'Frozen II' Review

Nominated For: Best Original Song "Into The Unknown" (written by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez).

Synopsis: Anna, Elsa, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven leave Arendelle to travel to an ancient, autumn-bound forest of an enchanted land. They set out to find the origin of Elsa's powers in order to save their kingdom.

Runtime: 103 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for action/peril and some thematic elements)

Who should see it? Fans of Disney and Frozen.

Returning to the helm of Walt Disney Animation's frostiest franchise, Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck co-direct Frozen II, which features a screenplay by Lee and story from Lee, Buck, songwriters Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, and Marc Smith. Following up the second most successful animated film of all time is a daunting proposition, but Lee and Buck seem to face the challenge earnestly. While I don't think the narrative reached its full potential, I commend the filmmakers for charting a new course rather than retreading what came before. With that being said, Frozen II totally feels like one of Disney's direct-to-video sequel releases. The animation and music are up to snuff, but the story's severely lacking... Which is more-or-less how I felt about the original. This is probably a very unpopular opinion of mine, but these two films are, without a doubt, the weakest films from Walt Disney's animation division this decade.

None of this is to say I "hate" either because that couldn't be further from the truth. I've just never been entirely on board the Frozen hype train and think that's important for understanding my perspective. I appreciate musicals, and really enjoy most of the songs by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez, but I also value quality storytelling. I just happen to think neither film shines in that regard. Thematically, they offer well-intentioned messages about sisterly love and being yourself, among other things. However, these ideas aren't explored as extensively as they could be.

My patience was also worn by constant callbacks to the original, which stall the story. These longwinded jokes are made at the expense of the film's pacing, which fluctuates between hurried and glacial. A group of new characters found in the enchanted forest may as well be a bunch of cardboard cutouts seeing as they have no discernible characteristics, existing solely to prop up the core messaging. The supporting characters carried over from the first film are also dead weight with stale subplots. Meanwhile, the ending is void of any meaningful stakes and consequences.

On the other end of the icicle, Frozen II features a few power ballads of the same caliber as "Let It Go," which are "Into The Unknown," "Show Yourself," and "Lost In The Woods." Across the board, the soundtrack is pretty strong, though not quite as memorable as its predecessor. It's worth noting that a few outtakes are included on the soundtrack that I thought were better than songs that actually made it into the final cut. The animation also features a more diverse array of colors and locations as an autumn aesthetic overtakes this sequel. Lee and Buck offer glimpses of an epic fantasy adventure with a grander scope and scale than the original but hesitate to commit to a much more enticing alternative. It probably won't surprise anyone for me to say this, but every sequence where Elsa finds herself alone is stunning, and Idina Menzel's mezzo-soprano belting is heavenly. Even more of that in the inevitable third installment, please.

Reprising their widely beloved roles, Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, Jonathan Groff, and Josh Gad lend solid vocal performances. Menzel and Groff are the standout singers of the bunch, but Kristen Bell isn't too far behind. However, Josh Gad's Olaf grated on my nerves. Your tolerance of the snowman sidekick may vary depending on how you felt about him previously. Otherwise, Sterling K. Brown and Evan Rachel Wood are noteworthy additions to the cast. Though I wish Sterling K. Brown had a more substantial role since I know what he's capable of bringing to the material.

Like most sequels, it's clear Frozen II had lofty aspirations to expand on everything that initially captivated audiences. Though the animation and select songs measure up to that ambition, Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck struggle to sustain an ascent. Despite leaving largely unimpressed, I think the narrative potential for this franchise hasn't frozen over yet. 

Film Assessment: B-

'Murder on the Orient Express' (2017) Review

[This review was originally written in November 2017 and is now being published that my internship is over. For an explanation of this, visit my Fall 2017 Important Update post.] 

Murder on the Orient Express chugs along with world-renowned detective Hercule Poirot as he travels on the extravagant Orient Express enroute to London so he can solve yet another case. However, his recess is interrupted when the lavish locomotive becomes the scene of a murder, and responsibility falls upon Poirot to catch the culprit responsible for committing the crime among a dozen of the train's dubious passengers.

Murder on the Orient Express adapts a novel written by Agatha Christie and this 2017 rendition is directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also happens to star as the brilliant Belgian detective. Branagh's version joins one pre-existing film adaptation, three television series (including one Japanese incarnation), and the novel itself of course. Considering I haven't seen or read any of these, I can't quite speak to how faithfully Branagh adapted the novel or how it compares to the other editions. I can however say though that Branagh imbues Murder on the Orient Express with the stylistic sensibilities of an old-fashioned murder mystery, which really works in the film's favor.

Branagh and his crew create a convincing 1930s environment to coup up the characters (full marks to the production and costume designers, as well as the hair and makeup team) while cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos cunningly captures captivating imagery within the confined compartments of the Orient Express. Patrick Doyle's score also fuels the coal fire with a liveliness that mimics the movement of a train as it rarely stops chugging along. Murder on the Orient Express rides a set of comfortable tracks in regards to aesthetic, but the script accounts for a bumpier ride.

Again, I can't attest to the accuracy of this adaptation and so I'm unsure if any of my complaints are better directed towards Christie or the film's screenwriter, Michael Green. Regardless of where the problem lies, theres still an issue. Murder on the Orient Express is a whodunnit murder mystery, and when solving a mystery it's best to key the audience in on various clues by showing rather than telling. Branagh goes with the latter though, essentially spilling all the details in expositional dialogue. The mystery and the characters involved aren't nearly as fascinating as they should be considering the viewer's knowledge is relatively restricted to what Poirot explains to them, which really is a shame considering the quality of the cast assembled for the project. Murder on the Orient Express also isn't in any hurry to meet its destination, so naturally the pacing can veer towards being slightly sluggish on occasion. 

Murder on the Orient Express amasses an exceptional ensemble, and while certain actors are able to stick out from the crowd a tad, Kenneth Branagh's the only one who truly shines... or was it just his character's marvelous moustache? Anyways, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Josh Gad, Willem DaFoe, Michelle Pfeiffer, Leslie Odom Jr., and Tom Bateman are actually quite good when afforded the opportunity to do or say something, but the ensemble as a whole is woefully underutilized and are made out to be mostly stock background caricatures rather than fully, fleshed individuals. 

I'd love to confidently shout "All aboard the Orient Express," but the journey's a little trepidatious if I'm being honest. Branagh steals the show from both behind and in-front of the camera, providing the embers necessary to keep the flick moving, but the film almost veers offtrack due to the script's underwhelming roles for his extraordinary ensemble.

Film Assessment: C+

'Beauty and the Beast' (2017) Review

Nominated For: Best Costume Design and Best Production Design.

Beauty and the Beast is the latest live-action retelling of one of Disney's classic animated films, joining the ranks of remakes abound from the studio. Before seeing this I had no idea what to expect considering Disney's live-action remakes have been hit or miss for me. I loved The Jungle Book (2016), was satisfied with Cinderella (2015) and Pete's Dragon (2016), found myself disappointed by Maleficent, and absolutely hated Alice in Wonderland (2010). The very idea of remaking what is regarded to arguably be one of Disney's greatest films is daunting and hats off to director Bill Condon for putting forth an admirable effort. 

Screenwriters Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos make a number of tweaks to the 1991 animation that I wasn't quite expecting. A majority of these changes are incorporated to fill plot holes or simply modernize the tale as old as time, serving as a dual edged sword in return. On one hand, the characters are rewarded richer backstories and slight modifications made the romance between Belle and Beast feel more organic as opposed to good ol' fashioned Stockholm Syndrome. On the flip side, the extra exposition stretches out the story leading to uneven pacing that permitted some scenes to drag their feet across the floor. 

One change in particular that has been met with ample controversy was the decision to portray this version of LeFou as the first openly gay Disney character and the description of an "exclusively gay moment" appearing in the film's finale. While those two statements are accurate, the controversy surrounding them is simply unjustified. The characterization is subtle and the moment referred to is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it occurrence that's not quite worth boycotting the film over in my opinion (I'd compare it to how Sulu was treated in Star Trek Beyond). If anything, this change actually improves the character; granting LeFou a more fulfilling character arc than his stint as the dopey sidekick in the animated incarnation. Even though I thought the change was unnecessary when I walked in, I can see why the alteration was made and can agree it enhanced that aspect of the story in a way I didn't expect. 

I was pleasantly surprised not to watch a beat-for-beat retread but fear not Disney purists because all the iconic imagery, sensational songs, and classic moments maintain their luster. Alan Menken returns to his scoring duties, composing a few additional songs in addition to updating his pre-existing tunes. On that note, if you try to sing along you may find it a little difficult because the lyric annunciation and syncopated rhythms differ from what you're used to (You'll probably adjust once you hear the updated soundtrack a few times). Grand musical numbers "Gaston" and "Be Our Guest" are still showstoppers while the new renditions of "Belle", "Something There", and "Beauty and the Beast" are equally enchanting as the original versions. Though the new songs were mostly mediocre, I found  "Evermore" to be a brilliant baritone ballad for Dan Stevens (the Beast). 

Across the board I was quite impressed by the cast's universal musical abilities. Luke Evans and Ewan McGregor stood out in particular as they were the two I was most concerned about but were the two who nearly stole the show. I was also worried about the visual effects depicting the inhabitants of Beast's castle and Ewan McGregor's french accent as Lumière judging from the trailers but turns out my anxieties were ill-conceived. 

The production design team behind Beauty and the Beast piece together a practical lavish set, breathtakingly gorgeous costumery evocative of the clothing worn by the animated characters, and exceptional visual effects that blend seamlessly with the surrounding world. The design of the household servants projects the guise of antique medieval home decor, allowing for more believable anthropomorphized objects in contrast to the cartoonish look evidenced by the animation. 

The Beast is probably the best live-action translation possible in terms of appearance but the entire time you can tell he's a byproduct of CG-animation so he's not quite perfect (but it's really close). Elsewhere, the casting is about perfect across the board and I was shocked to see they each offered something new rather than emulating what's come before. 

Emma Watson puts her own spin on Belle, striking a nice balance of gentleness, beauty, and intellect that allows this version of Belle to come across as a capable heroine who's definitely an ideal role model for young girls everywhere. Dan Stevens impressed me quite a bit as he captured the anguish, torture, and inner humanity of the Beast through his motion-capture portrayal (assisted by the vfx department of course). 

Luke Evans offers an ambitious take on Gaston and I have to say he succeeds in spades while Josh Gad injects a new dimension to LeFou (that I spoke of earlier) in addition to serving as a nice dose of comedic relief. Evans and Gad's pairing as Gaston and LeFou stood high and mighty as one of the film's highlights. Evans expertly apprehends the pompous, narcissistic over-the-top demeanor whilst avoiding the appearance of a stale one-dimensional antagonist. 

As for the antique appliances, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, and Nathan Mack each portray the bravado, restraint, motherly instinct and childlike wonder of Lumière, Cogsworth, Mrs. Potts, and Chip's respective personalities. I felt McGregor nailed the french accent but Thompson came off as yearning too much for Angela Lansbury's voice on occasion leading to some inconsistent dialogue delivery. Fun fact: McGregor went back and rerecorded his dialogue because he wasn't satisfied with his first go-around. The remaining ensemble is composed of Kevin Kline, Stanley Tucci, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and Audra McDonald filling the roles of Maurice, Maestro Cadenza, Plumette, and Madame Garderobe who each muster serviceable roles in the story. 

All in all, Beauty and the Beast is a glamorous reiteration of the 1991 animated classic that boasts an impressive ensemble, illustrious effects, and secure direction. My screening was in IMAX 3D so I'd recommend seeing this on the biggest screen possible considering the massive screen and refined sound amplified the experience of the grand musical numbers. In conclusion, Beauty and the Beast (2017) may not stand toe-to-toe with Beauty and the Beast (1991), because the original's nearly perfect, but it offers enough pleasantries to more than justify the price of admission. 

Film Assessment: A-

'A Dog's Purpose' Review

A dog is reincarnated time and time again in search of the canine meaning of life. That's the premise for A Dog's Purpose, a film that will be released this weekend embroiled in controversy. If you haven't heard about it and are wondering what could possibly be so controversial about a dog movie, then just do a Google search and the first thing you'll probably find is a set video depicting a dog seemingly forced into running water, although there has yet to be an official report as to what actually happened on set. Now, I personally think it's always appropriate to separate subjective entertainment from the circumstances surrounding it and considering that animal cruelty hasn't been undeniably proven I won't be slamming this movie with blatant accusations (although I would avoid that regardless). 

A Dog's Purpose is directed by three-time Academy Award nominated director Lasse Hallström, but you would have absolutely no idea of that from watching this movie. That's not to say it's directed poorly, just not with the caliber or prestige one would expect upon learning that tidbit. The screenplay was conjured together to adapt W. Bruce Cameron's source material by a team of five screenwriters including the author himself, Cathryn Michon, Audrey Wells, Maya Forbes, and Wally Wolodarsky. 

The writers could have easily been tangled up with the multitude of storylines and human characters but managed to keep the dog a steady focal point which drove the film forward. The narrative has a fair share of predictable cliché and convenient story beats but there's surprisingly some mature subtext for a "PG" film I didn't see coming like loneliness and alcoholism to name a few. 

Josh Gad provides voiceover for the various pups (Bailey, Ellie, Tino, and Buddy) and is the basis of a majority of the film's heart and humor but honestly isn't pushing himself as an actor, essentially just reading the script. Bailey's owner Ethan is portrayed at three different stages of his life by Bryce Gheisar, K.J. Apa, and Dennis Quaid who each imbue the necessary qualities to make Ethan an endearing character. The supporting cast are peppered throughout with melodramatic turns from John Ortiz, Kirby Howell-Baptiste, Britt Roberson, Peggy Lipton, Juliet Rylance, Luke Kirby, Gabrielle Rose, and Michael Bofshever respectively. 

In summary, A Dog's Purpose is a dispensable melodrama dog lovers will thorougly enjoy. If you plan on boycotting A Dog's Purpose then you honestly won't miss out on much, but for those on the fence, I think it's a cute enough movie to justify the price of admission. 

Film Assessment: C

'The Angry Birds Movie' Review

The Angry Birds Movie is an adaptation of the formerly popular mobile based game, Angry Birds. I say formerly because the game seemed to rise and fall in popularity over the span of about a year or two and I know absolutely no one that still plays the game. 

Therefore, I found it odd that Rovio would be eager to make an feature length animated film based on a mobile game that's become irrelevant. For one, it seems a stretch to make a movie on a mobile game with very little narrative to begin with, but I guess anything's possible now that we have seen The LEGO Movie, and almost no one thought that would work including myself (and I even grew up playing with LEGOs so it's not like I was disconnected from them). 

I'd seen The Angry Birds Movie advertised as this year's The LEGO Movie and so I held out hope and must say that that faith was ill placed. Now it's possible that Rovio wanted to reinvigorate interest in the franchise and it has yet to be seen if the film will impact downloads of the mobile game but one things for sure, the film itself is pretty successful. It opened at the number one spot for this weekend's box office with a sizable debut of $38 Million managing to barely edge out Captain America: Civil War in it's third weekend (This was expected given The Angry Birds Movie's family friendly appeal). Despite it's financial success the film has indeed been met with poor critical reception (Deemed rotten by both critics and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes). So is The Angry Birds Movie truly horrific? 

Not exactly. I'd say it's more along the lines of a waste of time and price of admission knowing that there's higher quality family friendly content out there such as The Jungle Book and Zootopia, two notable examples from the past two months. The Angry Birds Movie isn't necessarily "bad" though, while I can say there wasn't too much effort being made in regards to expanding the concept of the game and story development, there are some redeeming qualities to be found. While I was reflecting on the film to write this review I managed to come up with a simple idea for a stronger basic premise for the film that would add more complex emotional layers in about ten minutes. I actually am making a video about it and will share it below because I think it's a quick and easy fix to raise the quality the feature significantly.

As I said, there are some redeeming moments. First and foremost, the animation was quite impressive as the amount of detail in a single feather was astonishing and the attention to detail in all areas was just remarkable. This isn't the best animation I've ever seen per say but great nonetheless and I felt it needed to be commended.  

The voice cast assembled fit their roles well, but no one really gives a  "truly worthwhile performance." Jason Sudeikis voices the temperamental protagonist, Red, and the character was very unsympathetic as he had extreme overreactions to small annoyances and it's odd to have a protagonist that you can't identify with and have difficulty finding any common ground for that matter. 

Among the supporting characters, there are some that will surely be crowdpleasers in Josh Gad's hyperactive speed demon Chuck, basically Frozen's Olaf on caffeine, and Danny McBride's combustable Bomb. Sean Penn grunts his way through the film as Terrence and Peter Dinklage's role as the Mighty Eagle is amusing. Bill Hader also gets to have a little fun as Leonard, the king of the nefarious pigs who are up to absolutely no good. 

These characters are essentially one-note individuals with no character growth, which made the characters a little stale during the one and half hour run time. Really, The Angry Birds Movie's weakness is the lack of plot. 

There is very little actual story to and I realize the film is marketed towards children as family friendly entertainment yet seemed anything but family friendly with overt adult gross-out humor. That's not all, the film takes profanity and sloppily replaces it with bird terminology. There's literally a line of dialogue where Red says "Pluck my life." I'm aware that plenty of family friendly films hide some adult humor but they do it subtly, The Angry Birds Movie practically boasts it's inclusion. It's likely that children won't pick up on these things but I'm not sure I would want to risk it if I were a parent. The humor isn't really funny either, but some pee jokes will probably earn cheap laughs. 

The film is marketed towards children and treats itself as though it has family appeal, but I found myself losing interest in the choppy, sloppily edited first and second acts. The third act where the birds set up the mechanic of the actual mobile game is admittedly enjoyable as all the characters have a moment to shine with their own unique charm. 

Overall, the film just failed to provide any room for the story or events to breathe and never relished in any of it's bright moments. Children actually started just running around the theater in the last five or ten minutes so I guess they weren't able to maintain interest in the film either. 

However when I arrived home I was expressing my thoughts and my younger siblings completely disagreed, so it appears as though children are enjoying it. Actually, the reason that my Film Assessment score will be a little higher than I would like as I'm taking the child entertainment value into account (I did the same thing with Minions as I would have rather given that a score of C). For those that want to know my true score is C+ but taking children's enjoyment into account is important when reviewing an animated feature, especially when it lacks plot. 

My opinion of The Angry Birds Movie is that it's ok. I can't say that it's awful, but I can't say it was wildly entertaining either. Frankly, it's a waste of both time and money, but I'm sure it will keep children's eyes glued to the screen.

Film Assessment: C+

'Pixels' Review

After a few weeks I finally had the opportunity to see Pixels and I must say that I was very surprised and I enjoyed this film given the terrible reviews but I still didn't overlook it's flaws. I think the concept for the film is stronger than the film was itself. The idea of aliens using video games to attack Earth is genius! However the film suffers from being more like one of Adam Sandler's comedies than a blockbuster. The performances were decent but nothing really stood out too much. Adam Sandler kind of seems to do the same kind of performance he's done in most of his recent movies but that's not necessarily a bad thing just kind of generic and has some great one-liners. Kevin James also seemed to not really bring anything special to the film and was probably the most relatable character. Michelle Monoghan was very funny as the female lead and an interesting match to Sandler in th film but her character seems to lose importance as the film progresses.The actors that stood out the much in terms of humor were definitely Josh Gad and Peter Dinklage as they were both hilarious in a few scenes. Josh Gad did seem to be acting like a live action version of Olaf, who he voiced in Frozen, which was kinda awkward because it was live action, that type of character seems to fit animation much better. Peter Dinklage was very funny in some scenes with various comedic bits when he was introduced to the story. There was a party scene however that was seemed very out of place and wasn't interesting all. The video game sequences were visually stunning, a lot of fun, and probably my favorite parts of the film. Overall, it was an enjoyable popcorn flick where you can turn your brain off and at least have a good time at the theater.

Film Assessment: C+