Reviews

I really didn't expect to leave Frozen II pondering mortality, the changes in life, and my place in this world.

But now I am, and I just can't let it go (see what I did there?).

But seriously go watch this thought-provoking drama that just so happens to include a snowman and musical numbers.

Naaaaaants ingonnnyaaaaaama bagiiiiithi babaaaa. If you're at all familiar with The Lion King, hopefully you sang along to that opening as I did. Just like 1994's animated counterpart, Disney's 2019 remake opens with a sunrise over the African savannah. It includes the same familiar songs, iconic images, and quotable lines of dialogue as the original - a source of contention for many critics and viewers alike. Unlike the original, however, this remake was approached with a meticulous attempt at realism among the animals and landscapes. While the realism inhibits the animals from showing full emotion on their faces, the classic story in a new medium ultimately wins out with help from an all-star cast, beautifully modernized music, and of course, gorgeous visuals.

You likely know the story. Lion King Mufasa and the rest of the kingdom celebrate the birth of the future king, Simba. However, Scar (Mufasa's sinister brother) has plans to become king himself. Simba struggles with his own identity as he must come to grips with his destiny and fight for the future of Pride Rock.

As mentioned before, Disney's remake contains some of today's finest actors and talents. Donald Glover voices Simba, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter voices Nala, James Earl Jones reprises his role as Mufasa, Chiwetel Ejiofor voices Scar, Seth Rogen voices Pumbaa and Billy Eichner voices Timon (and that's just the tip of the iceberg). And they all (or almost all) do a stellar job in their roles. Donald Glover does a nice job portraying the complexities of Simba's internal struggles, while Beyoncé commands her performance as Nala in a slightly larger role for the character than the original. Their duet together in "Can You Feel the Love Tonight?" is truly breathtaking, and while Beyoncé's new single didn't fit perfectly within the film, the song itself is a nice addition to the lineup.

Chiwetel Ejiofor is menacing as Scar, but not over-the-top. I liked that his character wasn't crazy or too dramatic, but calculating and reserved. His rendition of "Be Prepared" (the biggest departure from the original tunes) may not be as memorable as the original, but it fit the character much better in this iteration of the film. Strangely enough, the least emotive and invested performance is that of James Earl Jones in his return as Mufasa. I'm sure it's a difficult thing to imbue life into a role you've previously performed (and much identical dialogue at that), but it very much felt separated from the rest of the cast's performance. In fact, it has been reported that Jones was the only member of the cast not to record dialogue with the rest.

On the other hand, Eichner and Rogen steal the show as Timon and Pumbaa, a pure result of recording (and likely riffing) alongside each other. They brought these characters to life in a completely new light, yet in a way that is completely aligned with the spirit of Timon and Pumbaa. I found myself smiling every time they were onscreen and wishing they had more screentime. One unexpected song from the duo makes a brief appearance in the film's finale, much to the applause and laughter of my theater's audience.

Now on to the real showstopper - the visuals. I can't speak highly enough of the work that Jon Favreau and his team put into this incredibly realistic portrayal of the animals and their homes. The animals look and move like real animals, the sun and rain look like real sun and rain - I could go on and on. One scene that built upon the original is 4 minutes of a tuft of hair floating through various landscapes and situations. That may sound laughable and/or boring, but it turns out to be an impressive display of the film's animation and a visual representation of the film's "Circle of Life."

Despite the incredible visuals, the biggest flaw with this remake lies in its biggest strength - the realism. We can't see the pain in Mufasa's face as Scar betrays him, or Simba's smile as he enjoys "Hakuna Matata" life. A few dramatic moments were either unemotional or even laughable because of the lack of emotion. On the other hand, that wasn't the goal of this film, and they did a lot within their limits. Simba's chest heaves and ears go back when he's sad. Scar's eyes narrow when he's scheming, and Timon's head droops when he sees Simba and Nala together. This is far from the emotion of the original, but somewhat unique when seeing how "real" animals portray those emotions. And yes, I know that if these animals were real they wouldn't talk, but with that aside, the animators truly tried to stay within what an animal can and cannot do. I admire their effort, but ultimately this falls flat, even if there wasn't a previous version to compare it to.

I would be remiss to write a review and not mention Hans Zimmer's incredible update to his original Oscar-winning score. His new arrangements fit the film's tone perfectly, and the new recordings and orchestrations of even the same cues are fuller, crisper, and feel very organic. Zimmer mentioned wanting this iteration of the score to feel like a live performance, bringing in more musicians and performers than even the last time. It's hard to explain, but I really believe he achieved this goal.

I truly understand the complaint that many have had with this film's so-called "shot-for-shot" remaking of the story. Little-to-none has been changed about this story from the original version, and many specific shot selections (such as the opening sunrise) are nearly identical as well. However, I didn't go into the film expecting them to change much at all about what might be the most beloved animated film of all time. In 2017's Beauty and the Beast, the story beats were the same as the original, the dialogue didn't change in many places, and many shots were recreated (the same goes for Disney's 2019 Aladdin). In fact, several of Disney's attempts at drastic departures from their original animated counterparts have not been well-received (Dumbo 46% on RT, Maleficent 54%). In other words, this is far from Disney's first "shot-for-shot" remake, and anything other than that would have likely faced even more criticism.

Some would say this dilemma means Disney shouldn't remake their old films at all, but I disagree. I loved seeing this new version, flaws and all, as I have with their previous remakes. One of my dear friends shared a touching story about a little girl that watched 2019's Lion King having never seen or heard of the original. If these remakes are introducing younger generations to classic stories, that is a noble task in and of itself. Does this entirely justify remaking all Disney's animated films? And to what extent should the films remain "the same" and still be praised? I don't have the answers to those questions, but I don't mind seeing these remakes as long as they're high quality - and so far I've felt the quality has been impressive.

Lastly, in judging and scoring this film, I have to evaluate its competitors in the family film categories. At the end of the day, I would want to sit down with my family and watch this remake of The Lion King before I would rewatch The Secret Life of Pets 2, UglyDolls, or The Lego Movie 2. If that's the 2019 competition for a family film, then I could never rank The Lion King the same or worse than those - flaws and all. I'm subtracting a point for originality - because it is, in fact, a very, very close remake of the original, and subtracting a point for the lack of emotional range from the characters. The updated music, voice cast, and incredible visuals all make this film worth a watch, even if the story is a little familiar. Score: 8/10.

I wasn't a fan of the first Secret Life of Pets movie. It was predictable, all the laughs were in the trailers, and the plot structure itself was a wannabe Toy Story. The trailers for its sequel weren't any more promising, but I went in open-minded. Unfortunately, it was more of the same.

In Secret Life of Pets 2, terrier Max (Patton Oswalt) is coping with some major life changes. His owner is now married and has a toddler, Liam. Max is so worried about protecting the boy that he develops a nervous tic. On a family trip to a farm, Max gets some guidance from veteran farm dog Rooster (Harrison Ford, making his animated-film debut), who pushes Max to ditch his neuroses, find his inner alpha, and give Liam a little more freedom.

Don't get me wrong, these aren't terrible movies. The most unsatisfying part of these films is just how mediocre they are. There's plenty of laughs and fun hijinks, but it's all so empty and meaningless. In my opinion, that's what separates most Illumination animated films from their Disney and Pixar counterparts.

The story of Secret Life of Pets 2 is less structured than the previous film. So many storylines are juggled that you nearly forget one before you reach the next relevant scene. Several times in the course of watching it, I wondered how much more enjoyable this concept would be as a streaming TV show or a miniseries. Low stakes, unrelated events, and a shorter runtime would do this franchise well. The full-bellied laughs that start out the film are half-hearted chuckles by the end.

The voice cast is fine, but not nearly as relevant or impactful as other animated films. The animation is well done, and the score by Alexandre Desplat is one of the highlights, fun and full of energy.

I'd still encourage you to watch Secret Life of Pets 2, especially if you want some light-hearted fun or are looking for a clean family movie. But if you're looking for a high-quality film or deeper message, you can look elsewhere. These dogs haven't learned any new tricks: 2.5 out of 5 stars.

"Can you hear the people sing?" Audiences can hear the people sing...but at times, they may not want to. Adapted from Victor Hugo's novel and the musical of the same name, Les Misérables, or Les Mis, sings loud and clear with its star-studded cast, all while exploring themes of righteousness, redemption, love, and forgiveness.

Les Misérables stars Hugh Jackman, supported by Oscar winners Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and Eddie Redmayne. Set in France, this musical drama begins in 1815 and spans nearly twenty years over the course of its two and a half hour run time. Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is released from prison, but is put on parole for the remainder of his life. Because of his criminal record, he struggles to obtain a job, shelter, or good reputation, and decides to make a new start, destroying his parole papers and going into hiding. Eight years later, Valjean has become mayor of a small town and a factory owner, but is shocked to cross paths with his old parole officer, Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). Seeking to live a godly life, Valjean provides care for his former employee (Anne Hathaway) and her daughter (Amanda Seyfried), all while running from his past.

Les Misérables is a true form musical; nearly the entire film is sung. While this makes for a unique film experience, muffled lines and the complete lack of spoken dialogue can oftentimes cause confusion regarding plot details. The music takes advantage of the leitmotif technique, giving each character a short "theme" that they sing recurringly. Each theme is linked with its character and creates an identifiable musical identity.

The film focuses on character, using their lyrics and leitmotifs to show viewers the thoughts and feelings of each character. The characters were well rounded and developed nicely. Although singing to express emotions is a straightforward way to develop characters, it is incredibly effective at allowing these characters to become relatable. For instance, when a character sings "I love him," audiences immediately know the mood and feelings of that character, and can focus on how that character's actions, expressions, and words relate to that phrase. Jean Valjean, the protagonist, is somewhat of a tragic hero. Although he does not experience a transition from good to evil, he experiences relatable emotions (fear, sadness, love) and tragedies (imprisonment, loss of loved ones, running from the law).

The music is the centerpiece in the film, but it never quite hits the mark. The beautiful accompaniment is often hidden beneath sound effects and vocals, and the singing itself was often breathy and out of tune (although to the actors' credit, the music was sung live during filming, not recorded in a sound studio). The sets and costumes were the true showstoppers, elaborate, well- made, and giving the film a realism that it could have never achieved as a stage musical. ​ ​The cinematography contained a few unique angles and shot selections that contributed to the musical nature of the film. Oftentimes, the singers stared either directly or indirectly into the camera, as if they were singing to the audience (not unusual on a stage, but an odd choice for a film adaptation). There were also many wide shots and aerial views of Paris, which would normally be an impossibility in a stage performance.

As a whole, the film's acting, score, and set design were exquisite, but the poor singing scattered throughout proved to be a major distraction.​ The film (PG-13) requires a mature audience; it contains some suggestive material, but also explores deep themes beyond the grasp of most young viewers. Despite the scope and effort behind the film, Les Miserables can't quite reach the high note it strains to achieve.

The first film in Oliver Stone's films about the American presidency, JFK is a historical drama exploring a popular conspiracy theory regarding John F. Kennedy's assassination, adapted from the books On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison and Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy by Jim Marrs. On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, Texas, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman). The inciting incident occurs when New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison notices several inaccuracies in the Warren Report (the official investigation of the assassination) and decides to reexamine the case of Kennedy's death. Garrison and his team pursue the truth at all costs, and eventually take Kennedy's death to court to ask: who really is responsible for killing the President?

Clocking in at more than three hours, the film has a definite focus on its story, with every element of the film being used to further the plot. Garrison is a modern hero in the film, a city DA that rises to the enormous challenge of investigating the President's assassination. Kevin Costner seems to perfectly capture this type of character (also achieving a thick, charming southern accent) and connecting with the viewers. He is surrounded by an all-star supporting cast, all of which truly become the real life figures they portray. Stone writes believable and engaging dialogue, but since the film focuses so heavily on story, he spends little time developing the characters. Oliver Stone is a controversial director, and his style can be very polarizing, but personally, I enjoyed his strange method of storytelling. The costumes seemed appropriate for the setting, and the set designs were extraordinary, particularly the recreations of 1960s city streets such as Dallas and New Orleans.

John Williams was responsible for writing the film's score, and was nominated for an Oscar for his efforts. Williams was busy writing the score for Hook around the same time, so he actually wrote themes for the film before the film was shot. This resulted in Stone cutting and editing the film to the music, instead of the typical method of fitting the music to the film. Williams gives JFK a tragic, but heroic theme, but also incorporates pulsing synthesizers for the investigative scenes (an unusual tactic for the composer). This resulted in an effective score and a seamless integration with the film. The cinematography was unusual, but played a very important role in the story. The film opens with a montage of newsreel clips from JFK's presidency. It slowly intersperses Stone's own clips, but the lighting and coloring (black-and-white and grainy film) make the clips all seem genuine. Much of the film is shot in this manner, giving a very real sense to the story, very similar to a documentary. I can honestly say this film would not have been the same had it not been for this unique approach to cinematography.

JFK (rated R) contains strong language throughout, and the assassination scenes may be too graphic for young viewers. The 3-hour runtime will bore some; however, any lover of historical dramas or investigative thrillers will finish the film asking for more. The film is an emotional journey, and viewers will always find themselves rooting for Garrison and his seemingly impossible quest. I give this film a B+, finding it "guilty" of keeping me on the edge of my seat.