Tenet

       

         Tenet is a new film from the critically-acclaimed director and writer, Christopher Nolan. We haven't gotten a movie from Nolan since Dunkirk which was three years ago. Actually, I think he puts out a movie every three or so years generally. But in any case, it's a Nolan film which means a couple of things: its high budget, it's intellectually challenging, and there's creative fast paced action sequences scattered throughout. This film, however, benefits from an incredibly unique mechanic to its plot. If you've seen the trailer, you'll have surmised that time is a factor. It's time travel, but not in the way you might initially think. It finds a new way to utilize time travel and it has to be one of the best aspects about Tenet.

        It almost feels like Nolan knew people would be seeing this after a long break from theaters, cause the film wastes no time in jumping to its action. We start off with an action sequence that takes your breath away. We don't even know who the main character is or what he's there for, but it's a great way to introduce us to him. I don't think he's ever given a name come to think of it. If you look at the IMDB credits, you'll see that John David Washington's character is only labeled as 'The Protagonist', but he is also given the label Tenet. That's not a spoiler, it's in the trailer, but we never learn his name. In fact, we never really learn anything about The Protagonist. We see his forte is in combat and espionage suggesting that he has a military background, but little is offered beyond that. This can be worrisome, however. Because we never really learn about his backstory (or any other traits for that matter), the film risks having no connection between him and the audience, making him uninteresting. Luckily, the film saves itself from this. While we don't know anything about him, we know him through the people he interacts with. We see deeper sides to this character particularly because of the dynamic he shares with one other character. Keeping it vague, this dynamic offers some speculation as to how his life may have been before going on this big, world-saving mission. I have other speculations about him, but those are more in the realm of analysis and not critique.

        Let's come back to the opening sequence. We see The Protagonist in the midst of an operation that's obviously high stakes and it sets the tone for the whole movie. One thing leads to another and he wakes up in a bed with a guy telling him "welcome to the afterlife." You would think that because we just got done with an intense opening that we would get a chance to breathe, but nope. Here's where I almost have a problem with the movie. The fast paced nature of the opening carries over into basically the rest of the movie. From the events of him getting recruited as 'Tenet' to the Plane crash that's shown in the trailer, this film absolutely does not let up. You BETTER be in full focus on everything that's happening and every piece of dialogue cause if you look away even for a second you will be left in the dust and there's no hope of catching up. This can be risky because an audience might get tired or bored of playing catch up and just check out completely. I almost did. While I was interested in the inverted time mechanic and we are introduced to it in the beginning, the film waits till a certain point to really start using it. Before that I was ready to clock out, but at that certain point my gears completely switched and I became hooked again. From there, as the visuals and concepts get gradually more complicated, the film manages to find a way to give you a second chance of catching up. While you'll still be confused as to who certain characters are, you know who the bad guy is and you know why he must be taken down. The motivations for the villain can seem vague or just kinda dumb, but I don't think so. It's really just an example of the dangers of letting one guy have too much power, especially with time travel involved. It's almost a similar experience to Inception. 

        Here's where I've seen some people complain. While the film revolves around its unique "inverted time" mechanic, how it affects the plot and where it takes it supposedly has a lot of similarities to Nolan's 2010 film Inception. It's been a while since I've seen Inception, but after thinking about it, really the only thing I can think of is how both film's climax's play out. There might be more, but I think people are using this "loosely-based sequel" idea as a way to call the film lazy. In my opinion, it's anything but. It's extremely complicated, but one deals with time and the other with dreams and each presents their own critical thinking challenges. It's another mind-bender in the same way that Inception was, but that doesn't necessarily mean some of its ideas were borrowed. 

         When thinking about it more and more, I've sort of come to realize that there is one tiny aspect that might be present: its predictability. Not in how the story plays out and how it ends, but there's certain moments and certain pieces of backstory that are kept unexplained or a secret. Because of the inverted time mechanic, some aspects can be guessed sooner than the film would like you to. However, maybe I'm clouded. Things are only obvious now because I've seen it. Not to say that I wasn't shocked by its revelations, but I do think there are people who will be able to guess what's going on sooner than expected and maybe that says something about the rate of information given to the audience. 

        Nolan has provided us with another complete mindf*** of an entry into his filmography. I think this film stands well on its own without being compared to other Nolan films. He has a knack for making his audience think and engaging them in the best possible way. While Tenet may be more intense in that aspect, it's still extremely entertaining. Much like Inception or Interstellar, Tenet will probably require multiple viewings in order to comprehend it fully. I may have some problems with it, but I'm craving a second viewing and I think that says something. If  you're itching to start going back to theaters again, this is a great first film to come back to. Granted you follow all the sanitary precautions of course. Don't go for a casual experience. Then again, it's a Nolan film so you probably already know what to expect. 8.5/10

The New Mutants

        Finally. I mean, let me start off by saying that I feel bad for Josh Boone, the director and writer of The New Mutants. I'll get to that in a sec. The New Mutants is a story that, if you don't know you might be surprised, takes the X-Men universe in a completely different direction. It decides to go the horror route while also giving us five new mutant superheroes. Dani wakes up in a hospital to find out that she is the sole survivor of a tornado that rampaged over her home reservation. Dr. Reyes, seemingly the only doctor there, tells her that she probably survived because of her similarities with her fellow peers at this institution. From here we get introduced to 4 more mutants. Some of their powers are kept a secret for later and others are shown pretty early on and Dani doesn't get along with all them instantly. 

        Here's where the film will probably have the most recognition: its time spent in post-production hell. If you don't know much about this movie, you more likely know about its journey just to get into theaters. This film first got pitched all the way back in 2014 as Josh Boone was enjoying the success of his teen-flick The Fault in Out Stars. He wanted to take his knack for appealing to the younger demographic and apply it to something bigger. He got approval from Fox to start working on a screenplay for the New Mutants and filming began in August 2017. That's right, principal photography took place THREE years ago. The film was slated for a 2018 release. From here, it got pushed back numerous times due to a number of reasons. Amidst plans for reshoots that never happened and other successful Fox/ X-Men films getting released, the film looked like it was never going to be released. When Deadpool was a success, The New Mutants got pushed back for the first time so as not to be shadowed by the irreverent character's success and then it got pushed back again and again for other reasons including touching up special effects, the release of Dark Phoenix, and the Disney/Fox merger. The fifth release date was slated for April of this year, but this was because of outside circumstances since COVID-19 forced the shut downs of practically all theaters. Ever since June, theaters, at least in my area, have slowly started to open back up again with numerous new limitations in place, but this poses a problem as to whether theaters will be able to pull themselves out of this. Either way, three years after principal photography the film has finally been released for theaters. This film will no doubt be remembered because of its post-production legacy, but how is the actual film? After waiting so long for another movie in the X-Men universe, it's disappointing that it turned out to be just 'meh'.

        Will Ashton from CinemaBlend states that the original plan for this movie was going to be "Stephen King meets John Hughes" and, well, I think it succeeds on that front. It's coming of age aspect delivers nicely for Dani's character as we learn about the deeper psychological aspects of her mutant abilities. Granted, the resolution we get might have been a little too, for lack of a better word, easy. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, it just felt like it sort of undermined the growth she experienced throughout the film.

        Speaking of growth, the film also did an okay job of introducing the other new characters. They all have backstory and they're all there at the hospital cause of how their uncontrolled powers have affected normal people, but it ultimately only scratches the surface of the psyche of these characters. They're explored just enough to keep them from being one-dimensional, some more than others, but it isn't really enough to get me invested in them more. Although, shrouding a characters backstory in mystery can be interesting, we never get to learn more about them other than the one key event that traumatized them. Maybe they were planning on fleshing these characters out more in future movies, but the possibility of seeing these characters again in a future film is very slim since Disney merged with Fox.

        Although the characters were a bit uninteresting, some of the relationships they made with each other were well done. It makes sense that the 4 mutants, before Dani got there, would be so close to each other and I think these dynamics were well executed. It's that John Hughes aspect that does pretty well. As for the horror part, well, it's not the best even though it has all the ingredients. There's demons and themes of childhood trauma, and an abandoned looking hospital as the setting. Despite all this it still doesn't manage to deliver on this front and it's because of one thing: tone. Trying to mix King and Hughes into one movie I think is a great idea and while it does do a decent job at recreating a Hughes vibe, it puts a little more focus on creating that particular tone and the horror elements suffer as a result. It's more drama and suspenseful than horror is anything.

        Even though I think Boones did the best he could, the film just suffers from being painfully mediocre. However, there was potential. Everything was there for this film to be better than how it turned out. Even Disney executives were "unimpressed" with it after the two companies had merged. This was originally planned to be the first in a trilogy of movies, but those plans are in limbo and so we have no choice but to absorb this film as a stand-alone feature. This film will probably be remembered for a long time, but not how the producers intended. Ultimately, this film's complicated journey to release is more interesting than the actual film. 5/10

WR: Portrait of a Lady on Fire

          Because there are no movie theaters open and there probably won't be for the foreseeable future, I've decided (should've started weeks ago) to write reviews of movies that have been on my watch list for the longest time. Some of them will be classics for which my naivety has been shamed and others will be ones more under-the-radar that look like they might deserve more recognition. It makes sense, for me, to start this series with a film that released last year that I so anxiously awaited to be available in my area, but then when it was available I was too busy to see it. It's now on Hulu so I was finally able to watch it.

          Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a French foreign film, directed by Celine Sciamma, that takes place on a remote beachside abode where Marianne (Noemie Merlant) is commissioned to paint a portrait of a woman who is having an arranged marriage. Heloise (Adele Haenel), the soon-to-be bride, is grieving over the recent loss of her sister and drove out the previous painter with her stubbornness. Because of this, The Countess (the mother) asks that Marianne paint Heloise in secret and that she interact with her and absorb her phonetic details by being a companion for walks. The walks are the only reason that Heloise thinks that Marianne was brought on staff. Marianne finds some struggle in this request, but the two women start to become closer and this delicate look on these two women's developing relationship is something that only a woman could've translated to film.

           This movie released last year in the festival circuit and actually won Best Screenplay at Cannes. It's really a shame that it didn't go on to win anything big after that. Many in the community were in disbelief that France decided to submit Les Miserables as their entry for Best International Feature at the 2020 Oscars instead of Sciamma's masterpiece. But I digress. Let's actually talk about the movie.
           My favorite quality about this movie is that it's so controlled and held back that it makes the moments of release shine. The dialogue is executed very quietly. No one raises their voices, but because of this the moments where there is tension between the two characters are more effective. You can clearly hear it in their voices. You also appreciate the moments where there is something more than the silence that pervades the majority of the film. The sound of the ocean stands out more and each stroke of the paint brush has a life to it. One moment that really stands out is a scene where the three women (there is a maid that lives at the abode that has also become very acquainted with the two women) attend a feast where the rest of the women there break out into a folk tune. It starts out hauntingly dissonant as each woman slowly glissandos up to their notes and finally there is consonant harmony and two of the women break out into clapping and lyrics and the rest follow suit. It's a moment that stands out because there has been no score up to this point. The only other moment of music comes at the end and it's a classical piece that most people have heard before, but in context it's very emotional.
          When I said that waves and singing stood out more, that includes other things. One of them is the cinematography. This film was shot in 8k, but you don't need a high-tech screen to view it in its full glory. The technical choices bring out the colors immensely. The beach sand looks way more soft and the costumes are more elegant. The color of things like the ocean and fire and even the painted walls of the house are more vibrant. So much so that I stepped outside after watching this movie and found a new outlook on the colors of the world. The trees looked way more green than they did before and the sky looked like the ocean. It's one of the most beautiful looking films I've ever seen in my life.
          I mentioned earlier that a lot of the movie feels controlled and treads along in a quiet manner, but this can come off as incredibly boring. There is no action at all and it may feel like nothing happened once you reach the credits, but I implore you to think about it more. It's more than two women falling in love. It's exquisite and incredibly well-crafted. 10/10

Little Women (2019)

          A new adaption of the iconic Louisa May Alcott novel brings together an all star cast including Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Timothee Chalamet, Laura Dern, and Meryl Streep with newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the sister Beth.  Jo, Amy, Meg, and Beth (Ronan, Pugh, Watson, and Scanlen in that order) are all sisters who live with their mother as the country comes to its resolution on the Civil War. Their father is deployed at the moment so it's just the ladies around the house. Neighbors Laurie and his grandfather. The "domestic struggle" aspect is definitely present in this adaptation although I will admit that I am not familiar with the original story and can not articulate the differences between the book, film, and past film adaptations. As much as I would like to go more into depth about these differences and why this new version proves its existence, I'm not familiar enough with the story to do so.

          Right off the bat, I'm going to start off with my favorite aspect about this film: Greta Gerwig, the writer and director. I thought Lady Bird was a perfect movie and was so stoked to see that she was making another film. Little Women, in my opinion, has something that wasn't as present in Lady Bird: a feminine touch. Not to dispose the femininity of Lady Bird, or put the two on a hierarchy, but everything from the camera movements to Gerwig's take on the characters has something different about it. God, just the scene where Jo and Laurie are dancing on the porch amazes me. I was touched by this film, not really on an emotional level, but on a cinematic appreciation level. I'm not saying there weren't any heart-tugging moments, but the obvious craft that went into every aspect of this movie is what amazes me. 

          From what I've gathered on the Internet, the film really did need to do something different with this story to distinguish itself from other adaptations and it does. The book is a linear narrative, but the film divides the story into two separate timelines. One sees Jo, Meg, and Amy going back to their home to spend time with their ill sister, Beth, while the other is 7 years earlier that shows the 4 sisters during their childhood mostly during the time their father was aiding in the war. They chaotically get along with each other as they go through their 19th century middle class style childhood. The film successfully finds a way to keep important events in both timelines lined up so that, even though the narrative is mixed up, they both still come together to form a cohesive conclusion.

          Another difference I've come to find out, without having read the source material, is that the film is told with Jo as our main narrator. The film begins by having us meet her as she goes into a publisher to convince them to publish one of her stories. I was already enticed just by the opening shot with Jo's silhouette standing in front of the publishers door. These are the only differences I have come to find out without having read the source material. 

          I will say that the flashback narrative is a strong quality of the movie, but I felt like it was a bit messy and unbalanced in the beginning. It took a minute for me to get used to jumping back and forth and the first half of the movie spends most of its time in the past. We'll occasionally get a couple of minutes in the present narrative, but it's a very short time until we are put back into the past. We get to spend more time in the present in the second half and the film keeps a steady pace as both timelines reach to their conclusions. 

          Gerwig proves her talent once again in this amazing new take on the classic Alcott story. I think that Little Women does a wonderful job in revamping the original story while also cementing the fact that this story and these characters really are timeless. With an all-star cast such as this one it's hard to see anyone really hating this. If you're the type of person who hates it when movies get "preachy" then Little Women will annoy you, but I think the film does a good job by finding a way to not be pretentious about its feminist morals. I'm not one of those "down with the liberal Hollywood agenda!" people (those people kind of annoy me to be honest), but if it something that bothers you then here's that warning I guess. Other than that, this movie and its wonderful womanliness is one of the best movies to come out this year and will for sure be grabbing a couple of nominations come Oscar night. It's an adaptation that only a woman such as Gerwig could've done. 9/10

Marriage Story

          Charlie is a theater director who comes from nothing while Nicole is a loving mother to their child Henry. Nicole started out as being an actress in L.A. and then moved to New York to support Charlie while also being a prominent member of his theater company. Their marriage isn't in the best place however because they are in the middle of getting a divorce. What they agreed was going to be an easy process eventually turns into a nasty legal fight that brings out suppressed thoughts and huge amounts of tension. The probable sole reason for the inclusion of the legal system? Custody over their child. 

          The film starts out with monologues about what each character loves about the other. Charlie loves how Nicole is so kind to everyone and how she listens while Nicole loves Charlie's overall independent and fatherly qualities. It's such a sweet moment to have as the opening for a film, but you're immediately pulled out of that almost romantic-comedy fantasy as we see Nicole and Charlie in a therapy session in the next shot. You can tell that the sweet tones suggested by the opening is not what the film is going to be cause there is a huge amount of tension between the two characters during this scene. Starting out the film like this is great because having that starting point of where they used to be makes the journey down to divorce all the more heartbreaking. 

          The opening monologues also ease the audience into its dual narrative structure. The film spends time with both characters and we get to see both sides of this marriage and why it doesn’t work. In the beginning we spend a lot of time with Nicole and we see her feelings about Charlie, but as the film progresses we get to hear Charlie's side. While I don't think the goal of the film is to force the audience to make a decision on who was right and who was wrong, I do think that maybe the film struggles a little bit to disassociate from bias because we don't get as much time with Nicole as we do with Charlie. While we do see Nicole's perspective and how this process impacts her, we see more of the process through Charlie's eyes. The legal meetings and the time spent with Henry are spent with Charlie as our conduit more so than with Nicole. Maybe the film could be a little more balanced if we got to spend just a little more time with Nicole and her mom and sister. 

          I can think of maybe one reason the film is this way. Most of the legal battle takes place in L.A. and since Nicole is from there she has a support system with her family and friends. From what the film discloses, Charlie is no longer in contact with his parents so he pretty much has to go through this divorce alone with an old, retired lawyer as the most comfort he gets. The financial and emotional struggle this has on him is probably more engaging for an audience than watching Nicole having a little bit more convenience. However, I'm not implying any sort of bias towards Charlie. I do think the film does a great job in showing this process and how there really are two sides to every story.

          Marriage Story's objective commitment to its characters and authenticity are what make it a wonderful experience. The only thing that could bring this full circle is the acting, and unsurprisingly, it's amazing. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver are fantastic to watch and the film does something that I don't think a lot of films do. Yes, they are getting a divorce and their relationship does dwindle down throughout the film, but there are many moments where they are so civil with each other. Nicole still offers Charlie a haircut, Nicole kisses him when he comes to her mom's house, and they do make a decent effort to work things out despite their lawyers acting otherwise. They understand that there is no future for them and there are moments, especially one, where the tension rises to fighting, but nothing is exaggerated. Even with no over-dramatization, although it's not necessary, the film still finds a way to foster an emotional reaction between the audience and its characters. Particularly in its last moments, the film helps you realize that no matter how many years pass, it will be almost impossible for the two to un-love each other. It's the most authentic story I've experienced this year. 10/10

Doctor Sleep

        Based on the novel written by Stephen King, Doctor Sleep is about Dan, an alcoholic who ends up in a New Hampshire town for a fresh start. Ever since his childhood which includes a traumatic event with his father, he's had a special gift. Magic doesn't feel like the right word, but he can telepathically communicate with people and transport his conscience wherever. Instead of calling it magic, he calls it 'the shining'. Oh yeah, this movie is a sequel to The Shining. He meets a young girl whose "shine" is the most intense he's ever seen, but there's an inhuman cult called the True Knot on their way to kidnap her and feast on her shine (or 'steam' as they call it). While dealing with past issues rooted in childhood, he helps Abra, the little girl, in stopping the True Knot to make sure that people with varying amounts of 'shine' are not feasted on again.
        Let me put a disclaimer here first before I get into my thoughts. I, Derek Curtis, have never seen The Shining so this review is coming from someone who...hasn't...seen The Shining. I was going to watch it and then write this review, but I figured I should write while the sequel is still fresh in my brain.
        I sort of knew what to expect going into this film. While I don't really know the plot of the original, I have seen enough snippets to understand a lot of the homages and references. For example, the iconic green bathroom, the hole in the white door where Nicholson swung his axe and said one of the most iconic lines in film history, and of course the twins at the end of the hallway. I probably would've caught more of them if I knew the original film, but sadly I don't. These homages and references, however, walk a very fine line between paying respects and lazy writing. Mostly towards the climax of the film, these references are used for suspense and scares in similar ways to how the original film used them. Maybe they thought they were killing two birds with one stone, but it just seemed more lazy in some parts than others.
        Doctor Sleep is also longer than The Shining by about ten minutes. Does it justify this runtime? Unfortunately no. We spend a lot of time in the beginning just watching Dan put his life together while the True Knot does whatever it is evil powered cults do: recruit and hunt. You could argue for the necessity of the density in the first half, but I think a lot of it could've been shortened. Abra doesn't even become important enough for the plot to actually start until halfway through the film. Pacing, I think, is this film's biggest issue.
        Overly dense or not, Ewan McGregor as Dan is marvelous. The same goes for Rebecca Ferguson as Rose, but I enjoyed Dan's character arc more. He's not too complex, but, considering the character and its origins in the original film, it's a satisfying narrative. Watching him struggle with alcoholism was, in my opinion, one of the more successful horror aspects of this film. We see him struggle with temptation in crucial moments where taking one sip could jeopardize his mission. I writhed in my chair as I watched Dan hold a bottle of alcohol, but it makes his reluctance to give in all the more satisfying. In a way, his struggle with alcoholism almost parallels the True Knot. Temptation and the True Knot's constant hunt for Abra and Dan are, in a sense, allegorical to his inner struggle.
        On a more technical note, this is well crafted. The cinematography is beautiful which is one of the mediums where the film takes opportunities to pay homage. When you ignore the pacing issues, it's an easy story to get invested into. Granted, the film does expect you to have seen the original film. It's ideas about people with special abilities and the cult are jumped right into with no explanation, but its not entirely difficult to follow along. I was also a little surprised at how much time was spent with the True Knot. Not that I really needed to know what they're doing besides being the bad guys, but I love it when a film spends more time with the villains than usual.
        To summarize, Doctor Sleep is an interesting watch. I'll probably re-visit this once I've seen The Shining. I definitely think it serves as a nice companion piece to the original film, but the pacing and the almost unoriginal utilization of its references and homages are sort of making me dread the re-watch. I almost had the same reaction as I did with another King adaptation that came out his year: Pet Sematary. I was so bored with that entire movie right up until the last maybe 20 minutes or so. It finally picked up and became something more, but I hated the journey there. Doctor Sleep refrains from this by having an investing character. It's also beneficial that this was based on an actual sequel written by Stephen King and not some lazy cash-grab sequel you see these days. It's a very dense film and it will please some more than others. For me, I enjoyed it, but it took the first half to get there. I liked it enough to relive the journey soon so I would say this is one of the slightly better King adaptations we've had in the past couple of years. 7/10

Parasite

        Because I'm afraid to give away too much and spoil your experience this plot description is going to be extremely vague. Kim Ki-woo and his family reside in a rural area of South Korea. They struggle to get by as they accept any form of income that happens to come their way. The film begins with them complaining about their cellular data being shut off and their upstairs neighbor putting a password on their wifi. They fold dozens of pizza boxes to make some money, but an interesting opportunity comes along. A friend of Ki-woo's, who's had more academic achievement, comes by for a visit and as they share a drink outside of the apartment, Ki-woo is offered an English mentoring position. His friend is traveling abroad for a year and wants Ki-woo to replace him as the mentor for his student. This particular student belongs to an incredibly wealthy family which interests him and his family, but he's going to have to convince the mother that he is as good of a fit as his friend. That's all I give for plot. The story becomes more complicated as Ki-woo's whole family becomes involved, but this job offering is how the film starts. Don't be fooled though. This film, halfway through, takes a shocking turn where the stakes only get higher.
        I don’t know if you’ve already seen advertisements on your end, but on my end this is the most advertisement I’ve seen for a foreign film. All my social media walls have sponsored ads for this film and I think that's a good thing because EVERYONE should try to see this movie. It’s one of the best directed and one of the most original of the year. It’s written and directed by Bong Joon-ho who also made Snowpiercer and Okja. Those are his only English films, as far as I know, as he has many more films in his native Korean language. If you’re not a fan of subtitles then I don’t know what to tell you. I strongly recommend that you trudge through them because the movie is worth it.

        One thing I think I've learned  this year from seeing film after film is that directing is really important. Not that I ever perceived it as something that wasn't it's just that I used to never know how to tell the difference between good and bad directing. It's starting to become more clear to me nowadays and I could definitely tell that a lot of care went into the craft of this film. The pacing is steady and it reveals things to you at a strategic momentum so that everything maintains its shock value. The film dangles a hook in front of you for the first half as it slowly lures you into the lives and story of the two families and how they start to become more intertwined. At some point though, you don't even know you're caught on the hook and the film rips you out of the water. Motives and actions are questioned and secrecy couldn't be more difficult to maintain.
        If there's any advice I could give before going into this movie is to avoid all marketing. I think the trailers are fine, it's just that they are, in my opinion, a tad bit misleading for the tone of the film. I won't say how, but just avoid them if you can. Like, I said, as blind as possible. As far as issues go, I don't really have any. Because I watched the trailers beforehand, I was a little bit amiss when the product I got wasn't what I was expecting. I'm glad I got something unexpected, but it took some time for me to disassociate from those expectations and accept what was there. Once that happened, I immediately got more invested.
        This movie also demands to be discussed. It presents an intense dichotomy between the upper and lower social class, providing a foundation for what eventually becomes an observational and almost satirical look at class structures and how they view each other. It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of these two mindsets even if one may be a tad bit exaggerated but that;s just part of satire.
        On a larger scale, this film is a personification of the upper and lower class. What happens when one attempts to leech itself into the other? Is it inherently malicious or is it simply out of survival? You might find yourself questioning why your feeling a certain way towards the two families. I found myself switching between caring about both and hating both. This films plays with you and takes you on a thrilling ride. I only hope that this masterpiece isn't overlooked throughout the current awards season. 10/10

Scary Stories To Tell in the Dark

          Stella Nichols and her group of friends decide to spend their Halloween night pulling a prank on a notorious school bully. Their prank ends up getting them trapped in a stranger’s car at a drive-in theater. Once they have befriended the stranger, they decide to take a visit up to a known haunted house as a way to escape the bully. Stella explains to Ramone, the new friend, the history of the family that owned the house and how they practically built the town with their paper mill factory. The Bellows, the family, had a daughter named Sarah who has had many rumors spread about her ever since her death. From killing kids to hanging herself with her own hair, this woman is quite the myth amongst the younger people in town. A secret room is discovered in the house which they presume to be the dungeon/bedroom the family kept Sarah in. Stella, in the room, finds a book with all of the scary stories that she had written. Part of the myth is 'if you go to the house at night and ask Sarah to tell you a story then something will happen.' Stella does this and also takes the book. This causes the group to go through some creepy shit. 

          In case you didn't know, this film is an adaption of a book that was written back in 1981 by Alvin Schwartz. The book is a collection of short scary stories all with the guise of it being written by a tortured person named Sarah. It’s always been a popular read and I remember reading it back in elementary school so to see that it was going to be turned into a film was exciting. The cherry on top was that it was going to be produced by Guillermo Del Toro, a very creature eccentric filmmaker. Andre Overdal, the director, was unfamiliar to me until I saw the trailer. I've seen bits and pieces of Trollhunter and never got around to watching The Autopsy of Jane Doe, but I was still ready to watch Scary Stories. I was prepared to see how this little enjoyment from my childhood would translate onto the screen. It’s the day after and having rested on it for some time I've come to a consensus on my feelings: It was pretty good, but slightly disappointing. Allow me to elaborate. 

          It’s not among the year’s best films, but I still had a good time. The best way I can describe how this movie felt for me is to juxtapose it with some others: The Ring and Signs. Back in elementary school, my friend and I had quite a few sleepovers and, even though it's been a while, I remember those two movies being our favorites. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is definitely a movie that we would've watched during a sleepover back in the day. It's not as scary as The Ring or Signs. Actually, it’s not scary at all nor is it as good, but it still knows how to build and maintain tension. The pacing is always churning so I never felt bored for the entirety of the film. 

           One reason that it's not the best of the year is due to a couple of reasons and one of them is the acting. It's not the worst, but I could never fully invest myself in the characters. I felt a small connection and the movie does its best to refrain from making them one dimensional, but I could’ve cared less for anyone except Stella and Ramone.  I’m glad the film wrote the supporting characters with a little more depth otherwise they would’ve been just like any other supporting character in any bad horror movie you think of in the last 5 years. However, it’s still a small connection. The dialogue also isn't the best. I started to laugh when Colletti's character said "the basement is downstairs." There are more examples, but the basement one is the one that comes to mind. With how decently the movie handled its tension, I was a bit disappointed when the climax happened. The film builds up to something more intense for the ending, but it takes a shorter and tamer path. It's not some grand fight with the ghosts or an intense ritual. It was disappointing is what it was. Not only that, but its open ended, leaving room for a possible sequel in the near future. I'm not sure if that’s necessary. It definitely could've just stopped here because I can't imagine a sequel to this movie being good.

          I still had a good time with the movie. It doesn't really have much of a payoff with its climax and the acting is empty for the most part, but I can still see myself turning this on and, at the very least, leaving it on in the background at a Halloween party. I've seen a couple of critics call this a "gateway" horror film and I think I kind of agree. If you're a horror novice and you’re wanting to get into the genre then this movie is a viable option to start off with. It's not scary and it's not that gruesome, but it still gives the inexperienced viewer an idea as to what’s out there in the horror genre. The viewer will ultimately find way better films as they explore the genre and get comfortable with the paranormal, but Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is still decent enough to offer a good time. There are better options out there if you’re wanting to get into horror, but this is probably a more “family-friendly” if that’s one of your concerns. Maybe wait until it's on a streaming service or at the dollar theater if you have one of those near you. 6.5/10

The Farewell

          Billi is a good member of her family in the sense that she keeps in touch with her grandma, Nai Nai, often. One day as Billi is visiting her parents, she’s confused to see them in such a somber mood. Her mother informs her that her beloved Nai Nai has been diagnosed with stage four lung cancer and only has a few weeks left. The family sets up a fake wedding in China in order to spend time with their matriarch. Billi is devastated by this news and, against the will of her family, flies herself out to China to spend time with Nai Nai. There is one thing that bothers her the entire visit: Nai Nai is unaware of her condition hence the fake wedding. In Chinese culture, it is very common for families to not inform their elders of their fatal condition. Instead, the family carries the pain and burden for someone who they know is soon going to pass away. This proves to be difficult for Billi as she struggles to suppress her emotions in front of her Nai Nai who, unaware of her condition and the artificiality of the wedding the family has set up, is nonetheless delighted to have all her family in one place for the first time in over 20 years.
          This is another one of those films that I wanted to see at Sundance, but I never got the chance. Later in the year, the trailer was released and my excitement was boosted. The film was picked up by A24 who has sort of become a popular distributor in the indie film community. Films include Moonlight, Lady Bird, Eighth Grade, Hereditary, The Disaster Artist, and, most recently and most well known at the moment, Midsommar. I was a bit curious about this film for one reason. If you closely observe A24's filmography you'll notice that they have, up to this point, exclusively distributed R-rated films. An R-rating mostly allows for almost complete freedom of dialogue and visual content for the director. The Farewell is on the complete polar opposite end of the spectrum with a PG rating, falling into a dying genre of filmmaking. A PG rating doesn't necessarily connotate an intended demographic. Sure, a child could watch this with the parent's ease, but that doesn't mean that they will understand. Much like last years adult PG film Leave No Trace, mature themes and character nuances will leave a more innocent viewer confused. This is probably coming off as a bit ageist, but I'm stating all this because The Farewell succeeds in having a universal theme of family that, for me personally, hits close to home and I'm sure it will do the same for countless others at any age.
          I myself come from a pretty close-knit family and all I could think about during the film was how lucky I, and many others, are to live so close to family. I couldn't help but almost cry as Nai Nai exclaimed how she had been waiting for something as mundane as eating dinner with her family to occur for over 20 years. The knife to the chest is the fact that she is the only one having a good time. The rest of the family carries the sorrow and pain for Nai Nai as they fear her fate. Billi and her cousin are really the only ones who appear to be having a hard time keeping their emotions in. It's hard for the older members as well, but the two cousins are also trying to grasp the cultural aspect behind the families motivations at the same time. As the days go by, more emotions are put to the stage (literally in one scene) as the family finds it hard to keep Nai Nai busy and happy.
          I honestly don't know what else to say about this movie. It's a very emotional film so make sure to bring some tissues.
          There was not a dry eye in that auditorium. When the credits began to roll, I sat in the theater and reflected on my own experiences with family and how grateful I am to live so close to a lot of them. My family does family dinner quite often so that's why the thought of not seeing your family for over 20 years was so devastating to me. I hope that, even if you think the movie is dull, you still find a moment to think about your family. Even if aren't that close to your family, maybe reach out to a friend. This film touched me like few other films have done and it's probably, so far, the best film to release this year. 10/10

Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood

          In his observation/love letter to the golden age of Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino delivers to us his ninth film: Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood. The film stars Leonardo Dicaprio, Brad Pitt, and Margot Robbie (hardly). Rick Dalton (Dicaprio) is worried that he is coming upon a decline in his career and his friend/stunt double Cliff Booth (Pitt) helps him out with rides and such and he is there as the sort of therapeutic friend for Dalton. As far as plot goes, that's pretty much all you're going to get. The film follows the two as Dalton struggles to come to terms with the fate of his acting career and if it's going to be okay or if he's going to become a has-been. Along the way, we get nice shots and historical (accurate or not, I'm not sure) snaps of life in Los Angeles during the late 1960s. Oh yeah, and Sharon Tate is in there too.
          Recreating the 60s must have been a feat because it's pulled off extremely well in this film. From the costumes and cars to the outfits and music, everything comes together to create a cohesive, aesthetically pleasing world. I used the term "love-letter" earlier because Tarantino, through top-notch cinematography, shows his love and passion for this era of filmmaking and this era of life in Los Angeles. Tarantino includes hippie culture as well and, if you know your Hollywood history and have followed the film's production, then you'll know that the infamous Charles Manson and the Manson family has a role to play in this complicated tale. This realization of the era is also boosted by the outstanding performances of Dicaprio and Pitt. The writing and direction of the film is crafted to serve their strengths. Dicaprio has more of an emotional range, but Pitt is there to be the more "manly" type. Although the runtime can feel overly daunting, the two kept my engagement up throughout the movie.
          This film has many layers to it and they all serve a purpose, but some aspects can feel a bit pushed to the side or unnecessary. The trailers made the inclusion of Sharon Tate out to be intertwined with Dalton and Booth, but her role in the film serves no purpose higher than a contribution to the "observation of the era" aspect. My lack of knowledge in the era and its history is probably to blame for this assumption. She is shown going to parties, attending movies that she's acted in, and being a partner to her husband at the time, Roman Polanski. If you really know your movie history, then you'll be surprised by how the film handles her fate.
          One thing I mentioned earlier is that the runtime can feel bloated. Long runtimes are not foreign to Tarantino and are most likely welcome by fans, but how the film handles the stories is sometimes unbalanced. Some scenes overstay their welcome, but I understand that Tarantino has a method to his madness. All these characters and their many layers and adventures contribute to a perspective that, if you think about it, is given away in the title. "Once Upon a Time" is a phrase usually associated with the introduction of fairytales and I think that was the overall goal of the movie. Fairytales, from what I understand, involve multiple characters and create envious, fictional worlds. After watching this film, I definitely wanted to time travel and live in the 60s. Once Upon a Time...In Hollywood, in my opinion, is an adult fairytale that successfully crafts its non-fictitious world and occupies the higher end of Tarantino's nine films. It's long because it has a goal to achieve. Granted, the only other of his films I've seen are Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, but his filmmaking is a style that I can get behind, even if I'm late to the game. 9/10

The Lion King (2019)

          I'm not sure where this year compares to years past, but Disney has been grinding out a lot of content since the beginning of 2019. So far, we've had 3 Marvel movies, 2 live-action remakes, a Pixar sequel, a documentary, and two sequels plus a Star Wars film set for later this year. I'm sure that y'all have forgotten about Dumbo by now and Aladdin is on the resolution of its box-office run, but Disney has decided to grace us with yet another live-action remake that audiences, including myself, have been looking forward to for a long time. The Lion King was confirmed for a remake in the fall of 2016 and it was announced that the director would be Jon Favreau who, during this time, had just gotten done enjoying the success of the amazing remake of The Jungle Book earlier that year. To this day, that film is still my favorite live-action remake that Disney has put out. Jon Favreau showed great care in not only the story, but also the visual effects. The photo-realism was gorgeous and it would eventually go on to win Best Visual Effects at the 2017 Oscars. Me, including many others, were pumped when it was confirmed that Favreau would be helming the Lion King remake. I thought the film would be in good hands. Then 2019 happened. Dumbo turned out to be an empty, forgettable entity of a film and Aladdin proved that just remaking a movie shot-for-shot was not enough the justify a film's existence. I was looking forward to The Lion King and was hoping that it would break the bad streak that Disney has been having lately with its remakes. That's not what I got.

          I don't know whether or not to start off with the stuff I liked or the stuff I didn't like so I'm gonna flip a coin. Heads for likes and tails for dislikes...likes it is. Much like The Jungle Book, Favreau put great importance on the visual effects The photo-realism is amazing and probably, in my opinion, a little bit better than his previous film. From a visual perspective, its as beautiful as I was hoping it would be. The majesty of the film's animals is one of the film's best traits. The songs are also done very well. Although they probably can't be as imaginative as the original animation due to live-action limitations (for example, the animal tower in "I Just Can't Wait to be King" is sadly nowhere to be found), I still thought they were done pretty faithfully. The A-list voice cast definitely contributes to this aspect. Well, Seth Rogen ain't the best singer, but the voice acting is still great across the board. Also, they brought James Earl Jones back as Mufasa. Just saying. 

          Before I go any further, I would like to point out that I am aware of the debate going on with this movie. If you don't know what I'm talking about then let me bring you up to date. I'm using the term "live-action" because that was the original idea behind this production, but there is a heavy argument to be made that this film is actually an animated film. Without the presence of anything alive and real like a person, it's hard for audiences to label this film as live-action and not as a "re-animation." Where you stand on the whole debate is up to you. The only context I can see this having any conflict is this year's awards season. Disney is definitely going to campaign for Best Visual Effects, but it could also technically try out for Best Animated Film if it wanted to. It wouldn't be the first time that an animated film was also nominated for a category that is mostly live-action based. In the same year that Jungle Book(2016) won for Visual Effects, Kubo and the Two Strings, an animated film, was also a nominee for that category. How Disney is going to submit The Lion King in the fall/winter is, at the moment, unknown to us. 

          Now onto the dislikes. Oh boy, I might lose some relationships after this. I have two major problems with this movie. Much like how they basically copy-and-pasted the original cartoon into a live-action format, I could essentially copy-and-paste my thoughts for Aladdin, change some words and it would be an honest, complete review for The Lion King. I might be exaggerating, but my biggest problem with Aladdin translates onto The Lion King and I feel like you guys know what I'm talking about. I'll sum it up: if Disney is going to do a live-action remake of a beloved classic, then they have to justify its existence. Remaking a film shot-for-shot is not doing that. The Lion King 2019 is almost exactly like the animated classic and that's a problem.  There are, I believe, two goals with the live-action remake mission. 1) To bring the beloved classics of old to a new generation. 2) to exploit the nostalgia of older audiences for profit. The latter has never been more present after seeing The Lion King. 

          My other problem with this movie is one that, before it was released, had some people concerned across social media. The visual effects are gorgeous, don't get me wrong, but this film proves that visual realism can be detrimental. The photorealism of the characters deprives them of their visual, emotional clarity. As realistic as they looked, I could barely tell if they were happy or sad and their puppet-like mouth movements aren't enough to translate emotion to the audience. All you have is the voice acting and to have it juxtaposed with realistic, emotionless faces dilutes any sort of connection you could have to the characters, especially for someone who has never seen the original cartoon. This, combined with the non-reinvention, causes the film to fail at recreating the heart and soul that was present in the original animation.

          Here's the thing: I have these criticisms, but I'm not entirely sure where the level of validity cuts off. I know that they didn't really try to do something different with the story, but there are two things I'm aware of that somewhat negate my claims. For starters, this movie wasn't made for me or others who probably have similar opinions. It was made for the nostalgia-driven moviegoer. To a person who loves the original, this film will be more than enough for them. Also, the level of visual artistry that's on display here is magnificent and to berate the story aspects, I feel, implies that I'm naive to the hard work that obviously went into this film which brings this review to my final thoughts and overall consensus. I was still entertained by this movie. I'll even admit that some tears were shed during the "Circle of Life" introduction, but as the film chugged along its runtime I continued to descend down into disappointment. I'm not unaware of the talent that was involved in the film's production, but the film forgot one thing: a reason to exist. 5/10

Midsommar

        One of my favorite sights to see when visiting the theater is people sticking around after a movie has ended to talk about what they just saw amongst their friends. To me, that measures some level of success for a film. So, imagine my delight once the credits had concluded last night for Ari Aster's new film, Midsommar, to see that there were still people in the theater talking. I'm talking, like, half of the theater, you guys. I finally walked out of the theater and was even more happy to see tons more friend groups talking about the film. It might be a little depressing that I saw it by myself and had no one to talk to afterward, but we're not gonna dwell on that right now :) The post-film discussion is without a doubt deserved as Aster has delivered to us a movie that needs all of it.
        Dani and her BF, Christian, are on the brink of breaking up. One of Christian's friends invites him and some others to tag along with him to Sweden as his family celebrates Midsommar. After suffering severe grief, Dani is also invited to tag along. The group soon realizes upon arriving that it's going to be a weird nine days, but they have no idea how shocking the week is going to get.
        I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting for Aster's sophomore attempt. When entering the theater, I was hoping for the horror to parallel that of Hereditary, but within the first ten minutes, I realized that it wasn't going to be exactly like Aster's previous film. I realized this as soon as the first joke was cracked. It was very surprising to see just how funny the movie was which is a huge step away from the dark and brooding nature of Hereditary. Another thing that separates the two is the lighting. Hereditary was very dark most of the time, but Midsommar's setting makes almost the entire film bright and colorful. The color combined with the comedy makes the impact of the horror aspects more effective, in my opinion. Also, it is important to note that even though this film is labeled as horror, you won't find any jumpscares here. Much like Hereditary, Aster refrains from the traditional conventions of horror and doesn't put a single jumpscare in the film. Most of what happens on screen is going to unnerve you and almost make you want to run to the nearest trash can. It crawled under my skin, but in a good way. In short, if you're expecting a one for one follow-up to Hereditary you might be disappointed. Like I said before: as blind as possible.
        There are only a few issues I had with the film one of them revolving around the character who carries the majority of the comedy. The character is Mark and he is depicted as a very horny, sexually driven dude. One thing he comments on a lot is how "hot" the Swedish girls (or any girls) and how he just wants to have sex most of the time. Some of it is funny, but this character, for me, got very tiring and seemed a bit too stereotypically, sexually masculine. Another issue I had has to do with the character of Christian and his perception by the audience. I can't really say any more than that in fear that I will give away too much, but just know that I felt a little deceived and not in a good way. There are some more minute issues I had, but they have to do with the plot so I can't discuss them here.
        I apologize if any of this seems vague. I really don't want to spoil anything. Also, I haven't been keeping up with these reviews so I also apologize if the quality seems lacking.
        In conclusion, Midsommar is not what I was expecting, but in the end, it turned out to be what I wanted. I'm beginning to see a style for Aster. You may have heard something about the second half of the movie and how f***** up it gets, but I beg you to go into it blindly. You'll either love it or you'll be un-intrigued, but please seek this one out. If you were unimpressed with Hereditary or found it really hard to sit through then this film is going to be a lot harder to swallow and you may not enjoy it. It's definitely not for the faint of heart. 8.5/10

 

Ma

           It starts out kinda innocent and cliche enough. A girl has moved into a new town, but this small town just so happens to be where her mom went to high school. Predictably, she runs into old friends, but because of the nature of her return, she isn't flaunting anything about her life. Maggie, the daughter, is nervous to go to school, but, in a miracle event, is basically invited into a friend group without even having to look for herself. Also, as a bonus, they're among some of the popular kids. During a hangout, each friend is taking turns trying to get an adult to buy alcohol for them and that's when Sue Ann come in (or 'Ma' as she will later be called) and volunteers to buy booze for them. She takes it a step further and offers her basement as a drinking safe haven to the teenagers. I know, not creepy at all. More kids find out about the parties in the basement and that's when things take a dark turn.
           This movie is another from Blumhouse productions which falls into the category of films that snuggle alongside Happy Death Day and Truth Or Dare. Basically, another teenage thriller. Although, this one is a bit less accessible since it is rated R and for good reason. From the trailer, one can assume that Ma is obviously not right in the head and does some pretty horrible things. Especially towards the end, it gets a bit more gruesome than you might think.
            Let's start with what I liked. First off, the execution. It's pretty decently paced and it complements the originality of the story. I rarely felt bored or taken out of the movie. It's entertaining enough to keep you interested. If it had poor pacing than I definitely would've found myself wondering how much longer the runtime was which is never a good sign. The premise is also served by its investment in the background of its titular character. There are many moments throughout the film where you are flashbacked to a time where Ma was younger and, as the flashbacks start to tie together in your head, you start to understand why she is the way she is. The film also invests time in her present life as she tries everything to get the kids to come party in her basement. You see all her plannings and her craziness. She isn't treated as some mysterious creature that has yet to get its moment to shine. She gets her moments all through the film. While not to the same extent, it reminds me of how much I was surprised when Thanos received the most screen time in Avengers: Infinity War. I can appreciate when a thriller such as this tries to invest time in developing its villain and making them understood. With that being said, I can't say that Ma's motivations were the strongest. It makes sense why she is the way she is, but its something that has been done before. Granted, the turning event in her young life is somewhat new, but the overall effect of how she went through her adolescence has been seen numerous times. I know that this explanation is extremely vague, but I'm just trying to refrain from spoilers.
           While we are on the topic of characters, I will also say that I really didn't care much for the main group of friends, especially the main friend whose perspective we look through for almost the whole movie. They aren't developed that well and that might be the story's fault. Since Maggie is the brand new member of the friend group, she is obviously the first one to become suspicious. Her relationship with her mom is great, but she goes through barely any character development. I cared more about the guy she has a crush on than I did with her. She hasn't had a lot of time to spend with her new friends before things go crazy. Honestly, the only character I had any emotional reaction for was Ma. With her backstory, it's hard not to take pity on her. I get that because it's a teen thriller, the characters might not be the most likable things to be in the movie, but teen thrillers like these shouldn't just rely on premise alone to be entertaining. Take Truth Or Dare. I could've given two craps about any of those characters. Now take Happy Death Day. While both 1 and 2 aren't the greatest thrillers in the world, the film really cared about the main character and tried to make you care about her. In Ma's case, it's more like Truth Or Dare so the characters besides Ma don't add a whole lot. Nothing more stereotypical than teens drinking on the outskirts of town. Here's how I imagine the conference room meeting to have taken place when the idea for this movie was pitched:
            "Okay, so, you know what teens like to do?
            "Drink!"
            "Yes, but what kinda teens?"
            "....uuhhhh"
            "small town teens!"
            "cool! where are you going with this?"
            "They usually have a drinking spot that is known to other small town teens, right?"
            "Right!"
            "Okay so get this: a horror movie where the drinking spot is haunted!"
            "*executes jazz hands*"
            ".......I love it. Here's your 5 million dollar budget."
Even though the premise of the movie doesn't involve the supernatural, I feel as though there's a chance that that's how the idea for this movie started.
            Despite what I've said about the characters, at least Octavia Spencer gives a great performance. This is by no means her best work, but it's great considering how out of place the role is for her. Also, Allison Janney is in this for like a whole 60 seconds so...that's something.
            Overall, this movie has a great premise that is decently executed, even if the characters are somewhat detrimental to the film's desired emotional reaction. It's not the greatest thing in the world, but it fits into what Blumhouse is putting out lately in terms of thrillers. I can't say that you'll like it, but it'll at least keep you occupied for 90 minutes. 6/10
 *I'm putting it right in between the blue and the orange range because I can't make up my mind.
         

Aladdin

          Aladdin is the next entry in Disney's live-action remake filmography and stars Will Smith, Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, and Marwan Kenzari. If you are familiar with the plot of the original cartoon then you already know what the movie is about. Aladdin (Massoud) lives on the streets of Agrabah and happens to run into Princess Jasmine (Scott) herself. She is disguised so Aladdin doesn't know who she is at first, but he knows that she lives in the palace. Aladdin becomes infatuated with her and, after an attempt to sneak into her bedroom, is captured by the palace guards. Jafar enlists Aladdin's help in acquiring a magic lamp from a deadly cave and, you know what, you already know what happens. 

          So far, I've pretty much enjoyed every single live-action remake Disney has done. Not all of them are great, but none of them have been incredibly bad. I don't know if this film is included in the filmography, but the live-action sequel, Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass is probably my least favorite. On the other end of the spectrum, The Jungle Book is, in my opinion, the best one so far. Now, where does Aladdin fall on my own spectrum? That is, assuming that you view my reviews with any amount of credibility. For me, Aladdin falls in the middle. Let me explain.

          I'm going to start with the things that I liked about the film. First off, the technical aspect. The costume design and production design are gorgeous. The colors are extremely vibrant when juxtaposed with a desert backdrop. They didn't hold back on trying to make the city and the palace look good. I'm not commenting on the CGI, however, that will come later. The music is also really good. If you're a nostalgic type of person then you'll most likely enjoy the remixed versions of all the classics as well as the new numbers they included. Personally, my favorites were when Jasmine was singing by herself. Overall, the movie really finds a soul in the numbers. Of course, I can't leave out Will Smith. He was the best casting choice for the Genie and he brings most of the charisma and charm the movie has. 

          The boasts some good performances and technical splendor, but it has quite a few shortcomings. Since we're still on the topic of casting, I'll go ahead and say that the casting choice for Jafar wasn't the best. He's not bad, but he doesn't exactly cast a presence in the film. I wanted him to be more characterized like the cartoon, but he's downgraded to a stereotypical villain with almost zero personality. 

          As much as I liked the technical side of the film, I felt as though none of it was shot that well. What I mean is, the cinematography isn't that great which sucks because what's on the screen is fantastic. All the colors and the sets could've looked way more impressive. Also, despite what I said earlier about great production design, it's negatively contrasted with mediocre CGI. Especially towards the end when Jafar tries too hard to be all powerful.

          This last critique might be a bit hard to explain. Once Smith's Genie character is introduced, the film finds charm and a personality, but until it gets there, the film falls flat of anything spectacular. It felt like I was watching a high school stage production until that point. This somewhat carries over into the rest of the movie. What makes the movie feel this way for me is the poor cinematography and the acting. None of the acting is terrible, but a lot of it felt like how you would imagine acting to be at your local musical theater company. It doesn't translate that well to the big screen, at least, for me it didn't.

          If you recall back to my plot description in the first paragraph, you'll see that I didn't bother to explain some of the major details. That's because this movie is almost exactly like the cartoon. For me, this is a problem. I understand that the goal of these live-action remakes is to bring the classics of an old era to a new generation, but if all a remake is going to do is exactly that, then why bother creating it? I could've just watched the cartoon at home instead of paying ten dollars for admission. I could've seen a high school production and it would've been a similar experience to what I saw last night. There are some new songs and some new, albeit minute, new details, but they don't counter the lack of originality. This is why I like The Jungle Book so much. Don't hate me, but it's also why I take guilty pleasure in enjoying Alice in Wonderland and Maleficent. Even if they weren't that great, they at least attempted to take classic stories and turn them into something new or give them a fresh perspective. Aladdin doesn't do this.

          Overall, the movie, with its many shortcomings, doesn't fall flat nor does it exceed anything grand. It's neither good nor bad. All the good stuff is negated by the not-so-great qualities to the point that a weird and boring equilibrium is created. It's in the middle. If you're a nostalgic type of movie-goer then this film will hit all the right spots for you and you'll have a wonderful time. If you're not that person and you're looking for something more to your Disney experience then I'm not sure that this film will meet your expectations. Critics are pretty split on this one and, no surprise, I'm leaning towards "rotten" territory. I still enjoyed it, but I also enjoyed the cartoon and I'm not sure I can justify seeing the movie in a theater when they're both dangerously similar. 5.5/10