'Ocean's Eight' Review

After being released from a five year prison sentence, Debbie Ocean sets out to recruit an all-female crew and pull off the heist of a lifetime by stealing a $150 million necklace during New York City's annual Met Gala.

Ocean's Eight functions as an extension of sorts to the pre-existing Ocean's Trilogy, and this is made abundantly clear in the film's opening where it's confirmed that Debbie is Danny Ocean's sister (this is in the trailers). Since I had absolutely no attachment to the Ocean's Trilogy on behalf of never having seen the films prior to a few days ago, I wasn't perturbed when this all-female reboot was announced. In fact, I was somewhat intrigued by the A-list talent assembled for the project and thought the reboot had huge potential. However, I was very surprised not to see a similar backlash which befell 2016's Ghostbusters, since that film was also a gender-swapped reboot. I suppose this is simply because the 1984 Ghostbusters is much more beloved than any Ocean's installment, plus the blowback was lessened by the fact Ocean's Eleven (2001) was already a remake and this spin-off happens in the same universe. 

The lady-led soft reboot was spearheaded by Gary Ross who took up directorial duties, wrote the story treatment solo, and penned the screenplay alongside Olivia Milch. Unfortunately, these are the areas in which I found Ocean's Eight to be the most lacking. While certainly a competently made film, Ocean's Eight lacks its own voice in the ever-growing heist genre and this is largely because Ross seems reluctant to put his own stamp on the film. Where Steven Soderbergh has made an effort to put his own spin on heist films with Logan Lucky and his Ocean's Trilogy, Ross simply retreads old ground with the same franchise blueprints. It's almost as though Warner Bros. saw the toxic fanboy reaction to Ghostbusters (2016) and decided it would be best to play things as safe as possible with a familiar story and nothing new aside from an almost entirely female ensemble. As a result, there's very little to differentiate Ocean's Eight from any of the other installments in the Ocean's franchise or any other heist film for that matter. 

It just felt as though Ocean's Eight was going through the motions of the conventional heist formula. One thing that was particularly bothersome was that **very minor spoiler warning, I guess?**  the heist went off without a hitch. All of the obstacles felt like they were easily overcome in a matter of seconds, so this heist which is supposed to be ridiculously difficult didn't feel like it was much of a challenge for these ladies. Therefore, the heist was devoid of tension and I was never concerned for the characters or their wellbeing (which is another issue altogether). In spite of this, the heist was actually my favorite portion of the film and the section I found to be the most entertaining. There are some decent twists at the end, even though a few were fairly predictable, but the remaining runtime was overinflated with standard setup and an additional twenty-thirty minutes after the heist. Not to mention the wasted time from two scenes that were practically advertisements for Subway and Tinder. They weren't as egregious as the product placement in Power Rangers (2017) or Transformers, but it was enough for me to roll my eyes in the theater. 

Otherwise, the script was lackluster and the characters were underdeveloped and fairly uninteresting. Much of the screen-time is dedicated towards recruiting a crew for the heist, explaining the heist, preparing for the heist, and then executing the heist. Ocean's Eight doesn't dedicate much time towards developing the characters or establishing much camaraderie between the crew so I ultimately didn't care about them. You could also tell that some of the lines that were supposed to be scene-ending zingers didn't really land, and it was really awkward whenever a joke fell flat.

Even though it may seem as if I'm simply ranting about mediocrity, there were elements I appreciated including a couple Ocean's Trilogy cameos, cool transitions effects, the elegant costumes, a funky, upbeat Ocean's-inspired score from Daniel Pemberton, and most importantly, the cast. The film largely works because of the talent it has at its disposal. These actresses elevate their thinly drawn characters and pepper in a little extra personality, but they were mostly typecast to play exaggerated versions of themselves or female versions of their male counterparts from the Ocean's Trilogy. The performances across the board were fine, but there was hardly a standout aside from Anne Hathaway playing a vain actress. When you hear the names Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Sarah Paulson, Mindy Kaling, Awkwafina, and Rihanna, there's a degree of star power associated with those names, and I was mostly disappointed to see so many of these actresses blend into the background.

While not nearly the worst of the Ocean’s franchise, I still felt Ocean's Eight conned me out of two hours. A sequel seems likely based on Ocean's Eight scoring the franchise's highest weekend debut, and I'm actually all in for that regardless of my issues. With a solid ensemble and the potential to easily top this entry, I just hope Warner Bros. lets Ross venture outside the box next time or at least hires someone willing to get their hands dirty and take some risks.

Film Assessment: C+

'Alice Through the Looking Glass' Review

Alice in Wonderland was financially successful and even one of Disney's first films to cross the billion dollar mark at the worldwide box office, so from a business standpoint I'm sure it made perfect sense to make a sequel. However, the critical reception was decisively mixed from both audiences and critics and neither showed signs of interest in a sequel.

Regardless, Disney reasoned a sequel was warranted and here we are with the results. I'll admit that I dreaded going to watch this as it tanked at the box office last weekend, wasn't too well received by audiences or critics, and I'm not a fan of the animated version or the 2010 live action incarnation. I decided to watch it since I had already written a Throwback Thursday Review for it's predecessor and I wanted to check it out for myself and see if it was truly that bad.

Alice Through the Looking Glass picks up relatively soon after Alice in Wonderland (I don't think the time gap was ever specified, and it wasn't important enough for me to remember if it was), and the audience learns that the Mad Hatter is in peril, so Alice must travel through time to save him. That's the lead up of events in the first act in a nut shell.

Alice's actions have plenty of huge repercussions, and my biggest issue with the story is that at the end of the film it's almost as though she didn't need to travel through time to help the Hatter. It bothered me that this made Alice seem stubborn and ignorant, seeing as she selfishly unknowingly wreaked havoc on Underland and wasn't reprimanded for such actions. The time travel allowed for many interesting concepts, but unfortunately almost none were fleshed out.

James Bobin takes the helm from Tim Burton as director and the change up behind the scenes is especially evident as Wonderland or Underland is visually much brighter and colorful as opposed to Burton's darker oblique tones. This was a welcome change for the visual aesthetic, as I found its predecessor to be too dark and just downright strange.

The visual style is once again fantastic to look at, but still odd nonetheless. The visual effects are improved for the most parts but there are some bits that were poorly rendered. The costumes, production design, and hair and makeup are fairly decent, but not as impressive as the precursor.

The screenplay written by Linda Woolverton has many of the same issues I found in the first with absurd dialogue, a weak plot, and lackluster story, but this time around actually puts Alice front and center. The characters are again simpletons as many of the characters have virtually no knowledge of ongoing events till reminded by one single word.

For example, the characters act like they no absolutely nothing about time travel what so ever until the White Queen mentions that none of them can go along... to which the characters nod their head. The supporting characters were actually written to be of absolutely no importance to any of the ongoing events, they contribute virtually nothing to the story. These characters aren't given any humorous bit parts, memorable one-liners, or even any development whatsoever as they merely embrace all the one-note caricatures exhibited in the forerunner.

In regards to performances, all virtually do the same thing they did in the last film. Mia Wasikowska is better this time around in the role of Alice though, as we actually see her emote. Something that definitely didn't happen in the first. 

Johnny Depp lazily provides virtually the same performance as the bonkers Mad Hatter, but delivers dialogue as though he has some kind of speech impediment and once again can't maintain a consistent accent. Like I said in my review of Alice in Wonderland, I feel Depp isn't giving his all because he is a versatile talented actor and I've seen him perform much better, but I think in this case, he's merely working to work and get a nice paycheck. 

Anne Hathaway plays the White Queen, and once again daintly and obnoxiously wafts her hand in the air.

Helena Bonham Carter screams in practically every scene as the Red Queen, which is frankly very annoying. Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the few newcomers to the group as Time, who's essentially the antagonist of the piece and has the wonkiest inconsistent European accent I have ever heard. At times he sounded like Arnold Schwarzenegger and other times he dropped the accent altogether making for a rather uncommitted showcase.

Matt Lucas, Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse, and Timothy Spall all return to once again lend their voices to memorable characters from the animated classic including Tweedle-Dee/Dum, the White Rabbit, Cheshire Cat, the Blue Butterfly, Dormouse, the March Hare, and Bayard respectively (Apparently this time they were given names aside from the classic names, but I'm going to refer to them all as they are more well known). This time around each of the actors I just listed had significantly less to say and as I said earlier virtually no significance to the story aside from actually being present. 

Another returning player was the composer Danny Elfman, who once again composes a fabulous score. Thankfully, his composition matches the quickened fantasy adventure tone this time around, so that's one significant improvement from his previous score for Alice in Wonderland. 

If you enjoyed the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland or the animated version, you may like this. Otherwise, I'd advise skipping out on seeing it in the cinema, if you want to see it badly enough but are discouraged wait to rent it from Redox or something. Alice Through the Looking Glass does fix some issues I had with the first but ultimately brings a weaker less cohesive jumbled mess of a story, a plethora of pathetic performances, and has yet to invest me in any of the characters that supposedly warranted this sequel in the first place.

Film Assessment: F

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Alice in Wonderland' (2010)

This week will be quite ambitious as I am going to be churning out at least three reviews today. A Throwback Thursday Review for the 2010 Tim Burton adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, a Throwback Thursday Review for X-Men: First Class and a special review that will be unveiled once it's posted. All three reviews will correlate to the dual release of X-Men: Apocalypse and Alice Through the Looking Glass this weekend. I expect to review both X-Men: Apocalypse and Alice Through The Looking Glass within the next few days or so (The X-Men: Apocalypse review will come first). Next week's Throwback Thursday Review will be over the latest 2014 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to coincide with the sequel's release. 

'Alice in Wonderland' (2010) Review

Nominated For: Best Visual Effects, Best Costume Design, and Best Art Direction.
Won: Best Costume Design, and Best Art Direction.

There's a lot that can be said about Alice in Wonderland (all adaptations), but I think one word that sums it up best is "odd". Therefore, it's only apt that Tim Burton's take on Wonderland fits the bill. One key thing to note about the film is that it falls along the lines of a sequel rather than a straight adaptation of what's come before. 

Alice in Wonderland was the beginning of Disney's push to venture into the live action fairytale genre by adapting their classic animated films, which has since become an annual endeavor from the Mouse-House. Despite the financial success (It grossed over a billion dollars worldwide), the film wasn't too well regarded by audiences or critics. Sadly, I have to agree that I fall into the camp that didn't quite take a shine to the film and in all honesty, I was never a big fan of the animated version either. 

Tim Burton is known for his strange films, that's just his niche as a filmmaker, and this is certainly no exception. One of Burton's strengths is his unique visual style that is applied to the expansive worlds he explores and Alice in Wonderland's visuals are marvelous. The work that went into the extensive hair and makeup, involved costume design, intricate art direction and brilliant visual effects should be commended and it's no shock the film was nominated and won in a few categories at that year's Academy Awards (These can be seen above bolded in the subheading). 

I think it's clear Burton's vision was perfectly realized and is quite appropriate for the Wonderland mythos. Rather than read me gush over the fantastic technical elements, which I'm sure is to be found in any review of Alice in Wonderland, I'm going to decipher what went wrong. 

Alice in Wonderland proves to be another case of "style over substance." Meaning, the creative team clearly focused on the aesthetics rather than the story. The narrative becomes very unfocused when forced to incorporate larger roles for supporting characters and the film makes it's message clear and then immediately deviates from it. There's a scene in which Alice outright says that she will be her own person and choose her own destiny, then she immediately proceeds to do as instructed by those around her? The characters were all poorly written with a lack of consistency in their actions throughout the film like the example I just provided. 

Also, for some reason, almost every character is written as a complete imbecile. Almost none of the characters actually think for themselves. For example, the Red Queen is deceived to not recognizing Alice because she consumed a growth hormone cake-thing and is about a foot taller yet looks the same? She even has a line of dialogue earlier in the film when looking at a drawing of Alice and says that she'd recognize that mess of hair anywhere. Then a few scenes later, she's in the same room as Alice, yet has no idea. To put it bluntly, they made the Red Queen a moron. 

It's difficult to be engaged in the film when I didn't care about any of the characters, since they're pretty much one-note caricatures, or any of the proceedings for that matter as I became a bit bored by the lackluster plot. And it only gets worse as the screenplay written by Linda Woolverton shoves pure gibberish into the character's dialogue that makes literally no sense, even in the context of the film (This is coming from the writer of The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast (1991), and Mulan?!?). All the negative elements I just discussed derive from the flimsy poorly written script. 

The film actually managed to assemble quite the all-star cast amassing many prestigious British talents, and some fan favorite actors, yet the performances fell flat in my opinion. Mia Wasikowska plays a nineteen year old Alice and manages to do a great job capturing Alice's innocent confusion and feels like an authentic version of the animated character. Unfortunately, Wasikowska has one-note limited emotional range so she doesn't get to really show her true acting prowess, it's yet to be seen if she has any and if it's a result of poor direction or lack of opportunity. 

Johnny Depp dives into his most deranged role yet as the Mad Hatter. Depp embodies the luny wack-job persona and so I can say he did well in that department, but he also implemented an inconsistent Scottish accent that irked me. This was bothersome because in some moments he dropped it altogether. Watching the film aware of Depp's talent made the performance seem like he wasn't putting his best foot forward but rather an unhinged version of Jack Sparrow. 

Anne Hathaway plays the White Queen and has this strange mannerism with her hands that will drive you insane as she waves them about daintily. 

Helena Bonham Carter is supposed to be the piece's villain as the Red Queen, yet never felt menacing. This was probably due to the creative decision to give the Red Queen an enlarged bobblehead, it's very difficult to take her seriously as it looks like she will fall over if she becomes unbalanced. Carter screams her way through the performance, so I can say that it was true to the animation but not quite villainous in my eyes. 

Among the other antagonists, Crispin Glover makes for a typical henchman as the Knave while Christopher Lee lends his British Baritone as the malicious Jabberwocky, a brilliant casting decision. Lee's moments as the demented dragon illicit the only feelings of true suspense throughout the entire film to which I must say "Bravo!" 

Matt Lucas, Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Alan Rickman, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse, and Timothy Spall all lend their great talents to memorable characters from the animated classic including Tweedle-Dee/Dum, the White Rabbit, Cheshire Cat, the Blue Caterpillar, Dormouse, the March Hare, and Bayard respectively. The assortment of CGI characters were all fairly serviceable, although they were cast to the side in favor of focus on the human characters. Once I took a step back, I did come to the realization many of these actors were probably involved for a paycheck and not concerned with delivering a memorable performance. 

Another mixed element for me was Danny Elfman's score. Elfman's composition is quite epic, yet feels mismatched with the events unfolding in the film. The score on it's own is an grandiose and surely worth listening to, however it actually detracts from the events unfolding onscreen as the score vastly over exaggerates the sense of adventure, with a quick tempo juxtaposing the slow, drugged pace of events in the film. I suspect that had Elfman gone for a more fantastical score rather than adventurous, it would have gelled together quite nicely. And this is no knock on Danny Elfman, whom I believe to be a wonderful composer that composed one of my favorite superhero film scores (the Sam Raimi Spider-Man Trilogy), but rather an assertment that his skills would be better utilized elsewhere. 

Alice in Wonderland lacks consistency in all areas aside from visuals and world building and is probably not worth your time unless you're into Burton's previous work or happen to be an Alice in Wonderland fanatic. 

Film Assessment: F