'Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again' Review

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again fluctuates between the lives of Donna circa 1979 and her daughter Sophie in the present day to intertwine two tales and show how relationships formed in the past resonate in the present. Determined to live out her mother's dream, Sophie prepares for the grand re-opening of her hotel the Bella Donna with the guidance of her mother's friends. As she becomes overwhelmed by the daunting tasks, Sophie learns more about Donna's past as she discovers how she ran the hotel, met each of Sophie's dads, and raised a baby all on her own.

Written and directed by Ol Parker, Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is a prequel/sequel to the decade-old jukebox musical motion-picture, Mamma Mia!. Story writing credits go to Parker, Richard Curtis, and Catherine Johnson (a writer/producer on the first film), but I noticed Here We Go Again's storytelling structure seems to have been inspired by The Godfather Part II. The film cuts between timelines on a dime which occasionally allows for some creative transitions, but there were also several switches that were just jarring, unnecessary, and awkward in execution. This decision to split the screentime between these two storylines is an interesting one, but ultimately the fractured focus holds each narrative from reaching its full potential. The audience is then left with a half-baked musical memoir. 

I'm sure some of you are already upset that I'd dare critique the plot of a musical because "that's not the point," but I can rattle off plenty of marvelous movie musicals with both a quality story and incredible music. La La Land, Sing Street, Into The Woods, Les Misérables, Enchanted, West Side Story, Phantom of the Opera, Oliver!, Singing' in the Rain, The Sound of Music, The Wizard of Oz, and most Disney productions. I could go on, but I won't for the sake of length. I'm actually getting war flashbacks to December when I was unimpressed with The Greatest Showman and am already aware this will likely be a contested review as well, but I don't really care because I feel like I need to share my genuine opinion on things rather than conform to what others deem to be appropriate. There's not really a way around it... Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again is a lackluster sequel and mediocre musical in nearly every way imaginable.

As I've already addressed, the story's stretched thin by the decision to tell a story on two fronts. There's somehow even less of a plot holding this thing together than the first film, no regard for continuity, and some baffling choices were made as to how to best progress the series (I presume there will be an unnecessary third installment as well). While I certainly enjoyed the first two-thirds for the most part due to some energetic, entertaining musical numbers, the third act lost all momentum and dragged so much. It was only an hour and fifty four minutes, but towards the end I kept thinking to myself "when is this going to end?..." It seriously felt like I was watching a three hour film because the energy and sense of pacing completely disappeared. At that point, it was torturous to say the least... but I'll get to that momentarily... Just be patient and remember that this is coming from someone who LIKES musicals... 

One story element that was handled quite distastefully was Donna's trio of romantic entanglements. Here We Go Again was already put in a tough spot when it decided to depict this because the first film dictated that these encounters happened within quick succession of one another. Otherwise, Donna would have immediately known who Sophie's father was. However, Donna basically slept with each guy after a quick musical number and you didn't really buy the chemistry between the actors because everything happened so fast... Next thing you know, she's moved on. There didn't seem to be much effort being made to flesh out the relationships whatsoever. To me, it really painted Donna in a bad light and I wish I could have bought into the bonds being formed between Donna and the three men. 

If Here We Go Again got one thing right though, it was casting Lily James as a young Donna. Between this, Cinderella (2015), and Baby Driver, James has proven herself to be a captivating, charismatic screen presence and I'd love to see her as a female lead in more musicals. She has the looks, an exceptional singing voice, and a genuinely uplifting aura. She wound up being a great stand-in for Meryl Streep in a weird way as well, but more on that in a moment...

Alongside Lily as younger versions of characters from the first film are Jessica Keenan Wynn, Alexa Davies, Jeremy Irvine, Josh Dylan, and Hugh Skinner. They play young Tanya, Rosie, Sam, Bill, and Harry respectively, but each actor did an excellent job channeling the persona and mannerisms of the older actor while making the role their own.

Meanwhile, returning cast members Amanda Seyfried, Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgård, Colin Firth, and Dominic Cooper do a swell job reprising their respective roles. None of them are really given any substantial material outside of Seyfried, but their presence definitely won't go unnoticed either.

You can't really write a review of a film which stars Meryl Streep without addressing her whatsoever, and I've gotta say she was is in like two scenes at most. There really wasn't much of a legitimate reason for her conspicuous absence either... The actress is still alive, so you think a film banking on her name would want to make the most of her, but they really wasted her to be completely honest. I'm guessing it was to keep the budget down because I presume she commands a big paycheck and they didn't want to pay her an unreasonable amount. 

I try not to be overly negative, but there's no polite way to get around the fact that Cher sounded god-awful in this. Like I'm pretty positive my ears got some form of cancer after listening to her... I was baffled at how such a beloved pop singer could sound so terrible. I guess it makes sense that she's basically a has-been now... To make matters worse, her role had absolutely no bearing on the plot and was clearly written with the intention of shoe-horning a cameo appearance for Cher. My entire family agreed that she sounded terrible, so it wasn't just me either. 

To put it simply, Here We Go Again is a disappointing follow-up to a feel-good musical. There are some bright spots, but not even more ABBA could save this thing from its sealed fate as an inferior sequel. I realize it's called Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, but Mamma Mia! Let's Please Never Do This Again would have been a more fitting title. 

Film Assessment: C+

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Mamma Mia!'

Sorry for the slight delay, but I decided to share two Throwback Thursday Reviews this week since there are two major sequels being released this weekend. I've also decided to go ahead and share the post recapping my best and worst films of the year so far on Sunday regardless of whether I finish watching the films I missed out on or not. Later this weekend, you can expect my Throwback Thursday Review of The Equalizer as well as my reviews of Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again, The Equalizer 2, and You Were Never Really Here. Next week, I aim to review Teen Titans Go! To The Movies and complete my Mission: Impossible series of reviews with reviews for Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation, and the upcoming Mission: Impossible - Fallout.

'Mamma Mia!' Review

Mamma Mia! follows an independent, single hotel owner in the Greek islands as she prepares for her daughter's wedding with the help of her two old friends. Meanwhile, the spirited bride-to-be secretly invites three men from her mother's past in hopes of finding her real father and having him escort her down the aisle on her big day.

Based on a 1999 stage musical, Mamma Mia! is a jukebox movie musical directed by Phyllinda Lloyd and written by Catherine Johnson which revolves almost entirely around songs from the renowned pop group ABBA. I'd previously seen bits and pieces of Mamma Mia! in passing (largely because my youngest sister is OBSESSED with it), but this was my first time to watch it from start-to-finish. As a fan of musicals, I went in hoping to at least be charmed by the renditions of ABBA's delightfully catchy show tunes, but that of course proved to be an inevitable outcome.

Given the irresistibly upbeat nature of their music, it's difficult not to be won over by this whimsical musical in a matter of minutes. It's silly for sure, but in an endearing way. There's a peppiness that permeates from the ensemble and their insatiable delight at the opportunity to groove to ABBA. On that note, it's remarkable how coherent the plot turned out when you consider that it essentially just stitched several ABBA songs together to tell a story.

With that being said, it's an interesting premise that runs out of steam from a narrative perspective. The mystery of which man is Sophie's father is quite compelling, but that gets thrown out the window towards the end and my interest began to wane as a result. At that point, the music is no longer driven by the story and all the song-and-dance numbers turn into surface level celebration. It may be pure, harmless fun, but it suddenly becomes devoid of any substance.  

Otherwise, the lighting was wildly inconsistent between shots and it drove me absolutely insane... I wish Lloyd and her cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos had simply settled on a constant aesthetic. I will however concede that the choreography was flashy and well-done, the island made for an effective luscious backdrop, and the ADR and sound mix were fairly decent. The singing from the cast also wasn't half-bad either, ranging from mediocre-to-pretty good. 

The all-star ensemble amassed are really the film's saving grace though. Meryl Streep and Amanda Seyfried sell their mother-daughter dynamic and are able to service the script as best they can. Christine Baranski and Julie Walters are scene stealers as Donna's homegirls while Dominic Cooper is stuck on the sidelines as Sophie's choice fiancé.

Lastly, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, and Stellan Skarsgård lend their respective personalities to Sophie's prospective fathers and are a hoot to watch. Brosnan was panned by critics for his singing abilities, but I actually don't think he was THAT bad... He at least matched pitch, so he was nowhere near being one of the worst singers I've ever heard or anything... His singing voice was just alright. Firth and Skarsgård both sung pretty well though. 

As far as feel-good musicals go, Mamma Mia! hits that sweet spot between being totally ridiculous and obnoxiously overbearing. Certainly not one of my favorite movie musicals, but a worthwhile watch nevertheless!

Film Assessment: B

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Thor: The Dark World'

This review may wind up being published a little late due to all the World Series games I stayed up watching, my binge through Stranger Things, homework and work. This week I'm reviewing Thor: The Dark World to tie into the release of Thor: Ragnarok this weekend. The remaining November reviews I have planned are Throwback Thursday Reviews for Murder on the Orient Express (1974), Batman (1989), Ratatouille, and Pitch Perfect to tie in with Murder on the Orient Express (2017), Justice League, Coco, and Pitch Perfect 3. In the meantime, I'll do what I can to make some progress on the delayed Throwback Thursday Reviews of Inception, Stand By Me, The World's End, The Shining, the It miniseries (1990), Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Risky Business (1983), and the Triple-R for Interstellar.

'Thor: The Dark World' Review

Thor: The Dark World finds Thor working to restore peace throughout the Nine Realms as a result of the widespread chaos enabled by destruction of the Bifrost in Thor. After successfully capturing Loki and retrieving the Tesseract in The Avengers, Thor must also grapple with the decision of succeeding Odin as king of Asgard while a cosmic event known as the Convergence aligns the Nine Realms. Meanwhile on Earth, Jane Foster accidentally encounters an ancient weapon, known as the Aether, that takes her as its host. This event then awakens an ancient race of dastardly dark elves lead by Malekith the Accursed who intend to wield the Aether to unleash havoc across the nine realms.

Thor: The Dark World saw significant shifts behind the camera as directorial duties passed down from Kenneth Branagh to frequent Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor. You'd think the pairing of a director accustomed to medieval surroundings with the world of Asgard would be match made in heaven, but only to a degree... The change-off in directors is especially evident in the production design and cinematography, because The Dark World looks drastically different from Thor. Taylor trades out the regal, otherworldly interiors of Asgard for a grittier, lived-in environment. On top of that, Taylor threw some sci-fi elements in the mix to show off the technological advancements of Asgard. It's almost as though someone meshed Star Trek and Game of Thrones with the pre-existing Asgard aesthetic.

The Dark World was a well-intentioned experiment for Marvel that shines in regards to the expansive, conceptual world-building, but fails in fleshing it all out. There are so many interesting notions sprinkled throughout Thor: The Dark World in the form of the Dark Elves and Asgard's weaponry/technology. Most action sequences are enjoyable, excluding the thoroughly average third-act showdown, and the film mostly looks terrific from start-to-finish. 

The thing about The Dark World is that the film safely walks through the opening of the gate, finds its footing in the midst of its jog, and then stumbles again on its way out the door. My analogy essentially means that the first act's formulaic, the second livens things up with one of Marvel's more emotionally-moving sequences and an electrically-charged team-up between Thor and Loki, and then the third act undercuts it all with a typical third-act battle where the fate of the universe is in peril... again... The high stakes action sequences are undoubtedly entertaining, but I'm becoming apathetic to the whole "I want to destroy the world" thing when the villain's motions remain entirely unclear...

The Dark World is stuffed to the brim with a copious amount of characters and overarching storylines, and it's Malekith that suffers from it most of all. The screenplay penned by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely paints Malekith in a manner that he has no defining characteristics... There's almost nothing of substance to his character aside from the fact he's a dark elf who wants to spread... darkness... Boring!!! 

The film doesn't really take off till it around when it un-cages Loki, as the trickster proves to still be a valuable asset to the Thor franchise. Once Algrim becomes Kurse and the prison break sequence initiates, the film is instantly invigorated, and everything suddenly becomes so much more interesting.

**Spoiler Warning**

It's sounds strange to say, but the moment the film goes from good-to-great is when Frigga (Thor's mother) dies. It's so weird because her character was such an outlying figure in the franchise, yet her death feels incredibly impactful because of Hemsworth and Hiddleston's exceptional acting. Loki's reaction to learning Frigga died reveals a lot of the character's inner workings, communicating so much emotion through the slightest scene, and Loki is set on the path of a marvelous redemption arc as an enrapturing antihero.

Unfortunately, that's all undone by the reveal Loki didn't actually die. I still have such mixed feeling about Loki's "fake-out" death. The twist that Loki is impersonating Odin remains one of Marvel's best cliff-hangers, and I'm absolutely excited to learn the inner workings of it all tonight when I watch Thor: Ragnarok. However, it completely undercuts his sacrifice, so his "death scene" loses its luster on rewatches. 

**End of spoilers**

Thankfully the cast are all-in though, as Chris Hemsworth proves once again to be terrific as Thor. Hemsworth is afforded more to do in terms of demonstrating his acting range with incredibly emotional outbursts, a cool, collected composure, and spurs of comedic fish-out-of-water moments. Opposite Hemsworth, Natalie Portman's certainly charming as Jane Foster, but the script doesn't really utilize the actress or the character to their fullest potential. Their romance also just comes across as bland, but the actors have convincing chemistry at least.

It's just so sad that Hemsworth can't catch a break from Tom Hiddleston's Loki though, because he once again is overshadowed in his own movie. All the while, Hiddleston makes a case that he only gets better in the role as time goes on as he invigorates the movie once he becomes more involved. I believe this to be Hiddleston's best stint as the God of Mischief yet, and his dynamic with Hemsworth is absolutely electrifying.

The other Asgardians are offered enough screen-time to impress audiences, but none of the characters are offered some radical role in the story. Anthony Hopkins' Odin walks with the weight and wisdom of a stately ruler, while Idris Elba gets one cool moment as Heimdall and once again gazes into the cosmos with the hope he'll get more to do in the sequel. Jaimie Alexander, Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, and Zachary Levi are each fun inclusions as Lady Sif and the Warriors Three, but also are only afforded with scarce screen-time in comparison to the other ensemble members.

On the Earth-bound side of things, Stellan Skarsgård gets to go completely kooky as Erik Selvig this time around, Kat Denning's Darcy Lewis is grating, and Jonathan Howard feels like he's purely there for comedic purposes as the bumbling intern-to-the intern, Ian. Each of these characters have a few funny moments, but nothing funny enough to justify each character's inclusion. 

As I alluded to earlier, Thor: The Dark World falls prey to the plague of mediocre Marvel villains that's lately started to be turned around by a string of more interesting antagonists. Poor Christopher Eccleston does his darnedest to make extract some menace from Malekith, but he's unsuccessful in the end. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, who wound up over on the DC side of things as Killer Croc in Suicide Squad last year, leaves an impression as an intimidating henchman once he becomes Kurse, but he also isn't afforded much to work with.

Thor: The Dark World tried with all its might to be a worthy successor to Thor, and I feel it accomplished many of the goals Marvel had set for it, but the film just can't quite lift the metaphorical Mjionir with ease. The Dark World is buoyed by cool concepts, entertaining action sequences, a superb second act, and a capable cast made up of a likable lead, sturdy supporting players, and a scene-stealing God of mischief, but ultimately suffers from a slow start, an rather uninteresting central romance, an unexceptional antagonist, and a finicky finish.

Film Assessment: C+

Throwback Thursday Review: 'Thor'

I apologize for the late review but I was working on getting my Doctor Strange review ready. This week i'm reviewing Thor to tie-in with the release of Marvel's next big standalone origin film, Doctor Strange, considering Thor also involves magic of sorts, even though they explain it as science humans simply don't understand. Next week I will resume my Harry Potter reviews with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 following week to tie in with Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. In the meantime other reviews you can expect from me soon include Doctor Strange, Trolls, Hacksaw Ridge, Arrival, Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

'Thor' Review

Thor follows the origin tale of Asgardian prince Thor and his lesson of humility. Thor recklessly ventures out of his boundaries, seeking conflict and is banished to Earth as a mortal man by his father and king Oden. Thor then must understand what it means to be worthy if he is to ever lift Mjionir, his might hammer, again.

While I'm a huge Marvel fan, I honestly have never really liked any of the Thor movies to this point, but am admittedly ecstatic for Thor: Ragnarok thanks to new creative control with Taika Waititi. My biggest problem with Thor is that it's really gimmicky and cliché for a majority of the nearly two hour runtime, there's a total of about four action sequences in the entire film considering Thor is stripped of his power and none of them are very interesting. The third act showdown between Loki and Thor at least offers some interest conflict of ideals, but the actual fight itself is boring. I think this is in large part to director Kenneth Branagh and the screenwriters.

Branagh's decision to look at the events through a Shakespearean angle may allow for great dialogue but that's just it, the film is filled with monotonous, dull expositional dialogue. Branagh's grandest ventures involve his collaboration with cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos that paints a nice sheeny picture of Asgard and gives the film a nice look throughout and the technical work (visual effects, production design, sound design, and costuming) bringing Asgard, Thor's abilities, and the other otherworldly elements to life.

Outside of the look of Thor, mostly everything else feels incredibly dry aside from a few choice performances. The score by Patrick Doyle is incredibly generic, it feels fantastical but never resonant. The screenwriters Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, and Don Payne have great ideas in their screenplay but most of it's not executed very well. The one-liners and fish out of humor work and the character arcs explored are somewhat interesting but Thor is made to look like an oafish brute and his change of heart isn't entirely convincing.

The performances are mixed bag as well including a few remarkable standouts and other muddled supporting players. Chris Hemsworth does the best he can with the role of Thor, making for a believable fish out of water and heroic oafish figure. Hemsworth doesn't finds his ground till his subsequent turns as the character.

Tom Hiddleston however, shines above all others in his scene stealing turn as Loki, only to get increasingly better in the role in successive appearances. Hiddleston makes the family drama exceptionally entertaining and his conviction is arresting.

For the Asgardians, Anthony Hopkins brings natural gravitas to Odin but literally spends a majority of the film asleep, Idris Elba isn't afforded much to do as Heimdall but he fills the capacity needed, Jaimie Alexander, Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, and Josh Dallas make a nice friend support group for Thor as Lady Sif and the respective Warriors Three but also don't have much importance in the grand scheme of things so naturally are relegated to a small supporting capacity.

Thor's human allies Jane Foster, Darcy Lewis, and Erik Selvig played by Natalie Portman, Kat Dennings, and Stellan Skarsgård are all provided with funny moments but are thinly sketched caricatures for the most part. Natalie Portman's Jane Foster feels forced opposite Hemsworth as Thor's love interest and muddles the plot in a bland romance.

Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson is a nice touch, bringing his trademark wit and sarcasm but is given minuscule screen time as well.

In conclusion, I deem Thor to not be a worthy part of the MCU. It serves its purpose of introducing the characters and surrounding realms and is an interesting first watch, but beyond that doesn't hold up to repetitive viewing. Thor offers grand visuals, but lacks the spectacle that should have accompanied it.

Film Assessment: C