“Arthur the King” stars Mark Wahlberg, Simu Liu, Juliet Rylance, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ali Suliman, Bear Grylls, and Paul Guilfoyle. Released on March 15, 2024, the film has a team captain befriending a stray dog. The film is directed by Simon Cellan Jones, who also directed films such as “Some Voices”, “The One and Only”, “The Queen’s Sister”, and “On Expenses”. It is based on the 2016 book Arthur - The Dog Who Crossed the Jungle to Find a Home by Mikael Lindnord. In specific cases, the unexpected bonds can result in life-changing accomplishments. One such example is another reason why man’s best friends are the most loyal companions on the planet. After witnessing the box office soaring to life thanks to “Dune” and “Kung Fu Panda”, we’re now heading into another slow weekend consisting of low-budget movies that may or may not appear on everyone’s radar. Of course, I am counting the ones appearing in theaters that looked like they could’ve gone straight to streaming instead. However, that doesn’t mean one of them didn’t capture my interest. The one I’m referring to is another feel-good movie depicting a minor yet inspiring accomplishment involving a person and a dog. You can never have enough of those to make us see the goodness of the world we live in, especially when dogs are involved. Does the film succeed in making this story as wholesome as the bond between man and canine? Let’s find out. The story centers on Michael Light (Wahlberg), an adventure racer and captain of his racing team whose stubbornness cost them another race. Three years later, Michael and his team, including influencer Leo (Liu) and rock climber Olivia (Emmanuel), compete in the World Championships in the Dominican Republic in hopes of achieving their first victory. During the event, Michael encounters an injured stray dog, to which he gives some of his meatballs. As a result, the dog follows Michael and his team for the remaining race. When they discover the dog’s impressive knack for traversing around dangerous obstacles, Michael and the team adopt it as their guide, which they name “Arthur”. What follows is a race-against-the-clock trek through the endurance course that leads to a bond that’ll change Michael’s life forever. The plot in “Arthur the King” was inspired by Mikael Lindnord’s discovery of the stray dog, Arthur, during the 2014 Adventure Racing World Championships in Ecuador. This miraculous accomplishment was retold in several media, including an ESPN documentary and Lindnord’s memoir. It also spawned the Arthur Foundation, which ran from 2014 to 2018 and endorsed the LOBA (Organic Law of Animal Welfare) law, establishing animal welfare standards across several contexts. The first time I heard of this accomplishment was from the movie’s marketing, which impressed me with this inspirational story. Then again, I’m always impressed with any thought-provoking real-life event I was introduced to, so this isn’t all that surprising. Regardless, its concept, along with Mark Wahlberg, was enough for me to see how and why it deserved to be told as a film. Plus, I’m a sucker for dog movies, if you don’t know that already. “Arthur the King” is another film that provides the heart and charm of its themes and characters but also attempts to deliver a compelling narrative around them. Most feel-good movies succeed in displaying this combination, while others falter in balancing the sentimental appeal with quality, with only the tenderness carrying their weight. While it may be easy to accomplish based on audiences’s demand for inspirational content, it’s a bit challenging to win over everyone with its feel-good vibes regarding the execution. So, where does “Arthur the King” stand? Well, it’s somewhere near the edge of greatness, but not by much. While it struggles to maintain the story’s emotional core throughout its runtime, the movie is a charming and unsurprisingly inspiring adventure drama that’ll likely warm the hearts of sports fans and dog lovers alike. It is also the latest collaboration between Mark Wahlberg and director Simon Cellan Jones, following “The Family Plan” last year. I managed to watch that film with my family, and even though I didn’t review it, I thought it was just okay. It didn’t do much for its formula, but it wasn’t without some moments that kept me from switching to another streaming service. Fortunately, “Arthur the King” proved to be a welcoming improvement over Apple TV+’s action comedy about a father who’s secretly an assassin. The main reason for this is Jones’s attempt at providing dramatic heft into its fact-based tale. Instead of focusing on the combination between action and comedy like in “The Family Plan”, Jones provided a consistent tone that’s dramatic on some occasions while offering a sense of levity and heart that didn’t feel too out of place. I would say that “Arthur the King” may be one of the most light-hearted teen-rated movies I’ve seen. But, of course, since the film involves adventure racing, it does have a few moments that may frighten younger viewers. It’s far from groundbreaking regarding its pacing and inability to delve deep into its storytelling, but for a guy who helms television movies, Jones didn’t do too badly with this balance. Then, you have the film’s screenplay by Michael Brandt, whose track record with collaborator Derek Haas has been hit-and-miss so far. The “3:10 to Yuma” remake and “Wanted” were the only gems in their filmography, but everything else wasn’t that great. “Arthur the King” sees Brandt writing the script without Haas for the first time, and it’s…actually passable. It follows a similar pattern to the other fact-based movies, especially ones involving dogs, but it does its job well in faithfully displaying the story through its characters. “Arthur the King” depicts its heartwarming messages involving teamwork, perseverance, and selflessness amid the friendship between a man and a dog. These things apply to Michael Light, whose obsession with achieving his first win cost him the trust between himself and his team. The Dominican Republic race gives Michael a shot at claiming that glory, but Arthur’s persistence through the harshness of the country makes him realize what he should really be fighting for. It doesn’t delve deep into its themes much, but it’s serviceable regarding its healthy balance of humor and soul. Like the adventure racing teams portrayed onscreen, the cast made a solid team effort to carry the movie’s heartfelt weight on their shoulders, including Wahlberg. Mark Wahlberg is often seen as a decent actor if the concept is just as good as his talents. Sure, he’s been in more movies than he can count, but his presence occasionally compensates for their quality, even the bad ones. “Arthur the King” proved to be another film that fully realizes Wahlberg as a dramatic actor. While his performance as Michael Light wasn’t Oscar-worthy, I can easily say it’s one of the most wholesome performances he delivered in his career. Simu Liu was also decent in his role as Leo, and Juliet Rylance had some good moments as Helena, Michael’s wife. I’m also glad Nathalie Emmanuel is getting more work outside the “Fast & Furious” movies. Her performance as Olivia showcased her as a solid addition to the lineup, even if she was constantly overshadowed by Wahlberg and Liu. Overall, “Arthur the King” is a worthy fact-based drama that endures most of its flaws to gain a cinematic victory. It doesn’t rule as much as the actual King Arthur in terms of its narrative structure. However, like the feel-good movies before, the film packs enough heart and charm into its storytelling to provide a decent dose of entertainment for the genre. With its enjoyable cast, serviceable direction, and a screenplay that combines its cliches with heartfelt characters, the movie is good enough to take home the silver medal. People who enjoy watching inspirational movies and dog-related content would likely enjoy it as much as I did. However, if you prefer a fact-based movie that’s meaty in quality and story, you might not find it in this one. B-
0 Comments
“Imaginary” stars DeWanda Wise, Tom Payne, Betty Buckley, Taegen Burns, Pyper Braun, Matthew Sato, and Verónica Falcón. Released on March 8, 2024, the film has a woman discovering a frightening secret behind her stepdaughter’s teddy bear. The film was directed by Jeff Wadlow, who also directed films such as “Cry Wolf”, “Never Back Down”, “Truth or Dare”, and “Fantasy Island”. While everyone is excited about this year’s series of superheroes, action stars, and animated wackiness, some of us are ecstatic about the next “big” thing in 2024: imaginary friends. You know, the invisible creatures we made up in our minds during our childhoods until we grow old and realize how childish we once were. Sadly, there are only two movies that use this imaginative concept, each targeting a different demographic. However, that doesn’t stop us from revisiting that part of our childhoods before our minds were glued to our electronics. The first of the two I’m looking at today takes a simplistic, harmless concept of imaginary friends and twists it into something that’s…well, unfriendly. Some imaginary friends can be scary based on one’s imagination, but based on this film’s concept, it's probably best to stick with the cute and cuddly ones. Was the movie terrifying enough to prove this theory, or are we better off hanging out with our real friends? Let’s find out. The story follows Jessica (Wise), a successful children’s author who recently married musician Max (Payne), who has two children, Taylor (Burns) and Alice (Braun). They also recently moved back into Jessica’s childhood home, which she left years ago. While getting acquainted with their new house, Alice discovers an old teddy bear named Chauncey in the basement and immediately bonds with it. However, as time passes, Alice’s behavior around Chauncey becomes concerning, and their games become more dangerous. This leads Jessica to find that Chauncey is actually a supernatural creature from another world that’s targeting Alice. When Alice has been taken by Chauncey, Jessica must face the unfriendly creature head-on to rescue her, forcing her to revisit her past she left behind. The film’s concept of evil imaginary friends sparked my interest in watching it. However, if there’s one major concern that’s holding that interest back, it’s Jeff Wadlow. I have nothing against the filmmaker personally because I’m not like that. However, that doesn’t stop me from questioning the execution of his previous works. So far, I enjoyed “Kick-Ass 2” the most despite being inferior to its predecessor. After that, it all went downhill from there. Wadlow’s attempts with the horror genre hadn’t been great so far, with his dark adaptation of “Fantasy Island” being the worst of the two, in my opinion. “Truth or Dare” came very close regarding its execution and the laughable smiling faces. So, I didn’t have high expectations for “Imaginary”, but at the same time, I couldn’t resist watching terrible horror movies as much as the great ones. Please, don’t ask me why, as I still don’t have the answer. It was probably good that I didn’t have them because I didn’t suffer from this film as much as I did from Wadlow’s previous horror movies. While that doesn’t mean it’s a great movie, I can at least credit “Imaginary” for making some effort in its story, entertainment values, and themes. Both “Truth or Dare” and “Fantasy Island” suffered greatly from their schlocky storytelling and mediocre characters despite their intriguing concepts. Plus, the scares for those movies were as terrifying as a box full of adorable kittens. “Imaginary” has plenty of instances that make it fall within those familiar standards as those examples, including its storytelling. Fortunately, it has enough tolerability in its narrative to make itself “bearable”. Amid its “imaginary friend” scenario, the film attempted to depict childhood trauma and how the characters, mainly Alice, used their imaginary friends to escape reality. In addition, the story depicts Jessica's attempt to assume a motherly role towards Taylor and Alice, serving as one of the plot's significant aspects. With the concept of evil imaginary friends, this would’ve been a suitable representation of the difference between imagination and reality. But, of course, this is a Blumhouse movie we’re talking about, and on most occasions, it tends to favor cheap scares over solid storytelling. Unsurprisingly, “Imaginary” is one of those cases, but it’s also an occasion where its tolerability factor occasionally compensates for its lackluster screenplay. It’s easy to pinpoint that the script consists of multiple cliches that have been done in other movies, minus the emotional depth, resulting in a predictable and bare-bones world of pure imagination. But, I can also admit that it at least tried to make its middling characters less tedious, especially Jessica, played by Wise, with her forgotten childhood, even if they are formulaic. DeWanda Wise’s career soared due to her appearance in the Netflix adaptation of “She’s Gotta Have It”. However, it was her supporting role in “Jurassic World Dominion” that made me recognize Wise, who I thought was a fine addition to an average blockbuster sequel about dinosaurs. Now, she’s front and center in a movie about imaginary friends and not the good kinds. Someone should definitely call her agent about her job choices. All I can say about Wise is that she’s one of the best parts of the film, as she delivers a solid portrayal of a stepmom forced to confront her dark past. Was it her best performance? No, but I admire her effort in carrying the film regardless. The rest of the cast also provided suitable performances, including Pyper Braun as Alice and Betty Buckley as Gloria, Jessica’s former babysitter. Jeff Wadlow isn’t exactly my pick to direct something like “Imaginary”, but again, I have nothing against the guy. He was just doing his job as a filmmaker. But that doesn’t mean the efforts in his vision are nonexistent. For starters, the film did seem to tone down the number of jump scares to focus on its story, but the true test is whether they scared me. Well, I can say this: the mixture of fun and scary was there in some sequences, especially its creepy third act, but like its screenplay, the impact lacked any imagination to make itself everlasting. I would also credit the filmmaking team for relying on practical effects instead of overwhelming it with CGI, especially for Chauncey. At least there’s some imagination from going old school. Overall, “Imaginary” lacks the strong imagination from its concept to escape from its mundane reality despite its tolerable moments. The most generous thing I can say about the film is that it’s a minor improvement over Jeff Wadlow’s previous supernatural horror movies since it’s actually watchable. DeWanda Wise was decent enough to carry the film through her performance, the practical effects were respectfully handled, and the scares were passable despite their forgettable impact. Sadly, they’re not enough to maintain its imaginatively frightening vibe throughout its runtime, mainly due to its subpar screenplay, formulaic elements, and hit-and-miss characters. People who like watching horror films would likely find something tolerable out of this film, but like what they did to their own imaginary friends, they’ll likely forget about it in a day or two. C-“Damsel” stars Millie Bobby Brown, Angela Bassett, Robin Wright, Ray Winstone, Nick Robinson, Brooke Carter, and Shohreh Aghdashloo. Released on Netflix on March 8, 2024, the film has a princess surviving against a fire-breathing dragon. The film was directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, who also directed “Intacto”, “28 Weeks Later”, and “Intruders”. Many fairy tales from our childhoods have depicted fearless princes rescuing damsels in distress from fearsome dragons, cruel stepmothers, or wicked witches that transform into dragons. However, there are some cases where the damsels become the heroes of their own stories, showcasing they can be more than just pretty girls playing with their hair and dreaming of their saviors. In this case, we have a heroic damsel who rescues herself instead of a prince, who actually puts her in that predicament in the first place. So much for an easy-going “happily ever after” relationship. Does this scenario make for another enticing fairy tale for Netflix subscribers? Let’s find out. The story centers on Elodie (Brown), the princess and daughter of the unnamed kingdom's rulers, Lord Bayford (Winstone) and Lady Bayford (Bassett), Elodie’s stepmother. Elodie receives a proposal from Queen Isabelle (Wright) of Aurea to wed her son, Prince Henry (Robinson). Hoping the marriage will help her poverty-stricken kingdom, Elodie accepts the proposal. However, she soon discovers that the proposal is part of the royal family’s ritual, in which they sacrifice their victims to the merciless dragon (Aghdashloo) to repay their debts. When Elodie becomes the dragon’s next meal, she strives to escape its lair alive and expose Aurea’s horrifying secret. After seeing a few movies like “Snow White and the Huntsman” and Hulu’s “The Princess”, it’s becoming evident that I’m into watching darker and refreshing takes on classic fairy tales. I grew up watching the ones from Disney, exposing myself to harmless and cheerful fluff and whatnot. But now I’m at a specific age where I’m ready to experience some of the more mature versions of the fairy tales. This brings me to “Damsel”, another intriguing yet grim take on the classic fairy tale lore involving the princess being her own savior. Not only did its concept catch my intrigue, but it also comes equipped with an impressive lineup, including Millie Bobby Brown, who continues to be a significant draw outside of “Stranger Things”. Considering my positive feelings toward Brown in her previous efforts, I was excited to see her battle a ferocious dragon in a dress. But what matters is whether the film’s execution is worthy of accompanying her presence. “Damsel” offers a tale as simplistic as a love story between a prince and a princess, with the difference being the lack of love. It’s a dark fantasy/survival thriller mixture involving Elodie’s determination to avoid being a sacrifice while discovering the royal family’s deadly truth. Regarding its concept, this would’ve been an intriguingly layered metaphor of class discrimination, in which the kingdom of Aurea (the high and mighty) takes advantage of other poor kingdoms, with one of them being Elodie’s. Sadly, that isn’t the case. If you go into “Damsel” expecting it to have these hard-hitting themes, your expectations will immediately go up in smoke. It’s more of a straightforward, bare-bones survival movie involving a princess battling a monstrous dragon. If that’s what you’re looking for, then there’s plenty to enjoy about “Damsel”, even if it doesn’t fulfill all its narrative trappings. Regarding Dan Mazeau’s screenplay, the film delivers its concept through its medieval-themed dialogue. On the other hand, it doesn’t do much else beyond it to make it stand out from other dark fantasy outings, especially its characters. They often appear one-noted or underdeveloped regarding their personalities, which is a shame considering the decent actors involved. Millie Bobby Brown continues to expand her “happily ever after” with another convincing performance, with her embodying Elodie’s strong-willed and resourceful persona. With her role in “Damsel”, Brown further embodies herself as a promising on-screen action hero, whether in the real world or the fantasy realm. Ray Winstone and Angela Bassett also made suitable efforts as Elodie’s parents, especially the latter for her portrayal of Elodie’s kind-hearted stepmother. I also enjoyed Brooke Carter as Floria, Elodie’s younger sister, and the delightful chemistry between the two sisters. Nick Robinson also meant well regarding his performance as Prince Henry, but the writing for this character was pretty disappointing. Despite its narrative issues, “Damsel” makes for an easy watch, thanks to Juan Carlos Fresnadillo’s vision and the movie’s visual effects. With Fresnadillo behind the camera, “Damsel” occasionally pulls me in with its tension-filled sequences and atmosphere, primarily from scenes involving Elodie in the caves. His direction struggles to maintain this consistency throughout the entire runtime, especially its slow first act, but the moments afterward work pretty well. The visual effects were also suitable for displaying its environments, even if some of them weren’t as impressive as others. I would say the highlight of its CGI work has to be the design of the unnamed dragon, who’s effectively voiced by Shohreh Aghdashloo. The mixture of black and gold for the dragon’s slim yet huge body is a decent attempt at differentiating it from the regular movie dragons. Overall, “Damsel” doesn’t spark much of a flame despite being occasionally rescued by Millie Bobby Brown’s presence. With the right mindset, the film is a mildly enjoyable piece of straight-to-streaming content that mostly delivers what you expect from a fantasy-esque survival thriller. This is mainly due to Brown’s effortful portrayal of the dragon-fighting princess, a few tension-filled moments, and some passable effects. Unfortunately, when it comes to its average script, one-noted characters, and lack of intriguing ideas, it’s also an average fairy tale that lacks a happy ending worthy enough to escape the flames of mediocrity. If you enjoy Brown in her other works and like watching darker twists on the fairy tale lore, you might enjoy this one. C“Kung Fu Panda 4” stars Jack Black, Awkwafina, Viola Davis, Dustin Hoffman, Bryan Cranston, James Hong, Ian McShane, Ke Huy Quan, Lori Tan Chinn, and Ronny Chieng. Released on March 8, 2024, the film has Po training a new Dragon Warrior and facing another dangerous threat. The film is directed by Mike Mitchell, who also directed films such as “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo”, “Sky High”, “Shrek Forever After”, and “Trolls”. Mitchell also served as a story artist for “Antz”, “Shrek 2”, “Shrek the Third”, and “Monsters vs. Aliens”. It is the fourth installment in the Kung Fu Panda franchise. Everyone’s favorite martial-arts-loving panda has faced numerous challenges during his journey to becoming the Dragon Warrior. He’s taken down multiple villains while also learning more about his origins in the process. Now that his quest of awesomeness has been completed in “Kung Fu Panda 3”, all that’s left to ask is: What now? Well, thanks to DreamWorks Animation, we now know the answer. The “Kung Fu Panda” franchise has left a pretty impressive legacy for the studio, following the footsteps of “Shrek” and “How to Train Your Dragon”. It provided great storytelling filled with memorable characters, world-building, and thoughtful themes and broadened the appeal of Chinese culture to American audiences. Plus, who doesn’t love animals performing martial arts? With the release of “Kung Fu Panda 3”, we all thought Po’s coming-of-age journey had concluded. It turns out that isn’t the case, thanks to the two recent streaming shows and its recent theatrical sequel. The question now is whether the latest installment is worthy enough to continue the Dragon Warrior’s legacy. Let’s head back to China and find out. The story once again centers on Po (Black), who’s set on becoming the Spiritual Leader of the Valley of Peace after the events of “Kung Fu Panda 3”. To move on to the crucial part of the journey, Po must find and train his successor to become the next Dragon Warrior, which isn’t as simple as it sounds. However, his quest is interrupted by the emergence of The Chameleon (Davis), a nefarious, shapeshifting sorceress who can transform into anyone, including Tai Lung (McShane). Po also encounters Zhen (Awkwafina), a corsac fox bandit residing in Juniper City. When The Chameleon seeks to become the most powerful being in the universe by absorbing people’s kung-fu abilities, Po and Zhen join forces to defeat the sorceress and save China once more. “Kung Fu Panda” has been one of my favorite animated franchises since it first arrived in 2008. The first “Kung Fu Panda” movie is a fantastic and hilarious tribute to the classic martial arts films that came before it. Its sequel, “Kung Fu Panda 2”, upped the ante in its characters and world-building through its dark story and memorable villain, Lord Shen, making it the best installment in the franchise in my eyes. As for “Kung Fu Panda 3”, it’s a step down from the first sequel, but I still find it a fun time regardless. I also watched the shows in between the films, including “Legends of Awesomeness” and “The Dragon Knight” on Netflix. They weren’t too bad entertainment-wise, but they’re admittedly a far cry from the movies regarding the quality. So, you can say that I’ve been heavily invested in Po’s coming-of-age journey for sixteen years. This brings us to “Kung Fu Panda 4”, which I’ve been excited and concerned about since its announcement. While seeing Po kick butt once more is a welcoming treat for the franchise’s fans, the changes made for its fourth installment left me with a tiny hint of hesitation, mainly the absence of the Furious Five. This alone challenges “Kung Fu Panda 4” to deliver a narrative worthy enough to warrant these alterations. One of the franchise’s crucial strengths has always been Po’s coming-of-age journey from an ordinary panda working at a noodle shop to the greatest kung fu warrior in China. Throughout the trilogy, Po learns various lessons about becoming the Dragon Warrior while discovering more about himself, leading to his growth. For “Kung Fu Panda 4”, Po is transitioning from Dragon Warrior to Kung Fu Master and Spiritual Leader. As a result, Po learns about the new responsibilities he’s given and uses the lessons he learned in the past, mainly from the villains he faced, to assist Zhen. This makes the “Kung Fu Panda” sequels more than just a series of cash-grabbing follow-ups like “Ice Age” and “Despicable Me”. In short, the “spiritual leader” part of the journey provided some exciting challenges for the cuddly and fearless protagonist. But is this movie able to reach those heights? Surprisingly, no. However, it still packs enough punch in its style and heart to maintain the franchise’s spiritual essence. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is described as a love letter to the first film, mainly for Po assuming the role of "kung fu master" as he searches for the new Dragon Warrior. If that isn’t enough to convince you, there’s also the return of the first film’s antagonist, Tai Lung. Now, that’s what you call a true trip down memory lane. While it may seem similar to Po’s first step of his journey, it offers enough fun and heartfelt moments to avoid the cut-and-paste issues of other movie sequels. One of them comes from its messages. The "Kung Fu Panda" movies are known for their ability to teach young audiences valuable life lessons while providing a sense of growing up alongside the main character. In "Kung Fu Panda 4", Po struggles to adapt to change. Despite being chosen as the spiritual leader, Po is determined to remain in his position as the Dragon Warrior. However, as he embarks on a new journey with Zhen, he gradually realizes that change is essential to life and learns what it means to be a kung fu master. Additionally, Zhen learns about the importance of doing the right thing. Like its predecessors, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is a suitable display of its themes that’ll delight many young children and inspire adults. But when it comes to its storytelling, it doesn’t provide any new moves to keep the series refreshing. It’s a shame, considering it brought Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger back to write its script. However, one of the writers is Darren Lemke, who wrote Mitchell’s “Shrek Forever After”, so that all checks out. The franchise’s heart remains in the sequel, especially in its protagonists, but it has more occasions where the narrative held itself back in favor of its simplicity. Mike Mitchell is no stranger to directing sequels, especially animated ones, but when it comes to his vision of progressing their universes, he usually falters in reaching the similar narrative heights of their predecessors. The same can be said for his direction in “Kung Fu Panda 4”. While there are a few moments that Mitchell and the screenwriters did well, including the action scenes and fun humor, they struggled to take advantage of everything else to accompany its frantic butt-kicking chaos, including Tai Lung’s return. It’s far from bad since it’s entertaining enough to be watchable, but it’s also easy to admit that the movie’s spirituality from its predecessors has dimmed a bit. One of the highlights that elevate “Kung Fu Panda 4” was the voice cast consisting of new and recurring actors, all of whom made a solid effort in voicing their characters. Jack Black once again proves he’s the perfect actor to play Po. His kinetic energy, mixed with his generosity and charisma, solidifies Po as one of DreamWorks Animation’s memorable characters, and Jack Black fits that description flawlessly. Plus, his cover of one of Britney Spears’ songs with Tenacious D was surprisingly good. Awkwafina also did very well as Zhen, who’s pretty much a replacement for the Furious Five for Po to handle. While not as memorable as the legendary kung fu masters, Zhen offered enough in her character arc to see what direction they'll take for her in potential follow-ups. As for Viola Davis, she made a worthy effort voicing the antagonistic Chameleon, but her character was surprisingly lackluster compared to the trilogy’s antagonists. She’s someone you would find in one of the “Kung Fu Panda” television shows. She’s formidable with her shapeshifting skills, but the writing for her needed more alterations. James Hong and Bryan Cranston as Mr. Ping and Li Shan were some of the funniest parts of the movie, which often focuses on Po’s two dads amid his latest journey. There’s just something about two fathers working together to find their son that made the film more entertaining than it had any right to be. I also welcomed Ian McShane back as Tai Lung despite his surprisingly small role. The “Kung Fu Panda” films don’t just strive in their themes and stories, but also their animation styles. The animation in the franchise beautifully captures the landscapes and cities of China as well as their thrilling martial arts sequences and characters regarding the coloring, lighting, and presentation. It makes you feel that you’re part of that world yourself. “Kung Fu Panda 4” is unsurprisingly no exception, although with some minor changes. In addition to maintaining the gorgeousness of its sceneries and details, the film takes major influences from anime to reflect the art style and fight scenes, similar to “Creed III”. What a way to raise awareness of Japan’s form of animation. While far from creative, it’s still another solid example of animation influencing cultures through its presentation and designs, mainly The Chameleon and her shapeshifting abilities. Overall, “Kung Fu Panda 4” is another fun and vibrant return of the Dragon Warrior, even though its narrative occasionally lacks the spirituality of its predecessors. It doesn’t break any new ground in family-friendly storytelling like DreamWorks’s other sequels like “How to Train Your Dragon 2”, “Puss in Boots: The Last Wish”, and even “Kung Fu Panda 2”. However, the film retains plenty of elements from the trilogy to deliver an unnecessary yet pleasant continuation of Po’s journey. Jack Black continues to dazzle as the main character, and the rest of the voice cast managed to follow suit, which is enough to accompany its entertaining but flawed story, amusing humor, and solid animation. I’d say the second film is still my favorite, followed by the first and third installments, with this one at the bottom. But in the end, they’re all entertaining in their own right, even if their stories vary in quality. If you love the previous installments, you’ll easily have a good time watching this, although not as much as you had with the trilogy. B-“Ordinary Angels” stars Hilary Swank, Alan Ritchson, Nancy Travis, and Tamala Jones. Released on February 23, 2024, the film has a hairdresser helping a widowed father save his ill daughter. The film was directed by Jon Gunn, who also directed films such as “Mercy Streets”, “Like Dandelion Dust”, “Do You Believe?”, and “The Case for Christ”. Sometimes, the greatest miracles in life are the ones we stumble upon unexpectedly. They remind us of the goodness that exists in the world and the power of kindness. One of those cases happened 30 years ago when the folks of Louisville united against Mother Nature to assist a young girl in need. If you want another reason today’s society needs to change itself, look no further than the latest inspirational drama reminding us how a single act of kindness can change everyone’s lives. You know, before the world went to pieces regarding politics, violence, and “woke agendas”. With nothing else to do this week, I finally decided to look at this movie before we get to the potentially good ones like “Kung Fu Panda 4” and “Ghostbusters”. Was the movie able to make a believer out of me? Let’s find out. The story, set in 1994, centers on Sharon Stevens (Swank), a fierce but struggling hairdresser in Louisville with a troubling history. As she seeks a new sense of purpose in her life, Sharon eventually encounters Ed Schmitt (Ritchson), a hard-working widower providing for his two daughters after his wife's death. One of the daughters, Michelle Schmitt (Emily Mitchell), is affected by an incurable disease, and Ed is eagerly waiting for a liver transplant that could save her life. As a result, Sharon decides to help by bringing the community’s attention to Ed and his daughters. When a major snowstorm hits Louisville due to a cold wave, Sharon and the community must come together to assist Ed in saving Michelle’s life. I don’t usually watch faith-based content during my spare time, but “Ordinary Angels” has something that immediately caught my attention besides the cast. What really intrigued me was the story it represented. The events in “Ordinary Angels” were set in 1994, when the North American cold wave occurred. It’s also the year I was born. Fortunately, my parents survived long enough to bring me into this world and lived to tell the tale. So, you can say that two miracles happened in that same year, with me only finding out about the father’s story from the marketing. Although that tale is more attention-grabbing than my birth, I was actually more impressed than jealous regarding the effort people took to help one another in a time of need. With the world still being trash, this movie couldn’t have come at a better time to remind us of the goodness we can bring to people and receive it in return. But the real question is whether its quality is as good as its thought-provoking themes. Based on what I’ve seen, most films involving faith or religion focus on pushing an agenda rather than telling great stories surrounding their concepts. That is one of the reasons I haven’t reviewed as many of those movies as often as others. “Ordinary Angels” may seem to be one of those examples based on the trailers, which got me a bit hesitant at first. So, I dragged my mother along to help me since she enjoys watching feel-good movies, especially ones based on actual events. As we were watching the film, I suddenly felt a warm feeling inside my body that made me think, “Oh my god. It’s actually trying to tell a good story about faith.” That feeling stayed with me until the credits rolled, and what I got in return was satisfaction, hope, and plenty of happy tears. "Ordinary Angels" effectively emphasizes the significance of demonstrating compassion and generosity when providing or receiving assistance. It also sets an example of how a faith-based movie can be made exceptional with the appropriate level of effort and dedication. “Ordinary Angels” is a straightforward, by-the-book, fact-based film that doesn’t strive to provide anything unique or groundbreaking to its formula. However, that doesn’t make its basic plot less enjoyable than the award-worthy biopics we got in recent years. This is due to the film’s screenplay, which is co-written by Kelly Fremon Craig, who brought us “The Edge of Seventeen”. It's no wonder my heart felt so warm and fuzzy while watching this film. The script features dialogues that strike a healthy balance between humor and heart while presenting characters that are portrayed with humane and charismatic qualities as embodied by the actors. The movie focuses on two different characters: Sharon, an alcoholic struggling to get the help she needs, and Ed, a grieving father attempting to raise his two daughters but refusing to accept outside help. The film's central characters serve as influential symbols of redemption, hope, faith, and resilience, each representing a different facet of these themes. Sharon, in particular, stands out for her unwavering determination to aid Ed and Michelle, serving as a beacon of strength and compassion in their time of need. Through their struggles and triumphs, the protagonists inspire audiences to persevere in the face of adversity and to never lose sight of the transformative power of faith and hope. While it’s far from spectacular, the screenplay had plenty of material needed to provide a sense of wholesomeness that’s as graceful as frolicking through a field of flowers. The film also has a surprising amount of emotional beats that would make even a cold-hearted person shed a tear, mainly due to Jon Gunn’s direction. Gunn achieved a delicate blend of comedy and drama while maintaining a grounded and compelling style that tugs at the heartstrings without being overly forceful. He allowed ample time for the characters to develop and showcased their personalities and dilemmas with wholesome charisma. This was actually the first movie I’ve watched from Jon Gunn, who’s been having a hit-and-miss track record regarding his filmography, especially the two Christian dramas he helmed. Based on what I saw, I believe this is his best work so far. My only gripe is that the movie does get a bit slow during a few scenes before picking itself up afterward. Besides that, Jon Gunn has a suitable knack for providing heartfelt drama amid its faith-based themes. But, of course, it’s not just the direction and storytelling that lifted the film’s spirits. It’s also the cast that puts in as much effort as the community helping a sick child. The main highlights are Hilary Swank and Alan Ritchson as Sharon and Ed, respectively. If you’ve seen Swank in her previous movies, you’ll know how good she is at providing engaging and heartwarming characters. Unsurprisingly, her performance as Sharon is no exception. Swank skillfully captured the essence of a tenacious hairdresser who refused to take "no" for an answer. However, despite her unwavering determination, Sharon's past had left her emotionally vulnerable, causing her to believe that declining opportunities wasn't always the best option. Swank's portrayal was a testament to the complexity of the human psyche and how our past experiences shape our present actions. Alan Ritchson, who received popularity from the “Reacher” series, takes his acting skills to dramatic heights after starring in plenty of hard-hitting, action-packed content. The result is a surprisingly stellar change of pace for the actor. Regarding his enthralling portrayal of Ed, Ritchson shows that he can flex his dramatic muscles as much as his action ones. If that isn’t enough for me to check out “Reacher”, I don’t know what will. Nancy Travis and Tamala Jones were also great as Barbara and Rose, respectively, packing in enough moments to coincide with the main leads’ chemistry. Overall, “Ordinary Angels” spreads its wings far and wide to deliver a heartfelt and uplifting tale of redemption and unification. Despite some slow scenes and similar fact-based narrative beats, the film showcases the potential of good storytelling and authentic passion to elevate its faith-based elements. Thanks to its main leads, Jon Gunn’s solid direction, and a screenplay that takes advantage of its emotional beats and formula, it’s another filmmaking miracle that satisfies on both fronts. It succeeds as a watchable faith-based film and a traditional feel-good drama for people of all ages. More importantly, it's another reminder that a simple act of kindness, whether directed towards a loved one or a stranger, can create a tremendous impact on everyone involved. It can bring joy to the recipient and fill the heart of the person performing the good deed with a sense of fulfillment and purpose. It is worth checking out if you enjoy these movies, but bring plenty of tissues beforehand. B |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |