'Rocketman' Review

Nominated For: Best Original Song "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" (written by Elton John and Bernie Taupin).

Won: Best Original Song "(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" (written by Elton John and Bernie Taupin).

Synopsis: A musical fantasy about the fantastical human story of Sir Elton John's breakthrough years.

Runtime: 121 minutes

MPAA Rating: R (for language throughout, some drug use and sexual content,)

Who should see it? Teenagers and adults who are interested in the story and music of Elton John.

Directed by Dexter Fletcher with a screenplay written by Lee Hall, Rocketman is a musical biographical picture which details the highs and lows of Elton John's upbringing and rockstar career. Last year, Fletcher swooped in to complete production on Bohemian Rhapsody after director Bryan Singer was removed from the project, and the Queen biopic was championed by general audiences and the industry alike as it somehow managed to secure four Oscars, a Best Picture nomination, and a healthy box office haul against all odds. Those of you who read my BoRhap review and 2019 Oscar coverage are aware that I wasn't particularly fond of said film, so it's easy to see why I'd be concerned that Rocketman would be made in a similar generic musical biopic mold... Well, I'm DELIGHTED to say that's not the case! 

Rocketman doesn't completely break the mold, but Fletcher's method of retelling Elton John's life story as a non-chronological, fantastical jukebox musical is a refreshing creative choice. Many of John's greatest hits are included to relay major life events rather than serve purely as the basis for staged concert recreations. Though the narrative's thoroughly grounded in the tragic elements of Elton John's various additions, the dreamlike musical numbers carry an over the top bravado befitting of the exuberant musician. Fletcher alternates between dramatic reality and psychedelic song and dance numbers with relative ease and assuredness, so the switches flow naturally within the narrative.

Screenwriter Lee Hall frames the events as unreliable recollections from John during an Alcoholic Anonymous meeting in rehab. Though Elton admits to being an alcoholic, drug and sex addict, shopaholic, narcissistic, and a tad temperamental, he withholds key details about his life from the support group and presents a glitzy version of his experiences which are soon revealed to be a facade for the audience. As Elton reminisces on the life and upbringing of Reginald Dwight (his birth name), the story shown doesn't always align with his spoken iteration, but the production doesn't skimp on sharing the darker details of the pop star's life. The truth of it all may up for debate (especially considering the fantastical nature of the musical numbers), but I believe Fletcher and Hall crafted an honest, harrowing portrait of the ups and downs of Elton John's breakthrough years. Fortunately, Elton John served as an executive producer on the project, so he endorsed the film's depiction of said events through his substantial involvement.

Nevertheless, the script still falls into the rut of exploring tired genre clichés and breezing by some pivotal moments in the musician's memoir. Though the technical execution compensates for these shortcomings, as colorful costuming, vibrant production design, inspired choreography, and a committed cast helps Rocketman maintain its upbeat vitality. 

Front and center, Taron Egerton encapsulates the Elton John persona to a tee, voice and all. Egerton easily could have sunk into an exaggerated caricature of Elton, but the rising actor wholeheartedly throws himself into the role. Egerton replicates John's disposition and mannerisms but also imbues the necessary nuance to avoid an impressionistic portrayal. Taron Egerton ironically sang an Elton tune as a talking gorilla in the animated jukebox musical Sing ("I'm Still Standing" is reprised here) and recently starred alongside Elton John in Kingsman: The Golden Circle, so it'd seem he was fated to take on this part. Thankfully, he's got the pipes for it, and he echoes Elton's vocals to great effect!

Jamie Bell, Richard Madden, and Bryce Dallas Howard depict prominent individuals in Elton's life as his respective lyricist and best friend Bernie Taupin, manager and former flame John Reid, and wishy-washy mother, Sheila. Bell's a kindred spirit while Madden accentuates Reid's manipulative, cruel qualities, with Howard fluctuating in-between.

All in all, Rocketman blasts off as an extravagant musical bonanza which honors the respected rockstar's rich legacy and is also unafraid to explore the darker side of Elton John's history. Fletcher's unique approach to the material and a distinguished lead performance from Taron Egerton ensures Rocketman will bring the house down.

Film Assessment: B+

'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' Review

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom proceeds three years after the incident at Jurassic World which caused the park to close down. Dinosaurs roam free on Isla Nublar, but Owen Grady and Claire Dearing must return to the island to save the remaining dinosaurs from an extinction level event and relocate them to a sanctuary when the island's dormant volcano becomes active. Along the way, a conspiracy is discovered that threatens to disrupt the Earth's natural order.

The adjustment that most excited me about Fallen Kingdom was the switch-up of directors behind the camera, with Colin Trevorrow handing the franchise baton off to J.A. Bayona for this fifth installment. Though I enjoyed Jurassic World, the 2015 rebootquel lacked Trevorrow's directorial voice and was seemingly genetically engineered by Universal Studios to rake in all the dough (wound up grossing $1.6 B worldwide and currently is the fifth highest grossing motion picture of all time). On top of that, I haven't whole-heartingly loved a Jurassic film since the original, so I was really hoping Fallen Kingdom might rectify that and reinvigorate my interest in the series. After seeing Bayona's work in A Monster Calls, my anticipation then went through the roof though because that flick showcased his sensibilities and skill as a filmmaker who could tell emotional, character-driven stories with striking visuals. 

Fortunately, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom does the same whenever the suspense-driven blockbuster is at its best. Viewers are in for a treat anytime Bayona and his longtime collaborative cinematographer, Oscar Faura, get a chance to play around with suspenseful scenery. The third act is full of gothic horror-esque imagery that will have your spine tingling as you venture closer and closer to the edge of your seat and your heart sinks further and further to the bottom of your chest. It's probably the first film in the franchise since Jurassic Park to feature such inventive uses for the dinosaurs as devices of horror, and it's all thanks to Bayona's brilliant work behind the camera. Those key sequences work wonders for the film as a whole, truly elevating the more lackluster elements which I'll discuss in a second.

Also, be prepared to bear witness to the best opening the franchise has seen in quite some time. It's tense, riveting, and an utter delight that harkens back to the days when Spielberg was at the helm. I only wish Bayona had been given more control over the story so he'd have the opportunity to make more sequences like it...

However, there are some caveats I should probably mention... As skilled of a director as Bayona may be, there was nothing he could have done to salvage the atrocious script he had to work with. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly were the only writers to stick around after Jurassic World and it's abundantly clear that they had ideas for the third installment which they actively wanted to set up here. Fallen Kingdom unfortunately falls prey to the reoccurring trend in which a franchise focuses on the future rather than telling a solid standalone story (I'd cite The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Pacific Rim: Uprising as prime examples of this trend). Laying the groundwork for a sequel is fine so long as it doesn't take precedence over the story at hand, but Fallen Kingdom is much more concerned with getting to Point B that Trevorrow and Connolly didn't seem to care how they got there. Therefore, logic is thrown out the window and there are retcons galore to ensure the writers reach their destination.

Fallen Kingdom borrows plenty of plot beats from its prehistoric predecessors, but it takes from The Lost World: Jurassic Park most egregiously. The first hour or so veers very closely in the direction of blatantly ripping it off altogether. As a result of all this, Fallen Kingdom is probably one of the more infuriating entries in the franchise. It's a film that's very confused for so many reasons. It wants to paint a picture of dinosaurs as creatures who deserve to be preserved and protected, but simultaneously shows them to be rampaging murderous beasts who are incredibly dangerous. This establishes an interesting debate in regards to whether humanity should be responsible for these animals almost immediately, but Trevorrow and Connolly hardly scratch the surface of that idea despite bringing it up fairly often. There's simply no nuance to the discussion because their script doesn't give the characters much opportunity to sit down and discuss the issue. Besides that, the pacing and narrative flow feels ridiculously jumbled as everyone seems to be in a hurry to reach the closing credits in spite of having two hours and eight minutes to do so.

While the script may be messy, Bayona still sets aside enough time for some truly beatuiful moments which serve as sweet, subtle homages to the beloved original. Most memorable of these was a scene involving a brachiosaurus (you'll know exactly what it is once you see it). From a visual standpoint, Fallen Kingdom is a substantial improvement over Jurassic World's flat aesthetic with spellbinding cinematography from Oscar Faura and a better blend of practical and digital effects which are quite convincing. Meanwhile, Michael Giachinno's score is a swell accompaniment for the onscreen insanity, although not nearly as memorable as any of John Williams' legendary work in the first two.

In regards to performances, Chris Pratt continues to be the charming movie star whom studios can always count on. It doesn't seem like Owen Grady is a challenging role for him whatsoever, but Pratt portrays him well thanks to stellar comedic timing and his perky personality simply lends itself well to the character. He's mostly just playing an extension of himself, but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing since Pratt's a guy who seems fun to be around.

Returning opposite Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire Dearing has drastically improved her choice in dino-park footwear (no high heels to be found this time around) and has a more active role in the action than her administrative position last time. Here, Howard seems to have more personality as Claire in addition to more believable chemistry with Pratt, both of which were somewhat lacking in Jurassic World. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda play animal rights activists Franklin Webb and Zia Rodriguez, but both prove to be little more than plot devices in the grand scheme of things. Franklin, in particular, is an incredibly obnoxious character who seemed unnecessary because all he did was hack things and scream really loud anytime they saw a dinosaur. He's basically the token hacker that all blockbusters have these days and just might be the most annoying character in the franchise thus far...

Isabella Sermon has a peculiar role as Maisie Lockwood because her character is relegated to her grandfather's mansion so she can snoop around and gather intel for herself and the audience to understand exactly what's going one. There's one twist involving her character that I found to be really strange because it serves almost no purpose towards the story at hand. It simply left me scratching my head in response. In relation to her, James Cromwell is introduced as Benjamin Lockwood and does a fine job as the kindred old man somewhat akin to John Hammond. 

As for baddies, Fallen Kingdom's got little more than generic corporate types up its sleeve. Rafe Spall, Toby Jones, and BD Wong are a greedy businessman, auctioneer, and familiar mad scientist respectively. These archetypes are nothing new for the franchise, but the actors each gleefully chew up the scenery with their cartoonish characters. 

If you're going to see Fallen Kingdom in hopes of seeing a solid supporting role for Jeff Goldblum, you're going to be woefully disappointed as the actor is totally wasted in a glorified cameo. He's probably in that Jeep ad which aired at Super Bowl more than he is in this movie, and about 90% of his screentime has already seeped into the trailers. 

My feelings towards Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom are complicated to say the least. Despite everything J.A. Bayona was able to accomplish which made me love Fallen Kingdom more than its predecessor, there were many components that I absolutely hated and lead me towards a middle-of-the-road opinion when reflecting on this fifth series entry. Regardless of my growing indifference towards these sequels, I still can't quite justify the franchise's extinction since I'm admittedly interested in seeing where the next one goes from here. Here's hoping Trevorrow steps up his game...

Film Assessment: C+

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Spider-Man 3'

This review's a few days late because I wanted to be sure I got my Triple-R over Guardians of the Galaxy and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 review uploaded and I had other prior conflicting commitments. To make up for the delayed review I'm going to be reviewing the entire Alien Anthology prior to Alien: Covenant's release next week. Anyways, this week I'm reviewing Spider-Man 3 to tie into Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 as a Marvel release this past weekend and simultaneously advance my series of Spider-Man reviews swinging into July's Spider-Man: Homecoming. I'll go ahead and give you a head's up that this review will include spoilers but the film is ten years old at this point so if you haven't seen it yet then it's not really a big deal. For the remainder of May I'll be publishing Throwback Thursday Reviews over Despicable Me, Prometheus, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Retrospective Reviews for the Alien Anthology, and new reviews including King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Alien: Covenant, Baywatch, and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.

'Spider-Man 3' Review

Spider-Man 3 serves as the concluding chapter for this iteration of the web-head. Resuming immediately after the events of Spider-Man 2, Peter Parker is just getting into the swing of balancing his dual identities only to have danger looming overhead once more. Spider-Man 3 is a widely maligned feature, failing to materialize into a thrilling threequel and cap off an incredible superhero trilogy. Sam Raimi returned to direct and lent his hand to penning Spidey's third screenplay. Raimi's creative lens helps to steer Spider-Man 3 away from being a total disaster but his touch wasn't enough to completely save the venture.  

Raimi and cinematographer Bill Pope were able to construct at least one great scene to juxtapose nearly every atrocity captured but none of it really makes up for the fact that Spider-Man 3 shouldn't have turned out this badly. Spider-Man 3's main issue is its insistence on being three different films featuring three (a case could be made for four) different antagonists that were forcibly interwoven into one overcooked mess. The script comes from the brain trust of previous script spinner Alvin Sargent, Sam and Ivan Raimi. 

There are plenty of story components to pick apart but I'd say the most pressing problem was an overcrowded story that didn't particularly service any of the characters. For starters, Peter's facing at least three sources of conflict and that's an overwhelming amount to resolve in two and a half hours, give or take. There's the pre-established quarrel between Peter and Harry and the introduction of Sandman and Venom, the latter of which never quite jive into Spider-Man 3's natural narrative. You'd think that the sensible direction to follow would be for Harry to take the mantle of being Spidey's big baddie considering the groundwork has been lain in two prior franchise entries. 

However, Sony seemed to really want to force Venom into it (this is still evident today with plans to release a standalone Venom movie next year) and Raimi must have been dying to play around with Sandman. It's not that these villains are all terrible, rather the fact that they weren't all pertinent to the story at hand and don't fit well together. 

This is especially evident in the design and layout of the film. First, Harry's the threat until he suddenly gets amnesia. Then Sandman comes out of nowhere to bring everything full circle regarding the death of Uncle Ben till he's temporarily disposed. Eddie Brock fills the void of Peter's workplace rival at the Daily Bugle and the symbiote arises as a symbol of Peter's inner conflict. Eventually the two join forces to become Venom but till that point remain separate sources of conflict. 

One common thing you'll notice is that no more than three of these antagonists are adversarial towards Peter at once. The threats work but only two or three at a time due to the constraints of the narrative, almost like a game of Whack-A-Mole. Fifteen minutes into the film Harry gets amnesia so he's friendly till he regains his memories. During that time Sandman resurges, Eddie Brock threatens his livelihood, and the symbiote latches onto Peter in his most troubling time. Sandman is almost immediately disposed of (for the time being) and the symbiote gets put away for a bit. Harry regains his memories and Brock continues to be a jerk at work. Peter pulls out the symbiote again and fights Harry once he realizes his memories have resurfaced. When Harry's defeated, he remains on the sidelines. Sandman re-emerges and Brock and the symbiote coalesce into Venom. 

That's not even mentioning the string of plot-holes in between or the cringeworthy mess that is emo Peter Parker dancing at a jazz club... 

Believe it or not though, there are actually redeeming aspects to Spider-Man 3 if you know where to look such as the fights between Sandman and Peter, Peter's second confrontation with Harry, Harry's sacrifice, J. Jonah Jameson, or simply the fact that the black symbiote suit looks wickedly awesome. However, all these stand-out sequences or memorable moments are paired with an equally atrocious scene so it all kinda evens out when it's all said and done. The visual effects are inconsistent to say the least with gorgeous renderings opposed to disgusting digitized avatars and inadequate green screen work. It almost makes you wish they had gone the Spider-Man route, utilizing more practical effects or at least cut out a few baddies to conserve the budget. Elsewhere, Christopher Young stepped up to the plate after Danny Elfman bolted and I've gotta say he did a commendable job at composing some beautiful pieces to coincide with Elfman's pre-existing heroic anthems. 

For anyone that's followed my reviews of the two predecessors, you should be well aware I'm not a fan of Tobey Maguire in the role of Spider-Man. Maguire purely lacks charisma when he puts on the suit so I never buy the dual identity dynamic of Peter Parker/Spider-Man and his stint with the symbiote this time around is painful to watch. I'll admit he's got the awkwardness of Parker down to a tee, just no other aspect of his personality. 

Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane is once again relegated to her familiar damsel duties and she's fine at that I guess. However, I personally would have rather seen Mary Jane do anything else than be exploited by the villain for a nefarious scheme to ensnare Spider-Man for the third consecutive time. 

James Franco is probably the only returning cast member who I feel truly grew as an actor over the course of making these movies. Franco provides one of the better performances in the crowded ensemble, finally letting Harry's malevolent side loose, and Franco found a nice balance between being friend and fiend. Other retuning mainstays include J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris as Daily Bugle's irksome editor and the tender, supportive aunt. Newcomers include Thomas Hayden Church, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Topher Grace. Church brings terrific concealed tragedy to Flint Marko, making Sandman stand out as one of the more compelling characters among the group. Howard offers a fine portrayal of Gwen Stacy but has little more to do than serve as a love triangle/relationship drama plot device. 

Lastly, Topher Grace feels the most out of place among the ensemble as both Eddie Brock and Venom. Grace is suffficient in bringing a displeasing demeanor to Brock but Grace's portrayal of Venom verges on being featured in a scary Saturday morning cartoon. Raimi does his best to make Grace's over-the-top performance menacing, but it flounders with mixed results. 

I could go on and on about how flawed Spider-Man 3 is but I'm pretty sure you either already know from personal experience or get the gist from my extrapolation and analysis. When it comes down to it, Spider-Man 3's placement in the Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is equivalent to Spider-Man scaling the Empire State Building only to dive off the with no web fluid, no parachute, and only a rusty trampoline underneath to break his fall. 

Film Assessment: D+

'Pete's Dragon' (2016) Review

Pete's Dragon joins Disney's ever-expanding library of live-action adaptations of older films including the likes of The Jungle Book (2016) and Cinderella (2015). Like it's predecessor,
Pete's Dragon (1977), this new incarnation aims to tell the simple story of a boy Pete and his best friend Elliot, who just so happens to be a massive fluffy emerald dragon with camouflaging capabilities. And while Pete's Dragon's story may be small, it has a huge heart thanks to the special bond evident between Pete and Elliot.

The combination of spectacular visual effects work and John Kassir's captivating grunts make Elliot an authentic wondrous creature who just so happens to live in our world and he's irroestiable thanks to his dog-like mannerisms and warm fuzzy appearance. Elliot just so happens to be a nice comforting presence to both Pete and the audience because it's endearing every moment the dragon trounces onscreen. I'm unsure if that was an intentional choice or accidental, but either way Pete and his dragon are able to bring a smile, a laugh, and maybe even a tear to your face.

While many scoff at the idea of remaking or rebooting older films, I think remakes should wait to be judged as the purpose of rebooting should always be to make a better version, never about being a cash grab. Thankfully, this film is superior in visuals alone and succeeds in just about every other category thanks to director David Lowerey's vision.

Lowerey helms the reboot, in addition to taking up writing duties alongside Toby Halbrooks, bringing some awe-inspiring shots of Elliot maneuvering the skies thanks to some nice collaboration between the cinematographer and visual effects team. Lowerey's vision takes the basic concept of the original and makes it more accessible as the remake has a timeless charm to it, even though it's set in a seemingly 80's era small town. My only issues with Pete's Dragon lies in it's screenplay.

Lowerey and Halbrooks penned a sweet story but some dialogue was very cheesy and the supporting characters fell flat, failing to feel more than one-note caricatures. Despite the story's sweet and valuable undertones, it seems all too reminiscent of various other Disney properties about outsiders discovering man's world and all it's wonders, the importance of family, and the values of friendship including Tarzan, this year's The Jungle Book, The Good Dinosaur, and even to some degree Thor.

There was one other film took into account as being remarkably similar, and I even had similar feelings towards it, Jurassic World. Conveniently, both starred Bryce Dallas Howard, other worldly computer generated creatures, succeed in technical elements but lack the proper script. I also enjoyed Jurassic World, but feel it was grossly overrated and didn't reach the heights of Jurassic Park, but that's a story for a Recollection Reflection Review some other day. Anyways, my point is that although the story differentiates significantly from the predecessor and aims to bring something new to the table it reminded me of several other films that just so happened to be under the Disney umbrella.

Whilst all I've mentioned so far is important in a films success, there was one critical factor in making sure Pete's Dragon was going to work, and that was in casting Pete. Disney needed to find a child actor who could act opposite a CGI creature and be able to reach out to the audience convincing them that Pete and Elliot were worth caring about. Fortunately, Disney has their work cut out for them with an excellent casting department finding Neel Sethi recently for his star-turning role as Mowgli in The Jungle Book and now Oakes Fegley as Pete.

Fegley hits all the marks, accurately depicting Pete as a child who's been isolated for a majority of his life as he's amazed by the local small town and all it has to offer and at the same time captures the childlike wonder one would have if their best friend were a dragon. Fegley's performance helps the audience buy into Elliot and Fegley also manages to showcase a nice range for such a young performer. I won't be surprised if Fegley begins to see a lot more work turn up as child actors are invaluable these days and Fegley's proven here that he's more than capable of measuring up to any task requested of him.

Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford, Wes Bentley, and Karl Urban all offer up terrific performances, as is to be expected from actors of their caliber, but suffer by portraying thinly sketched characters as the endearing park ranger Grace, kindred father Meacham, kind wood mill operator Jack, and devious Gavin respectively.

No doubt about it, Pete's Dragon is a cute movie but the film never quite reaches it's full potential as Pete's Dragon soars in it's technical prowess, exemplifying excellent filmmaking, making it's static one-dimensional characters and uninspired screenplay a bummer. However, Pete's Dragon succeeds in the vein of actually being a remake superior to the original and is definitely worth seeing.

Film Assessment: B

'Jurassic World' Review

So thanks to one of my friends I was able to view Jurassic World two days ahead of release. I thoroughly enjoyed the film as it is filled to the brim with action and some great comedic relief. It wasn't as great as Jurassic Park, but I can say it's the best Jurassic Park sequel! The performances in the film were pretty great. Chris Pratt was charismatic as always and I can't wait to see him in future films! I really enjoyed his character and think it is enough evidence that he could actually play Indiana Jones in a reboot. Bryce Dallas Howard was enjoyable as the female lead so I look forward to any future projects she is involved in. Vincent D'Onofrio was great as a militant man who wants to utilize the dinosaurs for combat and it was fun to see his acting range on display here. The visual effects were stunning and beautiful to look at and the dinosaurs looked awesome! The action scenes with the dinosaurs were very entertaining and had you on the edge of your seat throughout an entire sequence. Overall, Jurassic World may not be the best film but it is a very enjoyable one nonetheless so I highly recommend it as a popcorn flick.