Movie review - "Avatar: Fire and Ash" (2025) **1/2

 Gorgeous visuals. Excellent action scenes. Acting fine. Knows how to pull at the heart strings. Too long. Feels choppy. Endless subplots. I nodded off and at one stage thought I was seeing the first movie, with similar action sequences, whales, and Brendan Cowell (didn't he die? Why bring him back? Can't they kill anyone these days?)

Full of unresolved plots - like the general, the nasty tribal leader (great character). I'm not even sure Stepheh Lang and Brendan Cowell are dead, they keep bringing people back.

They should've attacked the human base at the end.  And Spider is more trouble than he's worth.

Better that they'd wrapped this up. 

Movie review - "Dragonslayer" (1981) **

 Classic Ron Miller era of Disney - great idea, technically accomplished, good story, lousy execution. Perfectly simple story - village under threat by dragon, king sacrifices women to dragon... but it's confusing to watch. I wasn't sure where it was set, or who we were following or the rules. Ralph Richardson disappeared then came back, they were following the travelling group then not. The film just needed to say things straight up - open with the sacrificial woman being killed, establish the girl dressed as a boy is a girl and say why, have them meet... 

The princess is so nice and her death is a downer. What's at stake? The dragon attacks the village anyway yes? Why does Peter Macnicol need to go on his own once the princess is threatened?

Just a mess. This needed a script exec riding shotgun. 

Book review - "MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios" by Joanna Robinson, Dave Gonzales, Gavin Edwards

 Thoughts on MCU after reading book (was a good book)...

- What Feige did was amazing, very few producers have come close, maybe David O. Selnick from 30s to 40s before Benzedrine addiction and dumping his smart first wife wrecked his career.
- Other parallel is James Bond series which has been going since 1962 - this has interesting similarities... cultural phenomenon, many imitators but no one has surpassed it, has ability to reinvent, makes lots of mistakes but not fatal ones, isn’t afraid to go “small” (Bond films went from the big Moonraker to the small For Your Eyes Only, from the big Die another Day to the small Casino Royale), always be true to character (eg they always have a British or at least British Empire Bond)
- Main issues with MCU not actually their fault (a) no one else can make blockbusters as consistently successful (b) Disney keep wanting them to expand bc they make so much money
- If Marvel keep small, they will endure but if they keep expanding they are rooted
- I forgot how many dud Marvels there have been eg Thor 2 and 4, Ant Man 2 and 3... but historically there’s always been a classic around the corner eg Tom Holland Spiderman... it feels it’s been a while since a classic Marvel though - I actually feel Feige’s (a) run out of gas and/or (b) simply doesn’t have the same emotional connection to these new heroes as he did the original ones - but could be wrong
- I actually love though how Feige embraces all the history - even duds like Thorn 2 and the Garfield Spidermans, which have bad reps, get call backs - this has weird parallels to soap where previous “era” get overlooked - embracing dud eras I feel is something not nearly done enough in franchises or long serials
- Also amazing how bad and voluminous the corporate notes were even AFTER the films became successful - and the head of Marvel wanted to FIRE Feige... this was astonishing... and explains why so many Hollywood films are bad... that a great producer can produce great successful films and as a result the head of the company wants to fire him (not bc of a crime, but because of his success) - this is surprisingly common
- character is obviously king - (and casting so crucial to character) - problem with Captain Marvel (warning: mansplaining) us that Captain Marvel isn't much of character... but bc it made so much money that kind of got lost - Wonder Woman and Black Widow are great characters - problem Black Panther 2 IMHO was not fixing on a character - think there is so so much scope for female super heroes just make sure they have a good character and are well cast
- my predictions about what’s coming up
    - Thunderbolts - will tank bc it feels like leftovers
    - Captain America Brave New World - will tank bc no one will care and that director isn’t v good
    - Deadpool vs Wolverine, Blade, Fantastic Four - will go through roof bc Feige understands these characters
    -

Anyway lets see how I go

Movie review - "Malificent" (2014) ***

 Enjoyable, handsome, with Angelina Jolie having the time of her life. A decent reimagining of the story. The male lead/villain feels a little undercast. Looks terrific. Some uncanny valley with the "little people" sequences. Liked it more than I thought.

Movie review - "Dumbo" (2019) **

 This isn't a very good movie. It's gloomily shot, everything seems overcast. There's no sense of wonder. There's two cute kids and Colin Farrell as a one armed WW1 veteran, who suck up screentime from Dumbo who is very much a supporting character. Effects are ordinary. Dumbo doesn't have much personality here. I was longing for some old school Burton effects or imagery.

Movie review - "Wish" (2023) **

 Some nice animation and tunes. The tunes don't seem to quite fir in the story. Maybe they did - I had trouble following the story. It's about a wizard/king (voiced by Chris Pine) who sets up an island kingdom where he grants people's wishes. I think he does when he can but when he can't he steals their wishes which is not nice but kind of minor league villainy. And the island people seem whiny because of they just want wishes.

The film impoves when Pine goes full villain. It lacks realised support characters - the most interesting thing about the lead is she looks like Meaghan Markle, but I had trouble telling the human characters apart (Pine's wife, lead girl's group of friends, lead girl's mum and grandad). It was hard to care.

The animated animals though had real spark - donkey, bear, rabbits, etc. The script needed a few more drafts - I felt that of Frozen 2 and Wrinkle in Time.

Movie review - "Hamilton" (2020) ****

 Filmed theatre, but it's a grand show, lots of fun, very moving. I've got no fresh take on this. Daveed Diggs and Jonathan Groff steal the show but then they have the showiest parts.

Movie review - "Cruella" (2021) **

 Modern day Disney trying to jazz up some IP with a fresh name or two. Emma Stone powers a lot of it with her charisma and charm and Emma Thompson helps out, but the laziness of the dramatic construction tell after a while, as does the endless, endless parade of sixties and seventies songs.  There's so many golden oldies. So many scenes of people entering rooms.

The film has the cheek to rip off The Devil Wears Prada and manages to make what should look bright and poppy - 70s fasion in England - grimy and dull. Maybe if they'd added songs for people to sing. Cut out all the entrances and the golden oldies soundtrack. Had Emma Stone talk to camera. Had a bit more life in it.

Mark Strong does some solid reality-based playing. Maybe he needed to camp it up more. It was a hard slog.

Movie review - "The Little Mermaid" (2023) **

 Tired, bloated live action remake crippled by its dark murky photography which means the underwater world isn't not a magical wonderland just underwater. It's hard to make out the features of Melissa McCarthy, or Halle Bailey. Both have some star factor but are undermined the the photography and also the not quite there effects. There's a bland lead dude, un colourful others. Awkwafina does neat voice work. It doesn't click.

Movie review - "Beauty and the Beast: A 30th Celebration" (2022) **1/2

 Good to see some black actors getting a go (they're still musical theatre types) though I wish they'd done a proper version instead of this part stage show, part scenes from the original. Why not just shoot the Broadway musical? I showed my age not recognising HER or Josh Groban but recognising Shania Twain and Martin Short and David Alan Grier.

Movie review - "Beauty and the Beast" (2017) ***

 Computer programmed to be a hit, it looks gorgeous, has the right star (Emma Watson), is a shot for shot remake. Who can argue with a billion dollars? Disney would soon discover that wasn't fool proof. Look it's fine. There's nothing much to say. The tunes are good etc.

Movie review - "Beauty and the Beast" (1991) ****

 It's been copied a lot - so, so much - but this was a slick account of the story, with a bright heroine, yquality animation, strong voice work from the good old days before frigging movie stars did it all. Katzenberg should be proud.

Movie review - "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" (1971) ***

 Disney's attempt at Mary Poppins 2 worked out pretty well - another fantasy nanny looking after kids in England with a Broadway star, the Sherman brothers and Robert Stevenson. The film looks so cheap and ugly. I'm sure it had more effect if you saw it as a child. It's fine. Angela Lansbury is very good. David Tomlinson miscast - why not get Tommy Steele for this? Disney always liked him. Maybe he was busy or considered too young. And I guess The Happiest Millionaire had happened.

Songs aren't bad. Cheerful.

Movie review - "Annie" (1999) **1/2

 More faithful version of the musical than the notorious (ish) John Huston version, this has excellent villains in the form of Kathy Bates, Alan Cummings and Kristen Chenoweth, but a dull Annie, Warbucks and Miss Grace. Nice tunes and dance numbers. Competent. Kids should like it.

Movie review - "Mary Poppins" (1964) ***

 Catchy tunes. Beautifully cast star. Dick Van Dyke gives it all. Not a lot of story but it touches on important themes. Garish backlot. Great stomping and dancing. Goes a long time. Defies criticism really.

Movie review - "Newsies: The Broadway Musical" (2017) ***1/2

Haven't seen the original film but this was a lot of fun. The score is so-so but the story is solid, and there's terrific dance numbers with the news boys leaping and stomping around plus decent ballads, a funny doubting song for the heroine, and rousing moments. Poverty and the working class are effective in musicals I guess.  It's fun.

Movie review - "Elemental" (2023) **1/2

 Much to admire. The animation is excellent, particularly on the big screen, some lovely gags and moments, I enjoyed the world of the different elements, fire vs water vs earth vs air.

It doesn't quite work. It's not really a film for kids its an intercultural romance - which I know so was Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast but they had songs and a more propulsive story, with villains and ticking clocks. This is more Guess Who's Coming to Dinner with clunky artificial story drivers like shutting down the store, and fixing the dam It needed more of a coathanger, like solving a mystery, searching for someone, or even just beating a villain.

Also it makes remarkable mistakes in identifying the audience with the lead. Good Disney/Pixar gives us time with the lead - why not show her as a baby in Fireland, with the parents as they leave for the new country, a decent time on the boat (a great moment in the film but far too brief), experience time with her as she experiences prejudice and sees what a great set of parents she has. This is all shown in flashback. The old, very effective mantra of taking time has been thrown out the window.

Not a mystery why people didn't go for it.

Movie review - "Little Mermaid Live!" (2019) **1/2

 Scenes from the film intercut with live performances. Vanessa Hudgens is ideal in the title role and Queen Latifah fun as Ursula. It's fun to see kids having a good time in the audience.

Movie review - "The Little Mermaid" (1989) ***

 The film that brought back Disney, along with The Great Mouse Detective. Fun songs and humour, lots of camp (Ursula is like a drag queen - she was based on Divine), pleasing animation, dodgy story telling (Ariel is sixteen and a moron)

Movie review - "Avatar: The Way of Water" (2022) *** (warning: spoilers)

 I totally enjoyed that more than I thought I would. It was a struggle at times - that running time - but it was quite moving. Then I guess Jim Cameron is a dab hand at trope manipulation - it's hard not to be stirred when the peaceful natives have their villages pummelled (again), or to feel for whales who are harpooned, or to be roused when the whales kick arse, or to love it when whalers get devastated, or to be moved when babies play in the ocean and people die, and people have a final glimpse of their final dead family member.

Also it hits on universal themes: fear of protecting family, bickering siblings, the good son versus the troublesome son, the walking stakes kids, the kids feeling out of step.

The flaws are big but oddly one would think they were easily fixable. They set up this plot about colonising Pandora but that gets forgotten (along with Edie Falco's unconvincing general) to hang out with whales. I mean, weren't the forest people at war again? Isn't that still going on? Would the baddies devote all these resources to tracking down Sam Worthington once he actually leaves the forest people - I mean he's no longer a threat/mastermind because he's gone right? Why didn't they just make it a generic flight thing - he tries to flee but realises he can't any more. And Zoe Saldana's part is nothing. For a hippy movie it's very patriarchal.

Still, I was engrossed more often than not, the spectacle was fun, as was re using jungle movie tropes (there's even a comely native girl walking out of the ocean), and I got a little teary at the end.