make you strange or unworthy of love and understanding.

Onward is not entirely outside the box, however, and is careful to lure in the mainstream middle America audience. Still, some progressive treats mix well with a robust brotherly adventure tale.

Though the title, Onward, doesn’t stick in my mind very long, the film itself does.

I may have even shed a tear or two during the heartfelt finale.

Teenage elf brothers Ian and Barley (voiced by Tom Holland and Chris Pratt) embark on a magical quest to spend one more day with their deceased father, who loved magic. Their journey is filled with cryptic maps, overwhelming obstacles, and discoveries like any good adventure.

But when their Mom (voiced by Julia Louis-Dreyfus) finds out her sons are missing, she goes into mother lion mode and teams up with the legendary manticore (voiced by Octavia Spencer) to bring her beloved boys back home.

The lead character, Ian, is a sixteen-year-old boy with growing pains and vulnerabilities that immediately make him likable. He is eager to make friends but awkward about doing so.

It is suggested that he has no friends coming to his birthday party, but it’s unclear why not. Ian is also a nervous driver, terrified of traversing a busy freeway.

He is an ordinary kid whom the audience can see in themselves or a former self of years gone by.

His brother, Barley, is the opposite. He is fearless and doesn’t care who he befriends or what people think of him. His outrageous vehicle, named Guinevere, is a rebuilt van.

Think the mystery mobile from Scooby-Doo.

The crux of Onward is about relationships. At first, we assume that the big payoff will be between Ian/Barley and their father. While that happens, a surprise blossoms along the way, and instead of a standard father/son dynamic, we get a brother/brother one.

This is a treat and conveys a dual message. Never take for granted a loved one already in your life because one day they may be gone.

I enjoyed the adventures of Ian and Barley mostly because I just knew that some reunion would occur between the boys and their father. Their gift of a day spent with their father was marred by the fact that only his bottom half was visible, but I suspected we would eventually see the rest of him.

Avoiding complete predictability, only one of the boys gets to interact with his father as the other looks on longingly.

I enjoyed this element quite a bit as it avoided cliché and offered raw emotion.

Speaking of diversity, two gay female police officers appear in one scene, and a suggestion that some of a motorcycle gang of pixies might be gay is also noticed. Again, this is important for child viewers to be exposed to.

Another win is the animation itself- look at the cover art above for proof. With gorgeous purple and blue colors, the nighttime scenes work exceptionally well with a bright and luminous look that I adored.

A slight miss was that the boy’s mother never got to reunite with her dead husband, and their relationship was treated as merely an afterthought. The featured plot was that the brothers missed their Dad. A reunion between husband and wife would have been nice.

With a tender and emotionally satisfying conclusion, this cemented my appreciation for Onward (2020). There may be a tad too many car chase scenes and a couple of hokey plot ploys, but the film has a lot of heart that shines through.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature

Nanny McPhee-2005

Nanny McPhee-2005

Director Kirk Jones

Starring Emma Thompson

Scott’s Review #1,161

Reviewed July 15, 2021

Grade: B

Patterned after the classic family film Mary Poppins (1964), but with a slightly harder edge, Nanny McPhee (2005) attempts to recreate the iconic character with a similar storyline setup.

But a couple of other family films make their presence known.

The Sound of Music (1965) is quickly added to the mix with a well-meaning but absent daddy and a slew of siblings who terrorize former and present nannies.

A scullery maid with big dreams ala Cinderella (1950) solidifies the harkening back to 1960s cinematic family fun.

Great British actors like Emma Thompson and Colin Firth add much to the film which would be mediocre without their benefits. And the iconic Angela Lansbury hops aboard in a small yet important role. They make what would be a disposable kid’s movie into something respectable, romantic, and fairly cute.

The film tries a bit too hard with the comical moments, losing the magical moments that would have made it feel more alive. Instead, most scenarios come across as campy or family-oriented.

Of course, the conclusion can be seen from the very beginning.

The effort is admirable but the story experience never feels very compelling. Thinking demographically, Nanny McPhee has much to offer the younger set. The kids will love the candy-box sets and costumes like confectionery-shop windows, the whimsy and farcical grotesqueness of it all.

The adults might be won over by the creativity and the cast.

Thompson (who also wrote the screenplay) has fun playing ugly and getting her feet dirty, her snaggletooth almost a character itself, so prominent is it featured. She is even the anti-Mary Poppins, lacking an umbrella or the high-class pose that she had.

Each time the children learn a lesson, one of Nanny McPhee’s facial defects magically disappears.

But why not just dust off the original Mary Poppins? Nanny McPhee will inevitably be forgotten since an actual remake of the Mary Poppins film was released in 2015 all but confirming the Nanny McPhee franchise as the second tier.

And Nanny McPhee made me want to revisit Mary Poppins instead of watching Nanny McPhee again.

Set in Victorian-era England, lonely widower Cedric Brown (Firth) hires Nanny McPhee (Thompson) to care for his seven rambunctious children, who have terrified and chased away all previous nannies. But McPhee is different and will have no such nonsense. She slowly wins over the children with magic and a bit of discipline.

And when the children’s great-aunt and benefactor, Lady Adelaide Stitch (Lansbury), threatens to separate the kids, the family pulls together under the guidance of their new leader.

Lansbury nearly steals the show. Short-sighted and domineering, the family is financially supported by her and Cedric cowers to her every request until she demands custody over one of the children. She also viciously threatens to reduce the family to poverty unless Cedric remarries within the month, meaning the family would lose the house, and be forced to separate.

She is deliciously wicked in the role and plays it to the hilt.

The sweet romance between Cedric and scullery maid Evangeline, played by Kelly Macdonald, works well. They resist at first, but then realize their feelings for each other and agree to marry, satisfying Aunt Adelaide’s conditions for maintaining her financial support.

Nanny McPhee (who is now fully beautiful), magically makes it snow in August, transforming the wedding scene and changing Evangeline’s clothes into a beautiful wedding dress.

This is the fairy tale ending that ultimately makes the film work and wins me over.

Nanny McPhee (2005) is solid if not remarkable.

Pan’s Labyrinth-2006

Pan’s Labyrinth-2006

Director Guillermo del Toro

Starring Ivana Baquero, Sergi López

Scott’s Review #1,156

Reviewed June 25, 2021

Grade: A

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006) is a treasure of a film. I would classify it as a masterpiece for creativity alone.

It is not for children!

The fact that it has some fantasy trimmings and tells its story from a child’s perspective is misleading. The film deals with some heady and heavy stuff that will both frighten and be lost on the younger crowd.

A clue is that Guillermo del Toro directs the film, he is well known for creating films such as Hellboy (2004), Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), and The Shape of Water (2017), the latter winning the coveted Best Picture Oscar.

I adore that Pan’s Labyrinth is Spanish-Mexican. Somehow, that makes the experience a bit mysterious and exotic right off the bat.

The frightening period of 1944, directly post World War II, is also key to the good story since war and mayhem are themes.

The main character, Ofelia, meets several strange and magical creatures who become central to her story, leading her through the trials of the old labyrinth garden.

Young Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) and her pregnant and sick mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil), arrive at the post of her mother’s new husband (Sergi López). This sadistic army officer is trying to prevent a guerrilla uprising.

Lonely and feeling lost, Ofelia explores an ancient maze, encountering the faun Pan, who tells her that she is a legendary lost princess and must complete three dangerous tasks to claim immortality.

She is completely and utterly spellbound and intrigued all at once. Finally, she can escape the ravages of real life and immerse herself in a fantasy world all her own.

She hates her stepfather, worries for her mother, and can’t wait to traverse her new world. If only life were that simple.

In a fairy tale, Princess Moanna, who Ofelia becomes, visits the human world, where the sunlight blinds her and erases her memory. She becomes mortal and eventually dies.

The king believes that eventually, her spirit will return to the underworld, so he builds labyrinths, which act as portals, around the world in preparation for her return.

Enter Ofelia.

About that creativity, I mentioned earlier. Pan’s Labyrinth is Alice in Wonderland for adults, taking some of the same themes and blending the horrors of both reality and fantasy into an extraordinary, spellbinding fable.

The forest’s darkness is the best and most memorable part.

The art direction is astonishing. Bewildering forest trimmings and haunting lighting make their appearance as Ofelia immerses herself in her new world.

The viewer sees her new world through her eyes, that is, through the eyes of a child.

So authentic are the sets and ruins that it is impossible not to be thrust full-throttle into the fantasy sequences.

The story can be downright horrifying at times. Carmen eventually dies, and Ofelia is taken under the wing of Mercedes (Maribel Verdú), Ofelia’s stepfather’s housekeeper, and also a revolutionary harboring dangerous secrets.

Ofelia and Mercedes team up to save Ofelia’s baby brother from the hands of the dastardly.

The strange fantasy world may confuse some viewers. It’s simply not the imagination of Ofelia (or is it?) because Vidal, Mercedes, and the baby all play a part in the eerie labyrinth.

Guillermo del Toro creates a world so imaginative and magnificent that we see this world through the eyes of a child, but also through the clear glasses of adults.

Scenes of torture mix with scenes of innocence so well that it is impossible not to be transported to a magical world where reality often disrupts the pleasurable fairy tale.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2008) is a visionary film and must be experienced to be believed.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Original Screenplay, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Art Direction (won), Best Cinematography (won), Best Makeup (won), Best Original Score

Hercules-1997

Hercules-1997

Director Ron Clements, John Musker

Voices Tate Donovan, James Woods, Danny DeVito

Scott’s Review #1,109

Reviewed February 7, 2021

Grade: B-

Hercules (1997) is a modern-day Walt Disney film that centers on Ancient Greek mythology. The premise is one I find fascinating, and the characters of Hercules, Zeus, Hades, and Pegasus are the focus.

The names alone hold intrigue and appeal, but the film is only an adequate watch.

The product feels “produced” and lacks the authenticity and sincerity that are rich and seamless in beloved Disney classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) or Bambi (1941).

Besides the initial story intrigue, the animations are nothing particularly special, and it feels too kiddie-like.

It’s like comparing The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is a historical album, to a latter-day solo effort by Paul McCartney, and that’s being generous.

It may be fine, but it can’t hold a candle to the former.

And “fine” is not what I wanted from a Disney film. That’s what I felt about Hercules. It’s okay and entertaining, but not up to snuff as compared with finer films.

The film is equipped with a fantastic villain, though the best part of Hercules is not the mythological elements. James Woods, who voices the character of Hades, is wonderful, and I’m hardly a James Woods fan, but for other reasons, like his politics.

Anyway, the rivalry and competitive edge of Hercules and Hades are unique and compelling and will hold one’s attention.

It all begins in a perfect Disney way when Hercules (Tate Donovan), a son of the gods, is snatched as a baby by Hades and forced to live among mortals as a half-man, half-god.

When he becomes an adolescent, Hercules must undergo a rite of passage on Earth to prove himself worthy to live with the gods on Mount Olympus.

With his sidekick, Philoctetes (Danny DeVito), in tow, Hercules must learn to use his strength to defeat evil creatures.

The strong message is written in Hercules to appeal to a sense of good overthrowing evil. It’s a Disney film, trust me, it will.

Though predictable, the story feels good in a world where far too often the bad guys get away with bad things and the good guys don’t get enough credit.

Appealing and targeted mostly to kids, the film made a ton of money, which means a lot of kids saw it. A great reminder is that with any luck, truth and honesty will win out. So will remaining true to oneself.

Woods makes Hades a villain with an edge rather than a generic, cookie-cutter type. Hades speaks rapidly, like a used car salesman trying to sell a customer a good deal. We can tell we are being swindled, but there is fun in that.

Megara (Susan Egan), Hercules’ intended love interest, works for Hades, adding a layer of intrigue.

Unfortunately, the romance between Hercules and Meg never gets off the ground or works well. The main issue is that there is little chemistry or romantic potential between the couple.

Meg isn’t my favorite Disney character. She is a sarcastic damsel whom Hercules saves from the centaur Nessus.

After Hercules and the others leave, Meg is revealed to be Hades’ servant, having sold her soul to him to save a lover who then left her. She’s had a tough life and finally does the right thing, but I never felt invested in the character.

The main song from the film is okay, but rather forgettable. The title of “Go the Distance” is a song of determination, but also generic and unmemorable.

The look of the animations has a 1990s vibe, with bright, vibrant colors that feel “of the time” rather than classic or alive.

A decent effort, Hercules (1997) hits its mark sometimes and misses completely at other times.

I was enraptured by the historical and mythological gods and the trappings that go along with that mystique, but the modern spin didn’t work and only made me yearn for the classics from the 1940s and 1950s.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Go the Distance”

Excalibur-1981

Excalibur-1981

Director John Boorman

Starring Nigel Terry, Helen Mirren, Nicholas Clay

Scott’s Review #1,108

Reviewed February 4, 2021

Grade: B+

John Boorman, best known for directing the 1972 disturbing classic Deliverance, returns to the fold with a steamy fantasy rich in lavish sets, visual treats, and an incredible atmosphere.

This is where the film succeeds.

We are taken to a medieval world where we embrace jealousy, sex, and schemes.

Boorman not only directs but also produces and co-writes the project along with the screenwriter Rospo Pallenberg.

Excalibur (1981) retells the legend of King Arthur, a British leader from the fifth and sixth centuries, largely passed down through folklore, and the Knights of the Round Table, based on the 15th-century Arthurian romance Le Morte d’Arthur by Thomas Malory, at behemoth length.

The table is symbolic because it implies that there is no head and, therefore, a democratic forum.

This telling is quite adult and not suitable or comprehensible for children.

Famous legends like Merlin (Nicol Williamson), Lancelot (Nicholas Clay), Queen Guenevere (Cherie Lunghi), and Morgana (Helen Mirren) appear alongside Arthur (Nigel Terry) in a furious battle for control.

In a flurry of handsome European actors who would later become famous, Patrick Stewart and Liam Neeson both appear.

Most of the male cast are masculine, hunky, and very handsome. These traits cascade into how good they look in full-body armor, shields, and swords, fighting bloody battles with each other.

Homoerotic scenes exist just as they did in Deliverance. Lest we only focus on the male cast, Helen Mirren is delightful as an evil seductress who oozes sex appeal.

The magical sword of Excalibur starts in the hands of a British lord, Uther Pendragon (Gabriel Byrne), and then, years later, finds its way to his bastard son, Arthur, who is destined to become king but doesn’t realize why.

Merlin helps Arthur fulfill his fate by bringing together the Knights of the Round Table at Camelot and unifying the country.

Years later, Arthur faces greater tests in pursuit of love, the Holy Grail, and his nation’s survival, as some attempt to steal the treasure for their own advantage.

Excalibur had me with its visuals, and I immersed myself in the spectacular style and artistic set design, with gorgeous sequences.

Several creative, glimmering shots of someone emerging from or submerged underwater are featured. They are startlingly beautiful.

I pretended I had been whisked away to an otherworld of enchantment that I could sit back and enjoy.

The knowledge that the entire film was shot in Ireland captivated me. The breathtaking greenery and waterfalls are dreamlike. When Lancelot beds Guenevere in the forest, they both appear nude. Their pale white flesh against the green is both magical and seductive.

And a treat for one’s curious eyes.

The story is overly complicated, with reality mixed with either dreams or fantasy, and some of the plots confused me. I finally got to a point where the intricacies became too much for me to comprehend, especially against the stunning backdrops.

The plot became too jumbled and messy, so it is advisable to drift off and take it all in rather than trying to make sense of everything.

A visual marvel, Excalibur (1981) will delight the apt film fan. I fantasized about how the picture would look and feel on the big screen, but I wasn’t that lucky.

The story is obviously far-fetched and ludicrous at times, but somehow that doesn’t matter, and it didn’t hinder my enjoyment.

I was treated to good-looking people in armor, unique costumes, and various states of undress. And that’s just fine with me.

Gretel & Hansel-2020

Gretel & Hansel-2020

Director Oz Perkins

Starring Sophia Lillis, Alice Krige, Sammy Leakey

Scott’s Review #1,088

Reviewed December 5, 2020

Grade: B+

Gretel & Hansel (2020) is not a film with a plot that makes complete sense, but in this instance, that’s okay, making the experience creepier with the wonderful trimmings provided.

A horror film released in January has the cards stacked against it – most studios use the first quarter as a dumping ground for films with little box-office hope or much fanfare.

Predictably, the movie flopped, but it’s a diamond in the rough.

For fans of horror post-2010, this film immediately reminded me of The Witch, the 2015 independent film, and the directorial debut of Robert Eggers.

The slow pacing and assumed seventeenth-century remote village setting are an instant comparison. The dark sets and candle-lit scenes captivated me with their striking ambiance.

With exceptional cinematography, eerie lighting, and the prominent Brothers Grimm fairy tale theme, always a plus in horror, who cares if the t’s are all crossed. The elements supersede the story, though with a witch and two children at play, I was immediately hooked.

The follow-through is crooked and confusing, lacking a clear conclusion. Expect to be perplexed by the ending.

We are provided a quick story of a little girl wearing a pink dress who frightens the village with her special powers. Because she nearly died as a baby and was taken to an enchantress who saved her life, she has a unique history.

She makes her father commit suicide and causes other deaths, so she is taken to the middle of the forest to fend for herself or starve. She manages to find her way and makes the other children die.

Pay close attention because this story will tie into the end of the film.

In present times, we meet Gretel (Sophia Lillis) and Hansel (Sam Leakey). Gretel is sixteen years old, while Hansel is eight. Their mother goes mad, and they are forced to provide for themselves as they hit the road.

Gretel is both drawn to and fascinated by the story of the girl in the pink dress.

They eventually stumble upon a cabin with tons of lovely food, which they hungrily devour. A mysterious woman named Holda/The Witch (Alice Krige) takes them in, but is there a price the children must pay for the riches they enjoy?

Unclear is where the film is set. Is it Germany, where the folklore is derived? Is it supposed to be in the United States? The actors have American accents.

It was shot in Ireland, but this hardly matters. It’s a village and a forest in a land of anywhere, though I fantasized the setting was a northern country like Norway or Finland. Maybe the ambiguity is a good thing.

I like how Gretel & Hansel has a feminist vibe, and the perspective is from her point of view. That is why her character is older, hence the title. She is a coming-of-age teenager, so there is a more measured approach. Gretel even has a short pixie cut, almost boyish herself, giving the character a more modern look.

This serves the film well, adding an interesting take on the classic fairy tale.

There’s also a weird mommy theme played out in two different stories that end up connecting. Gretel and Hansel’s mothers are psychotic, while Holda is revealed to be a mother herself and harbors a deep secret about what she does with children who wander into her house.

Spoiler alert- it isn’t good.

The acting is outstanding, especially on the part of Sophia Lillis as Gretel and Alice Krige as Holda.

Lillis, an up-and-coming star after appearing in It (2017) and It: Chapter II (2019), is a talented commodity, while Krige gives Holda a ghastly and convincing persona. She is ambivalent, and we mostly don’t know what to make of her or what her intentions are. Lillis and Krige have delightful chemistry.

The cretins that the children meet along their journey to anywhere are worthy of any devilish story. A creepy gentleman who Gretel intends to cook and clean for to make money eyes her greedily and asks about her virginity. A bald, wailing monster chases Gretel & Hansel but is shot by a stranger.

Anyone with a hankering for a good, old-fashioned, ghostly, gothic horror film, Gretel & Hansel (2020) is a recommended watch.

The film boasts a hearty mix of horror elements, including eeriness, dark sets with illuminating lighting, and forbidding sequences in the forest, all set against a nice production design.

It may leave you scratching your head, but enjoy the ride.

Cats-2019

Cats-2019

Director Tom Hooper

Starring Francesca Hayward, Jennifer Hudson

Scott’s Review #1,086

Reviewed November 27, 2020

Grade: C

Branded with the pesky “one of the worst films of all time” title, the 2019 rendition of Cats, made famous by the 1981 Broadway show, has also been met with “it’s so bad it’s bad” jokes and snickers at its mere mention.

While it’s not quite abysmal as a total package, the derision is justified mostly because the cat characters look beyond strange.

The studio scrambled the film into theaters just in the nick of time so it would receive Oscar consideration. It backfired, and the film received no nominations.

Unsurprisingly, Cats was a box-office disaster.

I’m going to defend Cats…..slightly. Sometimes a film with so much promise and possibility becomes like the poor kid on the school playground; bullied because somebody must be the outcast. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.

Having never seen the Broadway musical despite living just outside of New York City, my entire life, and the show running forever, the premise seems silly enough.

A band of singing felines spends one memorable night in a London junkyard belting out musical numbers as they look forward to an upcoming ball, and take a young, abandoned cat named Victoria (Francesca Hayward) under their wing.

Many characters (all cats) are introduced at various points through the song.

Old Deuteronomy (Judi Dench) and Asparagus (Ian McKellen) are the senior members, providing wisdom and stoicism. Idris Elba plays the mischievous Macavity, while Jennifer Hudson plays Grizabella, the outcast cat, once a legend at the theater, but now in tatters.

Finally, Rebel Wilson and James Corden provide comic relief as Jennyanydots and Bustopher Jones, respectively.

The unwieldy cast featuring more than a handful of respected Hollywood legends and A-list stars leads me to believe that the studio and filmmakers had high hopes for the project.

At a budget of 100 million, expectations were high, but things quickly went south.

Respected director, Tom Hooper, well-known for churning out the powerful The King’s Speech (2010) and Les Misérables (2012), was awarded the embarrassing Golden Raspberry awards for Worst Director and Worst Screenplay.

Yikes!

The art direction and set design are fantastic, and they are the film’s high point. Once I got past the plot, garish costumes, and weird choreography, I immersed myself in the look and the production values, thankful that someone had done their job correctly.

The colors are glossy and bright, giving a shimmering, lush tone that dazzled me. The London backdrop is magnificent, and many scenes provide glimpses of Big Ben, Tower Bridge, and other lovely landmarks.

The rundown theater set is a highlight, adding a murky and dusty atmosphere that is creatively done.

The songs start shaky but quickly escalate into respectability and even grandiose pizazz. Teetering too long in the first act with a seemingly never-ending “Overture” and “The Naming of Cats”, the film finally evens out with the best numbers in the production.

The gorgeous and powerful “Memory” introduces the wonderful “Beautiful Ghosts,” and fortunately, they are reprised later. Hudson nearly deserves a second Oscar for her haunting rendition of “Memory,” while Hayward does well with “Beautiful Ghosts”.

That’s where the positives end.

Stalwarts Dench, McKellen, Hudson, and newcomer Hayward perform their parts with dignity and refined professionalism, but it’s hard not to giggle anytime they are onscreen. Not that this is their fault, and hopefully, they were spared watching dailies or attending the film premiere.

At least they can console themselves with a hefty paycheck. Each looks ridiculous in their costumes, resembling a cross between a human being in bad attire and a strange creature from another planet.

This is what happens when things are half done. Any attempts to re-release the film with “improved effects” seem desperate and unprofessional.

The problem is not only that the actors look funny, but also that it distracts from any other real enjoyment, as a viewer will need to focus on the costumes above and beyond any other aspects.

Each character looks awkward and uncomfortable, with misused CGI and weird, creeping, crawling, and prancing around the stage — or in this case, the film set.

Besides the two incredible musical numbers, Cats feels watered down and not about anything specific, lacking any deeper meaning I picked up on. It’s merely about a bunch of cats singing songs, occasionally hissing or swatting at each other for effect.

Andrew Lloyd Webber’s beloved stage musical will take time to recover from the film version of Cats (2019).

It is advisable to watch the film once to experience and elicit a reaction, then put the film away in a secure box forever and pretend it never happened.

Valerie and Her Week of Wonders-1970

Valerie and Her Week of Wonders-1970

Director Jaromil Jireš

Starring Jaroslava Schallerová

Scott’s Review #1,076

Reviewed October 30, 2020

Grade: B+

One of the oddest films I’ve ever laid eyes on. The best way to view a film like Valerie and Her Week of Wonder (1970) is to absorb it and let it either pull you in or turn you off.

The cadence is to feel the film and then, later, search for any semblance of meaning or interpretation, or perhaps never.

The genre best to categorize the film is art cinema meets fantasy meets horror meets fairy tale. Is it ever a bizarre experience? If one is to take hallucinogens first, this film is a recommended watch.

The production is Czech and is translated to Valerie a týden divů in its native language. 

The story involves a week in the life of Valerie (Jaroslava Schallerová), a girl on the cusp of womanhood, and the weird sexual thoughts and desires she encounters while blossoming. She encounters witchcraft, vampires, and a bizarre Constable, who wears a mask.

Valerie is raised by the strangest grandmother imaginable (Helena Anýžová), who morphs into other characters named Mother and Redhead. Valerie does not live a boring life.

One poster for the film is of a blooming flower with splotches of blood that can be interpreted as a girl losing her virginity.

To delve much further into the plot than a quick summary would is wasteful, because it doesn’t make much sense.

Such activities as Valerie’s grandmother making a pact with vampires to keep her young forever, Valerie lying in a coffin surrounded by rotten apples, being burned at the stake, and finally being followed and menaced by her priest are a few of the shenanigans the film presents.

This is shrouded by some of the loveliest photography and scenery you’ve ever seen.

The creativity and experimental nature of Valerie and Her Week of Wonders will allure an open-eyed viewer seeking something left-of-center… very left-of-center.

The story is secondary.

The medieval landscape is gothic and haunting, perfect for evil-doings and strangeness. Not to harp on this point, but the look of Valerie and Her Week of Wonders is the money shot. All else can be left by the sidelines.

The perspective is all Valerie’s, which is nice in an early 1970s feminist way. It feels like Valerie is changing from a girl to a woman and a strong one at that. She is coming into her own after facing and challenging demons. In the mix is a handsome man who titillates Valerie.

I felt like I was emerging into the girl’s subconscious and experiencing her fears and desires alongside her.

Critically speaking, I would have preferred a little more logic and wrap-up, but that’s just me.

Surely, not a realistic interpretation. Was the girl dreaming while asleep or merely delving into fantasy one day? The more I tried to follow the story and put the pieces together like a puzzle, the less it did me any favors.

I then decided to space out and indulge in the other lovelies included. I should have done this from the beginning.

I am unsure how many Czech films I have seen, if any, but Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970) is a clear example of what Czech filmmakers can do, and it’s wild what they can come up with.

The mystique is likely multiplied on American audiences, and a viewer used to more formulaic approaches to film. With a desire for more put-together stories and logic, I nonetheless admired this film for the magic and style it offered.

Frozen II-2019

Frozen II-2019

Director Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee

Starring Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel

Scott’s Review #1,043

Reviewed July 22, 2020

Grade: B

Six years after the enormous success of Frozen (2013) comes the follow-up, Frozen II (2019).

Surprisingly, the long gap of time between creations is a long gap of time between creations, but the beauty of animation is that these characters do not age unless creators want them to.

The adventure story is fun, incorporating a bit of history, which always creates depth, but also charts familiar territory as the first installment.

The film showcases lovely visuals and songs, which usurp the other elements. Breeding so much familiarity, there seems little need for a third chapter, though I’d bet my bottom dollar another will emerge.

We are reintroduced to Anna (Bell) and Elsa (Menzel) as little girls when they are tucked into bed by their father, King Agnarr of Arendelle, one night.

He relays a story about his father (their grandfather), a treaty made with a neighboring tribe, a dam, and a magical Enchanted Forest.

As a youngster, Agnarr barely escapes alive after a fight erupts with the other tribe, causing his father’s death, and enraging the spiritual elements of the forest. There is also a key mention about Anna and Elsa’s parents’ lost ship, which is apparently how they died.

Fast-forward to the present day, Elsa and Anna are adults, three years after the events of the first film. Elsa, the one with ice powers, runs her happy kingdom with Anna serving as Princess.

They live in peace and harmony with familiar characters, Olaf, the snowman created by Elsa, Kristoff, Anna’s boyfriend, and Sven, his reindeer.

When Elsa begins hearing mysterious voices calling to her from the mountains, she pursues them only to reawaken the spirits and threaten her kingdom and her people. The group must come to the rescue to retain harmony, learning the reason for Elsa’s powers in the process.

Frozen II has a “nice” feel, which is positive and negative. A family-friendly film with a feminist, female perspective is beneficial, crafting a positive and inspiring message for youngsters, especially females, who watch it.

Anna and Elsa control their destiny, are empowered to go after what they want, and achieve results.

They also support each other, share sisterly love rather than being rivals, and treat people fairly.

The adventure that the girls and their friends face will end happily, that much we know. Slight peril emerges when Anna goads and then flees from gigantic earth spirits, Olaf melts and is assumed dead, and Elsa is also thought dead in the forest.

Still, these are aspects added for dramatic effect, and the safe feel of the film ensures that all major characters will remain in happily ever after harmony.

When Kristoff awkwardly attempts to propose to Anna throughout the film, we are sure he will eventually do the deed, which he does.

I criticized Frozen for limiting diversity in its production, which is corrected in Frozen II. Mattias, leader of a group of Arendelle soldiers, is a strong and protective character and is black.

As an LGBTQ presence, one is only hinted at.

When Kristoff befriends Ryder over their love of reindeer, Ryder admits he knows nothing about girls. Mention must be made of Elsa’s barbie doll-like appearance with her bright blue eyes and long blonde hair.

Does she have to look that stunning? Might impressionable girls get the idea that looks are most important?

Let’s hope not.

The best parts of the film are the musical numbers, which feel more enhanced than those in the first Frozen. Using the same song composers, the tunes feel slightly less poppy. The most emotional number is “Into the Unknown”, which possesses a mysterious quality and powerful, compelling lyrics.

Its message is to go for it, which can be interpreted as conquering fears or trying something new. The sound is anthem-like and superior to “Let it Go”.

Frozen II (2019) is a predictable yet fun affair, infused with Scandinavian elements, featuring mountains, fjords, and a gorgeous landscape that provides the necessary cold-weather ambiance and magical quality.

The visuals are lavish, bright, and sophisticated.

Part II is a slightly more mature affair but on par with Frozen and wisely targets the right audience. Tastes change, so if Part III is made, filmmakers might want to consider a deeper plot or additional details to maintain interest.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Into the Unknown”

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil-2019

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil- 2019

Director Joachim Ronning

Starring Elle Fanning, Angelina Jolie

Scott’s Review #1,039

Reviewed July 14, 2020

Grade: B+

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) is the follow-up to the 2014 film, titled Maleficent, and while not a necessary sequel, it surpasses the original.

The intent was to create a significant studio effort that would generate substantial revenue, and the experiment appears to have been successful.

The production is not as frightening as the title might lead one to believe, and children over the age of ten would be a suitable target audience.

While the screenplay features traditional plot elements and a predictable ending, the real winner is the visual and cinematic treatment, which will leave viewers gasping.

The lush landscapes, odd little worlds, castles, and forests blossom with vibrant colors and exquisite shapes and objects.

It may primarily be CGI, but marvelous all the same.

To recap, the character of Maleficent debuted in the 1959 classic animated Disney film Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is an evil fairy and the self-proclaimed “Mistress of All Evil” who, after not being invited to a christening, curses the infant Princess Aurora to “prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel and die” before the sun sets on Aurora’s sixteenth birthday.

The character has since “evolved”, now portrayed as a sympathetic character, who is misunderstood in trying to protect herself and her domain from humans.

For five years, Aurora (Elle Fanning) has reigned peacefully as Queen of the Moors with Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) serving as teacher and protector. They have a rapturous relationship and flock and carry on with fairies and animals alike.

Handsome Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) proposes to Aurora, thereby uniting her kingdom with his, which is met with caution by his parents, specifically his mother, Queen Ingrid (Michelle Pfeiffer).

When the players gather for a celebratory dinner, Maleficent is mocked, causing her to fly into a rage, setting off a war between humans and fairies.

A key positive, and a notable shift in the story, is that Maleficent, a legendary film villain, is written sympathetically, and the plot device is effective. Rather than have her sparring with daughter Aurora, the duo team up to thwart the devious efforts of the evil Queen Ingrid, who is the real villain.

Jolie and Pfeiffer must have had fun playing the roles, and both perform their respective parts adequately. Favorable to me is Jolie, adding just enough vulnerability to balance her fierce nature and blood-red lips. Pfeiffer plays the role straight, as a caricature, with no redeeming value.

Both roles are fun.

Keeping in mind the target audience, the characters of Maleficent and Aurora are inspiring, especially to young females everywhere. The film adds more than a hint of progressive feminism as both characters are strong and no-nonsense.

This does not detract from their sensitivity or sense of fairness. Both could equally be role models of tough yet compassionate female characters.

In most Disney films, there are heroes and villains, and we all know and expect that. The standard storyline of good revolting against evil is on display, and an epic climactic battle scene gives a customary ending to the film.

Likewise, the fairy tale romance between Prince and Princess is prominently featured, and for my money, Dickinson and Fanning are tremendous in the roles.

The chemistry between the actors is apparent, and there is a nice balance between a believable romance and strong, independent characters.

Queen Ingrid, barely a mention in the original animated film, is turned into an evil shrew, all completely plot-driven. The story is what I expected it to be, but not the film’s high point.

More impressive is how the viewer can easily escape into a world of make-believe and long to stay there forever. Especially for the younger viewers, the Moors are a bevy of magical creatures and fluttering fairies rich with goodness.

The comical Knotgrass, Thistlewit, and Flittle, the red fairy, green fairy, and blue fairy, respectively, make a return appearance, though in a limited capacity. It would have been nice to give them a stronger presence, providing more wisdom, more advice, and more humor, but they serve their comic relief purpose well.

Will there be a third incarnation of Maleficent?

The filmmakers provide a strong likelihood. After Aurora and Philip wed, Maleficent returns to the Moors with the other Dark Fey, teaching the young fairies to fly. She promises to return for Aurora and Philip’s future child’s christening.

This vow seems like an easy setup to build on the original storyline, unlocking the next chapter in this engaging saga.

Oscar Nominations: Best Makeup and Hairstyling

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master-1988

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master-1988

Director Renny Harlin

Starring Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox

Scott’s Review #1,030

Reviewed June 8, 2020

Grade: B-

By 1988, a tepid year in cinema, and with the slasher genre nearly dead on arrival, the release of A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) had the cards stacked against it.

The franchise feels tired and out of gas by this point, so more comedy and humorous lines were added, along with a return to a similar concept from A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987): the dream sequences.

The film is so-so, with not much that makes it stand out compared to the superior first three offerings.

Thankfully, Robert Englund is the mainstay and main attraction.

A year after the events of the previous film, Kristen (Tuesday Knight) and her friends have been released from the stifling Westin Hills sanitarium, putting the horrific events behind them.

Their attempts to resume normal teenage activities, like attending class and partying, are thwarted by Freddy Krueger (Englund), who begins infiltrating Kristen’s dreams.

As usual, a fresh batch of teenagers is along for the ride as they struggle to stay awake by watching Music Television (MTV) and revisiting the lavish junkyard featured in the previous installment.

The redundancy of another franchise film using the tired “one year later” to begin events anew is feeling like a cliché.

The main character, Kristen, played by a different actress, does not help the film; she only makes it inconsistent.

The fact that actress Patricia Arquette had little interest in returning for around two more films in the role is not the film’s fault, but a brand-new character, instead of a recast, might not have been a bad idea.

Recasting prominent roles may work in daytime soap operas but not in the movies.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, while quite similar to its predecessor, Dream Warriors, so much so that they could easily be watched in tandem, has some positive qualities.

I love the MTV angle, the music network channel overtaking nearly every United States teenager’s living room or bedroom throughout the 1980s.

If the filmmakers wanted to get teenagers who might not necessarily watch horror films, this was a perfect marketing tool. The target audience is perfectly aligned, and the film feels fresh and relevant for its time.

The drawback to the above point is that making a film that is timely means that decades later, its risk is being referred to as “of its time”, and sadly, that is what has happened with Dream Master.

Nobody will scramble to watch this installment when other better chapters are out there. There may hardly be a reason to watch this one against you unless a Nightmare marathon is on the docket.

The junkyard set and the creepy church set are very good, so the film does well from a visual perspective.

Englund is Freddy, and his familiarity cannot be dismissed, but the actor seems to be phoning in his performance by this point in the franchise.

Finally receiving top billing, as he should, he shares his familiar witty remarks and playfully taunts his victims like a cat would before pouncing on a mouse.

The actor adds even more humor to his one-liners, but this sacrifices the horrific moments, of which there are not many. A successful horror/comedy fusion is a delicate balance, and there is not enough meat on the bone.

Entertaining at best, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) is not well remembered, nor should it be. A dated affair, with emotionless teenage actors needing acting lessons and surely never to be heard from again, rounds out the cast, led by Robert Englund.

The film is a letdown because it is too much like Dream Warrior and overly predictable.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors-1987

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors-1987

Director Chuck Russell

Starring Patricia Arquette, Robert Englund

Scott’s Review #1,028

Reviewed May 29, 2020

Grade: B+

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) is a credible effort to take the at-this-point tired slasher genre in a new direction, using style and special effects to its advantage.

The film is not a work of art and does not stray far enough from the norm to risk losing its target audience, but the experiment works, giving the film a fresh feel.

Thankfully, Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) is in tow, providing wit, humor, and a rich character history rarely seen in horror.

One year following the events of the previous chapter, Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) awakens following a nightmare of being chased by Freddy Krueger, to find him in her bathroom, where she is attacked again.

Her mother believes that she is suicidal and sends her to Westin Hills Psychiatric Hospital, where Kristen is placed under the care of Dr. Neil Gordon (Craig Wasson).

The rest of the film’s events mainly take place in this setting.

A new intern therapist, Nancy, (Heather Langenkamp) takes an interest in Kristen’s case.

In two clever plot twists, one a bit too coincidental, Nancy reveals to the remaining patients that they are the “last of the Elm Street kids”, the surviving children of the people who banded together and burned Krueger to death many years ago.

The second is more intriguing, as a nun named Sister Mary Helena (Nan Martin) provides the history of Freddy’s mother, Amanda Krueger, who turns out to be the same person.

This humanizes Freddy a bit and provides layers to his story rather than just another “slice ’em and dice ’em” horror film.

The film has a way of gathering curiosity and delivering the goods with dreams, hypnosis, and mental synapses, as the kids realize they have dream powers that culminate in a group adventure.

Perfect for the mental hospital setting.

The junkyard sequence that provides the climax with so much muscle is splendid, adding creative, colorful bits of junk and littering the entire set with rusty tin trinkets and other nooks and crannies to marvel at.

A feast for the eyes and a perfect backdrop for evil and killings. The set design works tremendously well in this film.

The familiar character Nancy, played once again by Langenkamp (the main girl from the first Nightmare), is a nice touch that will please fans immensely. A returning favorite in a horror franchise is always a smart move.

The casting of esteemed character actress Nan Martin, who can frighten the pants off anyone if given a good part, is a divine decision.

The actress even resembles legendary actress Betsy Palmer (familiar to Friday the 13th fans as the dreadful Mrs. Voorhees).

The creepy mommy theme so often works well in horror films, and this inclusion is no exception.

The theme song to A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is a pop-metal treat written and performed by the heavy metal band Dokken.

This inclusion assuredly brought the teenage girls and the mullet crowd alike to movie theaters across America. The song is catchy and can easily be head-banged as the end credits roll across the screen.

Even more impressive is that the lyrics make sense from a story perspective since dreams are a huge part of the franchise and this specific installment.

Nearly rivaling the original A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in originality and plot, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) does a fantastic job of bringing energy to a fading genre, one that would not be rejuvenated for another 9 years when Scream (1996) debuted.

Engaging, brightly lit razzle-dazzle visual sets within dreams are pulse-racing and creative, while a mother’s story breathes fresh air.

This film is the sequel to a series of duds that will soon follow.

300-2007

300-2007

Director Zack Snyder

Starring Gerard Butler

Scott’s Review #977

Reviewed January 7, 2020

Grade: D

On paper, 300 (2007) could have been a good or even a great film under different circumstances, if a historical realism or a message of some kind had existed.

Unfortunately, what sounds like an interesting premise is met with a cartoon quality, overacting, and cheesy testosterone-laden bombast.

Little more than drivel, the film is saved slightly by a charismatic lead, male flesh, and potent homo-eroticism, but this is no Magic Mike (2012), and the content fails because it is intended to be taken seriously.

The result is a silly affair, with predictability and stereotypes for miles.

The story is based on a 1998 comic series of the same name, a fictionalized retelling of a battle in the Persian War.

The flimsy plot revolves around King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), who leads 300 Spartans into battle against the Persian “God-King” Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) and his invading army of more than 300,000 soldiers (hence the title).

As the battle rages on, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) attempts to rally support in Sparta for her husband (Leonidas) and conquer the army.

Butler is the only slight positive worth mentioning as he preens and prances in little more than a loincloth with chiseled abs during the battle scenes, ferociously bellowing at his enemy.

A fine-looking man, he is unarguably charismatic and poised, so the audience is strongly encouraged to root for him, and naturally for the Spartans.

Leonidas makes for a powerful leader and is great to look at, but that is where any positives to this film end.

The scantily clad gimmick is not intended to draw female viewers to the film, or at least the intent doesn’t seem to be there unless the marketing is botched.

There is enough male nudity to go around, and the beefcake and machismo are clear in most of the characters.

Laughable that the Spartans all have washboard abs and appear freshly waxed. Did they have access to state-of-the-art fitness centers in 479 BC?

The Persians are mostly face-pierced and sneering, the clear enemy, which does nothing to diminish racist overtones. Spartan-good, Persian-bad.

Zack Snyder’s (Dawn of the Dead, 2004) motivation seems to be to market this film to pubescent teenage males or the low-IQ crowd, so the stereotypes are not the best thing to witness, nor will they leave anyone feeling very liberated or united.

The characters are either cookie-cutter or grizzled and violent, which is in tune with most of the film- bloody, but without reason, substance, or merit.

One-note character after one-note character appears through each scene.

Most bothersome is the intent to stir a pro-war stance, not helpful given the target audience.

300 was filmed mostly using a superimposition chroma key technique to replicate the imagery of the original comic book, which only makes the film look like a high-energy video game.

The product is quite stylized, with gloomy battleground scenes and a dire, bleak tone, and adopts a graphic novel or comic book approach, but lacks any subtle qualities or pretty much anything else interesting from a cinematography perspective.

The battle scene finale is by the numbers and should come as no surprise who the inevitable victor is.

The film requires little thought or attention span, and one can immerse oneself on a cushion and absorb the nonsense, couch-potato-style.

Battle after battle erupts with cliched earnestness and a bevy of blood-spurting wounds and kills. This would be okay if there existed any point or good plot twist.

Any character development is missing.

300 (2007) is a weak offering and decidedly boring, a surprise since much of the action takes place on the battleground, where the pace is a mile a minute.

The experience is forgettable, and a legion of other action-fueled films exist with more meat and potatoes on their plate.

The sinister and stereotypical aspects make the resulting film less than fun, and the big, loud, dumb product is only marginally cinematic.

We can do better.

Mary Poppins-1964

Mary Poppins-1964

Director Robert Stevenson

Starring Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke

Scott’s Review #965

Reviewed December 9, 2019

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins (1964) is a lovely Walt Disney production that shines with zest and an ample supply of good, cheery tunes. A family affair, it will hardly disappoint, with sing-alongs and enchanting stories for miles.

It’s tough to knock a film that has it all, but it sometimes borders on sickeningly sweet wholesomeness with too much schmaltz mixed in.

This can easily be forgiven because of the robust music, dazzling visual effects, and perfect casting, which make the film enjoyable entertainment for all.

The Banks family resides in London, England. The foursome consists of George and Winifred Banks, along with children Jane and Michael. They live a comfortable and happy upper-middle-class existence.

When their nanny quits after the children run away to chase a kite, the panicked George requests a stern, no-nonsense nanny, while the children (now returned home) desire a kind, sweet one.

Through magic, a young nanny (Julie Andrews) descends from the sky using her umbrella.

Mary Poppins teaches the children to enjoy chores through tunes with the help of a kindly chimney sweep, Bert (Dick Van Dyke).

Mary Poppins cheerily takes the children on several adventures, teaching them valuable lessons. The drama involves light situations such as the irritable George threatening to fire the nanny because she is too cheerful or a mini-scandal at the bank where George works.

These side stories are trivial and non-threatening since the film is really about the antics of the magically odd nanny and her relationship with the children.

The film is unique because it combines live-action with animation and is magical and inventive.

This is most evident during sequences that feature animals, especially the superb scene where Mary Poppins transports Bert, Jane, and Michael into a picture where they ride a carousel and stroll the day away.

The appearance of horses and a fox makes the scene beautifully crafted and filled with joy.

The casting could be no different and is flawless across the board. Standouts are Andrews and Van Dyke, the former appearing in her very first film role.

Not to be usurped by her most iconic role as Maria in the following year’s brilliant The Sound of Music (1965), Andrews possesses a benevolent and delightful spirit that works perfectly in the role, to say nothing of her powerful voice.

Van Dyke, as the romantic interest, is equally well-cast, and together the chemistry is easy and apparent.

Mary Poppins was met with critical acclaim when it was released, when Disney ruled the roost and musicals were a dime a dozen.

It received thirteen Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture—a record for any film released by Walt Disney Studios—and won five: Best Actress for Andrews, Best Film Editing, Best Original Music Score, Best Visual Effects, and Best Original Song for “Chim Chim Cher-ee.”

This was quite a feat as the film was up against My Fair Lady (1964), which won the biggest prize.

Rated G and a box-office success, Mary Poppins (1964) is a legendary Walt Disney film that uses creative techniques and musical numbers to develop a finely finished product.

The song standouts are “A Spoonful of Sugar”, “Chim Chim Cher-ee”, and “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”, as each offers candy for the ears and immeasurable fun.

The classic songs and the cohesive sentimentality make this one easy to enjoy with repeated viewings.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Robert Stevenson, Best Actress-Julie Andrews (won), Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Song-“Chim Chim Cher-ee” (won), Best Music Score-Substantially Original (won), Best Scoring of Music-Adaptation or Treatment, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Color, Best Cinematography, Color, Best Costume Design, Color, Best Film Editing (won), Best Special Visual Effects (won)

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Motion Picture-Musical or Comedy, Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role-Musical or Comedy-Dick Van Dyke, Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role-Musical or Comedy-Julie Andrews (won), Best Original Score-Motion Picture

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever-1970

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever-1970

Director Vincente Minnelli

Starring Barbra Streisand, Yves Montand

Scott’s Review #921 

Reviewed July 19, 2019

Grade: B+

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970) is a very obscure film that deserves better than to be relegated to the unknown.

Released during a time when the Hollywood musical had lost its luster, it feels like a last-gasp effort to keep the genre alive, serving as a star vehicle for Barbra Streisand.

The film suffers from severe editing problems with a large portion being cut, so much so that the result is a choppy and disjointed feel, tough to follow as is, but left untouched, the film could have been a creative masterpiece.

In a particularly convoluted plot that spans two time periods, chain-smoking New Yorker Daisy Gamble (Streisand) is convinced by her uptight fiancé Warren (Larry Blyden) to attend a class taught by Marc Cabot (Yves Montand), a psychiatrist.

When Cabot accidentally hypnotizes her, he realizes she speaks in the voice of an early-nineteenth-century woman named Melinda, and he becomes obsessed with her as she teeters between two existences.

The screenplay was written by Alan Jay Lerner and adapted from his book for the 1965 stage production.

Film director Vincente Minnelli fuses fantasy with a musical to create an extremely left-of-center experimental piece; this is not your standard 1950s or 1960s MGM experience with merry or clap-along tunes.

Some of the more memorable numbers include “On a Clear Day,” a reprise at the end of the film, “He Isn’t You,” and “Love with All the Trimmings.”

Casting Streisand is a monumental choice as she carries the film on her shoulders. Belting out numbers is the singer-turned-actress’s forte, and she never disappoints.

She is fascinating to watch in the neurotic role as she smokes and prances around, usually in a tizzy or a state of peril (self-induced).

The performance stands out as a different style from many of her other films, and she has never portrayed a livelier character. Streisand overcomes a few challenges of the film, winning in spades.

She shares little to no chemistry with co-star Montand, who is not only too old for her but also not the greatest actor. If the film’s intent, which I suspect, was to make the pair the main draw, then this failed.

Streisand’s chemistry with John Richardson, who plays Sir Robert Tentrees to her Melinda in the other time period, excites her. The duo smolders with passion, but sadly, most of the nineteenth-century scenes are sacrificed, leaving most of it a jumbled mess.

Much more interesting would have been to leave the entire film intact.

An oddity is Jack Nicholson’s almost nonexistent role as Tad Pringle, a mostly non-described brother of Daisy’s. Is he also her neighbor?

In 1970, Nicholson was only on the cusp of super-stardom, and it is questionable whether some of his parts were left on the cutting-room floor, but the limited character is strange and unsatisfying. In another role, there would have been some possibility of romantic entanglement.

Throughout the film, I wondered how On a Clear Day You Can See Forever might have worked with someone other than Streisand in the roles.

I kept ruminating on how good Liza Minnelli might have been in the roles, given her non-classic looks (like Streisand) and bombastic voice. Her high-drama flair and capable New York style would have made the results enjoyable, but Streisand hits it out of the park.

On a Clear Day You Can See Forever (1970) is a brave attempt at something fantastical, brimming with potential, but ultimately feels cluttered and messy.

With a delicious leading lady whom the camera adores and enough creative sets and rigorous energy to keep one guessing, the film stumbles with many problems and leaves viewers incomplete.

Dumbo-2019

Dumbo-2019

Director Tim Burton

Starring Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green

Scott’s Review #889

Reviewed April 24, 2019

Grade: C+

Dumbo (2019), the live-action remake of the charming and emotionally charged animated original from 1941, contains some positives but ultimately underwhelms, coming up with less than a stacked deck.

The problematic and gnawing element that persisted throughout the Disney film was its overly cute or child-leaning quality, which was not to my taste.

Nevertheless, for an afternoon at the theater with young children under the age of twelve, the film is a recommended and utterly appropriate activity for fun.

My expectation, knowing that Tim Burton was at the director’s helm, was for a darker, perhaps murkier interpretation, given some of his films in the catalog.

After all, Beetlejuice (1988) and Dark Shadows (2012), though flawed, contain some wicked charm and naughty humor. Dumbo is considerably softer as the director chooses a safe, more accessible path.

Creating magic from nearly eighty years ago is a challenging task for anyone to achieve.

World War I veteran and amputee, Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) returns from the war to rejoin the financially problematic traveling circus owned by Max  Medici (Danny DeVito).

A widower, reunited with his two children, Holt is assigned to oversee the pregnant elephant, Mrs. Jumbo, as she gives birth to an unusual-looking elephant with giant ears who comes to be known as Dumbo.

The children discover that Dumbo can fly when aided by a feather, as the evil V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton) attempts to profit from Dumbo’s talents at any cost, adding to his fabulous creation, Dreamland.

The art direction and the look of the film are where Burton succeeds.

With dark, visually striking creations and intricate, spider-like sets, especially in Dreamland, the film bears the director’s unmistakable signature.  The costumes and styles are well-suited to the year 1919, and the wardrobe and hairstyles are in line with the times.

The circus stars and characters, from the fat lady to the exotic jugglers, are well-cast, adding good texture and multicultural flavor to the production.

The standout musical number is the poignant and sentimental “Baby Mine,” wisely featured twice during the film. Since the song is so lovely, this proves a bold move and my favorite part of what is otherwise a mediocre experience.

Sharon Rooney sings the version featured during a touching and painful scene between separated elephants Dumbo and Mrs. Jumbo, and the rock band Arcade Fire performs a different rendition over the end credits.

Anyone needing a good cry would be advised to check out the emotionally charged song.

While the acting among Farrell, DeVito, and Eva Green as Colette, the French trapeze artist who falls for the sexy Holt, is all admirable, two performances left me with critical fire. Keaton, typically a standout performer, goes full-throttle with an over-the-top and one-note performance as the villainous Vandevere.

Cartoon-like with herky-jerky head snaps and tic-like movements, the actor appears silly and ineffectual at creating any sort of robust character. Young actress, Nico Parker as Milly, Holt’s daughter, gives a dreadfully wooden performance in what could have been the film’s most likable character.

Besides one or two tender scenes the film largely goes for a cutesy vibe, not feeling fresh nor especially genuine. A Disney production, the film feels quite mainstream, lacking edginess, like the producers had dollar signs and major success on their minds over artistic merit or staying true to the original.

Other than a quick shot of the number “41” on the front of a train, a clear tribute to the animated original’s year of release, the remake strays very far from the first Dumbo with a few new characters and sadly no gossipy female elephants anywhere.

A disappointing offering, the live-action Dumbo (2019), the year’s first in a series of five expected Disney releases (Aladdin, The Lion King, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, and Lady and the Tramp being the others) lacks much more than a couple of sweet scenes, an adorable elephant, and admirable sets, feeling utterly ordinary in flavor.

This is a misfire compared to the legendary, teary 1941 version of Dumbo.

A Christmas Carol-1951

A Christmas Carol-1951

Director Brian Desmond Hurst

Starring Alastair Sim

Scott’s Review #871

Reviewed February 26, 2019

Grade: A

A Christmas Carol (1951), released under the American title Scrooge in Great Britain, is another film adaptation of Charles Dickens’s world-famous 1843 novel.

This version seems the popular favorite, historically shown on television around the holidays.

Alastair Sim is perfectly cast as the curmudgeonly Scrooge with the eventual endearing qualities in this earnest and incredible seasonal effort.

Set in bustling London, a fabulous setting for any Christmas film, the story gets off to a resounding start with Dickens’ words being narrated, subsequently presenting a faithful tribute to the book.

The brooding Ebenezer Scrooge (Sim) angrily leaves the London Exchange on Christmas Eve, eager for a quiet night at home. He begrudgingly gives his clerk, Bob Cratchit (Mervyn Johns), the day off to spend with his low-income family. He bemoans the holidays as humbug to fellow wealthy businesspeople he encounters.

Scrooge embarks on a strange journey at night when he is visited by his deceased business partner, Jacob Marley (Michael Hordern). Shackled in chains, he is doomed to walk the earth clad, representing his greed during his living years.

He warns Scrooge to repent or suffer the same fate as he is visited by three ghosts representing chapters of his life: The Spirit of Christmas Past, the Spirit of Christmas Present, and the Spirit of Christmas Yet to come.

The first two ghosts are more benevolent, and the third is mysterious and frightening. They take Scrooge on a dim journey through what will happen after he dies.

The centerpiece that makes A Christmas Carol work so well is its star, Alastair Sims. Hardly handsome, the actor is perfect in the role, offering relish with his irritated facial expressions and untamed white locks. As he dismisses a server at the realization that he will be charged extra for more bread, the penny-pinching Scrooge is in fine form, as only Sims can be.

Later, his cleaning lady assumes Scrooge has lost his marbles as he frolics about gleefully in his bedclothes, raising her salary beyond comprehension. He is a changed and jolly man.

Sims plays this range of emotions with relish and truthfulness.

The cinematographers work wonders, creating a magical London set drizzling with celebratory facets. With eons of pure white falling snow and streets filled with young Christmas carolers and city people, the film offers a great feel.

With the Cratchit household modest yet filled with holiday cheer, the film gives the audience the right blend of sentimentality and spirit, never turning into schmaltz.

The result is a richly produced film with a small budget, proving that a robust budget does not equal greatness.

Rated G, the film has a few dark moments but is tailor-made mainly for an all-ages audience. This undoubtedly is a testament to its success and staying power.

Neither a musical nor too heavy in the drama field, the pacing is perfect, and the story builds throughout the running time. After many decades, most viewers will be familiar with the conclusion, an enchanting character turn that is always wonderful to witness with joyful glee.

A Christmas Carol (1951) is a legendary film with crackle, spark, and a compelling atmosphere, leaving adoring fans looking forward to more each season.

For an interesting contrast, a suggested companion piece is the aptly titled Scrooge (1970) starring Albert Finney, a musical version of the same story.

Watched in tandem or even traded off, these two similar yet different creations offer interesting perspectives, both enchanting and celebrating the human spirit.

Mary Poppins Returns-2018

Mary Poppins Returns-2018

Director Rob Marshall

Starring Emily Blunt, Lin-Manuel Miranda

Scott’s Review #848

Reviewed December 29, 2018

Grade: A-

Mary Poppins Returns is a charming mixture of reboots and sequels to the immeasurably glorious original, Mary Poppins (1964).

Although it is impossible to live up to the magic of that film, the 2018 version comes quite close with a delightful turn by Emily Blunt, numerous Hollywood stalwarts in small roles, and gleeful musical numbers sure to leave audiences humming upon their exit from theaters.

Events begin to percolate twenty-five years after the original story, and the setting is 1935 London amid the Great Depression. His recently deceased wife, Michael Banks (Ben Wishaw), lives in the house he grew up in with his three children and housekeeper (Julie Walters) in tow.

His sister Jane lives and works nearby as a labor organizer.

Faced with the dreary reality that the historic Banks house may be foreclosed, Mary Poppins (Blunt) arrives elegantly on her umbrella to restore order and save the day.

Though her character does not overtake the film, Emily Blunt is dynamic in the title role. Her prim and proper good British charm and sensibilities crackle with wit and poise. It is tough to imagine anyone but Blunt in the role, as she puts her stamp on it so well.

With a smirk and a quick, matter-of-fact tone, the character is no-nonsense and utterly kind. The casting of Blunt is spot-on as she becomes Mary Poppins.

The London setting is adorable and fraught with good culture and sophisticated manners. Including the storied Big Ben is meaningful to the tale in a significant way and a teachable moment for children unfamiliar with London.

Furthermore, including a negative period in history—the Great Depression—is immeasurably positive.

The supporting characters are rapturous and a treat for elders familiar with the original Mary Poppins film. Meryl Streep plays Topsy, Mary Poppins’s eccentric eastern European cousin to the hilt, but never teeters over the top.

Colin Firth adds snarky charm as the villainous bank president, and Angela Lansbury gives grandmotherly zest as The Balloon Lady, an ode to the original novel.

Finally, Dick Van Dyke is a delight as the heroic Mr. Dawes Jr. who comes to the rescue at the last hour.

The real winners, though, are the enchanting musical numbers. With the lovely London landscape in full view, Mary Poppins Returns gets off to a spectacular groove with “(Underneath The) Lovely London Sky”.

Performed by the charming Lin-Manuel Miranda in the role of Jack the Lamplighter, Mary Poppins’ sidekick, the star has what it takes to keep up with Blunt. This is evident as the duo mesmerizes and entertains with a colorful number, “A Cover is Not the Book”, alongside an animated music hall.

Finally, fans will revel in the naughty and clever “Turning Turtle”, performed by Streep.

The costumes and lighting are both big hits. As Jack lights and defuses the street lights, we see the luminous dawn and sunsets, which give the film a nice touch.

During the film’s conclusion and subsequent race against the stroke of midnight, moonlight is featured, giving the film a warm glow.

The period piece costumes are lush, but not garish, adding flavor and capturing the period perfectly.

Although it lacks the oomph of the original Mary Poppins (but really, who expected that?), Mary Poppins Returns (2018) is nonetheless enchanting and inspiring in every way that a remake or sequel should be.

Given the mixing of humans and animations, the film is polite, polished, and filled with authentic zest: a fine creation and splendid entertainment.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Score, Best Original Song-“The Place Where Lost Things Go”, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design

The Polar Express-2004

The Polar Express-2004

Director Robert Zemeckis

Starring Tom Hanks

Scott’s Review #800

Reviewed August 8, 2018

Grade: B+

The Polar Express (2004) is a modern entry into the annals of holiday film history. Along with treasures like Rudolph, Frosty, the Grinch, and all the other standards, this film has become a popular one to watch throughout the season.

The film is not exactly like the others, since it is the first of its kind to incorporate live human characters animated using live-action motion capture animation.

The mood of the film is mysterious, edgy, and with a dark tint, so jolly it isn’t, but compelling it is, and visually it is a marvel.

The story is as follows: on a snowy Christmas Eve, a young boy living in Grand Rapids, Michigan, doubts the existence of Santa Claus.

When a steam locomotive suddenly appears outside his house, he curiously boards the train and finds a mysterious conductor (Tom Hanks) manning it.

As the train rolls away, the boy meets two other children on board and stops for another one who is also reluctant to get on.

They begin a dazzling, frozen adventure to the North Pole with the promise of receiving the first gift of Christmas from Santa Claus himself.

The main reason to recommend The Polar Express is simply the gorgeous visual treats it offers. In 2004, the film was a unique experience, and I fondly recall sitting in a dark movie theater, watching it for the first time.

There was a magical element to the surroundings, combining intrigue and fantasy that still holds up well.

For adults, I do not think the film is at all scary, but I have heard some reviewers complain that the moody ingredients are a bit frightening for children, so there is that concern. 

A major component is the mixture of human beings and animated tools. The familiar actor that everybody knows is Tom Hanks as the conductor.

Therefore, to sit back and observe the character is a wonderful thing- is it really Tom Hanks or is it an animation?

It is ultimately both, but the fun is in the observation and wondering how the filmmakers created this experience.

And listen for Hanks in other voice performances throughout the film. 

The story (or fable) itself is warm and fairly predictable. But, of course, being largely made with kids in mind, this is to be expected.

There is never a doubt that the boy (interestingly, never given a name) will ultimately believe in Santa after all and live happily ever after.

The magic is in the details, though- the boy’s journey to this realization is peppered with fun and creative richness- the little girl’s floating ticket and an ornament falling off a Christmas tree are good particulars. 

Director Robert Zemeckis and Hanks worked closely together in Forrest Gump (1994), so the pair are familiar with each other, creatively speaking. Hanks undoubtedly had much input into the decision-making, and it shows. 

I do not personally rank The Polar Express (2004) among the best of the best holiday film offerings, but I support an occasional dusting off of this work for viewing pleasure.

Perhaps over time, the animations may become dated or seem less dazzling, but the film is still worth appreciating for its creative elements.

The story is nothing spectacular (in a way, Scrooge for kids), but it makes for a pleasant family viewing experience. 

Oscar Nominations: Best Song-“Believe”, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing