'Dora and the Lost City of Gold' Review

Synopsis: Having spent most of her life exploring the jungle, nothing could prepare Dora for her most dangerous adventure yet - high school. Accompanied by a ragtag group of teens and Boots the monkey, Dora embarks on a quest to save her parents while trying to solve the seemingly impossible mystery behind a lost Incan civilization.

Runtime: 102 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for action and some impolite humor)

Who should see it? Families with young children interested in Dora the Explorer.

Based on the Nickelodeon animated series Dora the Explorer created by Chris Gifford, Valerie Walsh, and Eric Weiner, Dora and the Lost City of Gold is the first live-action feature for the famed female adventurer. Handling her live-action debut, director James Bobin and writers Matthew Robinson, Nicholas Stoller, and Tom Wheeler have re-imagined the property as Tomb Raider for four-to-eight-year-olds. As one would suspect, children are the target audience, and the filmmakers catered much of the comedy towards that demographic. Unfortunately, that means there's an absurd amount of toilet humor (namely poop-and-fart jokes as well as a few peculiar references to mating). Aside from a couple of chuckle-worthy moments of self-awareness and some bizarre scenes which must be seen to be believed, Dora and the Lost City of Gold has little to offer adults. It's a live-action cartoon plain-and-simple.

Contrary to the recent trend of adapting animated properties with realism firmly in mind, Dora and the Lost City of Gold is silly, self-aware, and as carefree as it can be. Disregarding a pragmatic approach proved to be for the best though since taking itself too seriously would have surely ended in disaster. Bobin and the screenwriters embrace the series' wacky sensibilities and find unique ways to translate them to the big screen. For better or worse, Dora and the Lost City of Gold is most engaging when the filmmakers swing for the fences. Otherwise, it's fairly formulaic. The plot and circumstances these characters find themselves in often call Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones to mind. And the score from John Debney and Germaine Franco even seems to emulate John Williams' adventurous themes at times.

Front and center, Isabela Moner embodies the Dora persona quite nicely. Moner leans into the overbearing enthusiasm and naive nature of the character for an intentionally cheesy performance which is consistent with the established tone. This could have easily gone awry in the wrong hands, but Moner made it work. High-profile cast members include Eugenio Derbez, Michael Peña, Eva Longoria, Benicio Del Toro, and Danny Trejo who each lent sufficient supporting performances in varying roles. Dora's peers are played by Jeff Wahlberg, Madeleine Madden, and Nicholas Coombe to lackluster effect as one-note comic relief. I found their characters obnoxious and felt their line delivery was wooden.

And this wouldn't be a proper Dora the Explorer adaptation without Boots and Swiper. For a majority of the film, Boots communicates via monkey grunts rather than speech. However, Danny Trejo is credited as voicing the blue and yellow primate, and that's made abundantly clear when Boots speaks in a specific scene. It's odd and treated as such, but even stranger that the characters question Boots' ability to talk while Swiper's treated as a commonplace fox. 

But Swiper is no run-of-the-mill animal, nor is he vocalized by an unknown voice-over actor. Academy Award winner Benicio Del Toro voices the sly fox, delivering the signature line "Oh man!" to hilarious effect. Yes, you read that correctly... Del Toro's likely the last actor you'd expect to take on such a role, but he's probably eager to diversify his portfolio. Jokes aside, Del Toro's Swiper was a genuine stand-out to the extent I wish he'd had more screen time. I'd also be remiss to ignore the visual effects utilized to realize Boots and Swiper. While not flawless, they retain the distinctive features of the original cartoon designs and are very impressive considering the $50 M budget.

Unless you're feeling nostalgic for Dora the Explorer or have young children, Dora and the Lost City of Gold is an excavation site best left unexplored at the cinema. Thankfully, there are enough wacky scenarios and clever meta-jokes to compensate for generic plotting and toilet humor while ensuring a tolerable experience at the very least!

Film Assessment: C+

'Ant-Man and the Wasp' Review

After the events of Captain America: Civil War, Scott Lang must grapple with the consequences of his choices as a superhero and a father by submitting himself to house arrest for two years as punishment for not abiding by the Sokivia Accords. When approached by Hope van Dyne and Dr. Hank Pym towards the end of his sentence, Lang must once again don the Ant-Man suit and fight alongside the Wasp as the dynamic duo journeys to bring back Janet van Dyne from the Quantum Realm. However, the urgent mission soon leads to startling revelations from the past as the duo find themselves backed up against a corner amidst facing a powerful new adversary with dangerous technology.

Ant-Man and the Wasp rounds out Marvel's ten year journey as the twentieth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and their third release of the year. Considering that information, you'd probably expect the superhero sequel to be bearing the weight of immense pressure. That's not exactly the case though, as Ant-Man and the Wasp feels light and breezy when compared to the recent dramatic additions in Marvel's filmography. As a smaller self-contained story, it's a refreshing palette cleanser following the severity and weight of Avengers: Infinity War's heavy cliff-hanger. I'm sure many Marvel fans are expecting some semblance of a crossover there, or at least a tease towards the still untitled Avengers 4, and to that I'll simply say you won't be disappointed. An expected Stan Lee cameo is included as well as two post-credits scenes, but you know the drill by now so just be sure and stick around when the credits start rolling. Otherwise, you're just going to look like a chump in the glaring, judgmental eyes of Marvel fanboys all around you.

To get back on track, Peyton Reed flies back in to direct the size-changing duo in their first outing together while the screenplay is credited to star Paul Rudd along with the quartet of Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Andrew Barrer, and Gabriel Ferrari. Last time around, Reed didn't have full control of Ant-Man... There was the unfortunate matter and circumstance of creative differences between the studio and Edgar Wright that lead to Reed getting the gig just before filming. However, this time around, you can tell Marvel gave Reed full creative control to do as he pleased. While I wouldn't go as far to saying Ant-Man and the Wasp is an exceptionally well-directed blockbuster, his stamp of a approval on it is clear because the zany wackiness audiences gravitated towards in the first film has now been dialed to an eleven. Whether that will be controversial or not remains to be seen, but I've already seen a substantial split of people's opinion on my Twitter feed. Whatever the case, I'm expecting the audience response to be something akin to the reception towards Iron Man 3 rather than the full-fledged fanboy rage towards Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Anyways, I apologize for getting caught up in all that chatter, but I felt it was worth mentioning at the very least. As is often the case for sequels, Ant-Man and the Wasp had its eyes set on being another small-scaled, self-contained story with bigger action, heart, and humor. At the end of the day, I'd say it met its goal because it's about on par with the original in my book. While the first film is more focused and grounded in reality, I can't help but slightly prefer the hilarious hijinks present in Ant-Man and the Wasp. I'd actually liken it to Saturday morning cartoon (I say this in a positive light). There's little thematic importance to the journey beyond demonstrating the importance of family and teamwork as we've seen a million times before, but it's still a fun, briskly paced adventure the whole family can enjoy. 

As you'd expect, Reed and crew have found new creative ways to inventively exploit the size-changing gimmick, and it totally works in the film's favor. Now that Giant-Man's on the table thanks to the airport battle in Civil War (which comes up quite often here), there are new toys at Reed's disposal and he can quite literally think bigger in regards to planning out the film's beats of action and humor. On that note, the action sequences are a noticeable improvement over the original and I also found the film to be also much funnier than the first. A win-win for a sequel to an action-comedy. 

I'd also say the sequel's visual effects are among the best I've seen all year. While I wouldn't go as far to saying they beat out Infinity War's grandiose graphics overall, the cinematic de-aging technique that Marvel often exploits is at its very best here and there were no sketchy instances of uncanny video game-esque renderings or poor green screen work which can sometimes be a bane to Marvel (ie. Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok). The production design inside Pym's new lab is also visually appealing so it definitely deserves a mention as well. 

Like the first, Ant-Man and the Wasp succeeds first and foremost on the merits of its cast. There are quite a few exciting new additions to the ensemble as well as plenty of familiar faces returning from the first film, but Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily are front and center as the first to co-lead a Marvel feature. Up to this point, everything's been team-based or driven by a solo character with supporting cast, which makes it all the more refreshing to see Scott Lang and Hope van Dyne share title billing. A significant story element from the original was the implication that Hope might be more qualified to wear the Ant-Man suit than Scott, and the sequel certainly pushes that notion even further...

The three year wait to see Lily step up to lead status was well worth it because Wasp is a badass. It was nice to see her steal the show without coming across as an in-your-face feminist. My only insignificant issue with her being such an awesome component of the film is that it often comes at the expense of Scott Lang looking like a total doofus. Granted, I guess that's kind of why Paul Rudd was cast to begin with, but still... I also appreciated that they didn't spin it as if she necessarily needed Lang's help to get things done. Instead, they went for the age-old message that teamwork makes the dream work. She's adept, skillful, and a cunning combatant, but even she can't do it all alone. 

On the flipside, Paul Rudd's winsome charm shines through once again as he provided some of the biggest laughs once more. His chemistry with Lily is even better this time around as the nature of their relationship has significantly evolved, and it continues to change over the course of the film. Through it all, Cassie remains a sweet centerpiece to the whole shebang. Her dynamic with her dad is absolutely adorable and I totally bought into it on the basis of Rudd and Abby Ryder Forston's performances. In terms of supporting characters, she totally stole every scene she was in.

Veteran actor Michael Douglas is also back as Dr. Hank Pym and gets ample opportunity to showcase his character's broken humanity in some of the more intense emotional moments. Opposite Douglas, Janet van Dyne is played by the excellent Michelle Pfeiffer who is essentially the major McGuffin everyone's after. I'd compare her role to Mark Hamill's in Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but the major difference was that Pfeiffer at least had some dialogue. I wouldn't go as far to say Pfeiffer was wasted in this film, but she didn't have a lot to do and that may disappoint some. Another notable actor featured in the film was Laurence Fishburne as Dr. Bill Foster. Fishburne was in it a lot more than I had expected and had an interesting role in the grand scheme of things that I'd rather not spoil. I'll just say what everyone already knows... Fishburne is a highly qualified actor and it didn't feel like he phoned in his performance at all.

Filling out the supporting ensemble, Michael Peña, T.I., David Dastmalchian, Bobby Cannavale, and Judy Greer all do great work with what's provided to them. The trio of Peña, T.I., and Dastmalchian were particularly hilarious in notable sequences. You can tell that Reed and crew took note of people gravitating to Luis in the original though because Peña is in the sequel significantly more than he was last time around. It's not a bad thing because his eccentric character is such a delight, but simply an observation I made about how Reed likely reacted to the response towards the first film. 

Meanwhile, Ant-Man and the Wasp has a very interesting villain situation... There are multiple ANT-agonistic forces, but not really one specific, clear-cut villain so to speak. First up, Ghost turns out to be a compelling character with a sympathetic cause, but is more ANT-agonist than villain. Thanks to Hannah John-Kamen, Ghost has a powerful screen presence and her action scenes are pretty cool, but I ultimately wished she had factored more into the plot. Another character in the stable of ANT-agonists would be Sonny Burch played by Walton Goggins, and I was woefully disappointed by the disposable role he wound up in. Goggins is an immensely talented actor, but his character was honestly wasted here. The other ANT-agonistic force which isn't quite villainous would be the FBI. The head agent checking in on Lang is Jimmy Woo, portrayed by Randall Park, and he was a hilarious addition whenever onscreen.

With a stronger emotional core and bigger action, the tiny dynamic duo's first team-up takes off as a slightly superior sequel, but is unable to fully spread its wings on the basis of being light-hearted popcorn fluff. Marvel fans will surely find it worthwhile for the extra ANT-icipation it brings to Avengers 4, but the adventure may also prove too cartoonish to some. However, I thought it lived up to the buzz and I c-AN'T wait to be stung again. 

Film Assessment: B+

Recollection Reflection Review: 'Ant-Man'

In lieu of Ant-Man and the Wasp releasing this weekend, I felt now was the opportune time to size up the original. If you're unfamiliar to this format of review, I call it a Recollection Reflection Review (or Triple-R Review for short) and it essentially enables me to re-review a film. The idea behind it is that it's a unique format to demonstrates how I've grown as a writer and reviewer in the time since the original review. I begin with the "Recollection" which is just a link to my older review, then do a "Reflection" where I briefly talk about the circumstances surrounding my original opinion and whether that's changed or not, and top it off with an updated "Review."

As for upcoming content, I'll be sharing my updated ranking of the Marvel films once I've seen Ant-Man and the Wasp and will be recapping my favorite and least favorite films of the year so far in a separate post since we recently passed the midway point of 2018. However, there are still a few films I missed out on that I'd like to see before sharing that list. In regards to July reviews, look forward to Throwback Thursday Reviews of Mission: Impossible III, The Equalizer, and Mamma Mia!, Triple-R Reviews for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, and reviews of new releases Ant-Man and the Wasp, Skyscraper, The Equalizer 2, Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, Mission: Impossible - Fallout, and Teen Titans Go! To The Movies.

'Ant-Man' Review

Recollection- Ant-Man Review

Reflection- As is the case with nearly every Marvel movie these days, I can recall being quite excited to see Ant-Man when it was being released. My step-sister was working in a cinema at the time (something I wound up doing later on), so I got to watch the film one night earlier than the Thursday night premiere. I hadn't really attended many advance screenings at the time, so that was a really neat experience for me and I was appreciative of the opportunity. Anyways, I thoroughly enjoyed the film then and still do to they very day. It was a refreshing change of pace after another end-of-the-world scenario in Avengers: Age of Ultron and remains to be one of my favorite Marvel origin films.

Review- Ant-Man shrinks down alongside master cat burglar Scott Lang as he's released from prison. Down on his luck and hopeful to see his daughter again, Lang is recruited by Dr. Hank Pym and offered a chance at redemption. Armed with a super-suit with the astonishing ability to shrink in scale but increase in strength, Lang must embrace his inner hero and help his mentor plan and pull off a heist that will save the world. 

Ant-Man was infamously one of Marvel's most troubled productions behind the scenes. Visionary director Edgar Wright had put in years of work intricately planning things out in the pre-production phase before suddenly departing on the basis of creative differences with the studio in early 2014. While Wright's influence over the size-changing superhero can certainly be felt in the visual language of the action sequences and barebone plot structure, it ultimately all wound up under Peyton Reed's jurisdiction. Reed stepped in to steer the ship as an experienced comedy director while star Paul Rudd and comedy writer Adam McKay were enlisted to do some rewrites on the version of the script written by Wright and Joe Cornish. In the end, all four writers wound up being credited in varying capacities. 

Though it's a shame we'll never know what Wright's version of the film truly would have been, I'm glad it paved the way for Wright to make Baby Driver a few years later and am more than satisfied with this take on the tiny hero. Reed's sensibilities as a comedic director serve him well here, even if the film's not quite as stylized as it could be. Ultimately, it's difficult to fault Reed for that though as he was recruited very late in the game and had to shoot mere months later. 

In spite of a drab aesthetic, Ant-Man remains a fun, pulpy adventure thanks to its inventive action sequences which take full advantage of the shrinking gimmick. Reed really makes the most of the concept and wields it well as both a comedic device and a means to up the intensity of some largely low-stakes fights. The visual effects and miniatures used are actually quite extraordinary in regards to providing a believable sense of scale amidst all the action, as I wasn't ever taken out of the experience by any effects which traversed the uncanny valley. This was especially important for the film's use of computer generated de-aging that's shown up in many Marvel films since 2015. 

Speaking of the grander Marvel Cinematic Universe, Ant-Man effectively clings on by incorporating the trademark references and cameos viewers have come to expect. In particular, I quite enjoy the fight against Falcon and how that bridges the gap for Ant-Man to later appear in Captain America: Civil War. However, Ant-Man is also able to effectively carve out its own self-contained corner of the MCU. That plays into Ant-Man's favor though, because as the MCU grew, so did the stakes of each subsequent film. Therefore, it was remarkably refreshing for Ant-Man to scale things down again so the audience could see a superhero story where the fate of the world wasn't at stake.

Ant-Man is also unique in championing the heist genre as a sub-genre like many other Marvel franchises have done (ie. Captain America: The Winter Soldier = political thriller, Guardians of the Galaxy = space opera, etc). It's a tactic that Marvel's cleverly employed over the course of ten years so their varying franchises can each flourish in a marketplace that's becoming increasingly more crowded by other comic-book movie franchises. Christophe Beck implements that line of thinking into his score to create a theme that's pulpy and well-suited for any heist situation. While the score overall is kind-of uninspired in the sense that it mostly reiterates that same theme with generic music filling the gaps, I do really like the sound he discovered for the main Ant-Man theme itself. 

Anther way Ant-Man differentiates it from the other superhero-fare is by focusing on the father-daughter relationships between Scott and Cassie Lang and subsequently Hank Pym and Hope van Dyne. That focus on family is wildly different from anything else Marvel's made because hardly any other superheroes in their arsenal are also parents. Hawkeye's probably the only other example that comes to mind, but that was never a defining trait of who he was as a character in the way it's imperative to Lang's identity. The conflict of Scott grappling with doing what's best for his daughter and avoiding a life of crime is a compelling one, and it works because of the relationship between those characters. Then, conversely, Hank is doing what he can to protect Hope which only acts to push her away from him. 

The key component to all I just mentioned is undoubtedly the performances. Paul Rudd was well-cast as Lang because he's the first Marvel superhero who's an everyman, and Rudd encapsulates that perfectly. When you look at Rudd, superhero probably wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind and I feel like that's exactly the kind of quality you'd want to see in an Ant-Man. It also helps that Rudd's a funny guy with great comedic timing for all the Marvel quips he's expected to deliver. Rudd even brings an extra layer of humanity to the character in his connection with Cassie. Rudd and Abby Ryder Forston have a sweet rapport which in-turn makes for a convincing parent-child relationship.

Meanwhile, Hank and Hope have a cold, antagonistic relationship that mellows out over the course of the film as the characters come to terms with their situation. Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lily play that to a tee, so you're able to buy into both sides of their dynamic along the way. Additionally, Douglas plays mentor to Rudd while Lily's a love interest of sorts. Both actors handle those accompanying personality traits quite well and the film benefits as a result.

If there's one stand-out from the first Ant-Man though, it's undoubtedly Michael Peña as Luis. Peña has perfect comedic timing and listening to Luis recap events is an absolute delight that I hope to see carried over to the sequel. Filling out the remainder of the supporting cast, T.I., David Dastmalchian, Bobby Cannavale, and Judy Greer each serve their purpose and get a chance to flex their comedic side a bit even if they're are ultimately background players.

Last up, Corey Stoll as Darren Cross is the common corporate baddie we've come to expect. While Yellow Jacket occasionally can be framed as quite intimidating, the character himself is severely lacking. Stoll plays the part well, but is ultimately underserved by the script and falls to the wayside as another disposable antagonist from Marvel.

To size things up, three years have passed and Ant-Man remains one of Marvel's most under-appreciated efforts. The scale, stakes, and scope are all appropriately small, but Ant-Man doesn't let that get in the way of its big heart!

Film Assessment: B+

'A Wrinkle in Time' (2018) Review

A Wrinkle in Time unfolds itself alongside a young, intelligent Meg Murry and her little brother Charles Wallace four years after the mysterious disappearance of their father. Meg, Charles, and her classmate Calvin are then transported through space by three peculiar and powerful beings in order to embark on a daring quest to find Mr. Murry. 

This incarnation of A Wrinkle in Time stands as the second attempt to translate Madeleine L'Engle's novel that's been long described as "unfilmable." I, myself, am quite familiar with the book as I had to read it eight years ago in my seventh grade English class, and I'll be upfront to admit that I absolutely hated it. However, I wasn't going to simply let my distaste for the source material or my preconceived notions automatically color my review as negative because I believe every film should be seen before I form and share an opinion . With that being said, my expectations weren't very high for A Wrinkle in Time and I still wound up disappointed when it was all over.

The 2018 adaptation is directed by the acclaimed African American female filmmaker Ava DuVernay and features a script written by Jeff Stockwell and Jennifer Lee, which was based on Madeleine L'Engle's publication. DuVernay previously had helmed smaller-scale films such as Selma and 13th to great success, but this was her first big-budget venture and I can't imagine how embarrassing this must be for her. I've often heard film fans throw her name into the ring to helm a Star Wars flick, but I couldn't be happier to hear she's not interested in the gig after seeing how she handled this big-budget bonanza. She's clearly talented but I don't think blockbusters fit her style of filmmaking.

I'd say A Wrinkle in Time's biggest issue is that it was well-intentioned but not well executed. DuVernay definitely embraced the awkwardness of the source material in an effort to remain faithful as possible I guess? As a result, the plot's immensely incoherent, the dialogue's dreadful, the acting is atrocious, the characters are uninteresting, and the film wasn’t entertaining in the least. That's not even mentioning the inharmonious edits, jarring camera movement, or terrible song choices including various generic pop-style songs I'd never heard before but am sure were created purely for the film's soundtrack. On that note, Ramin Djawadi is a composer who I greatly admire due to his work on Game of Thrones... but his score rarely fit the mood of the scene it accompanied... The sole strengths of A Wrinkle in Time are really just its visuals and Chris Pine's performance, but neither of those elements can carry the movie... Even the bright, colorful imagery doesn't look natural due to lackluster vfx work from time-to-time, as can be evidenced above.

So you may be wondering, "How is that DuVernay's fault?" Well, a director oversees the entire project and should reign things in if they aren't working. They provide guidance for the cast and crew, and it's their responsibility to ensure their vision makes it to the big screen the way they intended. Otherwise, they didn't exactly fulfill their obligation. Perhaps, these shortcomings can be attributed to the studio, as Disney's had a spree of at least one flop-a-year (whether it be critical, financial, or both in certain cases). However, this film is far too ambitious for it to simply be a studio-made product. There's evident artistic intent put into this so it's not like nobody tried. Genuine effort was put forth.

One of A Wrinkle in Time's most glaring issues though was an immense emotional disconnect. I could have cared less about the characters, and the filmmakers didn't give me any incentive to invest in them whatsoever. Every character functions as either an expositional device or a stilted, stale personality. Seriously, the lines these actors were provided with would suffice as some of the worst dialogue I've heard uttered all year. And if there's one thing we take for granted these days, it's quality performances. ESPECIALLY those from young actors since we've been blessed with watching a talented pool of performers these last few years. Unfortunately, Storm Reid, Levi Miller, and Deric McCabe aren't up to the task of elevating the material provided. In the role of Meg, Reid provides a performance leagues beyond her other young costars as she's at least able to occasionally display emotional depth. Her scenes with Pine are easily her best, and are a testament to her potential if she continues to fine-tune her acting abilities. However, Reid's mostly left waking around almost as expressionless as possible, and the film suffers a great deal from it.

I don't say this to rip on the child actors as I understand they're trying their best, but I get the vibe they were miscast and DuVernay's lack of experience directing young talent didn't help things. Poor Levi Miller is offered nothing of substance or pertinence to work with whatsoever. His introductory dialogue is along the lines of "I don't know why I'm here. I just suddenly felt the urge to here and so I'm here." At that point, I started laughing because his lines were so awkward and unnatural. Beyond that though, his character has little-to-no development and it feels like he was only incorporated to motivate Meg and because he was in the book. Then there's Deric McCabe as Charles Wallace... Sadly, his line delivery was one-note so he just sounded like a kid reading a script written by other kids... The script wasn't written by children by the way... Having read the book, I know what Duvernay and McCabe were going for... They just didn't hit their mark, and the role would have been far better suited to a young actor like Jacob Tremblay or Jackson Robert Scott (the kid who played Georgie in last year's adaptation of It).

In regards to the experienced adult actors, it's just as bad...The three entities Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit, and Mrs. Who are portrayed by Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling respectively, and they're each awful... They're around to guide Meg and occasionally impart words of wisdom, yet they're rarely around and feel rather pointless as a result (I know it's like that in the novel as well). Oprah must be running low on interview money to stoop to this... Anyways, Oprah stands around to speak inspirational, empowering quotes you'd probably find on a poster without a care in the world, Reese Witherspoon is ditsy as can be as Mrs. Whatsit, and Mindy Kaling's Mrs. Who is stuck only able to utter quotes spoken by others unless the script demands otherwise... I couldn't take any of them seriously at all though because they each look ridiculous in the eccentric, over-the-top costumes.

I'm including this gif to point out how silly she looked running in that costume. I couldn't help but chuckle, and I hope you get a good laugh from it as well! If A Wrinkle in Time has any saving grace, its that you can at least laugh at it from time-to-time for all the wrong reasons. It should also be noted that Zach Galifianakis, David Oyelowo, and Michael Peña are in this, but good luck remembering that when it's over because their screen-time is SCARCE. Oyelowo's just a disembodied voice so you probably won't even know he was ever involved. Good for him I suppose!

The only actor in entire ensemble who I felt delivered an all-around quality performance was Chris Pine. Pine provides a performance rich with nuance and subtle expressions of emotion that enhance the awful things around him. Gugu Mbatha-Raw does the best she can with her depiction of Mrs. Murry, but is ultimately caged in by limited screen-time and an awful script. Thankfully, she has some scenes with Pine though because their chemistry really worked.

On the bright side, A Wrinkle in Time sends a positive message to young audience members. It's just a shame they've probably heard it already and that the delivery was so clunky in comparison to every other film that ever sought to inspire or empower its audience to be themselves. The children at my screening were not interested in the events onscreen at all, getting up on numerous occasions to walk around or simply divert their focus elsewhere.

In case it wasn't already apparent, I don't think A Wrinkle in Time is deserving of your crisp cash. If you hope to levy your hard-earned dollars towards supporting diverse blockbusters or you're simply going to the theater for the sake of enjoyment, you'd be better off supporting Annihilation, Black Panther, or Game Night. Otherwise, you may as well stay at home since A Wrinkle in Time is a colossal waste of time. I was already envious of those whose Wrinkle in Time screening was interrupted by an entourage of celebrities during the Oscars, but I'm even more jealous now that I've seen the film. Their prayers for it to stop must have been answered at least... 

Film Assessment: D-

'12 Strong' Review

12 Strong declassifies the incredible true story of the first Special Forces deployment in Afghanistan after 9/11 where a total of twelve U.S. soldiers are sent on a daring mission to help the Northern Alliance rid the area of Taliban. Outgunned and outnumbered, the team of twelve must face overwhelming odds in the fight of a lifetime. 

12 Strong is directed by Nicolai Fuglsig and features a screenplay from Ted Tally and Peter Craig which adapts Doug Stanton's book Horse Soldiers. When watching 12 Strong, other Afghan war flicks may come to mind such as Lone Survivor and the similarly titled 13 Hours. This is largely because it's difficult to distinguish Fuglsig's film from the modern selection of movies focusing on the War on Terror. While I don't necessarily expect every war film to be as immersive as Dunkirk or as character-driven as Saving Private Ryan, it's disheartening to see how disposable films in this genre can become when they're lacking a clear objective. The dialogue's full of the typical military jargon and the soldiers do little more than pal around with one another so there aren't any fleshed out individuals to invest yourself in. 

You're much more likely to gravitate towards characters based on what recognizable actors are portraying them rather than anything Tally or Craig do as writers to earn your interest. You'll probably think, "Hey, that's the guy that plays Thor! I like him!" or "I remember seeing that guy in that one movie that won that Best Picture at the Oscars last year... What was it again? Oh yeah... Moonlight." That's the extent of how little the writers develop these characters, which is kind of sad in considering these men are war heroes and couldn't even be depicted as anything beyond surface level soldiers... I'm sure someone reading this review is thinking, "But David... Dunkirk didn't do much to develop its characters either, and you praised THAT film!" Well, you are correct. However, there's a HUGE difference between the two. Nolan chose to focus on the experience of war and essentially made his film a heart-pounding pressure cooker. Fuglsig doesn't really focus on the experience or the characters. Instead, all he offers is visual noise. 

While the combat sequences are quite exhilarating, they all blend together and begin to feel repetitive so the film quickly loses its luster and grows rather tiring. In fact, 12 Strong comes to mind as one of the most exhausting theatrical experiences I've had in recent memory. The film feels overlong and just wears on your patience after awhile, even at a respectable runtime of two hours and ten minutes. Towards the tail-end of the film I kept wondering to myself when it would all be over, but was disappointed time-and-time again to see the events further prolonged.

Not everything is mediocre though, as Chris Hemsworth proves to once again be a likable lead in the role of Captain Mitch Nelson. Hemsworth rarely gets to flex his acting muscles in the Marvel movies, so it was really reassuring to see him demonstrate some acting range here. Despite Nelson's lacking characterization, Hemsworth's charisma and dedication are able to carry the character all the way to the finish line. Strategizing opposite Hemsworth, Navid Negaban portrays General Dostum as an insightful warrior and leader willing to impart wisdom whenever possible. 

12 Strong flourishes most whenever capturing the convincing camaraderie between its focal brotherhood though. While the A-list talent are largely responsible for this, the actors filling in for the remaining twelve soldiers aren't half bad. Respected actors Michael Shannon, Michael Peña, and Trevante Rhodes each elevate their stock soldiers with a captivating screen presence while the other actors joke around with one-another in an effort to remain relevant. It works in the moment, but you'll find it difficult to remember anyone who wasn't billed on the poster afterwards. 

12 Strong should have galloped into this weekend championing a harrowing and inspirational true tale of heroism and bravery, but instead, it stumbled and wound up being a dispensable military motion picture. Don't let my criticism discourage you from watching the film if you had your heart set on seeing it though. I still think the story itself is truly remarkable and actually deserving of a better translation to the big screen. If war films like Lone Survivor and 13 Hours are your thing, then by all means, go and see it! I'm sure you'll be more blown away than I was. 

Film Assessment: C+