Two and a Half Stars

The Jungle Book (2016) Review

June 20, 2016 by JD Hansel

This is it – I’m stumped. I can understand how ambiguity and open ends are used in films to trick critics into thinking they’re deep. I can understand how commentary on important social issues like racism or sexism are used in films to trick critics into thinking their message justifies their storytelling. I can understand how many “oppositional” techniques designed purely to do what Hollywood normally wouldn’t do are used in films to trick critics into thinking they’re immensely creative, groundbreaking, and historic. What I cannot fathom is how a few needless remakes that do not offer the creative spins and twists on their stories required to justify their existence are making the critics out to be as gullible as a four-year-old.

The beauty of retelling an already established story lies within the creative approach one brings to the story that no one else would have seen in it. Ever After tells the story of “Cinderella” without using a conventional fairy godmother, instead relying on a brilliant historic figure to supply science as a substitute for magic. Muppet Christmas Carol integrates the prose of the book that most other film adaptations up to that point (if not all of them) omitted, which is already enough to set it apart from its predecessors, and that’s without mentioning that Bob Cratchit is played by a puppet frog. While the 1970s Carrie film by Brian de Palma seems to emphasize the fantasy in the story (from what I can gather from its surrealistic trailers), the remake (or arguably “additional adaptation of the novel”) is clearly very grounded in reality. The examples can go on endlessly.

Then we have Cinderella. I hope I never see Cinderella. From every clip I’ve seen from it thus far, and everything I’ve heard about its story, I can tell that it’s as needless as can be. This is followed by Jungle Book, and I could tell from the trailer that it had little to offer, and that I would never appreciate this movie as much as the original animated film. Furthermore, I also knew that this was Disney’s fifth movie based on this story, including the original animated film and its sequel, which makes it seem especially redundant. This is a level of stupidity I can’t handle. However, since I was advised by friends I trusted that the movie was worth seeing, I went to see it.

Having seen the original animated film, I had no good reason to see this rehash, and to those friends of mine who encouraged me to pay money to see it, I must respond with Fozzie’s great immortal line: “Shaaaaaame on you!” This movie isn’t terrible, but its best elements are mostly just the things Disney had already gotten right back in the 1960s. The visuals that I heard were so stunning offered me nothing, and they make me hesitate to call it a “live-action remake” instead of “the CGI version.” The fact that there are only two musical numbers in the film, the first of which doesn’t begin until about 50 minutes in, creates a jarring effect because they don’t feel like they fit in with the rest of the movie. To make matters worse, the best number on the soundtrack is Scarlett Johansson’s recording of “Trust in Me,” and I was beside myself with disappointment when I found it had been cut from the film. Again, this movie isn’t terrible, and I might have even said it was good had I not known its best elements were borrowed, not organic. Knowing what I know, however, it strikes me as a film that’s extremely and distinctly “fine, I guess” – it’s so-so soup. I am left shrugging and squinting, trying to figure out how in the world everyone has been tricked into thinking Disney is justified in charging admission for this.

Let me make this perfectly clear: Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a better remake than 2016’s Jungle Book, not because it’s a great movie, but because it looked at the tens upon dozens upon scores of adaptations of the story that had been done, and it left them behind to find an entirely new way of looking at the source material.

Now bring me some psychologists, some marketing strategists, and the Amazing Randi, because it shouldn’t be possible for critics and audiences to be duped on this scale.

The Parallax View Review

May 31, 2016 by JD Hansel

I generally don’t watch conspiracy thrillers. And now I know why.

This movie strikes me as being guilty of what I might call “Preacher’s Realism” – trying to make a movie that convinces people they’re seeing what life is really like by playing to their suspicions and intuitions, just to stir up a passion for the subject matter. This may sound like another word for propaganda, but propaganda sounds too official, whereas this is more petty, like a kid on YouTube trying to convince people that President Obama is the Antichrist. We’ve seen this in the religious films from Pure Flix, and the semi-religious Tomorrowland ~~sermon~~ movie. The Parallax View sets itself apart from these films by avoiding focusing on a real event that conspiracy theorists care about, instead fabricating events to build original conspiracy theories around. That being said, the way that the movie is done, particularly with its bookends, is surely designed to anger the viewers by making them feel as though they are being lied to by a government that chooses not to see the truth, claiming instead to accept “evidence.”

I can understand why many people appreciate this film. It’s written cleverly, has some neat visuals, and a good cast – I particularly love seeing William Daniels in just about any role, which made his character in this movie fun to watch. I can’t say that it’s a very boring film, or that it’s stupid. Technically, it is well done. I just can’t bring myself to like it very much, for two main reasons. First of all, I have a hard time getting into a genre that focuses on realistic events if they aren’t real events – I like fictional stories to feel like fantasies. This kind of film is sometimes considered to be a re-imagining of the film noir genre, and it takes a lot for me to really enjoy the story of a film noir movie more than the atmosphere, which this film does not achieve on the level of, for example, Blade Runner. Secondly, and most importantly, I am offended by the thought of a film that sets out to make its viewers angry with those who base their views on evidence, and make them value evidence less as a result. This is unhealthy for the culture, and it is an abuse of the power of cinema.

Phantom of the Opera (2004) Review

May 22, 2016 by JD Hansel

Since my last review was of a movie from 2004, it’s only natural that I would follow it with another film from 2004 that has absolutely nothing in common with it whatsoever. How’s that for a segue? Terrible, I know, but I have no other explanation for how I ended up watching (and reviewing) such a ridiculous movie. The stage musical, as far as I’m concerned, is fine, in spite of its issues, but I can see how adapting such a strange production into a film would be challenging. Joel Schumacher took on this challenge with a bit too much confidence it seems, because he clearly took a lot of creative chances, trying out whatever would seem most interesting. Sometimes this worked okay, but for the most part, the result was a rather awkward movie. Not terrible – it’s still interesting and the music and visuals are often impressive – but focusing on the portrayal of the main characters alone is enough to make one wonder, “How on earth could this be what they were aiming for?”

I have nothing much else to say, except that it seems rather needless. Just see the stage show. Or, cut to the chase and by the title song from the soundtrack, listen to that a bunch of times with the synth sound blasting through a sub-woofer, and then I’d say the key part of the Phantom experience is covered. On the other hand, there is a movie musical that adapts the same story in a way that also takes several big, strange, creative chances, and it works quite well. I’ll save all that for my next review, but for now, let us all remember Schumacher’s Phantom the only way we can: by making a confused face and shrugging in unison.

All together now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Allegiant Review

April 23, 2016 by JD Hansel

Um . . . okay.

There’s a part of me that wants to say Veronica Roth painted herself into a corner with Insurgent by pushing the story outside of the place that made it almost unique, so I want to go easy on the movie. However, she really opened the door to speculation and imagination, because just about anything could have been beyond the wall, which makes me wonder why this part of the story wasn’t more intriguing and satisfying. I have so little to say about the movie because it made me feel so little. I think I’m experiencing from this movie what most “professional” critics experienced while watching the first two films in the series – a painful lack of inspired substance.

I do think there is enough cleverness and creativity in the world-building at play in this story for it to be a sufficient spectacle, and I also think that it did a good job at making me curious about what was to come. I suppose when this is added to the simple pleasure of spending more time with already familiar characters, it really can be a pleasant film to watch, which is why I did not have a bad time seeing it. In the future, however, I should hope that a movie with this large of a budget will do the work it takes to “wow” me.

Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure Review

February 1, 2015 by JD Hansel

Boy, was I ever excited to see this movie. It’s a cartoony ‘80s comedy directed by Tim Burton! And did you see its trailer? It’s bound to be great!

It stunk. The movie dragged on forever with characters I did not care about and a plot that seemed pointless in the worst possible way. I know that it’s not right to judge a screenplay based on the movie having not read the screenplay itself, but this movie seems terribly written. Each scene seems to be without purpose, even to the point that many scenes in the film could be rearranged and it would make no difference. The plot doesn’t built, the twists are dull or insignificant, the beginning is a waste of time, and the climax, while containing some strong elements, has a scene with Pee Wee rescuing animals from a burning pet store that has nothing to do with anything else in the entire film. Why in the world should the climax be unrelated? Who thought this was a good story?

That being said… this movie is so beautiful. The darkness, the colors, the lights, and all the theatrical visuals make it a distinctly ’80s Burton work of art. So, so, so many shots in this film are breathtaking, and they inspire me to try to reach their level of majesty should I ever become a filmmaker. I almost wish that this film did not have Burton as a director. Had he not done this piece of junk and instead worked on a project with a good story during this time period, he might have made a movie I would have adored. However, if it led to the ’89 Batman, I guess this movie was meant to be.

Signs Review

October 12, 2014 by JD Hansel

(SPOILER ALERT)

It’s easy to criticize a filmmaker as infamous as M. Night Shyamalan and completely ignore his good decisions, but in Signs, one must acknowledge that there’s a lot of good aspects to this movie. The credits are visually appealing, the music is basically good, the characters and their development are fine, the suspense is well done, etc. From what I’ve seen though, Shyamalan seems like he doesn’t take things very seriously. The upside to that is that he doesn’t seem to take himself too seriously, which makes working with him easier. The downside is that he doesn’t seem to take his films seriously either.

He ignores the obvious problem in the story completely, making it one of the most talked about plot holes in history: the aliens that must not touch water came to a planet that is mostly water. There are other story elements that do not make sense, such as how every television station decided to stop broadcasting their regular programming to show the same network’s coverage of a story that may have been a hoax. This is completely unbelievable, and while some may say that the unbelievable is acceptable in a science fiction story, when ordinary humans are portrayed reacting to events inappropriately, it really hurts the story. From a dialogue perspective, the writing is still not totally realistic in many parts of the film, but the children were written for rather well.

While the child actors are certainly very impressive, the movie offers little that is new or impressive from a story perspective, and does not stand out all that much as an alien invasion story. It is not terrible, and it has some redeeming qualities, but its flaws make it feel very “meh.”