No posting today

I'm really sorry online readers. I know that everyone was waiting for a blog posting today, but the movie that I wanted to review, I didn't get a chance to go to the theaters to watch. I thought we were going to go in the morning, but that didn't happen. Then, I thought we were going to go tonight, and that didn't happen. So now I'm stuck waiting to find a day that I can go watch the movie that I wanted to watch today. I hope that I can watch it soon so that I can wrap the month up with, but if I don't find someone who will be willing to go watch it with me soon, I will probably just have to go by myself.

However, I didn't want to leave everyone feeling empty, so I will end off the month by saying the same thing I usually say at the end of every year. This year was actually the easiest that I have had in all my years blogging. I didn't post as much reviews as I did last year and it might be that way, unless something happens and I end up posting a lot of reviews, but I don't see myself doing that any time in the near future.

I hope that everyone had a great 2018 and I hope that 2019 opens up a lot of doors and opportunities for everyone. Have a great New Year's Eve everyone. Here's hoping that 2019 will be better and that I will be able to finish off the month with the latest live action Disney movie that I have wanted to watch ever since it was released. Enjoy the end of the year my online readers. I will see everyone next year when I start back up on my Friday reviews.

Christopher Robin

Winnie the Pooh and the gang have touched generation after generation of children and adults with their purity, humor and heart, but nothing lasts forever – especially childhood. Director Marc Forester’s film “Christopher Robin,” released back in August, tries to tell what happens to the residents of The Hundred Acre Wood after the main character leaves to grow up and suddenly returns during a tough time in his adult life.

The basic story is easy and it has been done before in many films, including the really obvious comparison of Steven Spielberg’s “Hook,” but it’s one that works really well in this film. “Christopher Robin” eventually is a nice, adult film that strangely is more targeted to adults than the children. Kyle Wilson said in his review, “Much of the early film deals with tragedy and the pains of growing up for Christopher, albeit handled very gently by Forster knowing the family audience appeal of the characters.”

Wilson continued, “There in that first half of the film is where Christopher Robin will suffer with family audiences, namely the children that will expect more cuddly adventure and less mid-life crisis introspection. Those enjoyably nuanced character moments with Christopher as he grows up will go right over the heads of most young ones and quite frankly might bore many a child right out of the experience.”

It’s hard to criticize a film for having minor character moments done with respect and love, but the favorite team of The Hundred Acre Wood should touch every adult in all generations and not just be a paid respect for adult nostalgia. Wilson said, “Thankfully the melancholy and at times emotionally manipulative first half of the film takes the leash off for the final act with all of the characters in classic form going through a note-perfect adventure with the Robin family that, by this point, has earned the big smiles that will be no doubt be on the audience’s faces.”

Another aspect that will not really be understood by children will be the beautiful visuals of both London and The Hundred Acre Wood. Wilson said, “The entire film has a stunning pastel watercolor palette that instills a somber feeling of old memories and a world moving on. Christopher Robin as a film is not the bright flash and pizzazz of The Incredibles 2, this is mostly a quiet, reflective film that lovingly sends Pooh and friends on a new kind of adventure with Christopher and his family.”

Speaking of the Robin family, Ewan McGregor plays the adult Christopher Robin and there could not be a better choice for the role. The character of Christopher Robin is loaded with some heavy material as an adult and doesn’t always act in the most nice or likable ways to his wife Evelyn (Hayley Atwell) and daughter Madeline (Bronte Carmichael) or even Pooh himself when he all of a sudden arrives in London. However, McGregor can be immediately likable and simply joyful in his performance that can instantly make you forget any problems the character has collected with one smile or act of kindness.

Not to give credit to the rest of the cast, which also absolutely captures in bringing back the characteristics of those who live in The Hundred Acre Wood with amazing choices like having Jim Cummings reprise his long-standing role as both Pooh and Tigger, while Brad Garrett is absolutely hilarious with his dead-on depressed Eeyore. Even fan favorites like Peter Capaldi as Rabbit and Toby Jones as Owl are such great choices that most film fans won’t even notice it’s them until the end credits.

Wilson said, “Christopher Robin isn’t your typical summer blockbuster experience at the cinema and is predominantly a film of quiet contemplation and the magic of nostalgia that would seem to be a better suited release for the holiday season.” Besides that, the film is a beautiful, nice trip back to your childhood that may lose current children after the miserable first half, but wraps things up with a nice fulfilling story with warmth and friendship.

This is definitely worth watching for those who are lifelong fans of Winnie the Pooh, like me. You will fall in love with this after watching it because it is a very nice story with some real sad moments. If you cry during certain parts, I won’t be surprised. If you missed the chance to see this in theaters, see it as a rental.

Look out tomorrow for the finale to “Disney Live-Action Month.”

A Wrinkle in Time

Since it was first published in 1962, Madeline L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time has amazed generations of readers with its imaginative and exciting journey through space and time. However, the journey for L’Engle to get A Wrinkle in Time released took several years, as publishers rejected the novel for being irregular or “too hard” to target for children.

The process to adapt L’Engle’s book to film took over forty years but for a lot of different reasons. The author was hesitant to see her work poorly done on film, until early in the 2000s when she apparently gave the green light to an adaptation that was given through the Walt Disney Company. Disney began production on their adaptation in the spring of 2001, with the main target that ABC would air the two-part miniseries during the February airings the following year. In fact, the earliest commercial for this made-for-TV production aired on the “Spy Kids” DVD in September of 2001.

However, the February 2002 showings came and went along with November’s. ABC rescheduled “A Wrinkle in Time” for February 2003, but it was again delayed with reasons because the network wanted to find a better airdate. The airdate that they decided on was a Monday Night in May of 2004, where the film would air in one 3-hour timeslot. DVD Dizzy noted in their review, “Critics took Disney to task for burying the film, airing it on a school night and ending at 11:00. Most children missed it, as did adults, and when the Nielsen ratings were in, Wrinkle finished fifth among the networks for its time slot, and wound up in a lowly 60th place for the week.”

DVD Dizzy continued, “In light of the ineptness with which it was scheduled and marketed, one would think Disney was trying to downplay Wrinkle for being some kind of a disaster of epic proportions. But on the contrary, their modestly-budgeted TV adaptation is quite successful, which may frankly have you scratching your head as to why the movie was shelved for years and given a timeslot when few would see it.”

In the film, just like the story, Meg Murry, played by Katie Stuart, is a smart but shy young teenage girl who is not having a very good time inside or outside of school. She’s not very popular in her grade or with her teachers, and when she’s not dealing with people calling her younger brother a freak, she’s dealing with the sudden disappearance of her father.

Meg’s scientist father (Chris Potter) left his scientist wife (Sarah Jane-Redmond) and four kids (Munro and Thomas Chambers) with no reason or forewarning, and no one really knows what they should decide on. Meg’s younger brother, Charles Wallace (a name he is called completely countless times throughout the movie), played by David Dorfman, has gotten really bad for not talking to anyone outside the house. Even though he’s quite in school and in his neighborhood, Charles Wallace is good at listening. DVD Dizzy noted, “He's also special in an unclear way; perhaps he's a genius. He's in tune with foreign voices he hears and is able to know a variety of things that will happen (or perhaps he just says that he does).”

Meg’s mission to find her father is started by the mysterious arrival of a magical woman who goes by the name of Mrs. Whatsit, played by Alfre Woodard. Meg, Charles Wallace, and friendly neighborhood boy Calvin O’Keefe (Gregory Smith), with some help from Mrs. Whatsit and her two other witch colleagues, Mrs. Who (Alison Elliott) and Mrs. Which (Kate Nelligan), go on an adventure through time and space to other planets.

DVD Dizzy mentioned, “This trio of youngsters are up against a dark force which has turned one society into routine-following. This same darkness, which feeds individuals false happiness by tapping into their dreams and interests, is holding Dr. Murry prisoner somewhere in a Central Intelligence building on this nightmarish planet Camamotz.” “It,” as the force is called, fights Meg and friends through The Man With The Red Eyes, played by Kyle Secor, and gives really difficult tests to restore the balance Meg wants in her life.

“A Wrinkle in Time” ruthlessly adapts a book that is weird, inspiring and rewarding, and it does this with mostly adequate ways. What may disappoint eager fans of L’Engle’s books is that the movie strives from its source in so many ways. DVD Dizzy said, “The forty-year-old text has undergone a fair amount of revisions. Thematically it still calls back to simpler times, but stylistically it has a modern look and sensibility.”

To start off, it’s really shortened so much, which does not look that way it started out. (As I mentioned, main plans called for a two-part four-hour miniseries, and what came to be ran in a three-hour timeslot. DVD Dizzy noted, “There's a hearty amount of deleted scenes provided elsewhere on the DVD, too.) While editing patches things together fairly smoothly, there is some choppiness to the narrative as constructed here.”

DVD Dizzy continued, “The rich subject matter which makes for such a good page-turner doesn't always translate so well to the screen. L'Engle's writings truly spark one's imagination, and to have these theoretical and puzzling adventures realized in one particular way does rob the story of some of its delights.” Some of the scenes just work better on page than on screen. In the film, the character of Happy Medium, played by Sean Cullen, is now a poor comic relief and the “romance” between Meg and Calvin looks a little reduced and not very convincing. DVD Dizzy’s rebuttal was, “But this established adaptation wins you over in a way all its own, evoking similar pleasures in an epic journey through the infinite that's also quite intimate.”

After being released on DVD five months after its long-delayed television airing, “A Wrinkle in Time” has a new chance to be found and loved by audiences, including those familiar with the Newbery Medal-winning book. This may be the first that some people heard of the adaptation, which is sad. DVD Dizzy said, “But it's somewhat understandable how such a noteworthy production could get lost in the shuffle amidst the modern television atmosphere, in which network and cable channels offer no shortage of fantasy miniseries.” (It’s evidently still not easy to advertise since the DVD cover shows a flying horse and castles but the film doesn’t have either.)

This type of movie, whether you like it or hate it, does deserve more attention. DVD Dizzy said, “Much went into pulling a film from L'Engle's novel, and with the apparent intentions of doing it justice rather than using its reputation to get ratings.” “A Wrinkle in Time” may be too crazy or “out there” for children, but teenagers and adult viewers, especially those who read the book, might enjoy.

After delays and one badly-scheduled TV showing, Disney’s “A Wrinkle in Time” was released on DVD to look for the right audience. Fans of the book by Madeleine L’Engle’s may be split on the values of this adaptation and how far from the book it is. DVDDizzy said, “In its transition from page to screen, this ambitious production may not satisfactorily "bring to life" everything from L'Engle's novel. But viewed on its own, I think Wrinkle works rather well as a movie, evoking similar feelings and wrapping you up in its mind-bending adventure through the infinite.”

Earlier this year, in February, another adaptation of “A Wrinkle in Time” was released in theaters. Brian Truitt started his review by saying, “The power of love can only do so much in Disney's misbegotten A Wrinkle in Time.”

Truitt continued, “Director Ava DuVernay (Selma) tries hard for a big-hearted fantasy adventure akin to The NeverEnding Story with an enchanting teen heroine and sparkling visuals.” Still, those pros can’t help this movie, which is stolen by a sad, nerve-wracking adaptation of Madeleine L’Engle’s sci-fi children’s novel.

Meg Murry (Storm Reid) is a loner teenager who’s teased by bully girls at school (led by Rowan Blanchard, who you might remember as Riley Matthews from “Girl Meets World”) and not really the straight A student she used to be before her NASA scientist dad (Chris Pine) disappeared four years ago. After her recent talk at the principal’s (Andre Holland) office (Meg throws a basketball really hard in the face of Blanchard’s character for making fun of her extraordinary little brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) the Murry kids and their mom (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) are visited by the strange Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon).

Truitt noted, “Meg finds out that in trying to "shake hands with the universe," her father discovered a tesseract, a way to bend space and time in order to travel to other dimensions.” Mrs. Whatsit and her two friendly witch colleagues, Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey) and Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), tell Meg that an evil forced called “The It” has taken Mr. Murry, and the three enlist Meg, her classmate Calvin (Levi Miller) and Charles Wallace as the newest kids to fight this spinning force of darkness.

Truitt credited, “While Pine, who's not in much of the movie, is all bearded emotion as the troubled Mr. Murry, newcomer Reid lends a surprising amount of gravitas to Meg as she grows from distrusting shy girl to determined protagonist. Witherspoon's Mrs. Whatsit flings sharp insults with a smile, like a magical grown-up version of Election's Tracy Flick, and Mrs. Who is an oddball who mainly communicates via quotations from famous figures like Churchill and Shakespeare. The highlight of their trio is Winfrey's over-the-top, grandmotherly Mrs. Which: The bejeweled lady just looks like she gives out the best hugs ever.”

DuVernay also does magic in creating a beautiful fantasy landscape. She has a great visual method, with close-ups and viewpoints that aren’t normally seen in the genre, and combines the familiar with the alien: Truitt noted, “When Meg and her crew venture to The It's planet, they're met by Stepford moms and kids in a freaky suburbia followed by a trippy jaunt to a busy beach with Red (Michael Peña), an evil Colonel Sanders type whose hypnotic presence is all too fleeting.”

L’Engle’s source material is a cleverly emotional novel for kids, and Jennifer Lee and Jeff Stockwell’s screenplay doesn’t do anywhere close to those themes of death, loss and parents letting their children down. Truitt is right when he said, “Instead, theirs is a patchwork adaptation with weak character development, a lack of narrative groove and a haphazard finish.”

Truitt continued, “At least it does nail a certain underlying sweetness: A young Meg's dad tells her, "Love is always there, even if you can't feel it," and that's echoed throughout the fantasy.” They successfully switch up the characters from the book (it was DuVernay’s idea to make Meg African American and have her otherworld witch mentors be younger than their elderly book versions) expands the movie’s demand. (Between Meg, Shuri in “Black Panther” and the women of “Annihilation,” female scientists in movies are having a great 2018.)

Truitt ended his review by saying, “Youngsters will enjoy DuVernay's visuals and strong-willed main character, while the older folks marvel at the inclusion of a new Sade song (her first in seven years), though across the board, this disappointing Time will cause more than a little wrinkling of the forehead in frustration.”

In the end, both of these adaptations were doomed from the start and should never be watched. The new version was visually nice but everything was a failure.

Now that we got that done, tomorrow will be one review for the final couple of days left of “Disney Live-Action Month.”

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

Tonight I went and saw “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” which came out two weeks ago, and tonight I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

It’s not like we needed another “Spider-Man” movie, since there was the Tobey Magurie/Sam Raimi trilogy, the two starring Andrew Garfield, “Spider-Man: Homecoming” and the scene stealing parts in “Captain America: Civil War” and “Avengers: Infinity War.”

What could be left to tell that would make “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” worth checking out?

As the films story goes, plenty.

First off, the Spider-Man origin story (an actual myth) in here with an African-American boy, something the franchise should have done after the first trilogy.

Instead of Peter Parker, we have Miles Moralis (Shameik Moore), a private school kid with stress from his cop dad (Brian Tyree Henry) to stop drawing with graffiti spray paint and focus on his school.

While on a day out with his uncle Aaron, voiced by Mahershala Ali, to spray paint an underground wall, the famous part happens when a radioactive spider stings the school kid and everything changes as Miles sees he can climb walls, amongst other things.

Jim Schembri said in his review, “So far, so so. Then the big twist to the story hits with the introduction of a giant subterranean generator that opens portals to the multi-verse (alternate versions of reality, for those who have seriously never watched Star Trek or Family Guy.)”

Through the portals Miles teams up with other versions of Spider-Man from other dimensions, including Spider-Gwen (Hailee Steinfeld), a Sin City-noir Spider-Man (Nicolas Cage), a pig version called Spider-Ham (John Mulaney) and an anime robot controlled by a teenage girl (Kimiko Glenn). Then we have the original Spider-Man, aka Peter Parker, voiced by Jake Johnson and Chris Pine. Their enemies are the ones controlling the multi-verse generator, the morbidly obese Kingpin (Liev Schreiber) and the multi-limbed Olivia Octavius (Kathryn Hahn).

Schembri said, “It’s a full-on, fun adventure, all ignited by the film’s rhapsodic animation, a dazzling collision of traditional comic-book style images and digital wizardry that give the film the warm feel of the pulpy medium from which the superhero genre sprang from.”

Opposed to many of the other films in this genre, this Spider-Man is really great to look at especially when the dimensions start to cross in the film’s extended finale. Schembri pointed out, “Don’t expect the sheen and precision you typically see in a digital animation; the images here have a vivid, vibrant texture all their own that apparently involved developing new techniques with hundreds of digital artists.”

Thanks to the directors (Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman, working from a story by Phil Lord) that they’ve made such a summary basis so easy to follow.

Schembri ended his review by saying, “Propelling it all is the value that runs through all the Spider-man films, that even superheroes need help and can spring from the most surprising places.”

Spoiler alert: the post-credits scene shows Miguel O’Hara, voiced by Oscar Isaac, learns about the crisis and starts his own dimension-hopping mission. O’Hara ends up getting into an argument with that universe’s Spider-Man, voiced by Jorma Taccone.

This is an absolute must to watch. If you love the Spider-Man movies, this one is an definite must for you. Definitely check this one out because it’s funny, entertaining, the jokes go by so fast it’s hard to keep up with them, with great action and great animation. All in all, it was a lot of fun. Let’s see what the future holds for this film, if Sony starts a franchise on the Spider-Verse before Disney buys them out and jumps on that idea. In the middle of the credits, there was a quote said by the late Stan "the man" Lee, which I shouted out "Rest in Peace, Stan Lee," and everyone in the theater applauded after reading the quote and after hearing my comment.

Look out tomorrow for the next installment in “Disney Live Action Month.”

The BFG/Beauty and the Beast

For his adaptation of the Roald Dahl classic, Steven Spielberg joined with screenwriter Melissa Mathison again, who worked with him on “E.T.” almost 35 years ago. Another story of an unlikely friendship, “The BFG,” released in 2016, is even more incredible and serious, and also relying heavily on effects. However, it’s also highly involving, with a great cast and obviously a beloved story with an ironic sense of humor.

It’s set in an ageless London, where Sophie, played by Ruby Barnhill, lives in an orphanage. One night she sees a silent giant, played by Mark Rylance, stomping the city streets, so he takes her back to Giant Country so she can’t reveal that he exists. As she gets to know him, Sophie sees that he’s an outcast amongst his own kind, half the size of nine giants (Bill Hader, Michael Adamthwaite, Daniel Bacon, Chris Gibbs, Adam Godly, Paul Moniz de Sa, Jonathan Holmes and Ólafur Darri Ólafsson) who live around him and tease him harshly because he doesn’t eat human beans. Rich Cline said in his review, “This has earned him the nickname Big Friendly Giant, which Sophie shortens to BFG as she accompanies him into a colourful parallel world in his job collecting dreams and nightmares. “ Then when the bullies’ threats get worse, Sophie thinks of a plan to get help from the Queen (Penelope Wilton) and her staff (Rebecca Hall and Rafe Spall).

Cline said, “With a surging emotional score by John Williams, the film has an earnest tone that's sometimes rather overpowering, especially as Spielberg gives everything a storybook glow, from the puddled cobblestone streets of London to the windswept topography of Giant Country and the glowing colours in the dream realm.” The film looks amazing, and performance-capture work makes the giants into lively characters. Rylance is really recognizable as BFG, and he face is really expressive. He and Barnhill make great partners, and both give great performances that make their characters relatable. Cline noted, “Although it's impossible not to wish the film looked a bit more realistic and grounded.”

Cline continued, “The best scenes are the ones that bristle with real-world wit, such as the lively sequence in which Sophie and BFG visit Buckingham Palace. In these moments, there's an satirical edge to the slapstick that adds a striking layer of meaning. Otherwise, the film feels goofy rather than blackly ironic.” For example, the main bully Fleshlumpeater (Clement) is really evil, but his tortures are funny when it should be scary. Despite that, Spielberg has the talent of getting into the childlike thought in everyone, and this film has a lot of that. It also thankfully never goes over into silliness as it tells us of the strength of unexpected friendship.

Now I come to a movie that I was really disappointed with, the 2017 remake of one of all time favorite classics, “Beauty and the Beast.” You might say that there’s nothing wrong with Emma Watson’s singing, but her professional judgment is a little off.

Acting in Disney’s live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast” as her first huge lead after Harry Potter makes you think things on so many different ways (especially since Watson decided this over Emma Stone’s Oscar-winning role in “La La Land”).

Vicky Roach said in his review, “This rather antiseptic adaptation of Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont’s 18th Century fairy tale about a kind-hearted young woman who falls in love with the monstrous prince that kidnaps her is a curious choice for an actress who has made more headlines, in recent years, for her feminist activism.”

This film’s highly successful Disney live action ancestor, “Maleficent,” remade from “Sleeping Beauty” from the point of view of the famous 1959 villain (Angelina Jolie).

Tim Burton’s earlier, surprising remake of “Alice in Wonderland” recast Mia Wasikowska as a Joan of Arc-type fighter strong enough to kill a jabberwocky or two.

Roach noted, “A version of Beauty and the Beast that explores Belle’s Stockholm syndrome tendencies might have been worth exploring.” However, Bill Condon stays close to the beloved 1991 animated movie’s main story.

Roach said, “What “modern” tweaks there are feel token.”

Belle is hated in the village where she lives with her father, played by Kevin Kline, because she reads books. Roach said, “Puh-lease (although to be fair, most of the townsfolk, male and female, appear to be illiterate).”

A lot has been made of Josh Gad’s bizarrely strange LeFou, crying sidekick to the evil Gaston, played by Luke Evans.

However, if Disney’s first openly gay character was going to be pathetic flatterer, the filmmakers would have been better to leave a lot alone.

The disappointment of Dan Steven’s Prince, on the other hand, is probably common to the story, no human actor could match the CGI Beast with five minutes of screen time.

Roach mentioned, “Criticism of Disney’s animation is tantamount to blasphemy (for a “live action” film, Beauty and the Beast has an awful lot of CGI), but for this viewer, some of the imagery simply didn’t cut it.”

For example, the eyes on Emma Thompson’s Mrs. Potts feel basic and fake and the veteran British actress’s voice fails to exceed the severity of the original animated one.

Ewan McGregor’s candelabra Lumiere is a little more flexible. However, Ian McKellen feels miscast as Cogsworth.

Roach credited, “Watson fulfils her role as a classic Disney musical lead more than adequately — she’s the best thing about Beauty and the Beast.”

However, the filmmakers have nothing – besides the greatness in digital technology – to add to what is a story everyone knows.

Roach ended her review by saying, “Twenty-five years after its first, groundbreaking Disney outing, in the wake of gender-redefining female leads in animated Disney triumphs such as Moana and Frozen, Beauty and the Beast feels almost like a throwback.”

Check in tomorrow for the next installment on another novel adaptation in “Disney Live-Action Month.”

The Jungle Book/Alice Through the Looking Glass

Rudyard Kipling’s classic story of a little boy raised in the jungle by so many animals is remade once again in theaters in a correctly wonderful way. Mowgli has a peaceful and happy life with a wolf herd led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) until the tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) comes in the movie, holding an old grudge and a greedy want for revenge.

If you go to the theaters to see a movie that will suck you into a fantasy world of imagination, Jon Favreau’s 2016 remake of “The Jungle Book,” which a lot of people remember from childhood, manages to create that magic. We all know how the story is told. With the panther Bagheera’s (Ben Kingsley) help, Mowgli (Neel Sethi) tries to stay away from Shere Khan. He also bumps into the tricky python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), a giant-sized orangutan with a soul-singer’s baritone named King Louie (Christopher Walken) wanting to get the ‘red flower’ (fire) and don’t forget, Baloo the bear (Bill Murray). These are the main characters, but you’ll also like to see a few new characters in the runtime as well. Everything builds on the likability of the 1967 film, which actually should be seen by all children.

Reagan Gavin Rasquinha said in his review, “While Sethi is of course, the only real person in here, all the animals have a fantastic degree of photorealism. And Sethi’s interaction with the animals throughout the duration of the movie, given that they are CGI, is completely convincing. He combines innocence and warmth with the survival skills and resourcefulness of someone far older.”

While Favreau if faithful to the original, (classic songs like Bare Necessities included, no doubt) he also brings in a few new slight additions as well in order to keep things going. Despite the King Louie scene is one of the many highlights; Kaa’s screen time could have been a little bit more, sadly. On the upside, the performance of the voice cast is amazing. Rasquinha ended his review by saying, “But more than anything, the intricate landscaping, masterful camerawork and environment (actually filmed in Downtown Los Angeles) create a delightfully immersive experience.” Heartwarming and enjoyable, and might be better than the animated movie.

Unfortunately I can’t say that about the 2016 sequel, “Alice Through the Looking Glass.” Lisa Johnson Mandell started her review by saying, “Alice Through the Looking Glass starts out with one of the best, most riveting pirate ship chases I’ve ever seen, promising Alice (Mia Wasikowska) as a amazing heroine on a first rate adventure. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t keep that promise.”

This story is not from any one of Lewis Carroll’s book, but “features characters” from his classic stories. The intelligence, humor and warmth of Carroll’s writing and Tim Burton’s interesting and original charm in Disney’s “Alice in Wonderland” from a few years before and not reflected in this sequel.

Of course, the same actors are back playing the same characters. Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter, Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen, Anne Hathaway as the White Queen and Matt Lucas as odd but charming Tweedeldee and Tweedledum, and let’s not forget the magical Cheshire Cat, voiced by Stephen Fry. The costumes and makeup are amazing. Also at the very start of “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” we hear the voice of the late Alan Rickman who we dearly miss, which gives the film a certain affection.

The characters’ relationships and conversation are what we found so great, but in “Alice Through the Looking Glass,” the personal stuff quickly is shoved to the side to the action. Alice races, harshly races, through time, which is somewhat a difficult task to understand, because Sasha Baron Cohen actually plays Time. Actually, he’s more of a timekeeper, but his character is not perfectly explained and a sadly missed chance. What’s nice is he’s always up for a chase.

Mandell said, “To give the action some sort of purpose, it seems everyone in Underland is attempting to resolve deep-seated family issues, and most, especially “Hatter’s,” are not fun and whimsical.  In fact, I found Depp’s Mad Hatter to be creepy and puerile rather than compelling and sympathetic.” For this reason, the whole story is very childish, invalid of adults’ huge interest.

However to its favor, if you saw it in 3D, you might have gotten really amazing visuals and production design. Disney’s huge resources are all clearly seen on the screen, and they are breathtaking. Mandell ended her review by saying, “Still, I think Alice Through the Looking Glass just might be Disney’s first flop of the year. It had a meager 27 percent fresh Rotten Tomatoes rating last time I checked, and while it will likely clear $50 million opening Memorial Day weekend, I predict that like the quality of the film, the quality the box-office proceeds will not come close to the Tim Burton original.”

Stay tuned tomorrow for the same sort of pattern I looked at today in “Disney Live-Action Month.”

Into the Woods/Cinderella

When it was announced that Disney would making a film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s famous musical for “Into the Woods,” released in 2014, fans were all surprised. Joseph Walsh said in his review, “Would the House of Mouse keep true to the sinister tone of the original or would they coat it in sugar to make it more palatable for little ones? Tasked with keeping the theatre wolves from the door is director Rob Marshall, best known for his 2002 Oscar-winning show-stopper Chicago. What he has crafted is an entertaining and highly camp magical number.” Anyone who is not familiar with Sondheim’s original, it is a modern retelling of old fairytales that so many people grew up reading, but with a really modern twist.

In the movie, fairytale characters walk in and out of their own stories and the familiar becomes nicely disturbing. It is juvenile, but frighteningly risky in a lot of ways. There are very familiar characters, like Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), but in this version she is stuck with uncertainty on whether she really wants the Prince (Chris Pine). Then there is Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) a grouchy brat with a liking for shoplifting baked foods, haunted by a grinning, greedy wolf (Johnny Depp). There are also some less familiar characters played by James Corden and Emily Blunt as a Baker and his wife at the center of the story. Desperate to wanting a child, they are denied their wish thanks to a curse put on them by a cynical witch, played by Meryl Streep.

That same witch gives them a solution, on the condition they go into the nearby woods and get a series of objects so that she can make a richness potion. Walsh said, “In many ways the appeal is similar to Phillip Pullman’s Grimm Tales For Young And Old (recently adapted for the stage, playing in London’s Shoreditch Town Hall), which bridges the gap between younger and older audiences. Beneath the veneer of a magical tale is something altogether fundamental about human existence. Marshall has a long-running history with Sondheim, and he has clearly honoured the original, whilst making sure that his take is fully cinematic in scope. However, whilst the potential wrath of purist fans of the original will be placated, the film lacks spectacle.”

Walsh continued, “This is especially true when compared to Disney’s recent Maleficent (2014) – even with the presence of the redoubtable Frances de la Tour – perhaps in part due to the relatively small budget of $50m. There are also a few pacing problems, with a slump in the second act before a deeply satisfying conclusion. But the heart of the film that appeals most and underlying the medley of witty, frequently acid-tongued show tunes, is the concept that no matter how dark it gets, and however alone we feel we never truly are.” Along with a hilarious Emily Blunt (who once again shows nice comedic timing), Streep at her best, and Chris Pine in a painfully good performance, “Into the Woods” makes for a strange, really enjoyable time.

Thanks to the success of Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” and the “Sleeping Beauty” reimagining “Maleficent,” Disney has wanted to remake their animated classics for live-action remakes. However, though Burton gave his own personal style to “Alice in Wonderland,” and “Maleficent” gave a new look on the “Sleeping Beauty” story, Kenneth Branagh’s 2015 “Cinderella” is a simple redoing of the story, without any twists or stylistic advances. Josh Bell said in his review, “It’s a lavish, handsomely staged production, but it’s also dramatically inert, a pretty diorama led by a pair of good-looking but forgettable TV actors: Downton Abbey’s Lily James as the downtrodden title character, and Game of Thrones’ Richard Madden as her dashing royal suitor.”

Branagh and screenwriter Chris Weitz follow really close to the story of the classic 1950 Disney animated movie, inserting some elements from the different Cinderella folk tales and giving a larger role to the prince, who didn’t really do much in the 1950 original. Bell noted, “But the broad strokes are the same, as poor Cinderella (or Ella, as she’s called for most of the movie) is subjected to the cruelty of her nasty stepmother (Cate Blanchett, disappointingly subdued) and two bratty stepsisters (Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger).” Here, she has one small meeting with the prince before the famous ball, so that their love at the end is a little more believable, but this is still a fairy tale, so believability isn’t really the point.

There’s the fairy godmother, played by Helena Bonham Carter (also the movie’s narrator), the pumpkin that turns into a coach, the friendly mice (who don’t even speak unlike the animated version), the glass slipper, the happily ever after. There are no songs, but the fairy godmother does say “Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo,” at least. Bell said, “Branagh turns the midnight dash from the ball (as the fairy godmother’s spell starts to wear off) into a giant CGI set piece, and the set and costume design walks a fine line between sumptuous and garish. Ultimately it’s all a little too restrained and tasteful, although it should be entertaining enough for kids who’ve worn out the DVD of the animated movie.” We can only wish the later live-action remakes of “The Jungle Book” and “Beauty and the Beast” will be a little livelier, but we’ll get to those a little later.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I look at more for “Disney Live-Action Month.”

Muppet Christmas Carol/It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas

Starting in 1901, 58 years after Charles Dickens’ beloved but short story A Christmas Carol was written, 19 different movie teams have tried to adapt it for the theaters. None of them has had the charm of the Muppets. Jennie Kermode said in her review, “By far the best of their works, this unlikely marriage of laboured political fable and showbusiness spectacular has wit, energy and a lot of heart.” It’s one of those occasional seasonal films that can be seen by the entire family, and for many people it has become a tradition of Christmas movies to watch.

Parents watching this film have got to know the story of a grump visited by three ghosts (Ghosts of Christmas past, present and future) who make him change his behavior. Kermode said, “For the benefit of younger viewers, supporting narration is provided by Gonzo the Great, with the excuse that he is educating streetwise but not very erudite sidekick Rizzo the Rat.” Despite Gonzo’s (Dave Goelz) natural charm and Rizzo’s (Steve Whitmire) role as the sidekick, it’s really the rat who is the highlight, with his joking and with his ability to go through sudden sad accidents when trying to get food. Kermode noted, “He epitomises the street urchins of whose follies Dickens was fond, but with a distinctly American twist.”

It would be difficult for any actor to make an impression outside of them. Michael Caine doesn’t even try, putting in his performance (Kermode said, “and so little moved by it himself that he has continued to make Scrooge-like comments since with no apparent sense of irony”). It’s one of the downsides of the film, and is especially challenging in the scenes that show Scrooge’s romance with an equally boring young woman, played by Meredith Braun, whose heart he really wants to ruin.

Fortunately the Muppet performances are really good to move any scene where they show up. Kermit the Frog (Whitmire) makes a sympathizing Bob Chratchett, while Miss Piggy (Frank Oz) is smartly pushed aside from the main screen as his wife, though she still overacts at every chance and lands her role on the film. There’s a nice turn from Bunsen (Goelz) and Beaker (Whitmire) as charity workers, and Sam the Eagle (Oz), appearing as the young Scrooge’s headmaster, could not have been better cast.

Mainly, this being a Muppet film, there are more song and dance scenes than Dickens thought up and the locals of London are kind of more diverse, but the right tribute is made to the original setting with money problems and jokes about chimney sweeps. Kermode said, “Despite its cheery façade, the film effectively captures the grit and grime essential to the author's works, and it goes to sufficiently dark places that when the happy ending arrives it feels earned.” No holiday is cherry as a Muppet celebration, so don’t wait until there’s only one more night till Christmas, enjoy “The Muppet Christmas Carol” at any opportunity you have.

There are two kinds of people: those who like the Muppets and those who don’t. The people who say the only good Muppet movies are the first two or three aren’t real fans at all. If you’re fan, you’re a real fan and “It’s A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie” is one for the fans. This 2002 made-for-TV movie has its usual amount of celebrities as cameos, celebrities as themselves, pop culture references, original songs and a clichéd plot.

The basic story of the movie is their version of “It’s A Wonderful Life” Kermit acts in the Jimmy Stewart role as owner of the Muppet Theater, which is going through some financial problems. With every Muppet going to Kermit for help, he becomes crushed and is visited by an angel played by David Arquette. The angel helps Kermit through so many looks of what the Muppet place would be like without him.

In these looks, Joan Cusack plays an evil banker who converts the local park to a shopping mall and Muppet Theater to a nightclub. We see many familiar Muppets go through some strange changes, as we see Rizzo the Rat on “Fear Factor,” Beaker as a club bouncer, Dr. Bunsen as a rapper and Fozzie as a pickpocket. Jake Lasker said in his review, “The movie also has a great tip of the cap to longtime Muppet fans as one of the new aspects of the world without Kermit is that Doc Hopper’s French Fried Frog Legs, the evil food chain from the first Muppet movie.

Like every Muppet movie, the laughs aren’t in the story itself but from the pop culture references. Lasker noted, “It’s A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie features parodies of Fear Factor, Moulin Rouge (here called Moulin Scrooge), Cirque Du Soleil (called Cirque du So Lame), A Beautiful Mind, the “For Dummies” books, Spongebob, and the Crocodile Hunter. The movie also features an Emmy award nominated song “Everyone Matters”.” Also in the cast are Matthew Lillard, Whoopi Goldberg and William H. Macy and cameos from Carson Daly, Kelly Ripa and the cast of “Scrubs.”

While “It’s A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie” may not be one of the all-time classics, it’s still a usually fun Muppet movie with plenty of jokes for kids and adults altogether.

Merry Christmas everyone! I hope everyone has a blessed holiday with the family doing the usual Christmas traditions, but also make it a tradition to see these two movies every year. “The Muppet Christmas Carol” is one of my all time favorite holiday movies, but “It’s A Very Muppet Christmas Movie” is also a good one to check out as well.

Look out tomorrow for more installments in “Disney Live-Action Month.”

Maleficent/Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good Very Bad Day

When is a villain not a villain? Disney’s 2014 remake “Maleficent” answers that question very successfully, turning the protagonist, the memorably evil villain of the beloved classic “Sleeping Beauty,” into a tormented character who has a single moment of weakness. Like a lot of many modern movies, “Maleficent” spends a lot of its runtime to a very detailed origin story, putting in details that don’t need to be there and giving a specific motivation to match all of the protagonist’s reasons later in the movie.

In Maleficent’s situation, those motivations come from being rejected by Stefan (Sharlto Copley), who eventually becomes king of his kingdom to his disloyalty of the fairy Maleficent (Angelina Jolie). She afterward curses his daughter Aurora (Elle Fanning) with the familiar reason (on her 16^th birthday she will fall into a deep sleep that can only be broken by true love’s kiss), but then regrets what she did and becomes somewhat of a surrogate mother for Aurora (who is raised by a trio of clumsy fairies playing her aunts (Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple and Lesley Manville)).

Josh Bell said in his review, “The result is that Maleficent is barely ever scary or evil, and Jolie spends most of her performance looking vaguely pained, albeit with really cool prosthetic cheekbones and fabulous flowing outfits. With its emphasis on overexplanation, Maleficent takes nearly half the movie just to get to the actual story of Sleeping Beauty, and then rushes through its most well-known plot points. Instead of replicating classic Disney magic, Maleficent feels more like one of the CGI-cluttered fairy tale retellings of recent years, not much different from Mirror, Mirror or Snow White and the Huntsman or Jack the Giant Slayer or Red Riding Hood.”

Jolie seems to enjoy the role of the tricky plotter, and when it really gets to plot sneakily, she’s fun to watch. Since Maleficent is no long the movie’s villain, which now goes to Copley as King Stefan, but his reasons are as dark as Maleficent’s are vulgar. Bell noted, “And Fanning, playing the ostensible main character of the original story, does little more than smile beatifically. Any meaningful new approach to the story is abandoned for a rote action climax, which is once again drowned in garish CGI. Completely freed from her reputation as a villain, Maleficent gets a perfect Disney happy ending.” However, I don’t think anyone watching this will be as satisfied.

Now let’s change it up and talk about another Disney adaptation on a children’s book. A lot of family-friendly movies have a tough time being entertaining for both children and adults. Disney normally could do that in the past, and nails it now with the children’s book-to-film adaptation. “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good Very Bad Day,” a nice 2014 family comedy starring Steve Carell and Jennifer Garner, and is funny, cute and entertaining for all the right reasons.

Alexander Cooper, played by Ed Oxenbould, always seems to go through bad days. He’s always down on his luck, the girl he has a crush on (Sidney Fullmer) ignores him, and his 12^th birthday party will be here soon but is going to be overlooked by another classmate’s (Lincoln Melcher) fog-machine, energy drink bar, and trampoline birthday party. The icing on this cake is that Alexander gets really aggravated with his family, who don’t really understand the level of his bad days since they’re apparently, according to his brother, “#blessed.”

The night before Alexander’s 12^th birthday, and on a day that’s originally going to bring good news for his family, he makes a wish that just once, his family would understand what it’s like to have a bad day like him. The next day, everything possible goes wrong for his family (who include Steve Carell, Jennifer Garner, Dylan Minnette, Kerris Dorsey). There is a lot of running around, fire, a driving test gone horribly wrong, a book reading failure, and an intoxication on cold medicine singing of Peter Pan. In some way, the Coopers have to come together in time for Alexander’s birthday.

Mae Abdulbaki said in her review, “While the title is a bit of a mouthful, the film is family-friendly fun at its best. It's even sure to please those without families, because the movie at its most basic is genuinely funny and cute.” The film’s duration is only 81 minutes; the film sticks to the plot, but doesn’t feel rushed. The story is easy and there’s enough insanity all around, which is thankfully not in any way forced or arranged just for laughs.

Ed Oxenbould is great as Alexander. The way he talks and acts makes you understand his problems with his ongoing days of bad luck. Abdulbaki said, “Steve Carell is the silly funnyman whose streak of positivism holds up the family, and Jennifer Garner's got the "mom smile" but really shines when she's aggravated and gets frustratingly aggressive, which is hilarious. Dylan Minnette and Kerris Dorsey are great supports and flaunt a personality of their own without slinking quietly into the background.” Dick van Dyke and Jennifer Coolidge make great cameos and really make the movie really enjoyable.

It would be surprise to not enjoy this film. Abdulbaki said, “It's energetic, filled with silly, genuine fun, and has humorous beats that will make you smile and possibly laugh out loud. Its long title gets a shout out not once, but twice in the film, which is a major accomplishment given the fact that it's easy to jumble up the words.” “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day” is really funny and does have a moral to its tale, while being a great, funny time for everyone watching it.

Look out tomorrow for two very beloved Christmas movies that I have saved up from a franchise that I have been reviewing films for throughout the year (which you might know which ones I’m referring to) in “Disney Live-Action Month.”