Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

Tonight, I watched “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil,” which came out two months ago, and it was a sequel that was superfluous. Do you want to know what I mean? Here’s your answer:

After not being in movies for four years, Angelina Jolie comes back by reprising the main role in the Maleficent sequel “Mistress of Evil,” the continuation of the Sleeping Beauty derivative that tries to tell the original story’s villain in a more difficult, understanding way.

(The over-sweet syrupy) Aurora, reprised by Elle Fanning, is now queen of the Moors, the delighted farm populated by magic creatures, while Maleficent is the woodland’s protector. After Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson) proposes to the formerly sleeping beauty, a very judgmental Maleficent unwillingly agrees to join her goddaughter to a dinner invited by her future in-laws, welcoming King John (Robert Lindsay) and devious Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer). As foretold, an argument starts, which ends with a split between Aurora and Maleficent. The latter leaves suddenly and finding out her heritage as one of the last Dark Fae, a powerful race forced into solitude because of human cruelty.

As war continues, the fate of the lands and its population is at stake. Sameen Amer said in her review, “But even at the most (seemingly) crucial of turns, there is an odd absence of suspense. The repercussions of what should be significant developments – including battle and bloodshed – seem lost on the film’s writers. The fantasy’s building blocks are all fairly standard and formulaic; the drama is oddly vacant. Potentially interesting ideas are thrown into the storyline but then not fully developed; the Dark Fae arc, for instance, raises more questions than it answers.”

The writing and character building are the movie’s main weaknesses. Fanning’s Aurora is beautiful but boring, and completely unsuccessful as a queen and the Three Good Fairies (Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple and Lesley Manville) and completely annoying.

Amer noted, “Pfeiffer’s Queen Ingrid is a caricature of an evil queen who seems to have been created simply to make the titular protagonist seem noble in comparison. Jolie’s Maleficent is often side-lined in her own movie. The actresses’ performances, though, are the film’s highlights. Jolie shines in her first live-action role since 2015 (she did lend her voice to Tigress in the third Kung Fu Panda adventure in 2016, but has not been in front of the camera since By The Sea), and it’s to Pfeiffer’s credit that her one-dimensional character seems marginally intriguing.”

Amer continued, “Disney’s fairy tale revisits, retellings, and reimagining(s) may be financially rewarding for the company, but they hardly deliver a rewarding cinematic experience to the audience.” Even if “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” may be a little better from Disney’s recent number of atrocious remakes, it’s far from the company’s best.

I’m sorry, but it seems like so much was thrown into the movie that it was so hard to figure out what was going on. Were they trying to make this “Lord of the Rings,” because they can’t! It was such a convoluted movie that it looked like madness. Was there really a need for a sequel to this movie? If you didn’t like the first one, you won’t like this one, it’s worse. However, if you found some enjoyment in the first movie, I don’t think you’ll like this one at all. Don’t give into the madness and see this sequel. I didn’t like the idea and I don’t think it was needed. Just stop Disney with these live action remakes. Now you’re going to make sequels to the remakes? Why? Come out with original ideas again!

Alright everyone, thank you for joining in on all my reviews this past year, I’ll see you all next year. Have a great end to 2019.

Descendants 3

The tragic passing of Cameron Boyce created an unexpected shade over “Descendants 3,” the latest installment of the Disney Channel Original Movie trilogy about the offspring of Disney heroes and villains. Brian Lowry said in his review, “The show goes on, yielding an at-best serviceable addition to a promising concept that's beginning to feel worn and tired.”

The 2015 original began from a smart area, with the children of different Disney villains getting the opportunity to leave the island where they’ve grown up and live among the magical area consisted of the good guys and their offspring.

By now, that has became a somewhat awkward build, around not just marquee characters but so many more strange ones, unless you were really curies what the pirate sidekick Smee’s children might be like.

The relationships have continued to improve, with Mal (Dove Cameron), the daughter of Maleficent, now exactly a part of the kingdom of Auradon and in a serious relationship with is current prince, Ben (Mitchell Hope), the son of Beauty and the Beast.

Mal and her friends, played by Boyce, Sofia Carson and Booboo Stewart, are still trying to mainstream the children of the villains and bring them over when a disaster happens. Lowry noted, “That raises questions about old fears, breaking down barriers (in this case, the magical one that protects Auradon) and when they can be set aside.”

This may sound like there’s a more serious tone inside the movie, but that magical “wall” has been the focus of the story from the start. Lowry mentioned, “Any loftier ambitions also dissipate pretty quickly in the race to squeeze in mostly uninspired musical numbers, possessing both the energy and substance usually associated with a parade at a Disney theme park.”

To its credit, the story does change the script a little by having one of the offspring the protagonists – Audrey, played by Sarah Jeffery, the daughter of Princess Aurora – basically becomes a villain. Lowry said, “If the early movies preached that evil isn't destiny, the welcome point is being good isn't either.”

Lowry continued, “The story also receives a boost of mischievous whimsy from the Hercules villain Hades, played with a starched mop of hair and punk-rock eyeliner by Cheyenne Jackson, rekindling some (but not enough) of the silliness Kristin Chenoweth brought to the first movie.”

When you look at it, “Descendants 3” aired at an interesting time, as Disney continues to go through the vaults both theatrically and for when Disney+ was going to be started. Lowry noted, “It also continues its youth-oriented network's streak of spinning ratings gold out of live-action musicals, after the "High School Musical" and "Teen Beach Movie" franchises.”

Despite that the talented cast and nicely choreographed dance numbers credited to their director Kenny Ortega, “Descendants 3” feels more like a production that has run out of everything in the formula.

Boyce’s passing brought a serious feel to what’s otherwise a happy flick for families with younger kids. However, all of that aside, whatever was in “Descendants” mainly, this third installment is easily the worst in the series.

I’m sorry to say, but I really didn’t enjoy this one at all. There was nothing in this movie that I liked and would say for those who didn’t like the past two movies will definitely not like this one. Now I know there are kids that like this series so they can see this and enjoy it just fine. Remember, this is for kids and adults will not like this trilogy at all. There’s nothing in this film that is bad for kids, so they can see this, but I wouldn’t think adults will want to watch this.

Alright everyone, we have now reached the end of “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.” I know that throughout I was constantly saying that I wasn’t the right age group for these films, but I think these films are meant for little kids and teenagers. Adults will probably not get into a lot of the films. However, I hope that everyone enjoyed this month and hopefully I made some good recommendations.

Enjoy the end of the year everyone. With the next year being the start of a new decade, hopefully it will be a good start for everyone and will open up opportunities for those who are out there trying to get on a steady pace. I’ll see everyone next year when I start back up with my regular Friday reviews.

Kim Possible (2019)

Danielle Solzman started her review by saying, “Not every animated series or film works in live-action but I feel that Kim Possible was able to pull it off in the newest Disney Channel Original Movie.” This new movie premiered back in February.

A quick story has an awesome cameo for Professor Dementor (Patton Oswalt) – sees Kim Possible (Sadie Stanley) fighting crime with her partner Ron Stoppable (Sean Giambrone). The two are helped by tech genius Wade, played by Issac Ryan Brown. This takes place shortly before the two enter their freshmen year at Middleton High School. Yes, Kim must balance being a teen crime fighter with the everyday struggle that happens with being a high school teenager.

Besides Kim thinking she knows everything that she needs to know, high school won’t be just something typical that she deals with daily. Solzman noted, “The comedy rule of threes requires some fun interactions with Mr. Barkin (Michael P. Northey).  No matter how fun they may be, they certainly play into the typical genre cliches.” One of the most notable changes is Kim trying out for soccer besides cheerleading. Obviously, this means having to deal with enemy Bonnie Rockwaller, played by Erika Tham.

Kim meets Athena, played by Ciara Riley Wilson, right when she has sunk to her lowest point. High school may be a lot for Kim but Athena has it even worse. Athena admits that she is one of Kim’s biggest fans. She knows everything she needs to be a crime fighter. As you can guess, she joins Team Possible – getting suited up and everything. Athena, it turns out, also is a fan of singer Poppy Blu, played by Christy Carlson Romano, who Kim knows personally. Before too long, Athena is the most popular kid school!

Previous villains Drakken (Todd Stashwick) and Shego (Taylor Ortega) get the live-action treatments who want their revenge. Having been in jail, Drakken is kind of behind with society. It doesn’t stop him from ordering Shego around so he can get his revenge. Solzman noted, “The big thing here is that he wants Kim’s spark and he’ll stop at nothing to get it!”

Sadie Stanley has some large shoes to fill in replacing the role but she does a fine job. This is because Christy Carlson Romano is Kim Possible to a lot of fans. Change is not an easy thing and this is very frequently seen in Disney remaking their animated works. Solzman noted, “Say what you will about that but from where I was watching, the actress was able to pull it off.  Sadie Stanley may be taking over for the title role in Kim Possible but the actress is certainly a star-in-the-making.”

While live-action is not able to recreate certain things in the same way as animation, it was very cool to watch Stanley in action, along with Taylor Ortego and Ciara Riley Wilson. The women really get to showcase their skills. It’s not only restricted to the teenage stars. As Ann (Willow Rosenberg from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," Lily Aldrin from "How I Met Your Mother" and Michelle Flaherty from the "American Pie" franchise, Alyson Hannigan) and Nana Possible (Connie Ray), Kim’s mother and grandmother get in on some of the action.

Solzman said, “Similarly, I cannot stress this enough but the TV series and movie can co-exist.” This may not be an easy thing to pull off, but this film does deserve a chance. To its credit, the actors are just doing a job so they can’t be blamed. It was nice to see Christy Carlson Romano make a cameo as they also serve a purpose in film. It’s a small one and less than five minutes long but definitely worth it. Unfortunately, Will Friedle does not make a cameo. Nancy Cartwright reprises her role as Rufus the naked mole-rat.

In all honesty, I do agree that the animated films were better and I’m sure the previous show is far superior, but this film looks good for today and shows a lot of promise. Maybe if it’s a pilot to the remake show, then potential is seen in this film. Check it out and give it a chance. See it for yourself and see if you like it or not.

Look out tomorrow as I finish off “Disney Channel Original Movie Month” with the third “Descendants” movie.

Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker

Tonight I went and saw “Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker,” which came out nine days ago. This movie has been getting a mixed response from critics and audience members, but is it as bad as people have been making it out to be? Well, like I always do, I went in without reading any of the critics’ review, so I’ll let you know what I thought about it.

“Something old, something new” appears like the defining philosophy when it comes to the third and final trilogy of films taking place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Matt Brunson said in his review, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Star Wars: The Last Jedi and now Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker have all cannily placed familiar motifs in new packaging, a mixing and matching that has drawn praise in some quarters while earning vilification in others. Lifelong Star Wars fans have perhaps been more lenient while naysayers have definitely been more critical — those factors clearly come into play with this new picture, which is the least of the three yet still manages to send the series off in a satisfactory manner.”

Spoilers are absolutely forbidden with the “Star Wars” movies, but it appears in the opening scrawl and even some of the marketing, it’s no surprise to find out that Emperor Palpatine, reprised by Ian McDiarmid, somehow has come back alive and wants to reclaim his rule of status among the galaxy’s primary villains. Seeing that something is wrong, Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega) and Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), joined with Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), C-3PO (Anthony Daniela) and BB-8, fly off following a series of clues while General Leia Organa (the late Carrie Fisher, with unused footage from “The Force Awakens”) and R2-D2 stay with the troops. Meanwhile, Kylo Ren, reprised by Adam Driver, continues to follow his own way to galaxy domination.

That’s a scary short synopsis, but the more surprises, the better when it comes to this latest installment. Absolutely, there’s more about the movie that annoys and might even irritate. Brunson noted, “Starting with Palpatine, the dead have a way of returning with absurd frequency — Star Wars has always been about sacrifice as much as anything, but when characters can repeatedly bounce back like video game avatars, it takes away much of the meaning and import.” The amazing tension between Kylo Ren and the easily annoyed General Hux, played by Domhnall Gleeson, has been a complete highlight of this trilogy, and the way where it’s suddenly shortened is very disappointing. Brunson admitted, “While Palpatine is certainly a fan favorite (albeit not a fave of mine), he’s basically the same one-note villain as before — like one of those dolls where you pull the string and it repeats the same five or six phrases, he seems capable of only uttering dialogue along the lines of “Come to the Dark Side” and “Give in to your hate.” And speaking of dialogue, some of the lines placed in the mouths of other characters (courtesy of director J.J. Abrams and Argo Oscar winner Chris Terrio) are awfully clunky, recalling George Lucas’ lesser moments with the prequels.”

However, nitpicks are small compared to the praises of the films. The relationship between Rey and Kylo Ren stays completely complex and quarreled, and this storyline occurs in a completely emotional way. Rey is given some necessary backstory that lets her get some unanswered questions, while Poe Dameron is finally allowed to fully evolve as a character. Besides from a horrible CGI version of a youthful Luke Skywalker, reprised by Mark Hamill, and Leia, the effects are always phenomenal. We also have Lando Calrissian back! Even though he was noticeably MIA in the last two movies that improves his delayed appearance here and Billy Dee Williams is showing he’s really enjoying himself here.

Lando isn’t the film’s only recap from the past. Brunson mentioned, “Since this is (supposedly) the final chapter in the Skywalker saga, there’s a “Greatest Hits” feel to the film, with all manner of past players making cameos: a veteran X-Wing pilot, disembodied Jedi masters, even those infernal Endor furries. And the final shot is perfect, invoking a bit of John Ford mythmaking while bringing the saga full circle in a way that’s immensely fulfilling rather than forced.”

As much as I like this film, which I do, I still prefer and believe that “Return of the Jedi” was the definitive cap on the franchise. The sequel trilogy for me didn’t really satisfy me completely, even though I do like them. The entire second act of this film felt like the final act from “Return of the Jedi” especially the last lines which felt like it was copying what Kate Winslet’s character did in “Titanic.” Still, those entire criticisms aside, it was a nice ending to this series and hopefully they're not planning another trilogy to the main series. Just leave it alone now. If Disney wants to keep making Anthology movies, I would be happy about that, since I hear a lot of origin stories on different characters that I think would be nice to see. I still think everyone should see this movie and see it for themselves. If you want to see how this trilogy closes, see it and judge for yourself if you get disappointed like certain people, or love it like others. I will give this film the benefit of the doubt and award it with a 10+.

Stay tuned tomorrow for the next installment in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

Descendants 2

This probably needs to have children under 12 to appreciate how huge of a business a Disney Channel movie like “Descendants 2,” released in 2017, is, which makes the confusing feeling of this sequel mystifying. Because despite the first movie showing some inspiration, the second feels completely cashing in, as if it could just go on by with the title alone.

Brian Lowry said in his review, “Perhaps it can, at least in terms of mollifying the target audience, which will be corralled via a six-network simulcast across Disney-owned channels, including ABC.” However, their parents will find this sequel musical uneasy to watch, as the complete generic listening to the songs hugely balances the energetic choreography.

Lowry noted, “The original came outfitted in a highly marketable premise, with the teenage sons and daughters of the Disney villains -- raised on an island separate from their heroic peers -- being mainstreamed into the high school attended by the progeny of heroes like the Beast, Mulan and the Seven Dwarfs.” On top of that, it tapped Kristen Chenoweth as the Sleeping Beauty’s enemy Maleficent, giving a Broadway performance to brighten up the film.

As an opposite, “Descendants 2” completely skips any adult supervision, depending on the teen stars to carry the movie. Lowry said, “And while they might have the talent for that, it then strands them within a tedious, drawn-out plot, after a jaunty opening number that isn't equaled for the next nearly two hours.”

Without overstressing the story, Maleficent’s daughter Mal (Dove Cameron) has gone legit but feels down and insecure as she prepares to attend the Royal Cotillion with the Beast and Belle’s energetic son, King Ben (Mitchell Hope). Her efforts to blend in finally break, sending her back to the Isle of the Lost, with her friends Evie (Sofia Carson), the Evil Queen’s daughter, Cruella De Vil’s son Carlos (Cameron Boyce), and Jafar’s son Jay (Booboo Stewart) following behind.

The cast introduces a new variety of teenage offspring of the villains, led by Uma, played by China Anne McClain, the daughter of the villain from “The Little Mermaid,” Ursula.

Lowry said, “Unfortunately, the inevitable feel-good message takes forever to roll around, while the movie -- directed by Kenny Ortega, a musical veteran whose credits include the first "Descendants" and "High School Musical" -- gets tied up in trite romantic subplots involving various characters.”

The music and scale apart, this doesn’t just act like any old episode of a Disney Channel live-action comedy, but an ordinary one overall.

Lowry mentioned, “Again, it would be easier to dismiss "Descendants" as kiddie fare if Disney didn't have so much wrapped around it, including the conspicuous tie-ins to its heralded animated predecessors.” Overall, getting access to Walt Disney’s vault is – or at least should be – too valuable to waste on the wrong kind of Mickey Mouse effort.

This movie is better than the first one, but not by much. I like how there aren’t any parents just sitting in the background and trying to influence the offspring in some way, giving the teenagers full freedom to do whatever they want, but still, it feels like a cash-in or copy of the “High School Musical” movies. If you liked the first one, see this, but if not, then stay far away from the series.

Tomorrow I will look at the live-action “Kim Possible” movie in the next review of “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

Descendants

For its 2015 movie musical, Disney Channel tries to make some familiar Disney characters into a “High School Musical” type story and the results disappoint.

At almost two hours, “Descendants” feels too long and completely intentional (Rob Owen noted in his review, “A final-seconds tease of a potential sequel seems like a grafted-on afterthought that is particularly presumptuous”).

Owen noted, “Director/choreographer Kenny Ortega, who made “High School Musical” a hit, is hamstrung by a paint-by-numbers plot in a script by writers Josie McGibbon and Sara Parriott, veterans of “The Starter Wife” and “Desperate Housewives.”” The songs are done far apart and few of the songs are catchy or memorable.

The movie’s story is smart though: Disney villains Maleficient (Kristen Chenoweth), the Evil Queen (Kathy Najimy), Cruella de Vil (Wendy Raquel Robinson) and Jafar (comedian Max Jobrani) have been banned to an island away from the fantasy mainland of Auradon, where Ben (Mitchell Hope), the 16-year-old son of Belle (Keegan Connor Tracy) and former beast King Adam (Dan Payne) from “Beauty and the Beast,” is about to be named king.

For his first rule, Ben wants to give the children of those four Disney villains a chance at healing on the mainland at his prep school.

Maleficient’s daughter, Mal (Dove Cameron), is somewhat the leader of the pack, along with Evil Queen’s daughter, Evie (Sofia Carson), Jafar’s son, Jay (Booboo Stewart) and Cruella de Vil’s cynophobic son, Carlos (Cameron Boyce).

The four start off by singing how bad they are (I’m rotten to the core/I’m not like the kid next door), but this is Disney Channel so by the end of the movie you know they will be making themselves good, mainly Mal, who falls in love with Ben. (“I can look into your eyes and tell you’re not evil,” Ben assures Mal.)

“Descendants” lets Kristen Chenoweth have a song, and for nostalgic reasons the Auradon Prep Family Day has a hip-hop version of Be Our Guest from “Beauty and the Beast.”

Owen ended his review by saying, “While “High School Musical” couldn’t lay claim to staking out new territory in teen drama, it benefited from a lack of TV musicals at the time of its pre-“Glee” premiere, a fresh cast with chemistry, and some toe-tapping earworms. These elements made “High School Musical” a fresh attempt to push the Disney Channel movie form through experimentation. The dull “Descendants” has none of that; it just seems like a widget – albeit an occasionally cute, harmless widget – churned out by the Disney machine.”

Now look, as smart as this idea may be, I still couldn’t find myself getting into this. Everyone acts like they are just following directions to a stage show, which I can’t blame them, as they are all doing the best they can. I just don’t really like the way this turned out. However, I know that people like this movie, so people can check it out, as it’s not one of the worst I have seen, but if you don’t want to see it, it won’t hurt you. If you feel you will find this boring and dull, it’s best you don’t see it then.

Look out tomorrow when I look at the sequel to this film in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

Phineas and Ferb the Movie: Across the 2nd Dimension

In a fair and just world, children would have access to safe homes, healthy food, perfect educations, and smart, funny TV shows they could watch and re-watch so much. Noel Murray noted in his review, “In 2011, about all the powers-that-be can reasonably guarantee is the latter, thanks in large part to shows like the Disney Channel’s Phineas And Ferb. Since 2007, Dan Povenmire and Jeff “Swampy” Marsh’s snappy little cartoon series has entertained youngsters (and a fair number of their parents) with the adventures of two good-hearted, super-smart stepbrothers, who construct crazy inventions and defy their vindictive older sister Candace (Ashley Tisdale), all while their pet platypus Perry squares off covertly against evil-but-hapless scientist Heinz Doofenshmirtz. The appeal of Phineas And Ferb is immediately clear: The show is funny, fast-paced, and rooted in the “havin’ fun in the summertime” vibe that’s been the backbone of kid-friendly American entertainment since the days of AIP beach-party movies. It’s top-drawer escapism.”

As a TV show, “Phineas and Ferb” usually has two 11-minute stories in a half-hour slot along with commercials. “Phineas And Ferb – The Movie: Across The 2^nd Dimension,” released in 2011, last exactly a completely epic 77 minutes, and the expansion shows some twist at times. The story is smart, with intelligent Phineas (Vincent Martella) and his reserved-but-capable brother Ferb (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) finally finding out that Perry (Dee Bradley Baker) is a secret agent at the same time all three of them are transported to a different dimension where Dr. Doofenshmirtz (Dan Povenmire) has finally figured out his goal of taking over “the tri-state area.” Murray said, “After all the opposite-world particulars are established, Across The 2nd Dimension turns more action-oriented, in ways that deviate from what the series does best.” However, there’s so much here to satisfy “Phineas and Ferb” fans, from the way the movie hinds to the heroes’ past inventions to the way both Doofenshmirtzes collects coins “in case vending machines become the dominant race.” It’s hard not to be entertained by any film that has lines like, “If I had a nickel for every time I was doomed by a puppet, I’d have two nickels…which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it’s happened twice, right?”

One of the enjoyments of “Phineas and Ferb” is its lack of sarcasm. The show makes fun of its own principles sometimes, but never sarcastically or jokily. Nevertheless, it’s an important part of growing up for young people to enjoy entertainment that’s rude, weird and/or smart-alecky.

I was very familiar with this show when it was airing on TV. I never saw it, but I did have a feeling there was a huge audience behind it and that it was actually one of the good, entertaining shows for the whole family to sit and watch. Since I know there are a large number of people who saw this show, check this movie out if you haven’t. As a person who never saw the show but did see this movie, I actually found myself, not surprisingly, thoroughly enjoying this film and would recommend everyone to watch it, if you have or haven’t seen the show. Maybe after watching this you will want to go and watch the show. Maybe I will, but I don’t know yet.

Look out tomorrow when I start looking at a franchise that revolves around the Disney characters I grew up watching in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

The Suite Life Movie

“The Suite Life Movie,” released in 2011, is exactly what you think: a bit of a silly Disney movie. Based on the TV show “The Suite Life on Deck,” it’s about Cody (Cole Sprouse) and Zack (Dylan Sprouse) on their final spring break before going back to school for their last few weeks. Cody receives an internship that is sabotaged by Zack, who gets them another internship that gets them stuck. It is up to them to save themselves and everybody else who are also stuck. Cody and Zack have to get along for their own good and everybody else if they want to escape.

Sarah Peel said in her review, “I will say that I thought that the movie was going to be pointless and even silly to the point that no adult could enjoy it. But, like with many movies before this one, I was surprised at just how funny it was!” Look at when London, played by Brenda Song, thinks that dolphins are camels, which might get some laughs from kids. Or when Zack and Cody fight, which anyone who has a sibling can understand when that happens. It was well written, even if it was slow to begin. Peel said, “I will say that I also feel that they added a lot of thought to it, which is a nice touch for something that the public just learned about late last summer or early fall.”

Peel continued, “I am impressed with how well the characters stayed true to the TV show; I thought that they might get lost in the shuffle. But they stayed strong and were not weakened by Disney. Cody was my favorite, but Zack and London both keep the laughs rolling in. The other characters were just okay; I don’t think they carried the movie like Cody, Zack and London did. Still, I think it was well rounded for a Disney movie. Even if it was a little thick in the plot in some areas.”

The story was fine, but it is what you would predict from Disney. Still, it may be cute enough for even adults to find humor in the film. It was well written, acted and directed, which is fine for a Disney Channel Original Movie. Peel admitted, “However, I will say that it is clearly not the best movie ever made by any means. It was above what I expected, but I do think that they could have made it a stronger movie. With that being said, I can still say that I think most hard core The Suite Life On Deck fans will love it, and perhaps some who are not fans of the show would get a lot out of it.”

The sets and camera angles were sometimes awkward. Filming on a boat may not help their cause. Peel said, “I think that the first few shots did not have a proper angle; it did not show Zack’s whole face when he was with his friend. I think that sort of lowered the movie a bit, but during the rest it appeared to work fine. I think it helped that most of it was filmed on land; that bad angle was corrected, but I was shocked that Disney did not edit that out.” It does not reflect well on Disney in any way.

Peel admitted, “For my age group recommendation, I will say that I do think it is safe for even young kids to watch. Of course, I would not expect anything less from Disney.”

Peel continued, “As for my final thoughts on the movie, I will say that I did enjoy it. But I also did not allow myself to have high hopes for it, so it did not disappoint me. It in fact gave me a surprise in how well it turned out.” This film is not bad, but in no way close to being perfect.

I know that there is a fanbase for “The Suite Life” show, which I am familiar with, but never watched. This film is decent and is good for adults to watch only once, if they want to see it for themselves. But for kids who are fans of the show, they may want to watch it multiple times seeing how they are fans of this show. If adults can watch this more than once, good for them.

Stay tuned tomorrow where I look at another film that I really enjoyed in the next review in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

A Christmas Story

You may want to debate the idea, but “A Christmas Story,” released in 1983, has become the most watched Christmas movie ever. “It’s a Wonderful Life” sometimes seems to not be thought about. Any version of “A Christmas Carol” is known because Scrooge still ends up old and, for the most part, alone. Only “A Christmas Story” takes you on a remembrance to your youth and keeps you laughing and entertained all the way up to the very satisfying finale.

Brothers, Ralphie (Peter Billingsley) and Randy (Ian Petrella) live with their parents somewhere in the Midwest. The father, played by Darren McGavin, is an excitable man who likes to swear and fight with the furnace and neighbors. The mom, played by Melinda Dillon, has almost endless patients. Randy is the little brother who just wants to fit in with Ralphie and his friends.

Finally we have Ralphie. He is the main part of the movie and represents every child on Christmas. He wants more than anything to have the real Red Ryder 200-shot Carbine Action Air Rifle for Christmas. The only problem is that everyone keeps warning him that “You’ll shoot your eye out.” Even Santa Claus, played by Jeff Gillen, puts down his spirit in one of the funniest Christmas moments ever seen on film.

What makes “A Christmas Story” a classic is that everyone can relate to Ralphie. In Ralphie’s dilemma we see the genuine spirit of what Christmas is all about: Getting Presents! Eric said in his review, “Yes, I know of the Nativity Story and the lesson of "It is better to give than receive", but to a child, Christmas is the one time of year when it is not only okay to be greedy, it is encouraged.” Adults still enjoy the holidays, but for children, Christmas is just a joyous occasion. They ask for gifts and wait for that magical morning to see if their gifts have been given. Ralphie’s journey takes the adult audience through a trip down memory lane while children easily recognize themselves in him.

“A Christmas Story” is a true holiday movie that it gets shown on Christmas Day on AMC. It’s seen so many times around the holiday time. Eric noted, “The house where the movie was filmed has recently been bought and renovated to look like the movie set. You can take tours. I have seen shirts with the cast on them. I saw ornaments based on the movie for sale in stores. I have even seen the Red Ryder BB Gun for sale. One store was giving a copy of the DVD away with every purchase of the gun.”

Like all classic films, “A Christmas Story” is filled with memorable lines, “Only I didn’t say ‘Fudge.’ I said the word, the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words, like ‘F-dash-dash-dash’ word!” “Fra-gee-lay. That must be Italian.” “Randy lay there like a slug! It was his only defense!” “Well I double-DOG-dare ya!”

Eric ended his review by saying, “No matter who you are, A Christmas Story is as satisfying as having a warm mug of hot chocolate and a Christmas cookie after a day of sledding down a snow covered hill with family and friends.”

It’s not like the works of Jean Shepherd have been refused so many radio, television, and movie interpretations over the years, but making a direct sequel to the holiday returning “A Christmas Story” almost 30 years after its theatrical release? Brain Orndorf said in his review, “That seems like a foolish idea, or perhaps an act of loathsome corporate teat-yanking with a cinematic gem. Indeed, we are now faced with a follow-up to a bona fide classic, and it happens to be the most environmentally conscious feature I’ve come into contact with, unafraid to brazenly recycle anything and everything about the 1983 film, hoping to entice a new generation of Ralphie admirers. Shamelessly derivative and plasticized, “A Christmas Story 2” will only have you wondering why you’re not watching the original picture again.”

A few years have passed for the Parkers, but nothing really has changed. Randy, played by Valin Shinyei, is crazy over Buck Rogers, going around the neighborhood in costume. Ralphie (Braeden Lemasters) is close to his 16^th birthday, wanting to get a car to impress his crush (Tiera Skovbye). His mom (Stacey Travis) stays a loyal housewife, trying to hold everyone together with “bite the bar” threats while losing her patience with his dad (Daniel Stern), who continues to complain about everything, give clichéd words of wisdom, and fight with a broken furnace. When Ralphie tries to see the inside of his dream car, he releases the breaks and gets it into an accident, so this poor protagonist needs cash quick to pay for the damages before his parents find out, getting a part-time job at local department store Higbee’s, along with his friends Flick (David W. Thompson) and Schwartz (David Buehrle). Not being able to take the frustration of the holiday shopping season, Ralphie sees trouble, while his dad, not wanting to pay the overpriced amount for his favorite Christmas turkey, goes out into the freezing cold to ice fish his family a holiday meal.

Obviously, there’s no need for “A Christmas Story 2,” released in 2012, to be made without the involvement of the original cast and crew (sadly, a few have passed away over the decades). Orndorf noted, “However, that doesn’t stop director Brian Levant from attempting the impossible, hoping to match the warm nostalgia and acidic sense of Shepherdian humor from the earlier picture by simply reworking the same jokes with an adolescent Ralphie. It’s actually shocking to find the script by Nat Mauldin (who also accepts narration duties) so slavish to the original, as though anyone sitting down to watch “A Christmas Story 2” might have no working knowledge of the earlier effort, requiring a refresher on established temperaments, habits, and slapstick situations.”

Except for the Bumpus dogs and the fear of Scut Farkus, every single joke and situation of disaster comes back in “A Christmas Story 2.” Like Randy and the amount snow gear, the father’s furnace fight and turkey love, Ralphie’s “Fuuuuuudge!” yell and many daydreams of heroism, a twist with an irritable department store Santa, played by Garry Chalk, the leg lamp, the chop suey/bowling alley location, the reveal of Aunt Clara’s Christmas morning costume, and Flick’s pressure to stick his tongue in terrible areas (in this film, a pneumatic tube). From beginning to end, it’s a completely copy.

In small amounts, references to the 1983 film are nice, good for a few laughs as Ralphie’s story continues. Levant basically ends the sequel in copying; hoping this extended copy of “A Christmas Story” is enough to call it as a sequel. Orndorf noted, “There’s also some initial effort to match the brief flashes of profanity that marked the original, while the follow-up chases its own sauciness by building sight gags around female undergarments and breast-centric tomfoolery, bending the PG rating.”

Orndorf continued, “What’s new here is the Old Man’s ice fishing obsession, though the sense of isolation and ungodly cold is undercut by the use of cheap backgrounds and echoed sound, keeping the movie uncomfortably set-bound, while crude CGI takes cares of the time machine aspects of the story. Ralphie’s maturation is perhaps the most interesting subplot of the picture, watching the once geeky kid grow as a teenager, developing crushes on girls and praying for some four-wheeled independence to come his way.” It’s a terrible job to be like Peter Billinglsey, but Lemasters does what he can, creating a concerned, whiny Ralphie who always gets problems. His work at Higbee’s would normally be a perfect escape from the family film cliché, but Levant doesn’t want to do that, going back on annoying slapstick routines as an easy way.

Orndorf ended his review by saying, ““A Christmas Story 2” closes with a conventional display of holiday charity and do-goodery, along with a tree-side present unwrapping montage to successfully mirror the original film. It’s a cheap sense of seasonal morality, but appears perfectly at home inside such a relentlessly artificial production. Instead of bringing these itchy characters into a new realm of domestic destruction, encouraging a sequel that urges the franchise forward, “A Christmas Story 2” merely traces over previous accomplishments, hoping adults won’t mind the repetition and kids won’t understand they’re being fed moldy leftovers.”

I’m sorry, but even though the first one is overplayed, it’s still a classic Christmas movie that I wouldn’t mind seeing again, just not every year. However, the sequel was really unneeded. I think the blame is for people overplaying the first movie and marketing off so many merchandise and accessories that of course they would make a sequel because they wanted to make a huge money grab. If you loved the first movie, like everyone does, stay away from the sequel at all costs. You will plague the day that you even thought of checking it out.

Yes, I know they made “A Christmas Story Live” a couple of years back, but I’m not seeing that one at all.

Happy Holidays to all my online readers. I hope that everyone had a blessed day today, and hopefully you got plenty of good gifts. Stay tuned tomorrow for the continuation of “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam

A recurring them throughout “Camp Rock 2: The Final Jam,” released in 2010, is how one loses their essence and identity when looking for something bigger and less successful. Ryan Cracknell said in his review, “It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy as the bubble gum sequel hardly attempts to add any sort of depth or purpose to its characters.” Instead, it looks more like a commercial for the soundtrack.

Cracknell said, “Don’t get me wrong, Camp Rock wasn’t exactly a P.T. Anderson exploration of character nuance. It was a cutesy summer film aimed at pre-teen girls with crushes on one of the brothers Jonas. Relatively harmless, it was lightly enjoyable and disposable at the same time. This time around, things are a little more snarky.” The story is not about teenage love and music put wanting votes and doing large performances that distract from dull music.

Cracknell said, “Channeling equal parts American Idol and Glee, Camp Rock 2 adds far too much glitz to the summer camp atmosphere. Camp is a place normally reserved for lake-side belly flops off rickety docks, poison ivy and slop house mashed potatoes.” This time it’s fireworks and spotlights as the competitive Camp Star locates right next to Camp Rock. Sacrificing relationships for professional material, Camp Star is a place of all work and no unstable docks. It’s a place of high expectations and surplus. Because of this expensive method, it’s threatening to actually close down the comfortable Camp Rock. The best solution they can come up with is to make a performance contest on TV. Cracknell was funny when he asked, “Where’s Simon to smack some sense into these folks?”

Even though they were past the peak in popularity, the Jonas Brothers were still more familiar than they were in the first film. It’s not a surprise when all three Jonas Brothers have taken on the starring roles instead of just Joe Jonas and small parts for his brothers. Cracknell said, “And while I do consider them much more talented than most of their other teenaged Disney peers, their mix of music and goofiness (not to mention pretty-boy hairstyles) make me think of The Monkees. Whether or not that’s good or bad depends on your view of The Monkees, I guess.”

Demi Lovato got her break starring as Mitchie in the first movie (something I didn’t know is that she was on an episode of “Barney”). Cracknell noted, “She was quirky, a little bit awkward and adorable in a Blossom sort of way. Here she’s a little too Mean Girls minus the sarcastic wit. Her character is the biggest disappointment in the film, getting shuffled aside to play the buzzkill of the Camp Rock group.”

“Camp Rock” isn’t really the huge popularity that “High School Musical” was. Cracknell noted, “Still, this second outing feelings like a bookend to a profitable era for Disney. No doubt they will reinvent themselves shortly with a new flavour of the month.” “Camp Rock 2” isn’t ending off on a high note, except for that nobody will have to deal with it any longer.

I’ll be honest, this film I surprisingly liked better than the first one. I guess the reason why is because the first one was just a pain and hurt to watch and this one is just a basic bad sequel. There wasn’t anything that really drove me to my boiling point, but I was noting everything that just made a typical sequel bad. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to watch it, especially for those who were fans of the first movie. However, for everyone else, you can just watch it once and never have to see it again.

Stay tuned later today when I review my usual Christmas film.

Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie

If Disney is slowly trying to get every child into looking and acting like Miley Cyrus (with all those tattoos), parents might want to have their children watch “Wizards of Waverly Place” instead.

Despite “Wizards of Waverly Place” not being as tense as “Hannah Montana,” its first official movie, released in 2009, is a surprisingly helpful and family-friendly movie that should keep tweens wanting magical powers, not tattoos.

Roxana Hadadi said in her review, “Though stars Selena Gomez, David Henrie and Jake T. Austin aren’t nearly as Broadway-ready as those kids from “High School Musical” or as goofy as the ones from “Hannah Montana,” it’s their acting skills that carry the film, which was watched by 11.4 million viewers when it premiered back in August.”

The film starts like a usual episode of “Wizards of Waverly Place,” all about the Russo family, where three kids Alex, Justin and Max (Selena Gomez, David Henrie and Jake T. Austin), all have magical powers they got from their dad, Jerry (David DeLuise). Despite Jerry giving up his powers when he married their mortal mom, Theresa, played by Maria Canals Barrera, he teaches the kids their spell-learning and training for the day when the three of them will fight to become the family’s full wizard – the winner will get all the magical powers and the other two will lose theirs. Even though the oldest brother Justin studies for the test everyday, 16-year-old slacker sister Alex would like to use her powers for her own purposes, like turning the family’s train shop into a train car that can take her and best friend Harper, played by Jennifer Stone, to a party that her parents’ don’t want her to attend.

As a result, her parents find out about her train shop-turned-train car attempt and force Alex to join them on a family vacation to the Caribbean, where Jerry and Theresa first met and fell in love. Just one condition: Theresa, who doesn’t like it when her children use magic to go against her or what they want, forces them to leave the wands at home. Obviously, Justin – who can’t stop using the family’s titanium wand, which works best for him – sneaks that with them, while Alex – who swiped the family’s book of forbidden spells from Justin without his knowledge – packs that in her luggage. The two bring their competitive attitude with them, as well, and soon their different interests (and Alex’s misbehavior and not being able to get along with her mother) make Alex wish her parents had never met. That was bad, Alex.

Hadadi noted, “It’s at that point where Disney takes a little dash of pop culture know-how from “Back to the Future” and some more from “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” and uses those tidbits to round out the storyline: If Alex, Justin and Max can’t reverse the spell or get their parents to fall in love again, they’ll disappear (kind of like Marty McFly). And the only way to reverse the spell is using the Stone of Dreams (kind of like Nicholas Flamel’s alchemy work), which is conveniently buried on the same island the kids are staying at and which Justin and Alex go after.”

Even though you can predict the story – this is Disney, and siblings have to get along while parents faithfully love them – it’s the kids – acting and surprisingly believable special effects which make the film work. Hadadi said, “Gomez is a master at being the annoying, selfish Alex, and her portrayal of a typical 16-year-old rings entirely true (trust me, I’d know), while Henrie works well as the know-it-all Justin, who thinks magic is the only way he’ll amount to anything. The film does a good job at building upon the familial relationships that the show uses on a weekly basis, and though scenes like Alex’s and Justin’s (numerous) heart-to-hearts drag on, they’re necessary to further the film’s plot.”

Put that together with some surprising cool effects, like when Alex and Justin use levitating rocks to cross a huge abyss or their weather-heavy magical fight to be the full wizard, and the film should hold fans of the series while also making some exchanges. Hadadi noted, “It’s frothy and actually fun, and though the special features are somewhat lacking (there are some interviews with the film’s producers and stars about stunts and special effects, but they’re nothing spectacular or particularly insightful), at least it’s not a “Party in the U.S.A.””

That’s actually a good thing, since I never was interested in seeing this show. However, this film is actually good, seeing how it took place in between seasons. I don’t think that I will check out the show after seeing this, but I had an enjoyable time seeing this. If you were a fan of “Wizards of Waverly Place,” then you should see this movie. I think that anybody could see this movie and enjoy. However, if you don’t like the whole “Back to the Future” “It’s a Wonderful Life” copycats, then it may not be for you. For anyone else, check it out and see it for yourself.

Hold on to your seats because tomorrow I’m going to look at the “Camp Rock” sequel in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”

High School Musical 3: Senior Year

Jim Schembri started his review by saying, “TWEENS everywhere, brace yourselves for another mega-dose of old-school, clean-cut, family-friendly Disney values as the whole wholesome gang return to dance, jump and sing their way through their final year at the only public high school in America that doesn't have a metal detector.”

Singing basketball player Troy (Zac Efron) is still really in love with his fellow classmate Gabriella (Vanessa Hudgens), but while their one-step at a time love for each other knows no bounds there is now the fear of separation.

Gabriella has to leave to get a first look at a potential college, meaning that Troy must have to separate on good terms. He also has to fight with choosing between what he wants and what his somewhat insistent father, played by Bart Johnson, wants.

Schembri noted, “The third instalment of the phenomenally successful - and purely accidental - Disney film franchise is the first to hit the cinema, and while it certainly has the candy-coloured innocent charm of the first two TV movies, the strain is beginning to show as the kids work extra-hard to fill the big screen frame with their youthful energy and playful scheming, with mean girl Sharpay (Ashley Tisdale) still the only dramatically interesting character in the class.”

Alternately animated and expressive, “High School Musical 3: Senior Year,” released in 2008, overstays its welcome, being 20 minutes longer than it needs to, thanks mainly to a final congratulatory roll that just doesn’t want to end.

With that, it is hard not to feel some amount of affection for this confection, since we see the kids graduate and leave to college, where they will continue their education, meet new people and maybe see what love life is.

I know that this was the only theatrically released film in the trilogy, so you might be thinking why I didn’t review this last year? Because I wasn’t going to watch the trilogy out of order! It made more sense to wait until I saw the first two before watching this one or else I wouldn’t have understood anything.

As everyone might guess, I think this one is alright, but I’m not the right age group to see this. Even when these films were coming out when I was in high school, I wasn’t even interested in seeing them since I was at that age where I didn’t watch anything on the Disney Channel. I know there is an audience and fan base for these films, so if you liked the first two, then you can see this one. Everyone else can stay far away from this if you’re not into teen musicals.

Let’s take a break tomorrow from all these musicals and look at another Disney Channel TV show film in “Disney Channel Original Movie Month.”