'Dumbo' (2019) Review

Synopsis: Struggling circus owner Max Medici enlists a former star and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction - bringing in huge audiences and revitalizing the run-down circus. The elephant's magical ability also draws the attention of an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.

Runtime: 112 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG (for peril/action, thematic elements, and brief mild language)

Who should see it? Families with young children.  

I've admittedly grown disillusioned with Disney's recent practice of adapting their animated classics into live-action. The gimmick is tiresome because the new versions either safely regurgitate the same story through the lens of live-action with superfluous CGI ala Beauty and the Beast (2017) or radically retell the story audiences know and love (Maleficent). An unchanged edition hardly seems worth the time of day while an interpretation that deviates too far from the original will upset those who grew up watching it. There's a tricky balance in retelling the story so that it will satisfy everyone. Very few of Disney's recent reimaginings have balanced these extremes to deliver something which champions the same spirit as the original while finding something new and worthwhile to say. The 2016 adaptations of The Jungle Book and Pete's Dragon accomplished this feat, but the studio has otherwise seen mixed results.

With Dumbo, visionary director Tim Burton and screenwriter Ehren Kruger aim for the middle ground by quickly branching off from an abbreviated retelling of the 1941 animated feature to explore the elephant's antics flying under the big top. The additional material was likely intended to inflate the runtime since the original is barely over an hour. The extended portion offers Burton and Kruger many avenues to explore, but that's the problem. Burton and Kruger are unsure which direction to take the story, and the addition of many shallow human characters only serves to further convolute the simple premise of the original. If you've recently rewatched the 1941 film, you're probably aware of certain problematic story elements. Thankfully, racial stereotypes and Dumbo drinking champagne are omitted.

Regardless, this remake has more pressing concerns. Kruger's script is unfocused on account of stuffing this narrative with a multitude of bland caricatures. Tonally, I'm not sure Burton knew how he even wanted to approach the material as the heightened reality he presents doesn't jive with the cartoonish performances or saccharine story. You're never quite sure what Burton expects the audience to take seriously, and the editing actively undermines the viewer's emotional connection as scenes abruptly end before they can register with a crowd. This frequent occurrence compromises the general flow of the film as Burton seems to be in a hurry to move past the sentimental sections. That's not even mentioning the artificial aesthetic evident in many exterior scenes (much of the green screen work looks remarkably fake). Since learning Tim Burton would be helming this reiteration, I've felt Dumbo peculiarly paired director and source material, so it shouldn't surprise that it's genuinely the most bizarre thing I've seen in a while.

In spite of my reservations towards Disney's remakes, Dumbo piqued my interest for a few reasons. As I alluded towards already, matching Tim Burton with this source material was an interesting choice, to say the least. Elephants are also my favorite animal, so a story about an adorable baby elephant naturally appeals to me. And Dumbo sure is cute. In fact, the precious pachyderm practically steals the show... However, Burton hardly concentrates on Dumbo in the movie entitled Dumbo. The inclusion of several new human characters reduces Dumbo's role in his own feature. It's a shame since most of Dumbo's scenes are quite charming and serve as an elaborate vfx showcase.

Concerning the ensemble, Colin Farrell is joined by young newcomers Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins to portray the family responsible for Dumbo. To put it lightly, these child actors aren't the best... but I don't think it's entirely their fault. They're saddled with stale dialogue, and Burton's vision is very scattered. Even a veteran actor like Farrell suffers under Burton's direction, and he's certainly not the only one, as Eva Green's also relegated to an insubstantial role.

Reuniting for the first time since Batman Returns, the trio of Tim Burton, Michael Keaton, and Danny DeVito are working together once more. Unfortunately, Keaton and DeVito are operating at polar opposites as Keaton's depicts V.A. Vandevere as a hokey, over the top entrepreneur in one of his worst roles to date while DeVito embraces the campy and sentimental sides of the story to provide a hysterical, layered portrayal of an eccentric ringmaster. 

Perhaps, like Dumbo, Burton put all his faith in a magic feather and flew through production on auto-pilot because his distinct creative stamp barely registers on this middling remake. For all its faults, the titular pachyderm's trunk still manages to firmly grab hold of your heart, so clearly Burton did something right.

Film Assessment: C 

'Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children' Review

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is an adaptation of Ransom Riggs' dark young adult novel that's all about the rejected X-Men, it's worth noting that Miss Peregrine's home feels in the same vein as Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters seen in the X-Men films, television series, and comics. In all seriousness, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children follows Jake's discovery of a safe haven for gifted individuals, although their peculiarities are much less desirable than the Mutant-X gene, in which the guardian loops time for the inhabitants's protection and they must live the same day over and over again. 

Quite fittingly, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is nothing but peculiar and that's not really too surprising with Tim Burton directing. I'll admit I was a little concerned with his involvement, assessing his more recent work like Dark Shadows and Alice in Wonderland, but based on the trailers felt that he might be the perfect match for the material contemplating how bizarre it is. I will say that my thoughts were justified as he proved the material was ideal for him with the third act, which I'd say was the most Tim Burton-esque portion of a film I had ever bore witness to. 

The visual effects were fairly good for the most part, the scenery and costuming were certainly Burton, and the film was shot well by director of photography Bruno Delbonnel. However, the first two acts of the film just didn't feel right. For instance, the opening credits have a direct cut to the film's beginning and it was so jarring considering the audio went from epic full score title card to silent shot of Florida. From this point on, the introduction is told non-chronologically in a confusing manner, it starts in the present goes back to some flashbacks, then flash forwards three weeks from the present day. I think chronologically, the film's starting point would have gelled more smoothly. 

I don't know if these problems lie in the original source material or the script but I must say I'm disappointed in screenwriter Jane Goldman taking into account that she was responsible for both Kingsman: The Secret Service and X-Men: First Class's screenplays and I love both films dearly. Goldman just didn't craft a compelling protagonist in the least bit and had difficulty properly servicing all the peculiar children. 

The ensemble includes varied portrayals with a set of interesting supporting characters and a bland lead. Asa Butterfield has some of the most awkward line delivery I've seen in recent memory and finds it challenging to breathe life into Jake, a stale one-dimensional character. Eva Green plays Miss Peregrine, a gothic guardian with uncompromising dedication to the peculiar children, and Green is fantastic when onscreen as macabre Mary Poppins. 

The peculiar children were all delightful and I wish I could have seen more from them but all receive time in the limelight. The roster includes Ella Purnell's buoyant Emma Bloom, Finlay MacMillan's disturbing Enoch, Lauren McCrostie's corrosive Olive, Hayden Keeler Stone's clairvoyant Horace, Georgia Pemberton's green fingered Fiona, Milo Parker's literal beekeeper Hugh, Raffiella Chapman's actual hair brained (or more aptly hair mouthed) Claire, Pixie Davies' robust Bronwyn, and the set of sinister twins played by Joseph and Thomas Odwell. 

Samuel L. Jackson's antagonistic force is cheesy to the max. I'd equate Jackson's Barron to Samuel L. Jackson's persona in the Capital One Quiksilver Cash Back Card commercials amped up to an 11, that's how unrestrained he was in the role. I also quite liked seeing appearances from Judi Dench and Chris O' Dowd. Another subject worth indicating is the uninspired score from Michael Higham and Matthew Margeson that occasionally sounded familiar to John Williams' classic works. 

While it may seem like I didn't take a liking to the film, it was actually a guilty pleasure. I enjoyed it more than expected and am completely aware of it's faults but can't help but laugh at the more corny bits. I can recommend Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children to diehard Tim Burton fans and anyone fascinated by the marketing material, novel and other unconventional works. I would be careful with bringing children to see it considering the dark subject matter that might be a little too intense. Though Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children may not be a return to form for Burton, it's a step in the right direction and I'd be up to return to this world in the event of a sequel or spinoff.

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