Written by: Kevin Berge
December was a big year of potential blockbusters with major franchises releases sequels and reboots that had the potential to be huge attractions or complete busts. The four big releases all had very different outcomes.
Aquaman was DC's latest superhero outing with a cinematic franchise that never seemed to get going. Bumblebee was a complete reboot of the Transformers franchise that was finally moving away from Michael Bay for better or worse.
Mortal Engines was attached to Peter Jackson's name as a major fantasy epic even if he didn't direct the film, using the foundations of an early 2000s steampunk book. Mary Poppins Returns was the long-awaited sequel to one of Disney's most acclaimed live action films.
These are quick overviews of each film's merits and thematic focus points. No spoilers will be included in any reviews.
Aquaman was DC's latest superhero outing with a cinematic franchise that never seemed to get going. Bumblebee was a complete reboot of the Transformers franchise that was finally moving away from Michael Bay for better or worse.
Mortal Engines was attached to Peter Jackson's name as a major fantasy epic even if he didn't direct the film, using the foundations of an early 2000s steampunk book. Mary Poppins Returns was the long-awaited sequel to one of Disney's most acclaimed live action films.
These are quick overviews of each film's merits and thematic focus points. No spoilers will be included in any reviews.
Aquaman has always been mocked more than he deserved, but Jason Momoa still deserves the most credit for making that classic outfit look good. (Image Courtesy of: cbr.com)
Aquaman
Superheroes on the big screen have been often been defined by the Marvel mold. Characters have easy quips, and the threats they face are massive but not all that threatening. Despite being silly often, these movies rarely fully embrace the camp of the types of superheroes I grew up with, the cartoons.
Aquaman feels unique because it's the kind of movie I would have loved watching as a kid. It's fast and campy with a joyously reckless vibe. It doesn't take itself too seriously and benefits from that. Following in Patty Jenkins' footsteps, director James Wan embraces what made DC superheroes fun decades ago.
Jason Momoa and Amber Heard are charismatic leads that guide that joyous good time, and the only thing holding them back from being absolute breakout stars from this film is their near complete lack of chemistry. They are far better individually than working off each other.
Still, the movie has enough to make up for that. The villains are ridiculously simplistic even when the story tries to make them more complex. The action is CGI-heavy, but it is so outrageous that it works. It also helps that some of the direction is beautiful, scanning and weaving through scenes.
In lesser hands, this would have been a complete disaster. It still has its faults especially in terms of leaning into cliche, but it works because James Wan and the cast celebrate what makes superheroes simply fun. This is a s silly action fest that knows it's a silly action fest.
DC will continue to work be embracing the unique visions of the directors behind the work. Forget trying to be Marvel. Just try to be good. Aquaman is good, and that is an impressive triumph that I did not see coming.
Aquaman feels unique because it's the kind of movie I would have loved watching as a kid. It's fast and campy with a joyously reckless vibe. It doesn't take itself too seriously and benefits from that. Following in Patty Jenkins' footsteps, director James Wan embraces what made DC superheroes fun decades ago.
Jason Momoa and Amber Heard are charismatic leads that guide that joyous good time, and the only thing holding them back from being absolute breakout stars from this film is their near complete lack of chemistry. They are far better individually than working off each other.
Still, the movie has enough to make up for that. The villains are ridiculously simplistic even when the story tries to make them more complex. The action is CGI-heavy, but it is so outrageous that it works. It also helps that some of the direction is beautiful, scanning and weaving through scenes.
In lesser hands, this would have been a complete disaster. It still has its faults especially in terms of leaning into cliche, but it works because James Wan and the cast celebrate what makes superheroes simply fun. This is a s silly action fest that knows it's a silly action fest.
DC will continue to work be embracing the unique visions of the directors behind the work. Forget trying to be Marvel. Just try to be good. Aquaman is good, and that is an impressive triumph that I did not see coming.
Grade: B
What no one really understand about Bumblebee is that it's actually a harrowing look at PTSD as the Autobot soldier reverts to a childlike state after escaping the horrors of war. (Image Courtesy of: empireonline.com)
Bumblebee
Transformers was never an earth-shattering franchise that needed to be a blockbuster, but Michael Bay made it one. He did it at the expense of genuine interesting storytelling and with more than a few uncomfortable decisions that made them deplorable, but he made money.
Bumblebee needed to be made to show that there was more to all of this than what Bay put on screen. This movie is derivative to a fault, but it is an absolute triumph of a return to form. It's a modern ET, complete with more than a few beat for beat homages to the classic movie.
It's cool around this time in Hollywood though to emulate Spielberg, and Bumblebee is just about the closest I have seen any blockbuster get to hitting at that same spark that made Spielberg's greatest blockbusters classics.
It is a story about a young woman coming to terms with trauma by getting caught up in a greater story than she ever expected. It's also a fantastic showcase of what made Transformers so special to a young generation. The action scenes of Bumblebee fighting to his brink, often outmatched but never giving in, are prime material.
Hailee Steinfeld unsurprisingly is in top form. The rest of the cast including a solid performance from John Cena had humanity to the story that really makes the most of every moment. It is a delightful ride with solid direction by Travis Knight and writing by Christina Hodson behind it every step of the way.
More than anything, Bumblebee feels like the love letter to Transformers the franchise desperately needed. It is worth everyone going to see it, and I hope even without Bay's incredible marketing ability it can succeed and lead to more films that celebrate this fun children's franchises' legacy.
Bumblebee needed to be made to show that there was more to all of this than what Bay put on screen. This movie is derivative to a fault, but it is an absolute triumph of a return to form. It's a modern ET, complete with more than a few beat for beat homages to the classic movie.
It's cool around this time in Hollywood though to emulate Spielberg, and Bumblebee is just about the closest I have seen any blockbuster get to hitting at that same spark that made Spielberg's greatest blockbusters classics.
It is a story about a young woman coming to terms with trauma by getting caught up in a greater story than she ever expected. It's also a fantastic showcase of what made Transformers so special to a young generation. The action scenes of Bumblebee fighting to his brink, often outmatched but never giving in, are prime material.
Hailee Steinfeld unsurprisingly is in top form. The rest of the cast including a solid performance from John Cena had humanity to the story that really makes the most of every moment. It is a delightful ride with solid direction by Travis Knight and writing by Christina Hodson behind it every step of the way.
More than anything, Bumblebee feels like the love letter to Transformers the franchise desperately needed. It is worth everyone going to see it, and I hope even without Bay's incredible marketing ability it can succeed and lead to more films that celebrate this fun children's franchises' legacy.
Grade: B+
Why does it all have to look so pretty? It almost makes me want to watch it again, even knowing how disappointed I'll be. (Image Courtesy of: stuff.tv)
Mortal Engines
I'd describe Mortal Engines in simple terms as the most expected disappointment of the year. I was given the Mortal Engines book about eight years ago, and a few elements of it stuck with me: the breadth of the world, the affecting aesthetic, the unique stoicism of Hester Shaw.
While its actual story is limited in scope, it did affect me. I heard shortly after reading the first book that Peter Jackson was attached to the film adaptation, which was a big deal for a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The rest of the books are also perfectly fine, just good enough to be an interesting film franchise.
However, this project has been in the works for too long to come out well. Jackson did not end up directing (not that it was a guarantee of success if he had given his work with The Hobbit trilogy). That honor went to Christian Rivers, first-time director and Jackson's primary visual effects director.
Jackson did have a hand in the screenplay, which ultimately fell short more than any other aspect of this film. This movie is a beautifully crafted mess. The visual effects and world design are everything I could have hoped to see in an adaptation of the book, but it would seem too much of the focus went into that aspect.
Everything else about this film fails. It would be unfair to call Hera Hilmar and Robert Sheehan bad actors, but they show next to nothing in the lead roles, which may come down to shoddy direction. The writing also does them no favors with some truly flat dialogue.
There are moments that might have worked in this film, but they just come off as laughable next to so many sloppy lines delivered without much effect. I would rather watch this movie without sound at all, just to enjoy the visual splendor at work.
While its actual story is limited in scope, it did affect me. I heard shortly after reading the first book that Peter Jackson was attached to the film adaptation, which was a big deal for a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The rest of the books are also perfectly fine, just good enough to be an interesting film franchise.
However, this project has been in the works for too long to come out well. Jackson did not end up directing (not that it was a guarantee of success if he had given his work with The Hobbit trilogy). That honor went to Christian Rivers, first-time director and Jackson's primary visual effects director.
Jackson did have a hand in the screenplay, which ultimately fell short more than any other aspect of this film. This movie is a beautifully crafted mess. The visual effects and world design are everything I could have hoped to see in an adaptation of the book, but it would seem too much of the focus went into that aspect.
Everything else about this film fails. It would be unfair to call Hera Hilmar and Robert Sheehan bad actors, but they show next to nothing in the lead roles, which may come down to shoddy direction. The writing also does them no favors with some truly flat dialogue.
There are moments that might have worked in this film, but they just come off as laughable next to so many sloppy lines delivered without much effect. I would rather watch this movie without sound at all, just to enjoy the visual splendor at work.
Grade: D
If P.L. Travers hated the original movie, you got to wonder how much she would have hated this. (Image Courtesy of: hollywoodreporter.com)
Mary Poppins Returns
When you're creating a sequel 50 years after the original, there is much to consider. How closely do you follow the predecessor? What new aspects of filmmaking can you incorporate while still honoring the original? Mary Poppins Returns seems to have a clear vision in most aspects, but it gets a bit odd along the way.
Emily Blunt is a perfect Mary Poppins, taking up a nearly impossible mantle from Julie Andrews. The rest of the cast including a game Lin-Manuel Miranda are also solid though are not going to live on in the memory of fans like Dick Van Dyke.
Where this movies succeeds and fails is its attempts to be as enduringly unique as the original. The movie feels a lot like the first with Mary coming down to do the same work she did for The Banks children all those years ago with the children of Michael Banks.
There's some good moments sprinkled in, but there's a lack of subtlety. The callbacks to Mary Poppins' magic lead to some of the most bizarre scenes, coming off as attempts to add conflict and drama to a movie that did not need it. This continues to the decision to make far clearer heroes and villains.
The music also sadly never sticks out. There are so many music numbers, and I cannot remember one a few days later. It is always difficult to match up to the legacy of a classic, but Mary Poppins Returns just seems like it has the wrong people at the helm to even try.
It is loud, overlong, and aggressively joyful. I say all this not to call the film bad. It is perfectly fine entertainment with Blunt's performance certainly worth seeing, but this reminds me a lot of Christopher Robin, a movie that also tried to emulate Mary Poppins this year. Both are not quite as good as they really try to be.
Emily Blunt is a perfect Mary Poppins, taking up a nearly impossible mantle from Julie Andrews. The rest of the cast including a game Lin-Manuel Miranda are also solid though are not going to live on in the memory of fans like Dick Van Dyke.
Where this movies succeeds and fails is its attempts to be as enduringly unique as the original. The movie feels a lot like the first with Mary coming down to do the same work she did for The Banks children all those years ago with the children of Michael Banks.
There's some good moments sprinkled in, but there's a lack of subtlety. The callbacks to Mary Poppins' magic lead to some of the most bizarre scenes, coming off as attempts to add conflict and drama to a movie that did not need it. This continues to the decision to make far clearer heroes and villains.
The music also sadly never sticks out. There are so many music numbers, and I cannot remember one a few days later. It is always difficult to match up to the legacy of a classic, but Mary Poppins Returns just seems like it has the wrong people at the helm to even try.
It is loud, overlong, and aggressively joyful. I say all this not to call the film bad. It is perfectly fine entertainment with Blunt's performance certainly worth seeing, but this reminds me a lot of Christopher Robin, a movie that also tried to emulate Mary Poppins this year. Both are not quite as good as they really try to be.