"The Matrix Resurrections" stars Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Jessica Henwick, Jonathan Groff, Neil Patrick Harris, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, and Jada Pickett Smith. Released on December 22, 2021, the film has Neo returning to the Matrix to face a new threat. The film was directed by Lana Wachowski, who also directed films such as "Bound", "The Matrix", "Speed Racer", and "Jupiter Ascending". It is the fourth installment in the "Matrix" film series. If you're looking for a place to visit during your holiday vacation, I know the one that'll blow your mind. 1999 was a pretty crucial year during that time. It marked an end of a millennium, and plenty of films from that year filled our heads with nostalgia, mainly the one that revolutionized science fiction cinema. That film was "The Matrix", a sci-fi action mind-bender that transports Keanu Reeves into a virtual war between humanity and the machines. Praised for its visuals, action, and influences, the film created a launching point for Reeves and its directors, the Wachowskis. It also spawned two sequels that make up a trilogy, along with an animated anthology film, books, comics, and video games. Following the trilogy's disappointing conclusion in 2003, one of the Wachowskis has returned to the franchise that made them household names with a continuation 18 years in the making. I hope you don't have any holiday plans for this week. "The Matrix" is one of the films that I remember fondly, but I haven't watched it as much as others. While I adore it for its visual achievements and world-building, I just didn't have the energy to revisit it more often. Regardless, I was interested in returning to this virtual universe, mainly because of the involvement of Reeves and Lana Wachowski. With that in mind, let's take the red pill and see if this long-awaited sequel is worth the trip back to the source. It has been twenty years since the events of "The Matrix Revolutions", and Neo (Reeves) is living his ordinary life under his real identity, Thomas A. Anderson. He's occasionally visited his therapist (Harris) to counteract the hallucinations he encounters with the blue pills. He also meets a woman who appears to be Trinity (Moss), although they don't recognize each other. One day, he encounters a new version of Morpheus (Abdul-Mateen II), who leads Neo to discover that he's inside the Matrix, a virtual world where anything is possible… and more dangerous than before. With a new enemy on the rise, Neo teams up with a group of rebels, including a gunslinger named Bugs (Henwick), to save Trinity from the Matrix. "The Matrix" is the latest classic franchise to be revived with a long-awaited sequel that continues the main story and unites the old characters with some new blood. More importantly, it's packed with plenty of nostalgic elements that remind us why we love the original in the first place. It's a try-and-true formula that's proven to be successful for other sequels like "Jurassic World", the "Star Wars" sequel trilogy, and recently "Ghostbusters: Afterlife", and it's not going away anytime soon. The "Matrix" trilogy is known for combining sci-fi action elements with underlying themes involving religion, mythology, and philosophy. The same applies to "Resurrections", which offers bits of commentary of choice vs. control and, occasionally, franchise revivals. Unfortunately, those themes were sadly overshadowed by its conventional narrative that lacked the energetic and ground-breaking flair of the 1999 classic. But, of course, it wasn't without a few moments that would surely impress several "Matrix" fans, such as its visual style. The Wachowskis are usually known for providing unique visual presentations in the production designs and action sequences, with the prime examples being "The Matrix" and "Speed Racer". So it's no surprise to see that "Resurrections" had a few nifty visuals that capture the grim and imaginative world of the Matrix. Again, they're not going to change the blockbuster world like the original, but for the most part, the visuals in the setting and action looked nice. The fact that Lana Wachowski managed to represent this world without her sister made it even more impressive in my eyes. The film had some of the original cast reprising the roles that made them famous, such as Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss. Their performances as Neo and Trinity, respectively, were as engaging as they were in the previous installments, especially Reeves, who proves that he never lost his Neo mojo. It also featured some fresh faces that play new characters, like Henwick as Bugs and Harris as The Analyst, and characters that the other actors previously portrayed. The prominent examples of the latter are Yahya Abdul-Mateen II replacing Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus and Jonathan Groff as Agent Smith, previously played by Hugo Weaving in the trilogy. Some of the franchise's fans weren't extremely happy with these changes, but I honestly didn't mind them at all since these actors played their roles very well. Jessica Henwick also proved to be a tolerable addition as Bugs, even though she didn't do much to make herself stand out above the new characters. As for its flaws, I think the filmmakers only made the sequel to appease the fans and capitalize on Reeves' recent success with the "John Wick" films. Instead of coming up with a plot that rivals the trilogy, "Resurrections" relied on a screenplay that relies on traditional blockbuster aspects and struggles to balance sci-fi action with its thought-provoking themes. The storyline is a straightforward and trippy rescue mission that's not only surprisingly underwhelming but also unnecessarily overlong. "Resurrections" offered a runtime of two hours and 28 minutes, making this the longest film in the franchise. What made the runtime unbearable for me was its second act. While the first and third acts were somewhat entertaining, I had a difficult time keeping myself awake during the middle part of the film, primarily because of how long it took to keep the plot going and how dull it was. Maybe that's why I didn't revisit the previous films more often? The action scenes were usually one of the best aspects of the franchise regarding its choreography and direction, so I was surprised to see that the fight sequences in "Resurrections" were somehow tame compared to the previous films. They're still enjoyable to watch, but none of them stand out as memorable, extraordinary, or even nail-biting. Overall, "The Matrix Resurrections" is a grimly gorgeous and underwhelming return to the source that changed the action genre more than 20 years ago. Despite its suitable cast and visual style, the sci-fi action sequel lacked the cleverness and intrigue that made the franchise special in the first place. This was due to its mediocre screenplay, excessive runtime, average direction, and dull second act. This is a long-awaited revival that should give long-time fans what they wanted this holiday season but may not offer much else to make it a triumphant comeback for the iconic sci-fi series. Can we go back to seeing Keanu Reeves in "John Wick", please? C
0 Comments
“Rumble” stars Will Arnett, Geraldine Viswanathan, Terry Crews, Fred Melamed, Charles Barkley, Chris Eubank, and Bridget Everett. Released on Paramount+ on December 15, 2021, the film has a young woman managing an amateur monster wrestler. The film featured the directorial debut of Hamish Grieve, who served as a story artist in the animation department for movies like “Shrek 2”, “Monsters vs. Aliens”, and “Rise of the Guardians”. It is loosely based on the graphic novel Monster on the Hill by Rob Harrell. It’s no mystery that kaiju fights and wrestling go hand in hand. They’re both exciting pieces of entertainment, and they provide massive destruction in the process. What’s not to love? So I was shocked to see that it took them this long to make a movie based on this combination. The film marks the latest feature from Paramount Animation, an animation division that’s struggling to find success outside of the SpongeBob movies. Even its two original films, “Monster Trucks” and “Wonder Park”, failed to make an impression both critically and financially. This year, we see Paramount Animation placing its bets on a film adaptation of Rob Harrell’s graphic novel that combines kaiju monsters with WWE wrestling. It was originally set for a theatrical release before Paramount decided to move it to Paramount+, which is probably for the best considering the failures of its previous theatrical outings. Plus, they don’t have to worry too much about losing any more money, although they have to be concerned about gaining them. Aside from that, was the film able to provide a monstrous knockout for its target audience? Let’s find out. The film is set in a world where humans coexist with giant monsters. The monsters are seen as superstar athletes who compete in a global professional sport called Monster Wrestling. The story’s main focus is on Winnie Coyle (Viswanathan), an 18-year-old woman who seeks to follow in her father’s footsteps as a Monster Wrestling manager. Her first step in achieving her goal led her to coach Steve (Arnett), a giant red reptilian monster and an inexperienced amateur wrestler. Unfortunately, these two don’t see eye to eye as Steve would rather be lazy than do anything active like wrestling. Winnie will have to use her managing skills to transform Steve into a professional wrestler to compete against reigning champion Tentacular (Crews) for the top prize. Think of this film as a combination of “Godzilla” and “Rocky Balboa”, two classic films that feature hard-hitting action and crowd-pleasing moments, with a dose of kid-friendly humor to boot. I enjoy both of these movies for those reasons, so it was no surprise that I was willing to watch this one. Unfortunately, it took me at least a week to get into it for a specific reason. I was planning on watching it with my mother on Paramount+, but due to the circumstances beyond my control and the app not working on my smart TV, I had to watch “Rumble” alone on my computer. So, mom, if you’re reading this, this review’s for you, and I hope we get a chance to watch it together soon. As I mentioned earlier, Paramount Animation has an unfortunate streak of providing intriguing ideas that sadly didn’t connect with viewers regarding their execution and direction. To me, it’s like cooking. You have a recipe for something that would’ve been heavenly delicious, but the misinterpretation of the ingredients can lead to a dish that tastes like a kaiju’s butt. In other words, I understand what they’re going for, but despite the entertainment value presented in the films, their storytelling is tough to swallow. Unsurprisingly, “Rumble” marks the latest film from the animation studio to fit into that category. It’s a by-the-numbers and subpar underdog story that struggled to make it past the second round. While a couple of bright spots prevented it from getting knocked out, “Rumble” didn’t provide anything beyond its cliched plot to attract a wider audience. I think kids and specific fans of WWE wrestling may find it to be a passable diversion, but anyone else outside of that target audience? Probably not. The film had plenty of opportunities that would’ve made it special, such as Winnie being a female coach and the consequence of greed over respect. Plus, there’s a heartfelt message about focusing on what you could be rather than letting other people think you should be, which should resonate with a younger audience. However, the film played itself too safe by following every move in the wrestling film playbook and rushing through certain plot elements. So if you’re looking for a champion that rivals Disney or even DreamWorks Animation regarding storytelling quality, which is funny since director Hamish Grieve is a veteran for the latter, “Rumble” isn’t the one. Although, I wouldn’t count it out yet as it had a couple of things that I happened to like. One of them is the voice cast, who did a pretty decent job with their performances despite their characters being mostly forgettable. Will Arnett is about as “Will Arnett-y” as you can imagine as he delivered some charming voice work as Steve. It’s not his best work in his career regarding animation roles, but he made a tolerable effort to make Steve enjoyable regardless. “Blockers” star Geraldine Viswanathan was also solid as the voice of Winnie. Was it bad that this film and “Blockers” were the only ones that made me recognize Viswanathan’s talents? As for Terry Crews as Tentacular, all I can say was that he played the role effectively, but his character was the worst part of the film, in my opinion. The film attempted to make Tentacular a selfish and unforgiving antagonist who hates being in someone’s shadow and cares more about being the sport’s champion than the people’s champion. The problem with that is that the charm in his mean-spiritedness was completely nonexistent, resulting in him being a character that I want to perform a pile driver on a thousand times. I get what they’re trying to do, but to be honest, it’s tough to make unsympathetic characters likable, especially villains, and Tentacular is one of the examples of that situation. But, of course, the film also had a couple of guest stars from the wrestling community since it is produced by WWE Studios, such as Becky Lynch and Roman Reigns, just in case you’re a fan of the sport. Another element that I was impressed with was the animation. Even though the story wasn’t top-tier, I have to give the film credit for providing a vibrant and frenetic style that matched the scope of the environment and the wrestling sequences. Plus, the monster designs were nicely detailed and unique. It didn’t come close to matching the animation quality of Reel FX’s previous production, “The Book of Life”, but it was nice to see the animators put some effort into the visuals, especially with a concept like this. The film’s humor was also fine for the most part. Not all of the jokes presented managed to make me guffaw like a monster, but there were a few moments in its comedy that put a smile on my face. Overall, “Rumble” had a couple of merits in its cast and animation work, but they weren’t enough to help it survive the match. It’s not the worst film that Paramount+ offered this year, but it is another missed opportunity to get Paramount Animation back into the animation game. With its formulaic story, pacing issues, mediocre characters, and a lack of solid depth, the film missed the chance to score the championship belt and had to settle with a bronze trophy instead. If you have Paramount+ and are looking for something to watch with the kids besides “PAW Patrol” and “Clifford”, “Rumble” serves as an okay diversion. It’s not perfect, and it’s not terrible either. It was just an OK kids movie with giant monsters and wrestling—nothing more, and nothing less. C-“West Side Story” stars Ansel Elgort, Rachel Zegler, Ariana DeBose, David Alvarez, Mike Faist, Corey Stoll, Brian d’Arcy James, and Rita Moreno. Released on December 10, 2021, the film has two teenagers from different street gangs falling in love in 1950s New York City. The film was directed by Steven Spielberg, who also directed films such as “Jaws”, “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, “Jurassic Park”, and “Saving Private Ryan”. It is based on the Broadway musical of the same name by Leonard Bernstein, Arthur Laurents, Jerome Robbins, and Stephen Sondheim. Hollywood sure loves music these days, especially during awards season. Throughout the year’s fourth quarter, I’ve seen a few musicals that managed to enchant me with their catchy songs and storytelling, primarily last month’s “Tick, Tick…Boom”. Today, we see this streak coming to an end, and it’s up to the great Steven Spielberg to conclude it with a bang. His latest film revisits the iconic stage musical that’s best described as Romeo and Juliet in the 1950s. Of course, this isn’t the first time the musical was adapted for the big screen. Directors Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins had translated the play into a full-length feature back in 1961, which proved to be just as successful as its source material. That film was so popular that it won 10 out of 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, the most in movie musical history. Sixty years later, Spielberg is looking to repeat history with his own take on the story that’s as historic as William Shakespeare. As you all may have known, any film that the filmmaker is involved in is an instant must-see for me, and this film is no exception despite my lack of experience with the musical. Was it able to make us fall in love with the source material all over again? Let’s find out. The film is set in 1950s New York City, where two street gangs fight for control of San Juan Hill on Manhattan’s West Side. The two gangs are the Jets, a white gang led by Riff (Faist), and the Sharks, a group of Puerto Ricans led by Bernardo (Alvarez). One day, at a school dance, a young woman from the Sharks, Maria (Zegler), meets and falls in love with Tony (Elgort), a Jet member. Their relationship puts a massive strain on the two gangs that will stop at nothing to break them apart. Tony and Maria will have to keep their love alive amid their rivalry. Like the 1961 version, the story offered plenty of familiar elements from Shakespeare’s timeless tragedy but had a few differences to make it stand out from the Shakespearian tale that inspired it. As I mentioned earlier, I had not seen the musical and had not watched the 1961 film, so consider this my first experience with the source material. I went into this film having strong confidence that Spielberg would make this experience memorable for me, and to no one’s surprise, the cinematic master has done just that. As a film adaptation, “West Side Story” is a beautifully made and infectious musical that honors the source material’s social themes and narrative. As a film that stands on its own, it’s an engaging and heartfelt tragedy about a doomed love that shines in the middle of hatred and selfishness. If you happened to watch the Broadway musical or the original film, or even both, you’d pretty much know how the story will turn out in the end. However, that doesn’t make the journey even less emotional or nostalgic for its fans. The way I see “West Side Story”, I believe that people who grew up with the other adaptations would adore the heck out of Spielberg’s version. For newcomers like myself, they’ll enjoy it because of Spielberg’s old-fashioned style, the music, and relatable storytelling. I happened to find it relatable because of how poorly specific people from different heritages are treated, especially in the 50s. The love between Tony and Maria was the only thing that lit up the darkness, only to be destroyed by the two groups’ selfish beliefs. This narrative should be seen as a warning about what would happen if this hatred didn’t cease. Whether that is the case or not, I found the film to be a thought-provoking and tragic love story that didn’t rely on sugarcoating its themes. While the film did drag a bit thanks to its 156-minute runtime, it ran at a respectable pace while delivering plenty of immersion and flair in its musical numbers and production design. More importantly, the cast managed to keep things both entertaining and lively. Even though Ansel Elgort’s performance wasn’t anything too special, he was still able to provide a shining moment or two every time he was on screen. Rachel Zegler, who made her first feature film debut, was honestly one of the best parts of “West Side Story”. From her impressive acting talent to her beautiful singing, Zegler made a successful leap from YouTube to the big screen. She’s already attached to star in two more films in the future, such as the live-action adaptation of “Snow White”, and I’m already interested in seeing if she can continue that trend with those roles. Ariana DeBose also did a great job with her role as Anita, and Rita Moreno, who played Anita in the 1961 film, was definitely awards-worthy regarding her performance as Valentina. Another element that impressed me the most was its cinematography. If there’s one thing that Spielberg is good at nowadays, it’s providing a style that combines old-school cinema with modern aesthetics. This has to be one of the best-looking films the director has made. The lighting, the wide-angle shots, pretty much everything perfectly resembled the look and feel of watching a film from the good old days. I don’t think I can describe anything else about it other than the fact that it’s so darn beautiful to witness. The music also played a big part in “West Side Story”, which makes sense since it is a musical. As a newcomer, I thought the music was superb. Leonard Bernstein’s musical score was full of energy and life, and Spielberg handled the musical numbers exceptionally well. These scenes gave off a suitable feeling of watching a Broadway musical coming to life without going far-fetched with their presentations. I also happened to enjoy the dancing sequences, mainly due to Justin Peck’s choreography, even though some of them were a part of the film’s beefy length. Overall, Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” sang and danced its way to my heart and soul with its beauty and ambition in tow. Aside from its length and Elgort’s less-than-stellar performance, the film is an excellent piece of musical cinema that’s gorgeous in its scope and emotionally riveting in its narrative. With its remarkable cast, Spielberg’s direction, great cinematography, strong plot, and entertaining musical numbers, “West Side Story” concludes 2021’s slate of movie musicals on a satisfying note, or should I say, “musical note”? If you grew up watching the 1961 film or if you’re a fan of Spielberg’s other works, this film is definitely worth checking out this holiday season. A-"Spider-Man: No Way Home" stars Tom Holland, Zendaya, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei, Benedict Wong, Jamie Foxx, and Alfred Molina. Released on December 17, 2021, the film has Peter Parker teaming up with Dr. Strange to save the world. The film is directed by Jon Watts, who also directed "Clown", "Cop Car", "Spider-Man: Homecoming", and "Spider-Man: Far From Home". It is the 27th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Spider-Man has been having one heck of a journey in the MCU since he entered the scene in "Captain America: Civil War". He battled the super-soldier, went toe-to-toe against Vulture and Mysterio, helped the Avengers defeat Thanos, and gained himself a girlfriend in the form of Zendaya. His recent adventures have proven to be more successful than the webhead's previous outings from Sam Raimi and Marc Webb. This year, we see the titular hero facing a challenge that's more frightening than choosing the right college: the multiverse. Oh, and being New York's public enemy #1. What more can I say about Spider-Man's latest adventure other than the fact that it's finally here? Ever since we saw Mysterio gain the last laugh in "Far From Home", we've been patiently waiting to see what happens next for Peter and his friends after his secret has been exposed in front of everyone. After months of speculation, theories, and teases, we can finally witness the most pivotal part of Peter's story arc, which also happens to be the most ambitious and mature installment in his solo film series. There were obvious reasons why I was very excited for this film: I enjoyed the previous MCU Spider-Man films, the multiverse concept, and the return of several villains from the past movies. If those weren't enough to get me hooked, I don't know what will. Now that it's here to invade the holiday season, was it able to conclude Peter's journey on an exciting note? More importantly, was it good enough to "save" movie theaters? Let's find out. Also, this will be a spoiler-free review so that you readers can experience it yourselves. The story takes place immediately after "Far From Home", where Peter Parker's (Holland) secret identity as Spider-Man had been exposed by Mysterio. To add more salt to the wound, he's been branded as a menace to society and is falsely accused of Mysterio's death. As a result, Peter's life and reputation are spiraling out of control, and the lives of his closest friends and family are put at risk, including his girlfriend MJ (Zendaya). Peter then seeks the help of Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) to restore his identity with magic. However, the catch is that everyone will forget he's Spider-Man, including MJ, his friend Ned (Batalon), and his Aunt May (Tomei), which concerns Peter. Peter's interference with Strange's spell accidentally opened up the multiverse, as if the season finale of "Loki" wasn't enough to make it happen. This also unleashed several supervillains from alternate realities who previously fought their versions of Spider-Man, such as Dr. Otto Octavious (Molina) and the Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe). With the universe in danger of elimination, Peter, Dr. Strange, and his friends join forces to restore the multiverse and defeat the world's most dangerous criminals. Peter will learn what it truly means to be Spider-Man during the process. The film has many expectations to meet to provide the same riveting experience as "Avengers: Endgame". Not only did it need a scope that offers life-or-death stakes and blockbuster action, but it also needed a story that takes the characters in bold and emotional directions. More importantly, it had to maintain the humor and heart that made the previous MCU Spider-Man films…well, amazing. Add in some fan service, and you get a massive superhero recipe that could swing in either direction regarding the execution. This was an extremely tall order for "No Way Home" to handle, especially after what happened with "Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", two sequels that failed to live up to their predecessors. Thankfully, and unsurprisingly, "No Way Home" managed to rip that unfortunate trend apart in more ways than one. Yes, my fellow webheads, I'm delighted to say that the hype is real. From its emotional story to the multiverse concept, "No Way Home" is not only another fantastic Spider-Man sequel but also one of the best Marvel Cinematic Universe sequels ever. Does it beat out "Spider-Man 2" as my favorite Spider-Man sequel? Eh, almost. But, I will say it's way better than "Spider-Man 3" and "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". Two of the reasons why are the story and Jon Watts's direction. Without giving too much away, I thought the story worked exceptionally well in balancing the thought-provoking drama with the fan service and superhero action. Some may argue that the pacing in-between the action felt a bit slow, and the finale followed the usual formula of providing visually-grand showdowns. However, Jon Watts (who directed the previous Spider-Man installments) managed to make these issues tolerable by delivering plenty of narrative surprises that rightfully earn their tears and cheers. More importantly, the fan service presented in "No Way Home" didn't feel too forced as they properly serve as the main aspects of its themes and characterization. Another reason was the main actors and the chemistry between them. Three movies in, and they still never lost that charismatic spark. Holland, Zendaya, and Batalon were again superb as Peter, MJ, and Ned, respectively, regarding their performances and the comedy. The MCU's Spider-Man films have always impressed me with the character's coming-of-age journey of heroism as well as Holland's stellar portrayal, and "No Way Home" is no exception. I hope we see more of this representation later on, if not soon. Benedict Cumberbatch was also excellent in his role as Doctor Strange, and Alfred Molina proved himself to be the best live-action depiction of Otto Octavius. The cast's chemistry is an element that honors the phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". It was highly entertaining in the previous installments, and it was highly engaging here. The character interactions helped keep things interesting amid its world-saving plot, and they delivered plenty of well-earned laughs and depth, especially in the film's second half. As usual, the action sequences were what you expect out of a Spider-Man movie: intense, nicely choreographed, and visually striking, especially when Strange's magic comes into play. While I wouldn't say which sequence was my favorite because I don't want to provide any spoilers, I will say that the action hits hard in its emotion without losing the essence of fun in the process. Overall, "Spider-Man: No Way Home" did whatever a spider can to deliver the franchise's biggest and most ambitious sequel to date. The result is a spectacular web-swinging experience that honors the Marvel character and his fans while providing an emotional and satisfying chapter in Peter's journey. The film swung its way to the top and accomplished something that no other Spider-Man sequel could: form a near-perfect trilogy featuring our friendly neighborhood wall-crawler. I guess you can say that it's an early Christmas gift that Spider-Man fans, young and old, will love. I should know because I was one of them. I'm glad to see the tremendous effort put into this blockbuster, and I can surely bet that you will be too. A"Diary of a Wimpy Kid" stars Brady Noon, Ethan William Childress, Chris Diamantopoulos, Hunter Dillon, Christian Converey, and Erica Cerra. Released on Disney+ on December 3, 2021, the film has a boy attempting to survive middle school. The film was directed by Swinton Scott, who directed episodes for shows like "Futurama", "The Simpsons", "The Looney Tunes Show", and "God, the Devil and Bob". It is a reboot of the Diary of a Wimpy Kid film series, which is based on the 2007 book of the same name by Jeff Kinney. Life is full of many challenges that test us both physically and mentally. However, none of them are as challenging as surviving middle school. Just ask the kid with the diary. Oh, sorry, I mean his "journal". Disney+ had revived another successful family-friendly franchise from 20th Century Fox last weekend. This time, it's a film series that humorously depicts the struggling days as a middle schooler: "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". Following its string of successful books, the series transitioned to the big screen in 2010 with a live-action adaptation of the first novel. Despite the mixed reviews, the film was a big enough hit to spawn three more installments until the series got canned by Fox. After the release of "The Long Haul" and the acquisition of Fox, Disney gave the franchise a shot at redemption by starting it over from scratch and giving it a new makeover. I didn't mind the "Wimpy Kid" movies growing up, especially the 2010 film. Sure, they don't have award-winning stories, but they usually compensate with their charming cast and humor. "The Long Haul"? Not so much. So I was hoping that Disney's take on the source material would turn things around and not wind up like its recent "Home Alone" film last month. Was it popular enough to lure in newcomers and long-time fans, or was it just as wimpy as its main character? Let's head back to middle school and find out. The story follows Greg Heffley (Noon), a boy who is about to start middle school with his best friend Rowley Jefferson (Childress). Greg then feels pressured as he's worried that Rowley's childish tendencies will get them bullied and ruin his chance to become famous. To keep his dream alive, Greg will have to endure every mishap known to kid-kind, such as the dreaded "Cheese Touch", his ungrateful brother Rodrick (Dillon), and Rowley's child-like behavior. Like the 2010 film, the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" reboot adapts the first book in the series, seeing Greg and Rowley in their first year of middle school. As a result, it can feel like you're just watching the first live-action film again, but with a different style and a surprisingly short runtime. I'll get to the latter later on. Director Swinton Scott and "Wimpy Kid" author Jeff Kinney (who wrote and produced the film) were given the task to reintroduce the source material to newcomers and the fans of the live-action films. It's a task that usually determines the fate of a film franchise with a similar direction, especially if that franchise is about a frail child. As someone who watched the previous films, I'd say that the animated "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" offered pretty much what I would expect. It's a comical series of predicaments with the two characters dealing with adolescence and ungrateful teens. Unfortunately, the film didn't deliver anything else beyond that point. Regarding its plot, "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is a series of interconnected shorts stitched together to resemble a "film". While it did feature some humorous moments, the storytelling was a bit of a mess with its rushed pacing and weak character development. Everything just went by without a care in the world, which might be suitable for viewers with short attention spans, but it can also be a pain for those who want expanded storytelling. It isn't without its charm and messages about friendship and standing up for what's right, but they didn't last as long as the moldy cheese in the school playground. Luckily, I managed to find a couple of things that kept the film from being a complete embarrassment. One of them is the voice cast. Brady Noon and Ethan William Childress did an impressive job voicing Greg and Rowley, respectively, who Zachery Gordon and Robert Capron portrayed in the first three films. They suitably captured the distinct personalities of the two pals, even though one of them can be a pain to sit through. Spoiler alert: I'm talking about Greg. Greg is someone you would give a wedgie to in terms of his selfish persona. Throughout the film, he attempts to become popular in school and force Rowley to "grow up", leading him to take advantage of Rowley constantly. Central characters like him can be tricky to represent, especially in a family film. I don't mind them being jerks most of the time. It's just that they need to have a certain charm to their jerkiness to make them likable. Unfortunately, Greg struggled to fit that description. Another element I enjoyed was the animation provided by Bardel Entertainment. This was the first entry in the film series to feature CGI animation, an idea formed by Jeff Kinney himself as he wanted to feel like his books were "coming to life". Compared to the other animated films from Disney, there's nothing groundbreaking about its style. Still, it accomplished its goal in reimagining Kinney's character designs and environments uniquely. It's as simplistic and effortful as "The Peanuts Movie", even though it lacked the vast imagination of the latter. Aside from its average story and characters, the only flaw that baffled me was its runtime, which clocked in at precisely 58 minutes. I'm not joking. The movie is literally under an hour long, around the same length as an episode of a show on a streaming service. It's acceptable for specific viewers who are weary of films that last for more than two hours. Seriously, do you see how many movies we got this year that offer that beefy length? However, it did come with the cost of losing its sense of world-building and strong character moments. On the plus side, it does raise an interesting question of whether or not a runtime should be a factor in determining a type of content. In other words, if something is under an hour long, should it be classified as a movie or a television special, or even an episode of a Disney+ series? Overall, the 2021 reboot of "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" delivered a few moments that fans would see in the live-action films, for better or worse. Unfortunately, they may not be enough to lure in some newcomers narrative-wise. Nevertheless, it's an acceptable way to pass the time regarding its voice cast, animation, messages, and humor, especially if you liked the live-action films. Sadly, like its wimpy protagonist, its qualities prevented the movie from being as popular as the 2010 film, including its short length, average characters, and Jeff Kinney's screenplay. It's not as terrible as "The Long Haul", and it is undoubtedly not as torturous as "Home Sweet Home Alone" in terms of the Disney/Fox revivals (thank goodness), but it does mark a mediocre first step in the franchise's new direction. They're already working on the follow-ups to the reboot as of this writing, including the one based on Rodrick Rules, which arrives sometime next year. So here's hoping that they can improve upon their mistakes to regain the source material's popularity with those continuations. C |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |