Now You See Me

A group of magicians shows their skills on a Las Vegas stage, making it appear that a bank is being robbed in real-time, across the Atlantic, in France. The Euro notes disappear from the vault, and are showered on the fascinated audience facing the Four Horseman. Shubhra Gupta said in her review, “A collective gasp goes up from that gathering, as well as from us, sitting in the theatre.” Magic is always such great fun, and these are fun actors to watch when they are at their own pace. Gupta said, “Now You See Me coasts on both these elements and gives us some cracking moments. But the dots are connected with patches that are not so magical. And then it becomes a case of 'Now You Don't'.”

A mysterious hooded character finds the four criminals. Merritt McKinney, played by Woody Harrelson, is a mentalist, happy to hypnotize and steal from the audience. Daniel Atlas, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is a trickster who plays with cards and memories. Jack Wilder, played by Dave Franco, believes ‘nothing is locked’ because he opens every shut door that he sees. Finally, the beautiful re-lipped Henley Reeves, played by Isla Fisher, escapes Houdini-like from locked water tanks. These criminals create illusions for ticket-paying eager crowds and stay one step ahead of FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) and attractive Interpol detective (Melanie Laurent), as well as fights with an insurance tycoon Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine) and a former magician Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) who likes outing his members for commercial reasons. The names of the characters suggest that they have backstories, and we are prepared for more depth but soon find out that “Now You See Me,” released in 2013, is determined to stay on the ground, and surprise everyone.

Gupta says, “Till the film stays with the magic-walas, it is fun. Harrelson is such a deceptively natural actor, seducing you (and me) into swallowing all kinds of implausibility. Eisenberg is too-talky here again, reminding us of his Zuckerberg act in 'The Social Network', adding in a bit of smugness to his advantage. But when the film meanders off into spook-speak and uniformed characters shouting 'Go, Go, Go', it becomes listless.” Why cast such a nice group of actors (Caine and Freeman just need to be in the frame for the film to feel better than it is) and then make them get into car chases and predictable romance? Gupta notes, “The moment Ruffalo opens a conversation with Laurent by growling too much, you know it will lead to cosying. No sleight of hand required for that.”

The magic tricks are very impressive, especially one that has Isla Fisher floating above the audience in a giant bubble. Gupta ended her review by admitting, “But Now You See Me needed more sharpness for it be a really good film. It's left me thirsting to re-visit the terrific 'The Prestige' by Chris Nolan, a film about magicians that is pure magic.”

Despite so many visually entertaining moments, “Now You See Me 2,” released in 2016, is a largely disappointing sequel. Those who weren’t exactly convinced by the first movie definitely will not get to enjoy the sequel, which ends up depending on a seen-it-all-before story while giving weak execution of magic with very little excitement or innovation.

Starting about a year after their last huge magic stunt which ended up outsmarting the FBI and putting enemy and local exposer Bradley safely behind bars, The Four Horseman – members including J. Daniel Atlas, Merritt McKinney, and Jack Wilder – have now gone underground, busy keeping a low profile while waiting for their next big mission from The Eye.

It’s not long before the group is once again given a mission when FBI agent Rhodes receives word that a major telecommunication company has been stealing and selling personal information and now hopes that the group – including newcomer Lula, played by Lizzy Caplan – can stage an appearance and expose their dishonest dealings to the public. However, their plan is soon ruined when they are magically transported to China, where the company’s mastermind, played by Daniel Radcliffe, decides to blackmail them into carrying out a robbery of his own.

Marija Loncarevic said in her review, “Directed by John M. Chu, Now You See Me 2 manages to embrace a bubbly spirit and a brisk pace from the very beginning, giving the movie that ‘brainless fun’ trait and a unique visual style which separates it from its predecessor. Unfortunately, though, while Chu’s efforts for trying to make sure that the action set pieces are slickly executed and generally engaging, there is a certain lack of substance and very little connection to the story as a whole, making all of its flashiness and visual grandness just surface-based. The main problem comes in the form of the over-explanations which lay behind the story’s every move, while the magic tricks – which are not performed on stage anymore but are executed through a series of heists – are rather routine and predictable.”

With the minor exception of Harrelson and Ruffalo, who manage to keep their characters engaging throughout, most of the characters don’t do anything but stroll plot devices, as opposed to fully rendered characters who we, the audience, are supposed to connect to care for. Even newcomer Radcliffe couldn’t do enough magic to create an impact.

Overall, fans of the first movie should find no problem enjoying the second round of magical mess that “Now You See Me 2” has to give. As for everyone else, don’t expect much.

I find both of these movies to be decent. There’s nothing special about them and nothing really exciting about getting into them. You would have thought that a movie based on villains who are magicians would have been exciting, but surprisingly, I don’t think it impressed a lot of people. If you want to check them out, it won’t hurt, but I would say just watch the first movie. After that, if you aren’t impressed, don’t check out the sequel. There are talks of a third movie, but I have not heard any final words about when that will be released.

Thank you for joining in on “Morgan Freeman Month Part 2.” I hope everyone enjoyed and…wait a minute. Next month is October. You know what that means!? HALLOWEEN MONTH!!! Stay tuned to find out what I will be reviewing next month, because it will be exciting. Note: it will not be an entire month's marathon.

Peter Pan & Wendy

Last night, I saw “Peter Pan & Wendy,” which premiered on Disney+ back in April. How is this new adaptation of Peter Pan?

The story of Peter Pan, Wendy, and Neverland has left a mark on generations of viewers and readers.

After JM Barrie’s play “Peter Pan; or, the Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up” debuted in 1904, it was followed by the 1911 novel Peter and Wendy.

Film adaptations started with a silent film in 1924, but it was the 1953 Disney film “Peter Pan” that brought the story to countless new people, and it has been watched by many more over the years since. We also have had Steven Spielberg’s “Hook,” 2003’s “Peter Pan” and 2015’s “Pan,” but they failed to match the magic of the Disney film.

“Peter Pan & Wendy” doesn’t, too. However, it’s still a nice and fun take on the beloved story, which it tells in a modern way, while also exploring timely themes that make it feel all the more perceptive.

Greg Wakeman said in his review, “It has been co-written and directed by David Lowery, who previously oversaw Disney’s delightful live-action remake of Pete’s Dragon.” “Peter Pan & Wendy” starts with Wendy Darling (Ever Anderson), who is about to leave her mother Mary (Molly Parker), father George (Alan Tudyk), and two brothers John (Joshua Pickering) and Michael (Jacobi Jupe) behind for boarding school.

Wendy is afraid to leave her childhood home behind, even though her parents insist that it’s time she should grow up. Then, one night, Peter Pan (Alexander Molony) and a tiny fairy Tinker Bell (Yara Shahidi) arrive at Wendy’s home to take her and her siblings to Neverland, where Pan refuses to grow old.

As well as being the home to Pan, other Lost Boys, and an indigenous tribe, Neverland’s waters are sailed by Captain Hook, played by Jude Law, a pirate and Peter’s enemy, who wants to get revenge against him after he cut off his right hand and fed it to the crocodile. He has since replaced his hand with a sharp, metallic hook.

Wakeman said, “Peter Pan & Wendy might be overly saccharine from time to time, but Lowery’s swash-buckling approach to direction makes sure that it’s always light-hearted and fun to watch unfold. Lowery takes such an inventive and carefree approach that he even includes several musical moments in the film. They never feel forced, though, and are organically incorporated.”

While he’s always firmly aware of his main audience, Lowery also manages to make sure that “Peter Pan & Wendy” is filled with so many dark moments and scenes that give the story an important edge.

Wakeman noted, “That’s hardly a surprise when you consider that, as well as the child-friendly Pete’s Dragon, Lowery has previously directed the romantic crime drama Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, the supernatural fantasy A Ghost Story, and medieval fantasy The Green Knight, each of which were firmly aimed at adults.”

With “Peter Pan & Wendy,” Lowery knows exactly the right imagery and shots to use to be gripping, while always making sure that he doesn’t distance its targeted audience. The highlight is the look, size, and chaos created by the giant crocodile that threatens Hook and his fellow pirates, which leads to the film’s most entertaining moment.

What also makes “Peter Pan & Wendy” stand out is how it updates the characters and its story. Not just in its look of Neverland’s indigenous tribe and the diversity of its cast, but also by how it examines themes of the fears and pressures of growing up, friendship, ego, and responsibility.

Wakeman noted, “Ultimately, there’s a theatricality and melodrama to Peter Pan & Wendy that occasionally overwhelms the film, and its sincerity gets a bit much, too.” More often than not, it’s such an enjoyable and inspiring film that you’ll be able to overlook the flaws, especially as it looks at Wendy, Peter Pan, and even Hook in such a new and original way.

This is fine. I don’t see anything in here that would make people mad or regret ever playing it, but I think everyone can watch this and enjoy it just fine. Go ahead and check it out if you, since I liked it alright. As a Peter Pan movie, I think everyone can get into this fine and not have them scratching their heads as to what they were thinking. If you have kids, they can watch this with no problem.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned Friday for the finale of “Morgan Freeman Month Part 2.”

Red

Nathalia Aryani started her review by saying, “After thrilling times at the last two movies led by Bruce Willis (“Live Free or Die Hard,” “Surrogates”), I was expecting more of the same with “Red” (Retired Extremely Dangerous). While it’s not as preposterously outrageous as “A-Team,” I haven’t had this much brainless fun with a movie since early this summer!”

Filled with an all-star, veteran cast having a carefree good time, the 2010 graphic novel adaptation of “Red” is going crazy. Intensely carefree, these retired veterans could easily beat their younger students by a round of shots and some.

Aryani said, “When I saw Bruce Willis stumping for the movie at Comic-Con this year, I was surprised to learn about the Helen Mirren bit. At that time, I never heard of “Red” before (I was there waiting for Angelina Jolie to make an appearance on the “Salt” panel). All doubts were erased when the trailer was shown. With a stern, rifle-totting Mirren looking more than competent to kick butt and her muttering “I kill people, dear,” I was instantly sold.”

On the edge of being attacked in his own home in the dark of the night, strong man, soft-spoken Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) runs to find Sarah Moses (Mary-Louise Parker), an employee of the Department of Pension who he has been in love with. Previously he’s been going through his money so that he could call and chat with her, while she’s been chatting with him about foreign travels and romance novels.

Willis does look like the type of CIA employee who takes down drug addicts, terrorists, and governments. Aryani credited, “Parker is impeccable with her wide-eyed, nutty expressions and comedic timing. There’s a hysterical exchange at her place when the two first meet in person. And the conversation in the car about their “first date” is positively gut-busting. The coolest, singular scene involves Willis stepping out of a spinning car and onto his feet firing.”

Together Frank and Sarah drive across the country to find his former CIA colleagues: Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), and “Victoria” (Dame Helen Mirren).

With CIA agents William Cooper (Karl Urban) and Cynthia Wilkes (Rebecca Pidgeon) close behind them, the team is racing against time to uncover war crimes with a top-ranking U.S. government official. Richard Dreyfuss makes a cameo as Alexander Dunning, a man with connections to the White House, and his role in the conspiracy becomes clear toward the end.

Willis is great with his break-in and out of CIA headquarters and long-drawn fistfights. Malkovich is completely crazy as the eccentric paranoid Marvin. You’ve never seen an underground hideout until you see Marvin’s! Don’t call him an “old man” and take it easy with the grenade or bazooka. Freeman, mainly seen living in a retirement home, might be the closest one to being a calm retired again – however, don’t count him out yet (or underestimate his punch!) Armed and dangerous Mirren does her part and fits right in with the boys, all the while connecting with a former lover.

“Red” is the summer blockbuster that we never had. It’s an over-the-top, hilariously explosive ride that we don’t ever want to stop.

Bruce Willis returns in “Red 2,” released in 2013, as retired CIA black ops expert Frank Moses, who’s trying to live a quiet life with his excitement-wanting, much younger girlfriend, Sarah Ross. While pushing a shopping cart at Costco, Frank’s alerted by his crazy colleague Marvin Boggs that they’re being targeted to rescue a long-lost Cold War-era nuclear device called Nightshade, hidden somewhere on the planet. That’s confirmed by a phone call from trigger-happy MI6 Victoria, who’s been assigned to kill them, and helped by the appearance of a dangerous Korean hitman named Han, played by martial arts expert Byung-hun Lee.

They’re off to find Edward Bailey, played by Anthony Hopkins, the sneakily disturbed scientist who made the deadly weapon of mass destruction. He’s been imprisoned by the British in a locked cell for the criminally insane for the past 32 years. Joining them is hot Catherine Zeta-Jones as Katja, a seductive Russian spy, along with Brian Cox as a romantic Ivan, Victoria’s Kremlin suitor. A Frenchman (David Thewlis) known as the Frog briefly distracts them, while CIA villain Jack Horton (Neal McDonough) constantly threats.

Susan Granger said in her review, “Based on DC Comics graphic novels by Warren Ellis and Cully Hammer, it’s a thinly-plotted thriller by screenwriting brothers Jon and Erich Hoeber and directed by Dean Parisot, who helmed the hilariously satirical “Galaxy Quest” back in 1999.  Humor takes precedence over logic, as the intrepid senior spies dash from one escapade to another. While it’s hard to take your eyes off scene-stealing Helen Mirren, Mary-Louise Parker shows surprising comedic timing, seething with jealousy when Frank is dazzled by Katja, whom Marvin describes as “Frank’s Kryptonite.” The amusingly droll relationship banter between protective Willis, paranoid Malkovich and adventurous Parker propels the pace.”

My sister got the second one from the library, so I went to the library to check out the first one. I saw the first film on my own and after I was done watching that, then I watched the second film with my sister. I think the first one was enjoyable in the same sense as “The Expendables” (seeing how they both came out the same year) but the second one was just okay. I thought it was an average film, but it was still a fun film to watch, like the first one. If you have not seen these films, you can see them on Amazon Prime. Check them out and see if you enjoy them, which I think everyone will since they aren’t one of the best in the genre, but nowhere near being considered one of the worst ever made. Watch them and see for yourself.

All right everyone, next week I will be looking at another average couple of films in the finale of “Morgan Freeman Month Part 2.”

Elemental

Today on Disney+, I saw the new Pixar movie, “Elemental,” which came out theatrically in June and on streaming five days ago. How is the new Pixar movie compared to the others?

Rick Bentley started his review by saying, “Like a cinematic alchemist, director Peter Sohn (“Lightyear”) has mixed all of the right elements to create the latest Disney and Pixar offering, “Elemental.” The problem is that the final compound is not that explosive.”

“Elemental” takes place in Elemental City, a suburb where fire, water, land, and air residents live together. As long as fire and land don’t encounter or water and fire collide, everything is great. One of the best parts of the film is watching how the elements are given human traits.

Ember (Leah Lewis) is a fiery young woman who is caught between being a good daughter and building a relationship with the easygoing water boy Wade (Mamoudou Athis). They have been told their entire lives that fire and water just don’t mix and being together is dangerous for both of them.

Writers John Hoberg, Kat Likkel, and Brenda Hsueh put together two different storylines. There is the story of Ember and her father, Bernie, voiced by Ronnie del Carmen. They had always planned on Ember taking over the family store when she was ready. The only problem is her impulsivity keeps getting in the way.

Then there is the elemental-crossed Ember and Wade. Bentley noted, “They feel an attraction but that like an acid and an alkali, they know their mixture could be disastrous.”

Had the writers focused on the young romance, “Elemental” would have been a good combination of humanizing and funny material. They just weren’t satisfied and slowly kept adding more and more elements to the story.

The big storyline has to do with immigration. Bentley compared, “Just like those who came to Ellis Island, when Bernie and his wife, Cinder (Shila Ommi) arrive at Element City, they are stripped of their native names and given more generic identification.”

The film leans heavily into the reality that there is prejudice between the elements. Bernie and Cinder turned away because their the element of fire. They eventually find a home and build a life. However, there are elements of racism all over the production.

There is also an economic element at play. The fact Element City is made to be more accommodating for the water people shows that there are some ethnic groups – even those made up of fire, water, wind, or earth – who have risen above the others and take advantage of that.

Bentley said, “Additional plot themes never get strong enough to eclipse the young romance parts of the story.” Even that part of the story comes with a realistic lesson on racism as the two young people have always been told they could never be with the other kind.

All of this plays out against the amazing visuals that have become such a strong trademark of Pixar animation. Bentley mentioned, “The team was given a world of visual building blocks to depict what life would be like living as a walking flame, a free-crying water or even a blustery wind.”

Over the years, elements like fire and water have been a challenge for animators creating computer-generated characters. Bentley said, “Getting those elements to have a natural movement in a pixelated world took work but the result is this film where every flicker or drip looks like a creation of Mother Nature.”

The film does have some original music but nothing memorable. Bentley compared, “Thomas Newman’s score is functional but is little more than the kind of music that gets ignored in elevators.”

As had been the main point with Pixar films, there is one musical number added that does little to move the story but serves more as a possible Oscar nomination. The most recent example was We Don’t Talk About Bruno from “Encanto.”

“Elemental’s” song, Steal the Show was written and performed by Lauv. The song isn’t bad but just not memorable.

Everything comes together to make “Elemental” a film that gives some entertainment value but does not have the kind of fire that past films from the company have had. Bentley said, “There is a short film before the feature featuring Carl from “Up.” Those few minutes are packed with far more emotions than in the 103 minutes of the movie.”

Sohn could be suffering from having to live up to the standard set by a studio that created such emotionally and entertaining films like “Monster’s, Inc.” and “Toy Story.” Because of the company’s history, what would be a major success for another studio ends up feeling less successful because of the Disney and Pixar names.

Bentley compared, “The pieces of “Elemental” go together just like the blending of hydrogen and oxygen to create water. Water serves a purpose but is not that exciting on its own.” The same can be said of “Elemental.”

In the end, I liked the film. Sure, the story is nothing compared to past films that might have told a similar story, like “Zootopia” and “Onward,” but I believe everyone will still love this movie. I wouldn’t say this is one of the best, but it is still a good Pixar movie. Especially with how Pixar keeps making each film look better than the previous one. I mean it, the animation in this film is one of the best I have seen from Pixar. This looks like a city I would love to live in. Besides the segregation and prejudice in here, I think it will be great to live here. If you missed the chance to see this in theaters, see it on Disney+. Watch it with the entire family, everyone will enjoy this.

Thank you for joining in on tonight’s Pixar review. Stay tuned Friday for the continuation of “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Unleashed

Jet Li plays a caged slave named Danny who’s been raised to by a martial arts attack dog by his loan shark owner Bart, played by the late Bob Hoskins, in collecting debts from deadbeat clients. Cole Smithey said in his review, “Whenever Bart removes the metal collar from Danny's neck, it signals a consequence of flashy ultra-violent action.” Set in Glasgow, the story follows Danny’s escape from his evil master when he meets Sam (Morgan Freeman), a generous blind piano man, and his musically gifted stepdaughter Victoria (Kerry Condon). The two accept the traumatized man into their loving family.

Li’s fighting scenes are unique for their street-fighting style of violence. The film is produced by Luc Besson and directed by Louis Leterrier.

Smithey said, “"Unleashed" is a cinematic oddity created by Europe's leading cottage film industry that consists of one man, Luc Besson. Besson's script fits his signature narrative template. It involves a tragically distanced character prone to violence, who is rehabilitated by a stranger. Gaps that occurred in the making of the film are coincidentally what give it its surprising curves that help compensate for frequent dips into heartstring clichés.”

Before wearing out his welcome with fight choreographer Yuen Wo-ping, who had just finished work on “Kill Bill,” director Louis Leterrier defined the film’s opening fight scene using plastic dolls to communicate the action to Wo-ping. What the audience sees in that first fight is the most dangerous fight scene Jet Li has ever filmed. Smithey noted, “Li uses fast repeated right fist punches that send tremors of inertia through the audience. Danny liberally uses head-butts, and tears out his subject's hair with a ferocity that speaks directly to the seven months the action star spent creating the character.”

Smithey continued, “After Luc Besson awarded the director title for the film (previously titled "Danny The Dog") to his apprentice Louis Leterrier ("The Transporter"), the studio producing the movie began to shrink at the promise of it being too violent. It withdrew its financing. Morgan Freeman threw a curveball of his own when he showed up for his first day of shooting and announced that he would be playing his character as blind. By this time Yuen Wo-ping and his team of assistants took back control of the remaining fight sequences they didn't match the bracing shock of the opening scene.”

Danny’s character represents a specific type of ambitious martial arts student who only responds to the commands of his coach or “master.” Smithey noted, “He is a person outwardly doomed to go through life as a drone when he's not engaged in a specifically dictated routine of action. Danny's peculiar fighting style is like a wild animal that focuses all of its attention on one aspect of an opponent at a time rather than keeping a 360-degree awareness as practiced by most  martial artists. The departure is jolting because it's foreign to the kind of fighter we know Jet Li to be.” His fighting reflects the differences of his character’s state of mind. It’s similar to Jackie Chan’s “Drunken Master” where Chan’s fighting technique changed to fit the role.

Smithey mentioned, “Danny's eventual escape into the precarious safety of family life is buffered by the classical piano music that Victoria plays.” His childlike nature enables Danny to identify with playing an electronic keyboard that Sam gives him for the simple joy of making music. The dramatic tension between Danny’s innate fighting ability and his capacity for peaceful family life goes loose because we want to see Jet Li fight however much the story says we should enjoy watching his character get his first ice cream headache in the romantic company of a young woman.

Smithey noted, “There's an unintended ironic subtext at play about serving two masters that gets more dispensable dominion when Bart survives one too many certain- death situations.” Just when Sam has trained Danny to become his piano-playing assistant, Bart shows up to retrieve his long-lost human attack dog. Danny’s bipolar character lets Jet Li exercise acting muscles he’s never been allowed to show onscreen before. Smithey credited, “It's gratifying to see the emotional colors he creates.”

In light of the odd combination of rare creative people that put their names on the film, “Unleashed,” released in 2005, is an enjoyably confusing film filled with gentle charisma and intense action. The narrative connections are hilariously rough, but the performances are genuine. There’s something special here.

I had seen trailers and commercials for the film when it was coming out, but I can’t remember how I saw it. It was either On Demand or we had gotten a boot-legged DVD of the film. But I digress, this was an enjoyable film. I really liked the action in this film, and Jet Li, despite not speaking too much, did a great job in this role. I really liked him with Morgan Freeman, as they both really showed a strong bond with one another. When Bob Hoskins and Jet Li are together, you can easily see the rivalry between them. Check this out and see for yourself.

Next week I will be looking at two action films in “Morgan Freeman Month.”

The Little Mermaid (2023)

Tonight, on Disney+, I saw “The Little Mermaid” remake, which came out theatrically in May but on Disney+ five days ago. If you know my opinion on all the Disney Live-Action Remakes, you might guess what I thought of this. However, I will still tell everyone.

The 1989 animated original “The Little Mermaid” escorted a new golden era of Disney’s celebrated animation legacy. A clean version of Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale about a young mermaid who wants to be human and how far she’ll go for that dream, the film had top-notch animation (for the time) production and the musical composing of the great contemporary composer Alan Menken. With a runtime of 83 minutes, the film quickly and lovingly introduced a fairy tale story that would pioneer several princesses for Disney, “The Little Mermaid” quickly followed by Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan. Four of those films have since been adapted into live-action versions, and this year, “The Little Mermaid” is the fifth to get the live-action remake.

While Rob Marshall’s version of “The Little Mermaid” (written by David Magee) tries to make some modern steps in its casting and storyline, the film – like its predecessors – offers nothing whatsoever for a reason to exist at all. Lisa Trifone said in her review, “This version clocks in at a mind-boggling 2 hours and 15 minutes, and while it makes every effort to appear sweeping in scope with colorful styling and clever underwater graphics, the film instead plays like a budget version of the animated classic, offering none of its magic, grandeur or charm.” Ariel, played by newcomer and not well Halle Bailey, lives in an underwater kingdom we never really see. Prince Eric, played by Jonah Hauer-King, is an adopted royal on an island that looks brighter than the underwater realm. Trifone noted, “The film’s efforts to transform the mermaid’s desire into a search for independence defangs the story—Andersen’s or Disney’s—of its stakes, however low they were to begin with.”

Much of what’s familiar from the original is left in Marshall’s remake, from Prince Eric’s shipwreck to Ariel’s collection of human trinkets she doesn’t know how to use. Flounder (Jacob Tremblay), Sebastian (Daveed Diggs), and Scuttle (Awkwafina) are right by her side, and King Triton (Javier Bardem) and Ursula (Melissa McCarthy) are annoying adult influences who don’t always have her best interests in mind. Ariel wants to experience life on land, but her father rejects her every time (there’s a backstory about her mother’s death at human hands that’s never really explained). When Prince Eric’s ship crashes during a storm, Ariel saves him from the sea only to disappear in a cloud when he wakes up on the shore.

Trifone said, “From there, Marshall and Magee overfill this otherwise straightforward fable with so much extraneous plot the whole thing becomes more bloated than a blowfish.” McCarthy gets the shortest end of the stick, having to spend her entire first scene explaining to everyone why she’s livid at her mean big brother King Triton, and what she’s going to do about it, using Ariel as her pawn. Trifone said, “I suppose it’s worthwhile to get a glimpse of a villain’s motivation for their nastiness, but this all seems to take the concept a step (or four) too far—the scene is saved only by the way McCarthy absolutely revels in Ursula’s oversized personality.” Once Ariels makes her bad deal with the Sea Witch and finds herself on land, we see a little more in the life of royalty, but these extra scenes – mainly a crazy carriage ride and a strange walk through a market that turns into a poor excuse for an ensemble dance number – feel more like filler than fun.

Trifone noted, “Similar to the issues the team behind the “live action” adaptation of The Lion King confronted when adapting that creature-driven family drama, The Little Mermaid suffers from a lack of imagination in how to bring all three dimensions into Ariel’s world. Underwater, Bailey’s hair swishes this and and that, and she awkwardly fins herself through the seaweed in her mermaid get-up, but the world is small and claustrophobic; all we ever really see is her cave of things and King Triton’s throne room. Above ground, the sets look more like something from a Disney parks experience, fake and flat, and the film’s pivotal final scenes, with a powerful Ursula who’s desperate to keep Ariel from happily-ever-after, never achieves the towering heights of intensity intended.”

Those familiar with (and limited to) the 1989 original will recognize so much in “The Little Mermaid,” most notably Menken’s charming songs that, even here, remain warm and welcome (Trifone admitted, “though don’t get me started on whatever it is the filmmakers are trying to do with sea urchins dancing during “Under the Sea”)”. Those only meeting Ariel, Eric, Ursula, and everyone else through this new adaptation might leave feeling entertained to some point, but the final product is an empty shell of what both Andersen wanted and Disney is capable of. Trifone said, “In theory, this trend of adapting these classics for a new audience with new technology and a contemporary narrative eye is a worthy—and even promising—endeavor.” However, as of yet (with the possible exception of 2016’s “The Jungle Book”), no one given this task has completed it successfully.

This is nowhere one of the worst Disney Live-Action Remakes, but it is borderline to being decent. The look of the film is nice, except for when it gets dark, and maybe there are some chuckles here and there, but overall, the songs that were redone were poor, the new songs didn’t do it for me, the added scenes felt like it was there to have the film run long, and it just didn’t feel like a faithful adaptation/remake. It made me want to watch the original again, and I guarantee a lot of people will have the same feeling after watching this. The movie didn't need to be as long as it was. They could have easily made this a half-hour shorter. Just do yourself a favor and don’t waste your time watching this remake. Like a good majority of Disney Live-Action remakes, this one is just not worth seeing.

Thank you for joining in on my review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the continuation of “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Nurse Betty

Neil LaBute’s 2000 “Nurse Betty” is about two dreamers in love with their fantasies. One is a Kansas housewife. The other is a professional criminal. The housewife is in love with a doctor on a television soap opera. The criminal is in love with the housewife, whose husband he has killed. What is important is that both of these obsessed romantics are not known to the person they are in love with.

Morgan Freeman is Charlie, the killer, and Renee Zellweger is Betty, the housewife and waitress. Their lives meet because Del, played by Aaron Eckhart, Betty’s worthless husband, tries to con Charlie on a drug deal. Charlie and Wesley, played by Chris Rock, show up at his house, threaten him, scalp him, and kill him. Charlie only kills him because Wesley scalps him – and then what are you going to do? Betty witnesses the murder but erases it from her memory. Her husband was a rat, she doesn’t miss him, and in her mind, his death frees her to drive out of Los Angeles to meet her “ex-fiancé,” a doctor on a soap opera. Charlie and Wesley follow her, and in the course of their search, Charlie’s mind also goes off the rails. Under the influence of Betty’s sweet smile in a photograph, he begins to idealize her – he speaks of her “grace” – and to see her as the bright angel of his lonely self.

In Los Angeles, Betty meets George, played by Greg Kinnear, the actor who plays the doctor. She relates only to the character, and as she talks to “Dr. David Ravell” at a charity benefit, George and his friends think they’re witnessing a great Method audition. Meanwhile, Charlie and Wesley arrive in Los Angeles with Charlie increasingly fascinated by everything about Betty. When they started chasing her, she was an eyewitness to a murder who was driving a car in which her husband had hidden their drugs. Now Charlie thinks of her more as a person who would sympathize with his broken self.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “I'm spending so much time on the plot of "Nurse Betty" because I think it's possible to misread. When the film premiered at Cannes in May, some reviews didn't seem to understand that Betty and Charlie are parallel characters, both projecting their dreams on figures they've created in their own fantasies. Look at this movie inattentively, especially if you're looking for Hollywood formulas, and all you see is a mad woman pursued by some drug dealers, like a high-rent "Crazy in Alabama." But it's more, deeper, and more touching than that. Zellweger plays Betty as an impossibly sweet, earnest, sincere, lovable, vulnerable woman--"a Doris Day type," as Charlie describes her. She has unwisely married Del, a vulgar louse who orders her around and eats her birthday cupcake. Her consolation is the daily soap opera about her fantasy lover Dr. Ravell. When Charlie and Wesley turn up, nobody knows she's home. She glimpses the murder from the next room, and her response is to hit the rewind button for a crucial soap opera scene she's missed.” A therapist tells the local sheriff, played by Pruitt Taylor Vince, that she remembers nothing. She’s in an “altered state – that allows a traumatized person to keep on functioning.” Betty drives west in the dangerous Buick LeSabre with the drugs in the trunk, and outside a roadside bar, she has a fantasy where Dr. Ravell proposes to her. Not long after, following right behind her, Charlie pauses in the moonlight on the edge of the Grand Canyon and dreams of dancing with Betty. Charlie has never met Betty, and Betty has never met the “doctor.” Ebert noted, “Both of their dream-figures are projections of their own needs and idealism.”

Note about the Grand Canyon scene: Morgan Freeman admitted it was a really cold night when they shot that. He admitted that Renee Zellweger wasn’t wearing any clothes except for what was fantasized about in that segment. Morgan Freeman said he warmed Zellweger up as best as he could and that part marked his first kissing scene. Chris Rock, who lost his father very young, said that he had father figures, but says Freeman was like his uncle.

Morgan Freeman has a complicated role. His Charlie is a dangerous villain, capable of killing but looking forward to retirement in Florida after one last “assignment.” He has a strong bond with Wesley, a hothead, and tries to teach him lessons Wesley is not capable of learning. Charlie has led a life of crime but has now gone soft thanks to his obsession with Betty, whose smile in a photo helps him mourn his own lost innocence.

Betty is even more of a lost cause. Traumatized by the murder, she has no understanding that the soap opera is a TV show, and her first scene with Kinnear is brilliantly acted by both of them, as she cuts through his Hollywood sarcasm with constant sincerity. Kinnear is completely accurate in playing an actor who has confused his ego with his training, and a scene where Betty is offered a role in the show deals with cruel realism.

Ebert noted, “LaBute previously wrote and directed "In the Company of Men" and "Your Friends and Neighbors," films with a deep, harsh cynicism. "Nurse Betty," written by John C. Richards and James Flamberg, is a comedy undercut with dark tones and flashes of violence. Heading inexorably toward a tidy happy ending, LaBute sidesteps cliches like a broken-field runner.”

As for Charlie, his final scene, his only real scene with Betty, has some of Freeman’s best work. “I’m a garbage man of the human soul,” he tells her, “but you’re different.” He is given an almost impossible assignment (heartfelt nostalgia in the middle of a gunfight) and pulls it off, remaining attentive even to the comic subtext.

“Nurse Betty” is one of those films where you don’t know whether to laugh or cringe and find yourself doing both. It’s a challenge: Ebert said, “How do we respond to this loaded material? Audiences lobotomized by one-level stories may find it stimulating or confusing--it's up to them. Once you understand that Charlie and Betty are versions of the same idealistic delusions, that their stories are linked as mirror images, you've got the key.”

I saw this with my brother because he had recorded it on the DVR. We saw this, and it is a Black Comedy, so it was definitely a difficult movie trying to figure out what to laugh at. However, I think everyone should see this because this is one of those strange movies that has to be seen to be believed. When I say strange, it is strange in a good way. This is a good movie and I think everyone will find a lot of enjoyment in how everything unfolds. See it to know what I mean.

Next week we will be looking at a movie that I did see a lot of trailers for growing up and, I believe, I saw it On Demand. I don’t think it was well received, but find out what I thought about it in “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Driving Miss Daisy

Those of you who have been reading my reviews since the beginning might remember my first year of blogging, I did an entire month dedicated to Morgan Freeman. I have decided to make a second part to that since I have seen other famous movies of his since then. Let’s get “Morgan Freeman Month” started with the 1989 classic, “Driving Miss Daisy.”

Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy, two actors with so many resources – and so many idiosyncrasies too – drive along in this bicycle vehicle with enthusiastic ease. Adapted from his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play, Alfred Uhry’s comedy-drama hints at disclosures of character more often than it gives them.

Henry Sheehan said in his review, “While Bruce Beresford’s careful, respectful direction ensures a suitably opened-up and efficient production, the director is content to let the material speak for itself.”

Sheehan continued, “Nevertheless, the sight of such confidently talented performers taking a pair of colorfully sketched characters over a quarter-century of a contentious relationship is bound to have solid appeal. Driving Miss Daisy appears to be headed for considerable popular success.” Freeman and Tandy looked like they were certain to win awards for that year.

Sheehan mentioned, “Set in a well-to-do section of Atlanta, the film opens in 1948 with Daisy Werthan (Tandy), a physically slight 72-year-old Southern Jewish dowager, accidently driving her new car into a neighbor’s yard.” Her businessman son, Boolie (Dan Aykroyd), against his mother’s wishes, hires a polite black man in his early sixties, Hoke Colburn (Freeman), to be his mother’s driver.

Daisy, who already bosses around a silently collected maid, played by Florida Evans from “Good Times,” the late Esther Rolle, at first actively resists the new hire, before finally settling into the daily dose of mild verbal abuse and increasing physical and emotional dependence.

Sheehan noted, “The action is played out episodically, with errands and trips undertaken by the mismatched pair serving as self-contained actions. The thematic development, signaled by the advancing signs of age in the two players (more marked with Freeman than Tandy), is contained in the subtle shifts in their relationship — the patient Hoke parrying the verbal assaults of his passenger with subservient, aw-shucks humor early on, but eventually with more forceful assertions of his own dignity.”

While the small inconveniences and routines of daily life take up a large part of the film, Uhry and Beresford still make use of big scenes when they want to make sure their point is made. Hence, a trip through Alabama, which turns out to be a more seriously racist and threatening state than Georgia, is used to glue the two closer together in recognition of their mutual outsider status.

Also, the final settling of their friendship is played out with obligatory emotional passion, against the background of the retirement home where Hoke visits the handicapped Daisy. Sheehan mentioned, “Over the years, the pair encounters the whole of the seismic social changes that occurred in the South, and while they do impinge indirectly on their relationship, it is during this trip that the interaction of character and background comes off most naturally, with the least sense of authorial connivance.”

Sheehan continued, “The fitful development of the script aside, the movie is dominated entirely by Freeman and Tandy, who manage to retain individual star-quality while acknowledging the other’s presence.” Basically, each scene starts with a brief setup, a seriously emotional demonstration by Tandy, a fight between the two actors, and a closing dry pronouncement by Freeman. Yet every one of these dramatic scrambles manages to look fresh because Freeman and Tandy somehow manage to come up with new ways, meting out complementary parts of their characters.

“Driving Miss Daisy” has a warm, soft look that helps with the overall nostalgic atmosphere. Sheehan noted, “Yet Beresford has carefully avoided the damaging, languid rhythms that often accompany such a feel, and the film moves along with a steady, supportive canter. The production design — aside from the many auto interiors, anyway — is suitably evocative of sepia photographs and heavy furniture.”

Sheehan continued, “A broad-beamed Aykroyd provides reliable support as the put-upon Boolie, settling affably for his straight-man status.” Rolle, as the maid Florine, and Pattie Lupone, as Boolie’s social-climbing wife, have parts that really don’t amount to more than light material, and their appearances are brief and functional.

You don’t know for how long I was thinking of watching this movie. I knew this was a classic film that was meant to be watched by everyone, but I just never got around to watching it. Now I can finally say I have and I cannot recommend this movie enough. You should definitely find time to watch this film however you can. You will love this film a lot. This has to be seen because it is a really feel-good film.

Next week I will be reviewing a film that my brother and I watched together, which is another funny movie, in “Morgan Freeman Month.”