Movie review: ‘Alita: Battle Angel’

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from “Alita: Battle Angel.” I remember seeing a trailer for it all the way back when I watched “The Last Jedi” in theaters in December 2017, so I’m assuming somewhere along the line it got delayed or pushed back.

The film was finally released in theaters Valentine’s Day weekend. Despite a decent marketing push, it opened to under $30 million over the weekend…not quite what the studio was hoping for from a potential franchise-launcher.

The film is based on a manga series about a young woman named Alita who is haunted by her past as a cyborg super-warrior. She’s torn between wanting to live as a regular girl and to also use her unique powers to help people. Of course, there are some who don’t care about her as a person and merely want to weaponize her, and she has to fight to protect herself, her family, and her friends.

If you’ve seen the ads, you’ve probably figured out that the character of Alita is brought to life via CGI, with large eyes and a mechanical body. At first I experienced a bit of “uncanny valley” but I got used to it as the film went on. You can sense the performance of real-life actress Rosa Salazar driving the character.

I enjoyed this film more than I anticipated, and my favorite part was actually the world-building. The story takes place in a sort of post-apocalyptic/steampunk city called “Iron City,” where there are many people with cyborg parts walking down the streets. In the sky above you can see the more prosperous, floating city of Zalem; many people trapped down on the ground in Iron City dream of someday traveling upwards and finding a better life.

Iron City felt lived-in, with a distinctive design and its own unique culture. I thought the population mix of humans and cyborgs was fascinating; some cyborgs have just one robot arm while others appear to have almost completely robotic bodies. Licensed vigilantes called Hunter-Warriors help keep the streets safe from crime.

I thought the story was pretty good as well, although the dialogue isn’t particularly strong (and some of the actors’ delivery of this dialogue is a little flat). Of the side characters, my favorite was definitely Christoph Waltz’s Dr. Ido. I loved watching he and Alita’s relationship develop, as she starts looking up to him as the father she never had.

You’ll see several other famous faces pop up throughout the film — notably, Mahershala Ali and Jennifer Connelly, although I wish the script had given them more to do. I also thought the character of Hugo, Alita’s love interest, came across as a little bland, which is a shame because there’s some really interesting twists with this character towards the end of the film.

My biggest disappointment with the film is that it introduces some thought-provoking themes but never really dives into them too deeply. Whenever cyborgs show up as part of a story, it’s a great opportunity to examine the question “what makes us truly ‘human’?” How does it feel to be a cyborg: part human and part machine? At what point would a cyborg stop being human and simply become a robot? In the film, there is one character who is saved from death by being converted to a cyborg in an emergency operation. Was that ethical? How much say did this character really get in what happened to them?

Again, the film does look at some of these issues, but not with the level of complexity I was hoping for. Like the dialogue, it remains on more of a surface level.

While “Alita: Battle Angel” doesn’t achieve cinematic greatness per se, I still enjoyed watching it and would like to see more of the story. I am disappointed to see it stumble at the box office, because this probably means we won’t get to experience the rest of Alita’s journey. Maybe it was just a hard film to market? Maybe it would have worked better as a Netflix miniseries?

Regardless, I would like to return to the world of Iron City and maybe even see other stories involving different characters in this setting.

Advertisement

There and back again: Revisiting Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy

This year, the first Lord of the Rings movie, “The Fellowship of the Ring,” turns 18 — if you can believe that. It doesn’t seem like it’s been nearly 20 years since Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy first arrived in theaters, making an impact on film and pop culture that continues to be felt today.

The trilogy is now so well-regarded by critics and fans that it’s weird to think back and remember what a gamble these films initially were. Three films (all 3 or more hours long) filmed simultaneously by a relatively unknown director, drawing from beloved but complicated (and lengthy!) source material? Many studios might have feared a potentially catastrophic flop, but Jackson stuck to his creative vision, and fans were rewarded with one of the best film trilogies ever made.

It’s been a number of years since I last sat down to watch the Lord of the Rings movies, and I was curious to see how well the films held up over time, especially since special effects technology has continued to evolve since the early 2000s.

My husband and I recently re-watched these movies, and I was happy to find that, yes, the LOTR trilogy is still awesome. The few special effects that did feel dated by no means lessened our enjoyment of the film.

I’d forgotten just how good these movies were, and re-watching them made me fall in love with them all over again. Here are some of the reasons why I think this trilogy has aged so well.

The journey begins…

It doesn’t matter how good a film’s special effects are — or even how cool the plot is — if the audience doesn’t connect with the characters. While Jackson already had plenty of great characters to work with, thanks to J.R.R. Tolkien’s original text, the casting for this film was spot-on, and remains one of the best ensemble casts I’ve ever seen.

It’s a shame that some of the actors who appeared in this movie have fallen off Hollywood’s radar over the years, but I’m glad new generations of fans will be able to discover their performances here. The acting, costumes, and makeup truly bring these characters to life, and I feel like if I tried to start listing out my favorite performances, I’d end up just listing the entire cast.

Another feature that really helps this film is the fact that Jackson chose to shoot so many scenes on location. These films came out around the same time as “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones,” but Episode II feels more dated because of its over-reliance on special effects. Jackson took the time to build lots of props and sets, and he showed off the breathtaking beauty of his native New Zealand, which truly is a real-life Middle Earth. Even after another 20 years, the cinematography is still going to look amazing.

Now, there are a few scenes where you go, “yeah, I can tell that’s some early-2000s CGI,” but this doesn’t happen a lot. I’m so glad they decided to use makeup and costumes for the Orcs, and took time to build all those props, armor, and models. They add so much texture and realism to the film.

Speaking of CGI, Gollum still looks great, and it just amazes me that they were able to make him appear so lifelike. A lot of that has to do with Andy Serkis’ performance; Hollywood owes him a lot for his pioneering motion-capture work. Gollum is also a wonderfully complex character, the kind you love to hate but also, in certain moments, catch yourself feeling just a little bit sorry for.

And I’d also be remiss if I failed to mention the music in this movie. Howard Shore’s score for this film not only fits with the story perfectly, it’s a beautiful musical work all on its own. The epic, sweeping pieces match the grand scale of the story being told.

The road goes ever on and on…

Although Star Wars is my all-time favorite franchise (and the one I find myself returning to most often), the Lord of the Rings has a special place in my heart because it was the franchise that first got me into geek culture. It sparked my interest in film and cosplay, and it introduced me to the concept that there were a number of fans across the world who were also super passionate about fictional worlds. Even though we didn’t know each other, I could connect with another fan just by saying, “Hey, do you love the Lord of the Rings as much as I do?”

My favorite characters when I was a teenager were Sam and Éowyn, and re-watching the film reminded me of how much they meant to me. Sam might not be a badass warrior, but to me he’s possibly the biggest hero in the whole story. His selfless dedication to helping Frodo takes him to horrifying places, but he doesn’t give up and is willing to sacrifice his life to help his friend. We need more people in the world like Sam, and I still look up to him and try to follow his example.

Éowyn is also a character who was a positive role model for me as a teenager. Despite the restrictions her world tries to place upon her, she rides into battle and ends up accomplishing the impossible — defeating the Witch-King. Watching the movies now, I do wish there were more female characters overall, and that these female characters actually got a chance to interact with each other. But that doesn’t take away from how amazing Éowyn is, and I love that she’s eventually able to find healing and peace after the war.

It’s impossible to sum up the impact of the Lord of the Rings in just one article, but I think one of the main reasons these books and movies have experienced such enduring popularity is their message of hope and light.

Humanity has lived through some very dark times, some of which Tolkien experienced firsthand as a soldier during World War I. It’s easy to feel overwhelmed and lost, and it’s tempting to look around at all the pain and suffering and simply give in to despair.

Yet there’s a scene in “The Two Towers” that I find myself returning to, where Sam encourages Frodo not to give up, despite the impossible odds. “Even darkness must pass. A new day will come,” he says. “And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. … There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.”

That’s the sort of message our world so desperately needs — and always will need. There’s still good in the world, and it’s up to us to not let the light of hope die. We don’t have to be powerful warriors; we can be like the ordinary hobbits, whose kindness, compassion, and courage have the power to save the world.

Looking ahead: Most anticipated movies of 2019

Attempting to peer into the future and trying to pick the best movies of the coming year is always an interesting challenge. I know there’s always going to be a Star Wars and a Marvel movie on my most anticipated list (no surprise there, I’m sure!), and then I inevitably pick a few films that end up being flops and/or stinkers. (Yes, I did put “Pacific Rim: Uprising” on my most anticipated list at the beginning of 2018. No, it did not make the “best of the year” list at the end.)

Then, there are always some really good smaller movies that aren’t on my most anticipated list but do pop up on my radar throughout the year — and turn out to be really wonderful surprises. In light of that, even though my most anticipated of 2019 list is weighted to the bigger franchise films, if there are some smaller, more off-the-beaten path movies that you are excited about, please let me know!

Since I ended 2018 with a list of my seven favorite films, here are my seven most anticipated of 2019. As Thanos himself would say, perfectly balanced…as all things should be!

7. X-Men: Dark Phoenix (June 7)

I don’t actually know if this movie will turn out to be good or not (it’s been delayed a number of times). But the concept intrigues me, and I love, love, LOVE James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Professor X and Magneto. I’m definitely going to give this a try.

6. Godzilla: King of the Monsters (May 31)

I didn’t love the 2014 “Godzilla” film but the trailer for this one looks intriguing (plus, that unexpected but fantastic use of “Clair de Lune” in the trailer was a stroke of marketing genius). I’m excited to see all the big-screen monsters, and to watch Millie Bobby Brown in one of her first major roles outside of “Stranger Things.”

5. Knives Out (Nov. 27)

This is my pick for potential breakout hit. As anyone who knows me knows, I haven’t stopped talking about how much I loved “The Last Jedi” since December 2017, and I’m super excited to see more from director Rian Johnson. While I’m most intrigued by his potential spin-off Star Wars films, I’m also really looking forward to his mystery crime thriller “Knives Out.” Plus, check out that amazing cast — Chris Evans, Daniel Craig, Jamie Lee Curtis, Michael Shannon…and that’s just a few!

4. Aladdin (May 24)

The chatter online about Disney’s live-action “Aladdin” remake hasn’t necessarily been positive, but I am looking forward to it because I’ve really enjoyed some of Disney’s other live action films, particularly 2015’s “Cinderella” and 2017’s “Beauty and the Beast.” “Aladdin” is one of my favorite Disney animated movies, and I hope they are able to do it justice. I’m a fan of director Guy Ritchie, but I have a feeling the portrayal of the Genie is going to be what makes or breaks this film.

3. Downton Abbey (Sept. 20)

“Downton Abbey” is one of my all-time favorite TV shows, and while I loved how the series ended, I can’t resist an opportunity to revisit these characters! I am curious to see how this works as a film, since it was previously in a TV format. However, just seeing all my favorite characters again will be worth a ticket for me.

2. Avengers: Endgame (April 26) – plus Captain Marvel! (March 8)

While I have some theories about what may (or may not) happen in “Endgame,” I’m excited to see how this story wraps up after a decade of anticipation. I hope it’s surprising, challenging, and thrilling, providing a satisfying end to the character arcs we’ve been following. I’m also excited for Marvel’s first solo female superhero film, “Captain Marvel,” and to see how she will play a role in the events of “Endgame.”

1. Star Wars Episode IX (Dec. 20)

If you know me well, you probably already guessed what was going to show up at No. 1 on this list. As I mentioned before, I haven’t stopped buzzing about “The Last Jedi” since I saw it, and I can’t wait to see how the story concludes. I loved the way “The Last Jedi” both deconstructed and reaffirmed the Star Wars mythos, challenging our favorite characters in unexpected ways and forcing them to confront their past and present failures. While J.J. Abrams has a difficult task before him, I trust that he’s going to wrap up the story in a satisfying way that will make me fall in love with the franchise all over again.

Movie review: ‘Bumblebee’ is the Transformers movie we’ve been waiting for

This is a sentence I never thought I’d write, but here it is: yes, a Transformers movie really is one of the best movies of the year.

The films in Michael Bay’s Transformers franchise haven’t exactly been beloved by critics, or by a lot of geeks. Though they’ve collectively made $4.3 billion(!) at the box office, their highest achieved Rotten Tomatoes score is a still-rotten 57 percent. The performance of the previous film, “The Last Knight,” indicated possible waning interest in the franchise.

If you feel burned out after the previous five Transformers movies, I hear you. And while you might not want to give the franchise one more chance, I’d really encourage you to do so. “Bumblebee” is a wonderful, surprisingly heart-felt and character-driven movie, and I absolutely loved it.

I know “heart-felt” and “character-driven” aren’t the typical words that come to mind when you think of the Transformers franchise, but “Bumblebee” has a very different feel than the films that have come before it. Set in the 1980s, the film follows the lovable, bright-yellow robot as he flees to Earth to find a safe haven for Optimus Prime and his allies after a devastating Decepticon attack. Bumblebee befriends Charlie (Hailee Steinfeld), a lonely teenage girl who’s been struggling since the death of her father.

Although Charlie copes with her grief by shutting out everyone who tries to get close to her, Bumblebee slowly wins her trust, and their friendship helps her begin to heal. When two Decepticons come to Earth to track Bumblebee down, Charlie and her new robot friend work together to save the day.

I really don’t have anything to criticize about this movie, because it pretty much fixed all the problems I had with the other Transformers films.

One of the common complaints about the franchise is that the action scenes were always a little too over-the-top; I love a good explosion in an action film, but the Transformers movies relied too much on special effects over substance.

While there are some cool action sequences in “Bumblebee,” they are refreshingly smaller-scale, and the emphasis of the film is on the characters. Sometimes it’s nice to have a stripped-down blockbuster like this, where there aren’t a million and one things flying at the screen at any given moment.

And speaking of the characters…I REALLY loved the character arcs in this movie. My biggest frustration with the past Transformers movies has been the treatment of the female characters, who have, for the most part, been over-sexualized, objectified, and basically relegated to the role of “eye candy.” I never felt like the past Transformers movies respected their female characters, and as a female geek, that was hard to watch.

By contrast, Charlie feels like a real teenager. She’s given hopes, dreams, fears, and struggles. I loved seeing her friendship with Bumblebee develop, and when they had to say goodbye at the end of the film, yes, I did get a little misty-eyed.

I’m not crying – you’re crying! (Okay, I’m crying.)

The cast of characters is actually rather small, which was also refreshing. This allows the film to really focus on the interactions between Charlie and Bumblebee, which form the heart of the movie. Another character I liked was Charlie’s neighbor and co-worker, Memo (Jorge Lendeborg Jr.). I thought his crush on Charlie was adorably awkward, and their relationship felt like an authentic “teenagers falling in love for the first time” experience. It reminded me a little of “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” one of my favorite Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

Like I said before, I really can’t think of anything to criticize about this movie. I appreciated that they got rid of the cringe-y humor (the less we say about “Transformers 2,” the better). There are some laughs in “Bumblebee,” but they’re sweet moments, rather than eye-roll inducing.

Anyway, I had no idea that I’d end the year by gushing about a Transformers movie, of all things, but here I am! 😉 I’m glad I held off making my “best of 2018” movie list until after I saw “Bumblebee.” I wasn’t even originally planning to see it, but when I saw it receiving really glowing reviews, I decided I had to check it out. I’m glad I did, because it’s definitely in my top five this year. It’s the perfect way to close out my 2018 at the box office.

Movie review: ‘Mary Poppins Returns’ is a charming, old-fashioned musical

My favorite moment from “Mary Poppins Returns” actually wasn’t a moment in the film itself.

I went to see the movie with my mom on Christmas Eve, and there was a little kid sitting several seats down from us. After one particular song and dance number (involving a magical bubble bath), the little kid proclaimed, “That was fun!”

That childlike sense of joy and wonder was exactly what I felt while watching “Mary Poppins Returns.” It’s a charming, old-fashioned musical that reminded me of the classic Disney films I watched as a kid.

Although the original “Mary Poppins” premiered 50 years ago, the sequel is set 25 years after the events of the first film. Michael and Jane Banks are grown up now; Michael, who has three children of his own, is grieving the recent loss of his wife and is also about to lose his home. The Banks’ childhood nanny Mary Poppins arrives at precisely the right time to lend a helping hand — and restore a little magic to the Banks’ lives.

While I haven’t watched the original “Mary Poppins” since childhood, I have seen the stage play a couple times in recent years. I’m sure other reviewers have spent time comparing the original “Mary Poppins” to its brand-new sequel, but I’ve found that isn’t something I’m really in the mood to do. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how nostalgia impacts the way I view new and old films, and I just wanted to enjoy “Mary Poppins Returns” on its own merits.

The structure of the sequel reminded me a lot of the first film, but the familiarity felt comforting rather than derivative, at least to me. I saw someone on Twitter compare “Mary Poppins Returns” to “The Force Awakens,” and I feel that’s a pretty good analogy, actually.

While some have argued that “The Force Awakens” is just a remake of “A New Hope,” I personally never agreed with that. “The Force Awakens” does have some of the same story beats as “A New Hope”; however, it uses these familiar settings, themes, and character types to tell a new story that very much stands on its own. “Mary Poppins Returns” does the same sort of thing. Some may find it reminds them too much of the original, but I thought it had its own unique charm.

I enjoyed all the song and dance numbers in “Mary Poppins Returns,” and I particularly loved the 2D hand-drawn animation sequence. Emily Blunt is “practically perfect in every way” as the new Mary Poppins. Although Julie Andrews’ classic portrayal will always be wonderful, I loved Blunt’s performance as well. She’s the perfect mixture of stern, proper, imaginative, and kind.

I also really enjoyed seeing Lin-Manuel Miranda as the lamplighter Jack. He was grinning every moment he was onscreen, and I could tell he was having a blast just being in this movie. It’s always fun to see performers who are passionate about what they’re doing.

“Mary Poppins Returns” is the perfect sort of movie to watch around the holidays. Just like after watching “Christopher Robin” earlier this year, I left the theater with a smile on my face and a wonderfully “warm, fuzzy” feeling.

Movie review: ‘Aquaman’ is a wild and wacky dive into the DC Cinematic Universe

It’s fair to say that DC Comics has sailed through some choppy waters as it seeks to build its own cinematic universe. (As a quick aside, I feel like I need to apologize for all the water-related puns that I’m going to be dropping in this review. Since I’m writing about “Aquaman,” I just couldn’t help myself. I’m sorry.) 😉

“Wonder Woman” remains the crown jewel in the DC cinematic universe, and while I don’t think “Batman v. Superman” received enough praise for the things it did well, for me at least “Justice League” was a letdown. As a direct follow-up to that film, “Aquaman” needed to make a splash at the box office and get the franchise back on track.

While an argument could be made that “Aquaman” could’ve been a stronger film overall, it is a fun ride, and is a step in the right direction for the DC cinematic universe.

“Aquaman” is sitting at a respectable 68 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and the “critics consensus” blurb is actually a fairly accurate summary of what you can expect from this film: “‘Aquaman’ swims with its entertainingly ludicrous tide, offering up CGI superhero spectacle that delivers energetic action with an emphasis on good old-fashioned fun.”

To quickly summarize the plot: Although Arthur Curry a.k.a. Aquaman (Jason Momoa) has decided to embrace his superpowers and help those in danger on the high seas, he doesn’t really want anything to do with his Atlantean heritage. His mother Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) originally fled the underwater paradise and fell in love with Arthur’s human father (Temuera Morrison), but was eventually forced to return to the ocean’s depths.

Arthur’s half-brother Orm (Patrick Wilson) has become king in his place, and Orm’s dangerous obsession with power threatens to bring war to both land and sea. Thanks to a push from Princess Mera (Amber Heard) — and the help of a powerful, mythical trident — Arthur decides to finally claim his destiny.

There are parts of “Aquaman” that are really great, and some parts that are more just “okay.” I actually really liked the mini arc that featured the love story between Arthur’s Atlantean mother and human father. I enjoyed seeing Temuera Morrison’s performance in Star Wars (Jango Fett and voices of the clone troopers), and I’d love to see him in more big-budget films.

I also really enjoyed Jason Momoa’s performance as Aquaman. He’s clearly having a fun time playing this character, and that in turn makes him fun to watch. I might not have predicted it originally, but the “super-bro” take on the character actually works really well. I also enjoyed Mera’s character. I feel like Hollywood has been doing much better with its portrayal of female characters in big-budget movies; Mera is Aquaman’s love interest, but she’s also an important part of the plot and gets plenty of her own action scenes. It’s cool to see her and Aquaman working together and mutually respecting each other.

The villain character is one of the film’s weaker spots. I felt Patrick Wilson was chewing the scenery a little too much (although the final scene with this character was an interesting twist I wasn’t necessarily expecting). The more interesting villain was Black Manta (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II). His story felt somewhat shoehorned into the plot, but I really loved the character and the performance, and I definitely want to see more of him in the DC cinematic universe. I would have liked to see him play an even bigger role in the events of “Aquaman.”

The film’s special effects did vary a little in quality. There were some moments where the underwater scenery really blew me away; it was gorgeous and strange and otherworldly. I saw some things I had genuinely never seen on screen before, and I loved being immersed in that world. At other moments, though, the CGI was applied a little too heavily, and the scenery ended up looking a little fake (similar to what happened in the Star Wars prequels).

Also, there’s some genuinely bonkers stuff in this movie — and I do mean that as a compliment. At one moment, Arthur shows up in this big underwater battle between a bunch of crabs and sharks, and he himself is riding this giant kaiju-like monster. Was it over the top and a bit ridiculous? Yes. Was it fun to see? Most definitely yes. “Aquaman” doesn’t take itself too seriously, and the film is better for it.

In short, the film does have spots where the plot drags a little, and some concepts could have been executed more strongly. There’s also a lot of little side-plots that could have been connected more seamlessly (Black Manta, the quest for the trident, etc.).

But in the end, I did have fun watching this movie, and I was definitely never bored. I wouldn’t mind diving into this part of the DC universe again (final water pun, I promise!).

‘Ralph Breaks the Internet’ – a (slightly!) belated review

Time always seems to go by quickly, but it goes by even MORE quickly during the holiday season. It always feels like there are lots of movies in theaters between Thanksgiving and Christmas that I want to see, but I never quite make it to all of them.

However, even though this is a bit belated, I did eventually make it to “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” the sequel to the 2012 animated hit “Wreck-It Ralph,” which opened in theaters Nov. 21. I’ve only seen “Wreck-It Ralph” once, when it came out on DVD (almost six years ago!), but I remembered enjoying it, enough so that I wanted to check out the sequel.

In the original, we meet video game “villain” Wreck-It Ralph, who’s spent 30 years inside an arcade smashing pixels, trying to destroy a high-rise building until Fix-It Felix arrives to save the day. However, he’s tired of being labeled as “the bad guy,” and he wants something more out of life. He breaks the rules and starts exploring other video games, hoping to make friends and become a hero.

Ralph does find a happy ending, and at the start of “Ralph Breaks the Internet,” he’s living a pretty good life. He’s got lots of friends now, including Vanellope von Schweetz, a character from a dessert-themed racing game called “Sugar Rush.” He’s pretty content with his circumstances…but Vanellope isn’t. She’s bored with the status quo and wishes she could live inside a more exciting game.

When Ralph tries to manufacture some excitement for her, he accidentally ends up breaking her game. Feeling guilty, he volunteers to venture into the mysterious world of the Internet to find a part that can fix “Sugar Rush.” Needless to say, Ralph isn’t fully prepared to face the exciting, confusing, and (potentially) dangerous World Wide Web, and the increasing conflict between him and Vanellope threatens to ruin their friendship forever.

There are two ways to look at “Ralph Breaks the Internet.” In the slightly more cynical way, you’ll notice that there is a LOT of product placement. Once Ralph and Vanellope arrive, you’ll see lots of websites that you recognize, like Twitter and eBay. They also spend time on a Disney fansite, with references to many other Disney properties, including Star Wars and Marvel (“Ralph Breaks the Internet” is also a Disney film). Is this product placement distracting and gimmicky, or is it charming and fun?

Which side you fall on will undoubtedly impact your enjoyment of this movie. Personally, I didn’t mind the “product placement,” and it felt a lot more natural than the similar product placement I saw in marketing for “The Emoji Movie” (the less said about that movie, the better). I loved the scenes on the eBay website, and I’m a sucker for Disney franchise references — it was great to see Iron Man and stormtroopers show up in “Ralph Breaks the Internet.”

Overall, this was a fun movie; it made me laugh, and I enjoyed seeing it in theaters. I have heard some comments from other viewers that it feels more like a series of shorts strung together vs. a more streamlined narrative, and I think that’s a fair criticism, even though it didn’t really bother me.

There are some really funny vignettes in this film, including a running gag about “pop up” ads, a frustration anyone who’s surfed the Internet can relate to. And the scene with Vanellope meeting the Disney princesses was just as charming as I’d hoped. There’s a really hilarious moment where Vanellope gets her standard “Disney princess ballad.”

On a more serious note, I found I actually really appreciated the movie’s themes of friendship and letting go. At times, the delivery of these themes was a bit heavy-handed, and sure, it could have been done in a more natural, subtle way.

But the main lesson to be found in “Ralph Breaks the Internet” is that sometimes friendships change, even the really close ones. Friends may develop new dreams that take them in different directions. You may become different people, and that requires the maturity of letting go and realizing that even though you may no longer have the same priorities or live in the same place, you can still be friends. The more Ralph tries to hold onto/control his friendship with Vanellope, the more he starts to lose her. In the end, they find a bittersweet balance; their friendship looks a lot different, but it’s still just as strong.

If you enjoyed the original “Wreck-It Ralph,” I’d recommend checking out the sequel. While it won’t end up on my “best of the year” list, it’s a fun film that’s good for families and kids of all ages.

Better Late than Never blog series: The Dude abides in ‘The Big Lebowski’

All Jeffrey Lebowski really wants is to get his rug back.

The easygoing slacker (better known as “the Dude”) is just minding his own business one night, when two crooks show up at his Los Angeles home and demand the money his wife owes their boss. The catch: the Dude isn’t married, and the crooks eventually figure out that they’ve got the wrong “Jeffrey Lebowski.” That doesn’t stop them from, well, ruining his rug and spoiling his night, and this incident leads to a somewhat bizarre, rather madcap adventure that involves our hero (in no particular order) bowling, serving as a courier for ransom money, and getting into a fight with a group of German nihilists.

Now regarded as a cult classic, “The Big Lebowski” was actually a box office flop when it was released in 1998 and received mixed reviews. Audiences and critics both seemed to warm up to it, though, and according to Wikipedia, in 2014 the movie was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as a “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” film. I wonder what the Dude would make of that?

I had never seen “The Big Lebowski” before starting this blog series, and I realized I’d actually never seen a Coen brothers film, either. The writing/producing/directing duo have a fairly distinguished Hollywood resume, including films like “Fargo” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” Both those films should probably be added to my movie bucket list, actually. 😉

I watched “The Big Lebowski” a couple weeks ago, and I’m actually still not sure how I feel about it. I know that seems like a bit of a cop-out, because in a review you’re supposed to say whether you liked or disliked a film and why. 😉 It’s interesting because with the other three “Better Late than Never” blog series films — “Jaws,” “North by Northwest,” and “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” — I knew within the first 20 minutes what kind of films they were going to be, and I knew I was going to love them.

I don’t think that I’ve ever watched a movie quite like “The Big Lebowski,” and that’s really part of the movie’s charm. I’ve seen quirky comedies before (Edgar Wright’s Cornetto trilogy is one of my favorites); however, “The Big Lebowski” has a style all its own. Maybe that’s why I wasn’t sure what to think of it at first — I didn’t really have anything to compare it to.

Here’s what I liked: Jeff Bridges is obviously having a blast playing the Dude, and it’s hard not to love the character. He’s pretty lazy but is good-natured and well-meaning, and I loved his friendship with John Goodman’s much more intense Walter Sobchak. I’d watch more movies featuring the misadventures of these two, even if it was just them sitting in a bowling alley and having conversations.

I also enjoyed the complicated plot; the Coen brothers do a great job drawing comedy out of the Dude’s somewhat bumbling efforts to stay ahead of everything going on (he’s often pretty much clueless). The soundtrack is great, and there’s some great cinematography. I particularly enjoyed the creative ways the bowling scenes were shot.

I did feel that Steve Buscemi was a little under-used in this movie, but maybe that’s just because I love Steve Buscemi and wanted to see more from his character. I also thought Julianne Moore’s character, Maude Lebowski, was interesting, and I would have liked to see her more involved in the plot, as well.

In short, I feel like “The Big Lebowski” is a film I need to see again to fully develop my thoughts on it. It was a weirder movie than I was expecting; that’s not a bad thing, but it did take me a bit to adjust to the narrative style. I think I might enjoy it more the next time I watch it.

And regardless of whether it ends up being in line with my personal tastes or not, it is a very creative film, and I can see why it’s become a cult classic with a devoted fanbase.

With the “Better Late than Never” blog series, it has been really fun getting out of my “cinematic comfort zone” and watching some movies that don’t necessarily have a superhero or a spaceship in them. 😉 There’s definitely value in watching something with a fresh perspective. I do also want to watch more Coen brothers films, to see how “The Big Lebowski” compares to their other work.

Movie review: ‘Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald’ receives mixed response

I don’t blame J.K. Rowling for wanting to return to the fictional universe she created.

The Harry Potter series has sold millions of copies, launched a theme park, inspired a blockbuster film series, and become a beloved literary classic. It’s a rich world full of numerous storytelling possibilities, and the spin-off prequel series, “Fantastic Beasts,” seemed like it had the perfect recipe for success: an exciting new setting, adorable magic creatures, and the backstory of mysterious dark wizard Grindelwald.

However, despite the fact the script was written by Rowling herself, the latest film set in the Wizarding World — “Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald” — has received a rather mixed response from both fans and critics.

I don’t want to give away the plot of “The Crimes of Grindelwald” for those who have not yet seen it, but it basically revolves around Newt receiving a special mission from Albus Dumbledore (played by the perfectly cast Jude Law). Dark wizard Grindelwald has escaped and is growing more powerful, and is seeking a gifted but troubled boy named Credence, believed dead at the end of the last film but somehow survived. Grindelwald wants to use Credence for his own dark purposes, while Newt wants to save him.

While I didn’t enjoy the original “Fantastic Beasts” film as much as the Harry Potter series, I thought it was a fun adventure with some really endearing characters. As a Hufflepuff myself, I liked seeing Hufflepuff hero Newt Scamander and his case full of magical creatures, and I appreciated his compassion and desire to protect these creatures. My favorite character, though, was actually a non-magical one: Jacob Kowalski, an aspiring baker who falls in love with the mind-reading wizard Queenie Goldstein.

As for “The Crimes of Grindelwald,” I liked parts of it but did not love the film. While there are some really powerful moments in the movie, I don’t think it was as good as the original “Fantastic Beasts.” I saw “The Crimes of Grindelwald” on Saturday, and already I’ve kinda stopped thinking about it. It hasn’t lingered with me in the same way that other recent game-changing franchise entries (such as “The Last Jedi” and “Infinity War”) have.

Part of the problem with “The Crimes of Grindelwald” is that it is a messy film. There are a LOT of characters and plot lines going on at the same time. I loved the characters, and I found the plot lines intriguing, but none of them seemed to get enough screen time. It feels like the Fantastic Beasts spin-off franchise almost needed to be split into two different series: one that focuses on Newt and his magical beasts, and one that focuses on Grindelwald’s plottings.

I wish we had seen more of Dumbledore, though I’m sure that will come in later films. His past relationship with Grindelwald is both an emotional one and one bound by a literal blood pact (important life lesson for would-be wizards: don’t make a blood pact with someone who might turn out to be a psychotic villain. Just…don’t.) I also wanted more screen time for Jacob and Queenie; their relationship takes an interesting and incredibly tragic turn (which was the most powerful and emotional twist in the film, I thought). The fact there’s a law forbidding relationships between wizards and No-Majs has some chilling parallels to the kind of elitism and racism seen throughout the course of real-world human history. I think the film needed to delve deeper into this issue.

I also feel that Credence is a fascinating character, and I was looking forward to seeing more of him in this film. Unfortunately, he doesn’t get enough screen time, and the film doesn’t quite seem to know what to do with Queenie’s sister, Tina Goldstein, either (her relationship with Newt feels a bit forced).

As for Grindelwald himself, I still feel that Johnny Depp was miscast in the role. Colin Farrell played a disguised Grindelwald in the last film, and I wish they’d just kept Farrell in the role. Grindelwald is a character who needs to feel dangerously charismatic, but Depp’s performance felt a little detached and disinterested, at least to me. If they really had to change actors at the end of the previous film, I could see an actor more like Michael Fassbender bringing some needed intensity to the role.

I feel like I’ve been negative so far in this review, so I’d like to end on a more positive note. I’m definitely still planning to see the next “Fantastic Beasts” film, and I really do care about these characters. I want to see what happens to Newt, Jacob, and Queenie. Newt’s fantastic beasts continue to be charming, even if they do feel a little tacked on to the plot. The film is best when these three characters are on screen, and I can’t wait to see more of Jude Law as Dumbledore in the next one.

Hopefully next time, these wonderful characters will have a stronger script to back them up.

Better Late than Never blog series: ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’

For whatever reason, I’ve never really enjoyed westerns as a film genre. I’m not quite sure why. Especially since some of my favorite films and TV shows have been influenced by westerns, some more overtly — like “Firefly” — and some more subtly — like the Star Wars original trilogy.

I’ve watched a number of different westerns over the years, but none of them really managed to capture my imagination. Yet I’ve kept trying, wondering if it was simply a case of not watching the “right western.” My husband told me I might like “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” and even though I was skeptical, I decided to add it to the “Better Late than Never” blog series and watch it with an open mind.

“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” is quite different from the films I normally watch. It’s not a “fun” film, and it is, at times, bleak, violent, and depressing. And yet, I can absolutely see why it’s labeled as a masterpiece, and considered by many critics to be one of the greatest westerns ever made. And though I wasn’t necessarily expecting to, I really loved watching it.

The Man with No Name

Clint Eastwood stars as “The Man with No Name,” a bounty hunter and con man who wanders across the wild west. He pretends to turn over a criminal named Tuco to law enforcement and then collects the reward money. Except, on the day Tuco is scheduled for execution, Eastwood shows up to rescue him, and then repeats this stunt in another town. It’s a rather ingenious scheme (though not exactly a morally praiseworthy one), and it seems to work pretty well for the two men, who always split the reward money afterwards.

However, they inevitably reach a point where they try to double-cross each other, and they end up chasing each other across the desert. They switch back and forth between allies and antagonists as they get caught up in a scheme to steal some buried Confederate gold. They try to avoid both the Civil War battles going on around them, and the mysterious man in black — known as “Angel Eyes” — who is also searching for the gold.

If you’re looking for a western with noble lawmen in bright white Stetsons or good-natured cowboys with hearts of gold, you won’t find them in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Although Eastwood’s character is “the good” character referred to in the title, he’s not a spotless hero. The film is gritty and full of shades of grey, with Eastwood starring as an anti-hero who sometimes does the right thing but is mostly looking out for himself.

The western deconstructed

Although “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” is still stylized, it most definitely does not present a glamorized version of the west, like many of the other westerns I’ve seen. After watching the movie, I did some research about the background of the film, and learned that director Sergio Leone actually intended this to be somewhat of a critique of the standard western.

I was surprised to learn that this movie was released in 1966; it seemed more like a late 70s/early 80s-style movie to me, and it feels ahead of its time. There’s some really great camera work in this film. I particularly loved the standoff between Eastwood, Tuco, and Angel Eyes at the end of the movie. I love how Leone builds suspense by quickly switching between camera angles: a wide shot showing the standoff, then a close-up of the guns, then a close-up of the characters’ eyes, and so on.

The scenery is stark and sometimes drab, but it works with the tone of the film. There was also less music in the film than I was expecting, but the music that is used is fantastic. Even though I’d never seen the movie, I’d definitely heard some of Ennio Morricone’s famous themes before, which are as iconic as the film itself (or, even more likely, part of the reason why the film IS iconic).

Enduring legacy

I’ve often heard “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” referred to as one of the greatest westerns of all time, so I found it super fascinating that it wasn’t an immediate critical success. It had a far more mixed reception than I would have guessed. I’m wondering if maybe it deconstructed “the western” at a time some viewers weren’t quite ready for that (or the violence it depicted). However, it’s certainly well regarded today, and I think it does manage to capture some of that “western mystique” while also feeling more authentic than some of its peers.

I don’t know if I’ll rewatch “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” a bunch of times, just because it is a rather bleak movie (and it is also fairly long). My response to it was a lot like my response to Quentin Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs”; sometimes it’s hard to watch, and the characters aren’t always sympathetic, but it’s definitely a cinematic achievement.

And despite its violence and cast of anti-heroes and villains, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” isn’t completely devoid of humanity. Although Eastwood’s character probably has his own wanted poster hanging up in a sheriff’s office somewhere, you can see flashes of the better man he could have been (and perhaps still is deep inside). At one moment, he stops beside a dying soldier; he can’t really do anything for the soldier at this point, but he lays his coat over him to comfort him and lets him smoke his cigar. It’s a small spot of kindness and an unexpectedly emotional moment in the film.

Based on what I saw in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” I definitely want to watch more of Sergio Leone’s westerns in the future. I think, perhaps, I have finally found the “right western” for me! 🙂