Under Wraps 2

In 2022, the sequel, “Under Wraps 2,” was released. However, Harold and the gang have freedom to take the story in a new direction. Alex Zamm returns to direct, along with the main cast, this time working from a script by Josh A. Cagan.

The sequel starts a year later, with Marshall, Gilbert, and Amy being driven in Buzzy’s hearse to Amy’s hometown of Rockport, a Salem-like town that really loves Halloween. Amy is planning a scary party for her father’s (Claude Knowlton and Antonio Cayoone) Halloween wedding, but while they’re in town, they decide to visit Harold and his spouse, Rose, played by Sophia Hammons, who are on display in a nearby museum. They use the ancient amulet to bring the mummies alive to experience the nicer things (like room service and arcades), but they aren’t the only mummies in town.

Sobek, played by T.J. Storm, has been accidentally revived through a meatball falling out of his dinner sub. With museum worker Larry, played by Jordan Conley, hypnotized to carry out his evil mission, Sobek goes on a mission for revenge against his former best friend turned worst enemy, Harold, for stealing his former love.

Along with his safety and that of his friends (mummified or not), this time around Marshall has difficulty being the ignored one to Gilbert and Amy, who have become close while working for the school paper together. Alex DiVincenzo said in his review, “It’s also a pleasant surprise to see LGBTQ+ representation — in the form of a same-sex wedding — handled so matter-of-factly, especially after the recent manufactured outrage over Lightyear.”

DiVincenzo continued, “While Under Wraps is the more well-rounded movie, Under Wraps 2 admirably attempts to one-up the Halloween vibes with a huge festival in the holiday’s honor.” Along with an evil mummy as the villain other than a human also makes it more of a horror movie, even though Larry is always by Sobek’s side to help the scares with comedic relief. It’s nice to see Adam Wylie, who plays Gilbert in the 1997, make a cameo as well.

DiVincenzo ended his review by saying, “It’s unlikely that the new iteration of Under Wraps will have the same impact as the original — with smart devices and streaming services readily available in virtually every household, most kids have unfettered access to untold horrors at their fingertips — but both the remake and its sequel serve their purpose as fun Halloween treats.”

If you want to see this sequel, check it out on Disney+. Personally, I didn’t really see much of a problem, but I don’t think I will be going back to see this again. However, I think this is relatively harmless, so I don’t think it will hurt to see it. Watch it and judge for yourself.

Tomorrow I will be looking at a surprising sequel in “Disney Month 2025.”

Under Wraps (2021)

Premiering on October 25, 1997, “Under Wraps” was the initial Disney Channel Original Movie. Alex DiVincenzo said in his review, “The cornerstone of the network’s programming proved to be as close to appointment viewing as it got for ‘90s kids, along with the likes of ABC’s TGIF and Nickelodeon’s SNICK. Moreover, Under Wraps served as a gateway to horror for many millennials. Before the age of streaming, catching a mummy movie on the same channel where you watched Disney cartoons and Boy Meets World reruns could have been your first exposure to the macabre.”

Disney tried to recapture the effect with the 2021 “Under Wraps” remake. The original movie was successful, and holds up 28 years later, for a lot of reasons. Relatable kid protagonists, a great Halloween atmosphere, and a sense of humor that is meant for them. Director/co-writer Alex Zamm and co-writer William Robertson intelligently keep those elements for the new remake.

Actually, all the major bullets from the original film – written by Don Rhymer and directed by Greg Beeman – are still there in the remake. Though both films are harmless, the original had a little edge to it…as far as ‘90s made-for-TV kids movies go, anyway. DiVincenzo said, “The remake is sanitized to favor playful hijinks over perceived danger.”

12-year-olds Marshall (Malachi Barton) and Gilbert (Christian J. Simon) are best friends even though they are insanely against their views on horror movies. Marshall is a huge fan of them, while Gilbert is afraid of his own shadow. When they believe their scary neighbor, Kubot (Brent Stait), of stealing an ancient Egyptian mummy, the boys join with their new classmate, Amy (Sophia Hammons), to sneak into his house, accidentally bringing the mummy back to life with an amulet.

Like many of fiction’s best monster, the mummy – named Harold, in honor to Marshall’s hot sauce loving grandfather, played by Phil Wright – is not as scary as he looks. He’s just misunderstood. The kids secretly become friends with the lovable mummy, making a friendship similar to “The Monster Squad.” When learning that Harold only wants to be reunited with his spouse, they help him on his mission. However, it’s easier said than done, as Kubot and his men are right behind them, and they only have until the end of Halloween to return him to his sarcophagus or he’ll turn to dust.

DiVincenzo said, “Most of the tweaks to the material serve to contemporize it. The fish-out-of-water element is played up with Harold encountering modern amenities like an autonomous vacuum and Siri-esque technology.” The cast is also more diverse: Marshall is of Hispanic heritage, Gilbert and Marshall’s mother’s (Jordana Largy) boyfriend (Jaime M. Callica) are Black, Amy’s father is gay, and the horror monster expert the kids trust (Melanie Brook) is a young woman.

Along with the Mummy in his life, Marshall has the usual adolescent problems like having difficulty accepting his parents’ divorce and trouble with the school bully, played by Josh Zaharia. The three child actors are likable and have a natural bond. DiVincenzo said, “Stait, a veteran character actor, chews the scenery appropriately, while Wright utilizes his dance choreographer background to bring the mummy to life. The mummy makeup design by Joel Echallier (1922, Freaks) is standard but effective, featuring an off-set jaw.”

“Under Wraps” doesn’t give any major changes to defend its existence. DiVincenzo said, “It’s more like Disney dug up the film’s mummified remains and gave its sarcophagus a fresh coat of paint — and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that.”

I know this remake isn’t all that good, but if you put this on for your kids, I think they’ll enjoy it just fine. Check it out on Disney+ if you want and see for yourself.

Surprisingly, this remake had a sequel. Stay tuned tomorrow to see how that is in “Disney Month 2025.”

Ron's Gone Wrong

Linda Cook started her review by saying, “There’s a little bit of “Child’s Play” and a smidgen of “her” in “Ron’s Gone Wrong,” a 2021 movie with a theme similar to the other two but directed at kids.”

It’s a film by new animation studio Locksmith, a British company that was created in 2014. The look of this CGI movie isn’t exactly like one other, so it’s really fun to see. It takes a look at our “friendships” with high tech and anything robotic.

The movie starts with the Bubble headquarters and the announcement of “B*bots,” mobile friends for children who can share everything with their friends on the B*bot database.

Barney, voiced by Jack Dylan Grazer, is the only kid in school who doesn’t have a B*bot. that’s just one more attack for Barney, who is used to being ignored and bullied.

He finds peace in his loving home with his single dad (Ed Helms) and Bulgarian grandmother (Olivia Colman). Barney’s dad sells trinkets that don’t make much money for the household, so a B*bot is not something he can ask for.

Then Barney’s dad finds Ron, voiced by Zach Galifianakis, a B*bot that fell out of a truck. Cook said, “Ron, who looks a little like a more bubble-ish BB-8 isn’t … well, programmed right, as the title implies.” Actually, he’s more or less broken – not exactly the right birthday present for Barney, who wants to take him back to the factory.

To start, because Barney soon finds out that while Ron isn’t programmed right, that also means he has a few boundaries, which helps out when Barney’s bullies face him.

However, that also means Ron is prone to getting into, and creating, trouble at every moment.

Cook admitted, “I really enjoyed this movie. While it may not be an Oscar contender, the look of its colorful characters and environments is charming.”

Adults will enjoy the film and have a lot of fun with the jabs at high tech, and kids will enjoy the way Ron gets the best of just about everyone.

This is the type of fun family time kids and adults alike deserve.

I think everyone can check this out on Disney+. The way this film brings up how much we rely on technology and that we can’t live without our devices is relatable. Also, if someone doesn’t have the latest or newest tech, they are not in the clique of people who do. Everyone can see this movie and enjoy themselves to the fullest. Watch it and enjoy with how relatable of a film Disney made.

Tomorrow I will be looking at a remake in “Disney Month 2025.”

The Call of the Wild

Chris Sanders has made three good animated films in his career: “Lilo & Stitch” for Disney, “How to Train Your Dragon” and “The Croods” for DreamWorks. He came back to Disney to make his live-action debut in 2020, but that was a big mistake. With so much CGI, the film is mostly animated already. Also, the small handful of human actors and real locations are only there to underscore how poor the sets and effects look. Kip Mooney said in his review, “Every time I saw a shot of the Northern Lights or an underwater rescue – and there were many – I couldn’t help but be struck how much better it would look as a fully animated movie. (Better yet, a hand-drawn animated movie.)”

“The Call of the Wild” is tarted mainly at kids ages 4 to 10. It’s a very easy story, and if for some reason you can’t get it, Harrison Ford is here with narration that sounds more bored than the original cut of “Blade Runner.” The protagonist is Buck, a high-spirited, spoiled St. Bernard-Scotch Collie mix, who is only as big as the scene asks. In his early life of domestic paradise, he literally causes the walls of his owner’s house to shake. Later one, he doesn’t look any larger than a fully grown dog you would see in a park.

Buck is kidnapped and sold as a sled dog in Alaska, where he ruins the first few days of travel. He quickly shifts from being a lazy dog to a strong runner, and eventually overtakes the lead, because he apparently is nice to the other dogs. There’s an alright look of adventure here, but then the story suddenly freezes, as the mail route Buck led his masters (Omar Sy and Cara Lee) on close downs, and the team is sold to a greedy prospector (Dan Stevens), then almost immediately rescued by John (Harrison Ford). The two go out on a journey of their own, with Buck going further and further away from the comforts of home.

Mooney said, “The Call of the Wild corrects an issue many had with Disney’s remake of The Lion King: the animals are more expressive, but the animators over-corrected. Now the dogs don’t even react like normal dogs. Their actions are so exaggerated, I kept waiting for them to talk. Their cartoonish eyes make them feel less real, decreasing our connection with the animals.” Yes, the dogs look good. However, that’s not enough to carry an entire movie.

Even though the movie looks good, Harrison Ford some dramatic scenes, it does check enough off the list to the story that may be faithful, even though I never read the book, but we know the mistake that was made. This either had to be live-action with a real dog or completely animated. Also, the story had to be tougher. I think they were trying to be faithful to the story with what they had, and make the protagonists as expressive as they can. This just wasn’t done correctly. I don’t know if people can see this an enjoy it, but if you want to see it on Disney+, then go ahead. I know there is an audience for this out there. I just wasn’t one of them. Might I also add that I have never owned a dog.

Tomorrow we will look at an animated movie that I enjoyed in “Disney Month 2025.”

Heavyweights

Despite “Heavyweights” being a 1995 film, it’s a throwback to the early Disney live-action films that cruised on their ideas and were fine on giving lightweight entertainment and nothing more. James Plath said in his review, “This one begins like “Meatballs” and ends like a summer camp version of “9 to 5.””

It’s written by Judd Apatow and Steven Brill, produced by Apatow, and directed by Brill.

In “Heavyweights,” Ben Stiller plays a fitness instructor (and not just any, but he is completely fit). Here, he plays Tony Perkis, a physical fitness fanatic who turns a fun camp for fat boys run by a nice couple, played by Stiller’s real-life parents, Jerry Stiller and Anne Meara, into an intense weight-loss boot camp. His motivation? Plath mentioned, “He’s shooting footage of everything, hoping to use it in an informercial for a weight-loss method he thinks will make him ridiculously rich. So he replaces all the easy-going staffers with a bunch of neo-Nazis in black spandex—one of whom (Tom Hodges) actually speaks with an exaggerated German accent.”

Plath continued, “Stiller doesn’t just flex his way through the sequences—he climbs, he does flips, he does sit-ups and push-ups, he contorts, he runs, he leaps over tall buildings, and I’m sure he has some assistance from a stunt man. But he’s still in the best shape of his professional life—like Derek Zoolander on steroids, and with an attitude.”

What begins as a point-of-view narrative focusing on a first-time camper quickly becomes an ensemble film, with the boy taken in by the camp, the campers, and the idea that result when the owners announce they’ve been bought out and forced to retire. At some time one of the counselors, Pat Finley, played by Tom McGowan, breaks out as a second crucial point, with new nurse Leah Lail as his possible love interest, but it stays, really, one big ensemble. The campers include current SNL guy Kenan Thompson, David Goldman, Joseph Wayne Miller, Cody Burger, and Allen Covert.

After a fast set-up to make paradise before the fall, it feels like a two-act screenplay, with the first act like “Stripes” basic training for the boys, and the second act their revenge. However, that might be too strong of a word for a film like this, and Judd Apatow fans will be surprised at how relatively good the screenplay is, how lacking it is in foul language and bodily function humor. Plath said, “Still, I can’t imagine gross-out humor adding a whole lot. The premise is what it is, and it’s mildly entertaining and equally mildly humorous. As I said, the fun for most people will be to watch Stiller and a young Thompson work through it.”

Plath ended his review by saying, “Though the bonus features say “Heavyweights” has become a cult classic, I’m not sure how big that cult is. But I will say that if I were locked in a room and forced to watch one kids-at-camp film over and over again, I’d pick “Heavyweights” over “Meatballs” quicker than you can say “infomercial.” There are more laughs, and the characters are low-maintenance—the kind I’d like to have a beer with, when they grow up. I’m just surprised that Apatow couldn’t convince Disney to release this in two versions, theatrical and director’s cut, given all of the fun stuff that didn’t make the final print.”

I don’t think this movie is for everyone. Maybe if you had little kids, you could play this on Disney+ for them and just walk out of the room because I don’t think adults will get into this. I never went to camp as a kid, so I can’t say I can relate to the stuff kids did in the film. There is an audience for this film, but I wasn’t one of them. I can definitely say I didn’t enjoy this film, but that’s because I might not be the right age group for this film. There might be some funny moments, but those are few and far between. Everything else is just makes you want to turn to the person next to you and talk about something else while this film is playing. Like I said, you can put this on for your little kids and see what they think, but for everyone else, you can give this a safe pass.

Tomorrow I will be looking at a novel adaptation that I wasn’t really impressed with in “Disney Month 2025.”

Predator: Badlands

Tonight, I went to watch “Predator: Badlands,” which came out last month. After hearing a lot of praise for this movie, I was eager to see this. Seeing how this is the one year we got two “Predator” movies and one of them was really good, despite being released to streaming, how is this theatrically released one?

“Predator: Badlands” is the first Predator film to be rated PG-13 rather than R. That’s a surprise for the new sequel in a franchise that is about an alien species that does beating bodies and plasma cannons that regularly fill the screen with intestines. What’s more surprising is that “Predator: Badlands” is the first time a yautja (as the Predators are called) is a thinking and feeling protagonist.

Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi) hasn’t just been exiled from his tribe, he’s been exiled by his father (Reuben de Jong) for his evident weakness. When Dek travels to the most dangerous planet in the galaxy to kill an indestructible beast, he’s not just doing so for pride. He’s doing it to show his father he’s good enough. Kyle Logan said in his review, “These aren’t complicated emotional stakes, but they’re far more than these movie monsters have been afforded before.”

Writer/Director Dan Trachtenberg (creative leader of the franchise and co-director of the animated anthology “Predator: Killer of Killers” earlier this year) adds to Dek’s emotional story with the introduction of Thia, played by Elle Fanning, a fast-talking and emotionally intelligent (so she can better utilize organic lifeforms) android left behind by her crew. Logan noted, “Fanning is essentially a more endearing, less annoying Donkey to Dek’s Shrek, as she’s there to teach him that friendship isn’t weakness.” This is a lesson that’s given some interesting thematic weight, as Dek initially only agrees to team up wit her because he justifies, she’s a tool to be used.

Logan said, “When Thia’s crew of other Weyland-Yutani (the corporation from the Alien franchise) androids returns for their bioproducts, the exploration of what becomes a web of exploitative relationships makes Badlands a better Alien movie than the last Alien movie we got. But more than anything, Badlands is a teen-friendly adventure movie in the vein of the original Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean trilogies.” This is filled with amazing combos of practical and digital effects, exciting action, beautifully shot outlooks, and equally heartfelt and humorous character subtleties. This may be unlike any other Predator movie, but it’s all the better for it.

I was tired from work, so I nodded off a few times, so I might have missed some of the first action and a little of the final action scenes. However, with the majority of it that I remember, this is a great entry in the franchise. This is told from the point of view of the Predator, which is something we have not seen before. The way Dek and Thia work off of one another is just amazing. As always, the Predator franchise never fails in the action scenes because they are all engaging. Finally, the way this film ends, it leaves you feeling like they are definitely going to work on a sequel. See this in the theaters if you haven’t because I don’t think it will be playing that must longer. You can’t miss the opportunity of seeing this film in the theater and getting the experience of it.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Tomorrow I will be looking at another below average comedy in “Disney Month 2025.”

Clerks

Hardly anybody every works in the movies, except at jobs like cops, robbers, drug dealers, and space captains. One of the many likings of Kevin Smith’s 1994 film, “Clerks,” is that it takes place during an entire shift on the job. The protagonist, Dante Hicks, is a clerk in a convenience store, and his friend Randal works next door in the video store. Roger Ebert said in his review, “Both stores are in a strip mall in Asbury Park, N.J. – marginal operations with ill-paid and disenchanted employees.”

Ebert described, “The movie has the attitude of a gas station attendant who tells you to check your own oil. It’s grungy and unkempt, and Dante and Randal look like they have been nourished from birth on beef jerky and Cheetos. They are tired and bored, underpaid and unlucky in love, and their encounters with customers feel like a series of psychological tests.”

Dante, played by Brian O’Halloran on a right showcase of defensive detachment, has that gift for getting through a bad job by running his personal life at the same time. He’s 22, a college dropout, dating the loquacious Veronica (Marilyn Ghigliotti), and is shocked to read int eh paper that his former girlfriend, Catilin (Lisa Spoonauer), is engaged to an “Asian studies major.” Meanwhile, he’s heading in no direction, and he has had to cancel his hockey game to work on his day off.

His day begins at dawn. He sleeps in his closet. He drink his coffee out of the lid of the cookie jar. When the store’s steel shutters won’t go up, he uses shoe polish to write a big sign: I ASSURE YOU WE ARE OPEN. Ebert said, “He gets in desultory conversations with customers who are opposed to cigarettes, or looking for porno mags, or claim the vacant-eyed guy leaning against the building is a heavy metal star from Russia.”

Next door, Randal, played by Jeff Anderson, is working in the type of video store with a catalog so bad that he goes to another store when he wants to rent a video. He has customers with questions like, “Do you have that one with that guy who was in that movie last year?” He talks deep cinematic questions with Dante, such as: When Darth Vader’s second Death Star was destroyed, it was still under construction, so doesn’t that mean a lot of innocent workers were killed? Many of Dante’s customers are very strange. One is obsessed with finding a dozen perfect eggs, played by Walt Flanagan. Another finds an extraordinary use for the restroom, played by Al Berkowitz. A man named Silent Bob, played by Kevin Smith, is permanently outside the store. He’s allegedly a drug dealer, but business seems very bad.

Seeing how Smith filmed the entire movie in and around the convenience store, he shows originality in finding new set-ups.

There’s a risk that the movie could reduce itself to a series of people standing around talking, but look at the way he handles the conversation between Dante and Veronica, who paints her nails while they talk. Or look at the hockey game, which is finally played on the store roof.

“Clerks,” which has no nudity or violence, was originally supposed to be rated NC-17 by the MPAA just because of the language – which includes the type of graphic descriptions of doubtful intercourse acts that men sometimes go into while killing so much celibate time. (Ebert mentioned, “One sexual encounter does take place during the movie, off screen, and after it becomes clear exactly what happened, we are all pretty much in agreement, I think, that offscreen is where it belongs.”) Quentin Tarantino has become famous as a video store clerk who watched all the movies in his store, and then went out and directed “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction.” Kevin Smith has done him one better, by working behind the counter and then making a movie about the store itself. Ebert said, “Within the limitations of his bare-bones production, Smith shows great invention, a natural feel for human comedy, and a knack for writing weird, sometimes brilliant, dialogue.”

A lot has been written about Generation X and the films about it.

“Clerks” is completely authentic that its heroes have never heard of their generation. When they think of “X,” it’s on the way to the video store.

I saw this movie earlier this year, and I can’t believe I missed out on this. This is one of the best comedies out there. A lot of people could probably relate to the characters in this movie, so you should see this. It’s very enjoyable and you’ll get into this. Currently, it is streaming on Pluto TV, so check it out and enjoy yourselves.

Look out tomorrow to see what I will review next in “Disney Month 2025.”

Trail Mix-Up

“Trail Mix-Up,” the 1993 Disney cartoon short that was shown before “A Far Off Place,” reunites Roger Rabbit (Charles Fleischer), Baby Herman (April Winchell and Lou Hirsch), and the luxurious Jessica Rabbit (Kathleen Turner) in a new series of misadventures in the not good outdoors.

During a camping trip to Yellowstain National Park, Mom, in high-heeled hiking books (Winchell), goes hunting, leaving Baby Herman in Roger’s care. As you might have guessed, trouble happens as Herman casually crawls from the edge of one disaster to another, leaving Roger to pick up the pieces.

Charles Solomon said in his review, “The frenetic bunny confronts a swarm of angry bees, a destructive beaver, a thick-witted bear and a roller-coaster ride down a flume and into a murderous Rube Goldberg-esque sawmill.”

Solomon continued, “Director Barry Cook accelerates the pace of the gags as the film progresses, and by the time Roger and Baby Herman land in the sawmill, the images are whizzing by at a breakneck speed that makes MTV look sedate. There’s plenty of cartoon mayhem and wild, Tex Avery-style takes: At one point, Roger’s eyes pop out of his head, leaving grooves in the dirt.”

Made by a team of 220 artists as the Disney animation studio in Orlando, FL, “Trail Mix-Up” claims richer backgrounds and more polished animation than other recent studio cartoons. Its one major flaw is the plot.

“Trail Mix-Up” is the third Roger Rabbit short after four years, and all of them have followed the sequence made in the opening scene of the 1988 film, “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” – only the individual jokes and the setting have been changed.

I don’t think Disney artists have made new story lines for the characters, seeing how there is now no talk about the sequel.

All of that aside, this is another short you can see on Disney+. Check it out if you have been a fan of everything Roger Rabbit related. You will still like this one and get lots of laughs.

Tomorrow I will be looking at a 90s comedy classic that I just checked out earlier this year, and can’t believe I missed out on, in “Disney Month 2025.”

What About Bob?

“I have problems,” Bill Murray tells psychiatrist Richard Dreyfuss on his first visit. In “What About Bob?” released in 1991, this meeting’s the start of a hilarious patient-doctor encounter – at least for Murray. For Dreyfuss, it’s the beginning of a nightmare.

“What About Bob?” is one funny session tied to feature-length breaking point. Essentially, Murray, who has many fears, harasses Dreyfuss from beginning to end. When the doctor leaves for a month’s vacation, the new patient can’t tolerate the separation. He follows Dreyfuss and family to New Hampshire and stays. When family members Julie Hagerty, Charlie Korsmo, and Kathryn Erbe take a liking to Murray, Dreyfuss realizes he’s stuck with this patient forever.

“What About Bob?” is help up entirely by Murray. However, he more than takes the weight. Desson Howe said in his review, “With his twisted lower lip, doleful eyes and trademark deadpan, he exudes an awkward -- and funny -- vulnerability.” He can’t tough anything without using a tissue. He’s scared his heart could stop beating. He thinks his bladder might explode at any moment. He fakes cardiac arrests, so that he won’t have any, and he’s always talking.

“There are two kinds of people in this world,” he tells Dreyfuss, explaining why he got divorced. “Those who like Neil Diamond and those who don’t.”

Howe mentioned, “Dreyfuss thinks he's got the upper hand on Murray when he checks him into a psychiatric ward. But the hospital director calls Dreyfuss back immediately. There's nothing wrong with Murray at all, she tells the flustered shrink. Dreyfuss peers through a window to see Murray keeping the entire staff in stitches.”

“Roses are red, violets are blue,” he’s saying. “I’m a schizophrenic, and so am I.”

Howe said, “Despite his workhorse efforts, Dreyfuss remains the fall guy, an eternally flabbergasted Inspector Clouseau to Murray's Pink Panther. Scriptwriters Alvin Sargent and Tom Schulman make him a one-dimensional, ambitious shrink.” He walks in front of a bust of Freud. He’s named his son after Freud, and he cares more about promoting his new book, “Baby Steps,” on an upcoming “Good Morning America” show than his family. Of course, he needs to be taught a lesson. It’s a good thing for the movie that Murray’s the teacher.

This is a funny movie that I think people can enjoy, especially with the camaraderie from Murray and Dreyfuss. However, I don’t know if this is a movie that people will be remembering after seeing or be rewatching it, which is a shame because this movie does have a possibility of being a good comedy people can remember. Still, if you can, watch the movie because this is a good one to check out. I enjoyed it and laughed, but I don’t know if I will be rewatching this.

Tomorrow I will be looking at the last “Roger Rabbit” short in “Disney Month 2025.”

The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes

Today, while exercising, I finally got around and finished watching, “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” released in 2023. This was streaming on Starz for a long time, but now it is available to stream for free on Roku. Now, I will let everyone know what I thought of this surprising prequel to the franchise.

Kyle Amato started his review out by asking, “What reason was there for a new Hunger Games film? Nostalgia for a decade ago, when YA reigned supreme just as Marvel was rising to power? A last-ditch attempt to wring some money out of a known property? The greatest question of all: why is The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes actually good? Why did they make a real movie for no reason? No one needed this to be a gripping, bleak drama about a young man coming to understand how the world works, a young man opportunistic in a way that always seems to leave people dead. But, for some reason, the Hunger Games prequel is possibly better than the original film series, with strong performances from relative newcomers Tom Blyth, Rachel Zegler and Josh Andrés Rivera. I’m as surprised as you are!”

Sixty-four years before Katniss volunteers as tribute, Coriolanus Snow, played by Tom Blyth, is an ambitious teenager wanting to restore his family’s fortune and power after a devastating war. While he lives in his rundown family manor with his grandmother (Fionnula Flanagan) and cousin Tigris (Hunter Schafer), he hides his difficulties at the academy from his richer friends. His deceased father would always say, “Snow lands on top,” and he wants to make good on that thought. The 10^th Hunger Games are coming up quick, and with ratings falling, the head gamemaker Dr. Volumnia Gaul, played by Viola Davis, enjoying herself, has thought of a new threat. The top of the class will be advisors to this year’s tributes, and the winner will receive a huge cash prize. Coriolanus is assigned to a traveling musician named Lucy Gray Baird, played by Rachel Zegler, a fierce performer apparently set to die in the arena. Fortunately, Coriolanus has a few flans to help Lucy Gray survive, but he might make a few enemies while doing that.

Evidently having learned from the mistake of making “Mockingjay” two parts, director Francis Lawrence decides to give everyone the full story here at a nearly three-hour runtime, which is something of rare limitation in cinema. Amato said, “The Hunger Games wrap up with an entire hour to go, giving the film an extended grim climax that really makes the entire endeavor make sense. Though Songbirds & Snakes has some familiar YA trappings, the inevitability of Snow’s descent into his future as a murderous dictator naturally colors the action. While I have nothing against Katniss’s fight to remain a person while becoming the face of a revolution, watching a bisexual lunatic scheme his way through a corrupt system is inherently more interesting.”

Blyth is the standout, taking a very internal character and writing his war between cruelty and compassion all in his expressions. Amato noted, “Though Zegler has an incredible voice and stage presence, Lucy Gray Baird is more of a concept than a full-fledged character, but she shows that hope is not lost even if the actual revolution is decades away. he’s asked to do a lot, and she accomplishes it all. Peter Dinklage and Viola Davis are opposite sides of the reality spectrum, Dinklage embodying the miserable reality of Panem and Davis playing up the Frankenstein surreality of the richest of the rich.” Also, we get Jason Schwartzman as a crooked weatherman who is hosting the Games, taking up the role from Stanley Tucci in the original films. Amato mentioned, “The cast never feels low-rent in a way you’d expect from a standard franchise revival.”

Few prequels defend their creation, but this film makes the case well. Not only do we get to see the early version of the dangerous games Katniss must go through, we get to understand the suspicion behind their creation. While the Games felt like an evil reality to overcome for Katniss, Coriolanus sees them as flawed and useful, helping stitch them into the fabric of Capitol life. Amato said, “There’s an eeriness to the film, denying catharsis except from your memories of a film that came out eight years ago. Even that might be tough, as pretty much everyone I know dropped off after Mockingjay Part One.” “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes” deserves to do well, a cruel surprise for a satisfied audience.

I had been wanting to watch this prequel for a while. I didn’t see it in the theaters, and now I think I should have. The only problem I see is that this is nearly three hours long. I don’t know if I would have been able to sit in the theater for that long. Then again, I sat through the entirety of “Avengers: Endgame” in the theaters. Maybe the lockdown made me lazy, and I need to see films in parts now, but I have seen it now, and I’m happy. If you’re a fan of the franchise, you should see this on Roku. This is a good prequel, one of the few good ones, and I think everyone will enjoy it. If you can’t sit through the movie in one sitting, then you can watch it in parts, like I did.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the next review in “Disney Month 2025.”

Roller Coaster Rabbit

“Roller Coaster Rabbit,” Disney’s 1990 “Maroon Cartoon” (shown before “Dick Tracy”), reunites Baby Herman (April Winchell and Lou Hirsch), Roger (Charles Fleischer), and Jessica Rabbit (Kathleen Turner) in a funny, fast-paced homage to the Hollywood cartoons of the ‘40s and ‘50s.

Roger has become a little smarter, if not brighter, rabbit. When Mom (Winchell) tells him to watch Baby Herman while she has her palm read at a carnival, he begs her not to leave him in charge. Remember what happened last time? However, Mom nicely persuades him: “You’ll do it or it’ll be rabbit stew for dinner!” Predictably, chaos occurs the minute she turns her back.

Charles Solomon said in his review, “The film combines the lavish look of Disney’s early “Silly Symphonies” with the slapstick lunacy of the best Warner Bros.’ cartoons. The action is similarly madcap but during the ‘40s, director Rob Minkoff and his crew never could have gotten away with that one anatomically suggestive gag about a huge bull and a balloon. They’ve also tucked in a few inside jokes: A faded poster in the background reads “See the Little Mermaid!””

“Tummy Trouble,” the first Roger Rabbit short, dove the audience into a chaotic realm where the hilarious antics never let up. “Roller Coaster Rabbit” is funnier because it’s more intelligently paced.

Solomon noted, “Instead of bombarding the audience with nonstop gags, the cartoon gradually accelerates to its no-holds-barred climax, a hair-raising ride on a roller coaster that makes Magic Mountain’s Viper look like a playground slide. A combination of drawn and computer animation gives this sequence a dizzying realism that will have the more timorous members of the audience clutching their seats.”

At the time, “Roller Coaster Rabbit,” looked to be the last cartoon for Roger Rabbit until the sequel to “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” was released, which doesn’t look like it will happen now. Solomon pointed out, “In a recent telephone interview, Walt Disney Studios Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg said: “We have a couple of ideas for other cartoons we’re working on, but we haven’t decided whether or not to continue producing them--that’s something we have to decide with Amblin.””

This short is not available on Disney+, but you can find it on YouTube. If you enjoyed the first Roger Rabbit short, then I recommend you see this one. You will enjoy this one thoroughly, I promise you. This is for all Roger Rabbit fans.

Tomorrow I will look at a comedy that is good, but probably will be another film I won’t be rewatching, in “Disney Month 2025.”

Tummy Trouble

Played before the start of “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids” is “Tummy Trouble,” the first installment in Disney-Amblin “Maroon Cartoon” series starring Roger Rabbit and Baby Herman, released in 1989.

Director Rob Minkoff and his team meet the challenge of matching the great start of “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” Mother (April Winchell) once again leaves Roger (Charles Fleischer) to watch Baby Herman (Winchell as a baby, Lou Hirsch as the Adult), who immediately swallows his favorite rattle. Roger hurries him to the hospital (“St. Nowhere”) and chaos begins.

Charles Solomon said in his review, “The animators use Roger as a rubbery physical comic. His eyes swell to the size of kettle drums when he is surprised, and his nose, tail, ears and tongue stretch with the Silly Putty elasticity of Daffy Duck in Bob Clampett’s wilder “Looney Tunes.””

Solomon continued, “But Roger’s personality is closer to that of the monumentally inept Wile E. Coyote of Chuck Jones. His misplaced faith in his ability to solve any problem makes him the architect of his own defeat.”

At the end of the short, Roger and Baby Herman walk off a live-action set, repeating the story of the what we just saw. That trait works nicely, however the cartoon would be complete without it.

“Tummy Trouble” is the first Disney animates short that was released after almost 25 years. Solomon noted, “Its manic pace and slapstick humor burst with the zaniness of the Warner Bros. cartoons and Tex Avery’s MGM shorts, rather than Disney’s more restrained “Silly Symphonies.””

For decades, animators and fans have requested that short films that were once the support of the American animation company return. Solomon mentioned, “As audiences rediscover the pleasures of watching a cartoon before a feature, instead of a Coca-Cola commercial, they may start demanding them.”

Disney animators immediately started working on the second Roger Rabbit short, “Roller Coaster Rabbit.” “Tummy Trouble” was a tough short to follow.

If you are a fan of Roger Rabbit and loved “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” then you should see this short. It’s available on Disney+, so you can easily sit through this one. You will love it and laugh throughout; I can assure you that.

Tomorrow I will be looking at the next “Roger Rabbit” short, “Roller Coaster Rabbit,” in the continuation of “Disney Month 2025.”

Mr. Boogedy

People around my age range must remember growing up and watching the “Disney Afternoon” on weekdays from 3-5pm and on weekends, “The Wonderful World of Disney.” Those were the days of great cartoons, but yes, I do believe they might have made some that weren’t good, but we didn’t know that back then.

Often, “The Wonderful World of Disney” would play Disney’s theatrical releases, but a lot of the programs in the beginning was material made for the show. One that I didn’t know about until Doug Walker mentioned it in one of his “Disneycember” reviews is the 1986 short, “Mr. Boogedy.” You would say Disney was trying to tell a story about the Boogeyman. Under the Radar said in their review, “It all worked pretty well for a straight-to-TV thing at the time, but at this point I just wanna bring it to people's attention as something pretty much in the realm of "so bad it's good".”

“Mr. Boogedy” introduces us to the Davis family, who are excited to be moving to the fictional Lucifer Falls, New England, which may be “Nilbog.” Carlton, played by Richard Masur, is a novelty salesman who’s hoping to attract interested customers, being the only novelty salesperson that is closer to people once they move. Together with his wife, Eloise (Mimi Kennedy) and kids, Jennifer (Kristy Swanson), Corwin (David Faustino), and Aurie (Benjamin Gregory), they move, only to find themselves in possibly a haunted house.

At first, almost everyone believes the strange occurrences are just the father playing practical jokes. However, they soon find out an entire dark history to a few ghosts who haunt the house, including Mr. Boogedy (Howard Witt) who a harbinger named Neil Witherspoon (John Astin) had warned them about when they moved. Under the Radar said, “I won't give away much more than that, but the history to these ghosts are dark enough that you kind of have to wonder what was going through their minds at the time.” Along with the amazingly bad visual effects of 80’s TV and a vast of familiar actors have given “Mr. Boogedy” to have a cult following in its absurdity.

After being released on TV in the late 80’s, the short has faded into obscurity. However, since Disney+ is around, they have decided to release it on there. It’s easy to sit through, seeing how it is 45 minutes long. Under the Radar admitted, “If you're like me, and love looking for ridiculous movies that will make you laugh for all the wrong reasons, it's a solid watch. Terrible, but in all the best ways. It's all a pure, thick slice of 80's cheese, and may bring back fond, first-scare memories if you caught it on TV back in the day.”

I have to be honest; it is a product of the 80s. However, this is not something I see myself returning to after watching it one time. Honestly, I can’t even remember the short. Maybe that’s just the way it is. It’s one of those shorts that don’t leave a lasting impression on you. You watch it, then easily forget about it. Like I said, it wouldn’t hurt to watch it, so if you want to watch it on Disney+, I don’t think it will hurt.

Tomorrow, I will be looking at another short that is actually good in “Disney Month 2025.”

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Roger Ebert started his review by comparing, “The opening scenes of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” might remind you a little of Orson Welles’ “The Magnificent Ambersons.” Both films begin with a nostalgic memory of what it was like to grow up in a small Midwestern town, back before everything became modern and a sense of wonder was lost.”

What the two films also have in common is a love of language. The screenplay for “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” released in 1983, was written by Ray Bradbury, based on his novel, and it’s one of the rare American films to taste the sound of words, and their rhythms. That’s true in the writing, and it’s also true in the acting. Ebert pointed out, “Jason Robards, who has the lead in this film, is allowed to use his greatest gift, his magnificently controlled speaking voice, more poetically in this movie than in anything else he’s done in years.”

The movie is a fantasy, the story of how Dark’s Pandemonium Carnival came to town one night (arriving on a great carnival train with no engineer at the front and no passengers in the cars), and of how the carnival’s main attraction was temptation.

What could it tempt you with? What anything you wanted the most. With the Robards character, an old small-town librarian with a young song, what he wanted the most was life and youth. This task he gets set on is a hard one. If he can resist that want, he can redeem the whole town. If he resists, everything goes wrong. The scenes with the carnival are an interesting mix of special effects and nostalgia, including a merry-go-round that spins backward into time.

The carnival owner, Mr. Dark, played by Jonathan Pryce, is quite possibly a sidekick of Satan. Also, his assistants include the very beautiful Dust Witch, played by the splendid, lovely Pam Grier in a career change role after her decade of tough women.

“Something Wicked This Way Comes” is a horror film, but it’s all around a different type than the ones we got at the time. Ebert said, “The new breed of horror movies are essentially geek shows, exercises in despair in which all hope has been abandoned and evil rules the world. Bradbury’s world of fantasy calls back to an earlier tradition, to the fantasies of Lord Dunsany, Saki and John Collier (but not H. P. Lovecraft!) — horror fantasies in which evil was a distinct possibility, but men also had within them the possibility of redemption.” Robards is given a choice in this movie, and it is a choice. Things don’t need to end in disaster.

Ebert noted, “There’s another interesting thing about this movie. It’s one of the few literary adaptations I’ve seen in which the film not only captures the mood and tone of the novel, but also the novel’s style. Bradbury’s prose is a strange hybrid of craftsmanship and lyricism. He builds his stories and novels in a straightforward way, with strong plotting, but his sentences owe more to Thomas Wolfe than to the pulp tradition, and the lyricism isn’t missed in this movie.”

In this descriptions of autumn days, in the genuine conversations between a father and a son, in the shameless fantasy of its haunted carnival and even in the perfect rhythm of its title, this is a horror movie with style.

Honestly, when I saw it, I can give it credit for given an atmosphere, but I don’t think this will be one that I will see it again. I know there is a fanbase for this one, and it is a movie you can see around Halloween time, so you can see it on Disney+ and it won’t hurt. However, I don’t see myself returning to this one after seeing it once. Check it out and enjoy, as I do believe this does has potential and people can enjoy it.

Look out tomorrow when I look at a short in “Disney Month 2025.”

The Black Hole

There’s something appealingly human about our way to take the most fascinating ideas and treat them in small stories. Look at the example today with the idea of black holes in outer space and the story of Walt Disney’s 1979 film “The Black Hole.”

Roger Ebert noted in his review, “The concept of black holes has trickled down by now from the ivory towers of Cambridge to the middle ground of Scientific American and finally to the funny pages: There may be special places in the universe where collapsing stars have set up gravity fields so dense that not even light can escape from them.” We have a “hole” in space which we cannot see, as we are told. Since light (which cannot help moving at the speed of light) cannot climb out of the hole…would an object falling into it be sped beyond the speed of light? What would happen then?

The possibilities are tiring to think about. Ebert noted, “One of them, much favored by science-fiction writers, is that black holes are tunnels in space, and that if we fell into one we might emerge (a bit scorched, perhaps) from a “white hole” some. where else in the universe. Because black holes are “singularities” that do not correspond to models of the universe constructed by Einstein or anybody else, they’ve also inspired wonderfully apocalyptic notions. My favorite is that they’re intergalactic bathtub drains, and that we’ll all whirl down them some day and turn up in the sewer system of the universe next door.”

That would be preferable to what happens in Disney’s “The Black Hole,” which takes audiences all the way to the edge of space only to hold us down in a chatty melodrama filled with mad scientists and haunted houses. A space mission to a black hole finds that another ship has arrived earlier: The Cygnus, which disappeared 20 years earlier. The explorers go on board and discover that the entire crew of the Cygnus has disappeared, except for a Dr. Reinhardt, played by Maximilian Schell, who explains that he’s about to try a dangerous dive into the hole. The visitors are not charmed. However, one of them (Anthony Perkins) gets caught up in Reinhardt’s crazy idea, and a journalist (Ernest Borgnine) wanders around the large Cygnus and sees so much that is more than meets the eye. Then Reinhardt goes crazy.

Meanwhile, “The Black Hole” flies into outer space and is looked at from time to time through portholes. Ebert said, “Physics is not my best subject, but I somehow doubt that we could see a black hole actually revolving, and my objection comes in two parts: I don’t think we could see the hole at all, and it would certainly not be revolving at the approximate rate of a ferris wheel.”

No matter. Ebert said, “The movie stays mostly inside the Cygnus, which resembles the spaceships in “Alien” and ‘Star Trek’ in one key feature: Although the cost of launching and maintaining a space vehicle is incredibly expensive and every square foot counts, the Cygnus is as spacious as a country manor, with long hallways, high ceilings and vast command decks.”

Why all the extra, empty inside space? Maybe to give the special effects artists their chance to go crazy on the visuals. Ebert said, ““The Black Hole” was designed by the veteran effects artist Peter Ellenshaw, who avoids the look of most earlier movie spaceships (wall-to-wall computer display screens re- laying meaningless information to non-existent monitors). Instead, his interiors consist of orderly patterns of basic colors, arrayed on control panels.”

Then there is a large porthole looking out into space, just like Captain Nemo’s giant porthole wandered the ocean in Ellenshaw’s designs for “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.” Ebert said, “The Cygnus, indeed, looks more like a fanciful space vehicle for a Nemo than like the fashionable High Tech so beloved in most movie spaceships.” It has a crew that’s taken from dark thrillers and “Star Wars.” There are strange, masked, zombie-like people that wander about all over the place. Then there are robots.

Ebert noted, “The friendly robot looks like C3PO, from “Star Wars,” and chirps out plucky little sayings while revolving its beady little eyes. The taller robots are ripped off from Darth Vader. And when everybody gets in a shootout, we’re left for the umpteenth time with the reflection that gunfights would surely be obsolete in outer space.” (Can you think of a technology that could travel to the edge of a black hold, and yet equip its mission with sidearms that cause only flesh wounds?)

The main problem with “The Black Hole” is that it doesn’t really face the challenge of being a fiction about a black hole. Yes, the black hole is there, and the characters look into it and make sincere statements, and Maximilian Schell looks rightly obsessed with it, but we don’t feel a type of wander. There’s no awe. The hole’s a gimmick that the movie can go to, in between onboard planning and calculating, and at the movie’s end there is a nice visual payoff. Eber said, “But somehow it comes too late: The events leading up to it have been so trivial and cliche-ridden that the movie doesn’t earn its climax. And so whaddaya know?” Black holes keep their reputations: Nothing can escape from them, not even this movie.

Sorry to say, but for one of Disney’s first live-action movies, this was a bad one. Nothing about this movie was good enough for a recommendation, seeing how it was about a topic that so many people like. This is easily one of the forgettable Disney movies and I would suggest that everyone not see it. It doesn’t hold your attention for very long.

Tomorrow I will be looking at another underwhelming movie in “Disney Month 2025.”

The Gnome-Mobile

December is upon us again, and it is time for another month-long Disney movie reviews. Like previous years, there will be no connecting themes, but just a huge grab bag of movie reviews from different entities they own that I have forgotten. Let’s get this month started with the 1967 film, “The Gnome-Mobile.”

Roger Ebert started his review by saying:

A neighborhood theater is the best place to see a new Walt Disney movie, and so whenever one opens I go and stand in line with about 500 kids and get inside for the first matinee on Saturday.”

The kids are my colleagues in this enterprise. Once I made the mistake of seeing a Disney movie the first thing on a Friday morning when all the kids were in school. There were about nine people in the theater. Under conditions like that, what critic can decide if Disney is up to par? Disney films are made to please kids, not critics.”

So now I go on Saturdays. Last Saturday the kids let me know that “The Gnome-Mobile” has some good parts in it. They let me know this because when the good parts came on the screen they stopped still and watched them. The rest of the time they fought, laughed, popped bags, whistled and thundered in wild herds up and down the aisle.

The movie is about the world’s most beloved grandfather (Walter Brennan) and his grandchildren (Matthew Garber and Karen Dotrice), who become involved in the issues of gnomes. What we see is that Brennan, one of the wealthiest timbermen in the country, has cut down a lot of forests and made things tough on gnomes.

However, after he meets Jasper the gnome (Tom Lowell) and finds out the gnomes’ dilemma, Brennan goes to reunite Jasper and his grandfather with the rest of the gnomes, including the oldest gnome out there (Ed Wynn).

Ebert noted, “There are a lot of adventures along the way, and Disney seldom lets the story line lag. The kids especially liked the scenes with gnomes in them (the Disney organization has perfected the technical tricks necessary to make the little people look like they’re right there with the big people).”

They also liked the “gnome-mobile,” which is Brennan’s giant 1930 Rolls Royce.

Matthew and Karen, who were also in “Mary Poppins,” are convincingly on the level and not the self-righteous child stars they might have been. Brennan is just fine. The special effects are fascinating. The kids got their viewing pleasure.

If you can find this movie anywhere, I would say give it a watch. I don’t see anything about this movie that people wouldn’t like, but I think people will enjoy it. If you can get over the fact that this is a movie made in the 60s, then chances are, you will like this one a lot. There are some funny scenes in here that you will enjoy. Especially when you want to see the conflict resolved.

Alright everyone, once again we have a very busy month ahead of us, so stay tuned to see what I will review next in “Disney Month 2025.”