"8-Bit Christmas" stars Neil Patrick Harris, Winslow Fegley, June Diane Raphael, David Cross, and Steve Zahn. Released on HBO Max on November 24, 2021, the film is about a boy who sets out to get a Nintendo Entertainment System. The film is directed by Michael Dowse, who also directed films such as "FUBAR", "Goon", "Stuber", and "Coffee & Kareem". It is based on the novel of the same name by Kevin Jakubowski. It's never too early to celebrate Christmas, especially during Thanksgiving. We all had that feeling of getting our hands on that popular item for the holidays, mainly a new gaming system. It was a feeling that had us doing whatever it takes to get that specific gift for ourselves or our loved ones. Trust me. I've been there. It's a tradition that has happened for many Christmases. The 1980s is no exception, especially when you take the Nintendo Entertainment System into account. This latest comedy from director Michael Dowse depicts a family-friendly representation of that scenario while attempting to become the next holiday classic for Warner Brothers. The film's concept got me into watching it, but it also made me skeptical due to Dowse's involvement. Following some decent movies like "Goon" and "Stuber", the filmmaker fumbled extremely hard with Netflix's "Coffee & Kareem", a tasteless film that's as painfully humorless as its title. At least, in my eyes. Dowse's recent film did look a bit more tolerable than that train wreck based on the trailer, but as usual, my expectations were kept low just in case the same didn't apply to the final result. With that said, let's see if the film is good enough to start the holidays early. The film focuses on Jake Doyle (Harris), a father who tells his daughter one of his finest childhood memories. In the late 1980s, a young Jake (Fegley) had his eyes set on Nintendo's brand new gaming system. He made it his mission to make sure that he gets the console for Christmas. Although, it is easier said than done as Jake will have to survive every obstacle imaginable to receive the ultimate prize. Think of this film as "A Christmas Story", but instead of a kid wanting a BB gun, you got a child seeking to get their hands on a video game system. At least with that, you don't have to worry about your kid shooting their eyes out. However, you do have to worry about their addiction. Warner Brothers has a pretty good track record in providing plenty of classics to spread some holiday cheer, especially for families. Whether it's films like "A Christmas Story" and "Elf" or television specials like "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer", the studio has something for everyone to watch every holiday season. Of course, it takes more than just Christmas cheer to make a film or television special a holiday tradition. It also needs a good story, plenty of humor and charm, and a tiny hint of imagination. Those are the key ingredients crucial to making this film worthy enough to earn a spot in the "Holiday Hall of Fame". Fortunately for me, "8-Bit Christmas" just happened to have those ingredients. While it doesn't reach the same heights as the other holiday classics like "Elf" or even "Home Alone", the film managed to accomplish something that "Home Sweet Home Alone" failed to do: provide a fun, nostalgic, and charismatic holiday treat for the ages. The most common flaw that would probably bug every viewer is that it shared the same plot as the 1983 holiday classic. The kid wants a popular item for Christmas and is determined to get it, with the events being narrated by the older version of that kid. That's it. Despite its unoriginality, the story in "8-Bit Christmas" has enough Christmas cheer to deliver some consistent laughs and an appealing sense of innocence. The film's screenplay by Kevin Jakubowski (the same person who wrote the novel it's based on) not only paid respectable homage to the kid-centered movies from the 1980s, but it also contained a healthy mixture of comedy and heart that's as joyful as playing Super Mario Brothers. More importantly, it had a heartfelt message that would surely resonate with many young viewers who are excited to get something for Christmas themselves. The cast did pretty well with their performances, including Neil Patrick Harris, who channeled his inner Ralphie Parker to narrate the film's events regarding his role as the adult version of Jake. Long story short, I was pleased with the final result. He's no Jean Shepherd, but he came pretty close. Winslow Fegley also did a fine job with his performance as Jake, and Steve Zahn once again proved himself to be a likable presence onscreen in terms of his role as John Doyle, Jake's father. I also appreciated Michael Dowse for not making me want to rip my ears off. The film saw Dowse seamlessly blending its sincere moments with child-like wonder and humorous dialogue, which might be more suitable for him than what he did with "Coffee & Kareem". I was slightly disappointed that he missed a huge opportunity to throw some visual video game gags into its tone. This could've been the holiday version of "Scott Pilgrim" if he'd done that. Otherwise, the humor we got now was good enough to earn my laughs. Overall, "8-Bit Christmas" is cheerful and witty enough to earn itself a high score, even though it's far from the next Christmas classic. Its derivative plot may have cost it some points, but that didn't stop me from playing this game further. This is another worthy film to watch during the holiday season thanks to its entertaining cast, Dowse's suitable direction, and its blend of comedy and heart. So if you and your family are looking for something new to watch this holiday season and have HBO Max, try giving this one a shot. It's no "Christmas Story", but it's also not something that'll rot your brain like our video games. B
0 Comments
“King Richard” stars Will Smith, Aunjanue Ellis, Saniyya Sidney, Demi Singleton, Tony Goldwyn, Jon Bernthal, and Dylan McDermott. Released on November 19, 2021, the film chronicles the father of tennis superstars Venus and Serena Williams. The film was directed by Reinaldo Marcus Green, who also directed “Monsters and Men” and “Joe Bell”. The Williams sisters are some of the greatest players in tennis history, impressing everyone with their extraordinary skills on the court. You might be wondering how they’re able to rise to the top and maintain their successful careers. Well, you can thank their father for that. This latest biographical drama is going for Oscar gold this year with its depiction of the young Williams siblings and their rise to stardom. However, the story it’s telling isn’t just from the perspectives of the sisters. It’s also from the point of view of their father, Richard Williams, who’s willing to help them reach their goals. I wasn’t overly familiar with the Williams and their careers in tennis. Heck, I don’t even watch tennis, let alone play it, but Will Smith’s involvement and strong word of mouth already made this a must-see for me. With that said, let’s see if this film is inspiring enough to score some points on the court. The story centers on Richard Williams (Smith), a father raising his two daughters, Venus (Sidney) and Serena (Singleton), along with his three step-daughters in Compton, California. The film explores his journey to train Venus and Serena to become professional tennis players. With the support of his wife Brandy (Ellis), Richard attempts to change the tennis world while maintaining his family bond. The film had a lot of stuff to cover regarding Richard and his daughters, including his training, the family drama, and Venus competing with the pros. It’s a movie that explores their determination while delivering some inspiration and craftsmanship in its story and characters. If that’s what you’re searching for, then you came to the right place. While its sports biopic formula isn’t entirely new, “King Richard” made a strong effort in representing its compelling storytelling and, more importantly, its star power. It’s a highly entertaining and incredibly thoughtful tale about a father who balances success with family despite an obstacle or two. One of the best things about the film was its depiction of Richard Williams. It portrayed Richard as an honorable and caring father regarding what’s best for his daughters, but he’s also a flawed person whose decisions didn’t appeal to everyone, especially the coaches. This added complexity to this character, making him someone that audiences, including myself, would invest in, not just Venus and Serena. The film is all about Richard’s “plan” to make his daughters champions and his journey to accomplish it. The movie handled this character with near perfection, primarily due to Zach Baylin’s screenplay and Will Smith’s incredible performance. This is possibly one of the best roles Smith has ever done regarding his commitment and nuance. Like his portrayal of Bennet Omalu in “Concussion”, Smith’s acting for Richard was so distinct that he disappeared into the role altogether. You don’t see an actor playing an actual person. You only see Richard Williams. If this doesn’t get Smith into the awards race, I can assure you there will be trouble. Aunjanue Ellis was also excellent as Brandy, and Jon Bernthal was suitably talented as Rick Macci. I would also give a massive shoutout to Saniyya Sidney and Demi Singleton for their outstanding performances as Venus and Serena, respectively, especially Sidney, who made every shining moment count. Even though the plot seemed straightforward and a bit overlong, Reinaldo Marcus Green made sure that every scene was well-paced and included a superb mixture of comedy, drama, and heart, not just for the characters but also the scenarios. If the filmmaker wasn’t recognized for his previous works, I’m willing to bet that he will for this movie. I thought Green did a fantastic job representing a story that’s both dramatic and safe without overdoing one or the other. More importantly, he provided charisma and sincerity in the cast’s chemistry, mainly Richard and his daughters. I highly enjoyed the scenes involving these characters regarding the humor and performances, which add to the film’s charm. Overall, “King Richard” made an incredible impression on the court narrative-wise and cast-wise. Despite its formula, the film managed to come out on top with its thought-provoking story, fantastic cast, solid screenplay, and Green’s superb direction. It’s a film that didn’t need to be overly serious with its themes to be a masterpiece. It just needed to be a fun, light-hearted, and uplifting experience to get audiences cheering. As long as the story is well-executed and the cast is engaging, that’s all it needed to make itself watchable, and I believe “King Richard” fits that description almost perfectly. If you’re a fan of feel-good sports movies and Will Smith himself, this film is definitely worth checking out. A-"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" stars Mckenna Grace, Finn Wolfhard, Carrie Coon, Paul Rudd, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, and Annie Potts. Released on November 19, 2021, the film has two kids discovering their connection to the original Ghostbusters. The film is directed by Jason Reitman, who also directed films such as "Juno", "Young Adult", "Tully", and "The Front Runner". It is the fourth installment in the "Ghostbusters" franchise and a direct sequel to the original "Ghostbusters" film and "Ghostbusters II". If there's something strange in your neighborhood, there's only one team for you to call. One spirit-catching group of people that's ready to believe you. That group, of course, is the Ghostbusters. After five ghost-free years, the iconic supernatural comedy franchise is suiting up once again for their big-screen comeback. Instead of following the reboot blueprint again, the series is taking a direction that should have been done 30 years ago: making an actual "Ghostbusters III". It's not to say that I have issues with the 2016 reboot. If you read my review for that film, you'll know that I had a good time watching it, and I honestly believed that the franchise's so-called "fans" unfairly judged it. Seriously, what the heck was wrong with these people? All I'm saying is that a sequel seemed like the way to go for a franchise like this. I was very eager to watch this film for multiple reasons. I loved the first two Ghostbusters films, mainly the first film, and the involvement of Jason Reitman, the son of the original film's director Ivan Reitman. Like father, like son, as we always say. However, I was also concerned with its approach, primarily the film's tone, because I was used to the light-hearted, comedic vibe that the previous movies offered. Regardless, I was more than willing to give it a shot. I mean, it can't be any worse than the backlash from the 2016 reboot, right? The story is set thirty years after "Ghostbusters II", where the original team has retired from the business, and their whereabouts are currently unknown. It centers on Callie Spengler (Coon), a single mother who's forced to move to an old farmhouse in Oklahoma after being evicted. The farmhouse was left to Callie and her two children, Phoebe (Grace) and Trevor (Wolfhard), by her late father, Egon Spengler, the former member of the Ghostbusters team. The children later discover a series of strange occurrences throughout the town of Summerville, including earthquakes and the history of the original Ghostbusters. When a phenomenon relating to the 1984 incident rises again to threaten the world, the kids, along with their teacher Chad Grooberson (Rudd) and their new friends, must take the Ghostbusters mantle to save the world and bust some ghosts. In addition to being a "passing the torch" sequel, "Afterlife" is another film that harkens back to the kid-centered adventure movies from the 1980s like "The Goonies". It also shied away from the ghost-busting business scenario for a fish-out-of-water plot about self-discovery and family, just to make itself refreshing and similar. While it works in providing a fresh coat of paint for the classic franchise, it can also run the risk of alienating specific people who enjoyed its predecessors for the light-hearted tone and energetic charm. You can quickly tell that Jason Reitman had a lot of expectations to live up to regarding his direction. Not only did he have to deliver a thoughtful tribute to the late Harold Ramis, but he also had to deliver a fun, spooky, and charismatic ride that'll make his father, long-time fans, and newcomers proud. While Reitman mostly succeeds in honoring Ramis and the Ghostbusters legacy, the latter is another story. After getting off to an impressive start thanks to its cast and horror mystery vibes, "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" slowly descents into the void of averageness that relied more on nostalgia than storytelling. It's not that the film was terrible. I'm saying that it felt like it missed plenty of stuff that made "Ghostbusters" a comedy classic, such as the humor. There were a few attempts at delivering some comedic moments, especially from Paul Rudd's Gary Grooberson. Unfortunately, the comedy wound up being as dry and cringe-worthy as Phoebe's jokes. I only chuckled a few times throughout the film, which meant it didn't quite get the balance just right. For the most part, the cast made a reasonable effort in delivering some solid performances. Mckenna Grace and Finn Wolfhard were both good as Phoebe and Trever, respectively, and Paul Rudd was a good fit as Gary despite a few rough patches in his comedy. As for the characters themselves, mainly the potential new Ghostbusters Phoebe, Trevor, Podcast (Logan Kim), and Lucky Domingo (Celeste O'Connor), I thought they were okay. While charming and intriguing in their own right, the kid actors did seem to have trouble finding the right energetic spark in their chemistry like the original Ghostbusters team. I'm sure that if they move forward with a follow-up, it'll give them a chance to improve. Until then, they all get "good try" badges from me. Jason Reitman is usually known for helming low-budget dramas throughout his career, so it should come as no surprise that a mid-budget franchise sequel would give him a lot more stuff to work with than he intended. As mentioned before, Reitman had plenty of expectations to meet regarding the film, and in my eyes, he was able to meet some of them. He provided a refreshing and grounded tone that reminisced the 1980s kid-centered sci-fi films and the original 1984 film with its production design and Rob Simonsen's musical score. Although, it wasn't enough to freshen things up entirely regarding its script and third act. The screenplay offered a few heartfelt moments that should make fans very happy, including its tribute to Ramis. However, it became clear how much the film wanted to cater to the fans when it reached the third act. Regarding its antagonist and nostalgia, the third act is a blatant retread of the original film's finale, except in a different environment. It also has some surprise appearances from the original cast that I felt could've been expanded more. Without giving too much away, I was happy to see the original Ghostbusters team sharing the screen again after 30 years, but at the same time, I was also a bit disappointed with how it was handled story-wise. It would also be nice if they came up with a new villain to maintain its freshness, but that's just me reviewing it as a critic instead of a fanboy. Overall, "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" means well in its tone and legacy. However, its mediocre execution and deliverance on fan service make this ghost-busting experience far from good. The film's cast and Reitman's direction were acceptable enough to inject some enjoyability into the long-awaited sequel. Sadly, its lack of memorable humor, weak charisma, and average script prevented it from being truly special. It's one of the films that feature some pleasant moments, but not a lot to make me want to revisit them constantly. If you love the "Ghostbusters" films, then you should have no problem calling the paranormal catchers again. C"Home Sweet Home Alone" stars Archie Yates, Ellie Kemper, Rob Delaney, Aisling Bea, Kenan Thompson, Pete Holmes, Ally Maki, and Chris Parnell. Released on Disney+ on November 12, 2021, the film has a young boy defending his home from a couple of criminals. The film was directed by Dan Mazer, who also directed "I Give It a Year", "Dirty Grandpa", and "The Exchange". It is the sixth installment in the Home Alone franchise. It looks like Hollywood still hasn't learned a dang thing regarding the franchise scenario. John Hughes' "Home Alone" has been widely considered as one of the best holiday classics of all time. From Macaulay Culkin's charismatic performance to its slapstick comedy, the film has brought joy and mayhem to many generations of people since 1990. Its success birthed a franchise that spawned two theatrical sequels, two made-for-TV movies, and video games. Unfortunately, none of its successors failed to copy the same charm as the original. After buying 20th Century Fox and its franchise, Disney announced a new "Home Alone" film for Disney+ with a new cast of characters, much to the dismay of its fans. While I was less enthusiastic about this one considering my love for the franchise, I was willing to check it out because of Archie Yates, who made his impressive debut in Taika Waititi's "Jojo Rabbit" two years ago. Plus, it was released as part of the second anniversary of Disney+'s launch, so I had to honor that occasion by reviewing one of its recent releases, for better or worse. So, was the film able to provide some early holiday cheer for its viewers, or was it another unnecessary revival that's as painful as its traps? Let's find out. If you grew up with the "Home Alone" franchise, you'd already know what the story in "Home Sweet Home Alone" is about. If not, then allow me to clarify. The film centers on Max Mercer (Yates), a ten-year-old boy who lives with his family in the suburbs. One day, he is accidentally left behind at home for the holidays when his family leaves for a vacation to Tokyo. Max is happy to see that he can do whatever he wants without any consequences. Sadly, his "alone time" didn't last long as his home was being invaded by a husband-wife duo, Pam (Kemper) and Jeff McKenzie (Delaney). These burglars are seeking to steal a priceless heirloom that lies inside Max's house. Max will have to be the man of the house and protect his home by setting up traps for the unexpected guests. If there's one thing the film is good for, it's that it somehow stays true to the original's premise regarding its elements. You got a kid who's sick of his family and is accidentally left home alone, and a bunch of criminals being tortured by the kid's booby traps. But as we all know at this point, "Home Alone" is more than just those things. It's a charming, funny, and thoughtful story about the importance of family during the holidays. Even though they can be annoying sometimes, it's always better to live with them than without them. The film's sequels attempted to recapture lightning in the bottle but wound up being more torturous than the traps shown, with each one being more unbearable than the last. So it should come as no surprise that "Home Sweet Home Alone" fits snuggly into that category. Despite its effort to recapture the original's formula and a couple of interesting ideas, the latest installment in the "Home Alone" franchise is a dull, painful, and charmless gift that contains a bunch of coal instead of Christmas cheer. The culprits for this crime were the film's director, Dan Mazer, and screenwriters Mikey Day and Streeter Seidell. They thought they knew what made "Home Alone" a classic based on the traps, John Williams' memorable score, and its themes. Unfortunately, they do not. Mazer's direction failed to provide any strong charisma and energy into the characters and scenarios, and the screenplay favored more on the slapstick that barely had a soul or even an unforgettable chuckle. Maybe hiring someone who helmed a movie about a foul-mouthed grandpa to direct a family film wasn't the best idea Disney had made. However, I would honestly give it credit for injecting some sympathy into Jeff and Pam, the film's "antagonists". Jeff and Pam are parents who are in debt and are on the verge of selling their house. They seek to save themselves and their children by retrieving a rare and priceless doll they thought Max stole. In my opinion, it was an acceptable approach to make its viewers care about these characters as much as Max. Sadly, the problem was that the direction and the characters were not that great. There was some potential to be had with this idea, but the fact that Max's family problem felt unrewarding and the couple's situation was roughly formulaic made things even more troubling than being left alone. I thought Archie Yates did okay in his role as Max, even though his character wasn't as lovable or charming as Macaulay Culkin's Kevin. Rob Delaney and Ellie Kemper struggled to hit the same chemistry marks as Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern from the original regarding their roles as Jeff and Pam. Also, Kenan Thompson is in the film as a real estate agent for people who enjoyed him in his other movies. The film also saw the return of Devin Ratray, who reprised his role as Kevin's brother Buzz from the first two "Home Alone" installments, with the character working as a police officer. While it would be cool to see Culkin's Kevin appear in the movie as well, it was a nice treat seeing Kevin's ungrateful brother being his usual self while in uniform. Too bad he wasn't enough to keep the film company while its charm was away to who knows where. I also want to point out that Max's family was pretty darn annoying. There's always a fine line between charm and nuisance when it comes to characters like them, and Max's family just happened to snap that line in two. It's a good thing they don't share the same screen time as the main characters. Overall, "Home Sweet Home Alone" is an unpleasant and humorless sequel that'll leave many viewers feeling homesick during the holidays. It had a couple of fresh ideas that could've worked well in its favor. Unfortunately, those ideas were tortured by its cast, Mazer's direction, mediocre characters, and flat humor. Not only was it the worst movie to come out on Disney+ since "Artemis Fowl", but it's also a vastly unworthy follow-up that could leave a massive dent on John Hughes' beloved franchise. If you're in a mood for something that spreads laughs and holiday cheer, you're better off watching the original "Home Alone" film, which is also available on Disney+. If you're still interested in seeing it despite my review, you're still free to do so. Who knows? Maybe you might like it more than I did? F“The French Dispatch” stars Benicio del Toro, Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, Léa Seydoux, Frances McDormand, Timothée Chalamet, Lyna Khoudri, Jeffrey Wright, Bill Murray, and Owen Wilson. Released on October 22, 2021, the film centers on a collection of stories from an American newspaper. The film was written and directed by Wes Anderson, who also directed films such as "The Royal Tenenbaums", "The Darjeeling Limited", "Moonrise Kingdom", and "Isle of Dogs". Newspapers are a great way to get caught up with the latest news and stories written by determined journalists. Nowadays, we rely on our screens to get information on the events happening throughout the world. But back then, newspapers were where it's at when it comes to…well, the news. This film harkens back to those days. This latest film from acclaimed director Wes Anderson has been on my mind for quite some time since it was announced. It's got an enormous list of recognizable actors, an artistic filmmaker, and an approach of putting three mini-stories in one package. These reasons alone were good enough for me to check it out, especially since Anderson impressed me with his previous works. Seriously, that guy's a genius when it comes to his creative style and production design. With that said, let's see if this final issue is worth reading. The film follows the workers of a fictional Kansas newspaper known as The French Dispatch. When its editor, Arthur Howitzer Jr. (Murray), suddenly dies of a heart attack, the employees set out to publish one final issue before closure as the last request from Howitzer. Three different articles are republished from past editions: The Concrete Masterpiece, Revisions to a Manifesto, and The Private Dining Room of the Police Commissioner. If you can't already tell from the plot, it's an anthology film representing several mini-stories centered on many different bizarre characters. Reviewing each of the three "articles" would probably take me all day, so I'm just going to talk about the overall film as best as possible. This is a quirky and straightforward collection that celebrates the world of newspaper journalism through the artistic eyes of Wes Anderson. While it didn't hit the same targets as his previous films, like "The Grand Budapest Hotel" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox", I still admired the distinctive craftsmanship that Anderson brought on screen. His direction provided a unique balance of oddball comedy and drama packed with energy, visuals, Alexandre Desplat's fantastic score, and the enthusiastic cast. The actors onscreen did a tremendous job with their performances, which is expected since most of them worked with Anderson before. Benicio del Toro, Timothée Chalamet, and Jeffrey Wright were the best of the bunch as Moses Rosenthaler, Zeffirelli, and Roebuck Wright, respectively, especially Wright. I'm telling you, Jeffrey Wright has a remarkable talent for providing compelling narration. Please get him more gigs like this in the future. The cinematography by Robert D. Yeoman perfectly captures the essence of a 1940s-like movie in France. The majority of the mini-stories were shown in black-and-white, with a few occasional colored shots to showcase some necessary sequences. There were also a couple of moments where they switched from full screen to widescreen and vice versa. Thankfully, they're used as a tool to represent the film's artistry in the designs. Speaking of which, I'm willing to bet that the film should get some recognition for the production values. Not only did it accurately showcase France in the 1940s, but it also offered an impressive mixture of practical props and visual effects. The way they moved specific backgrounds onscreen was highly similar to how it's performed on a stage. It gave me a feeling of watching a play on Broadway with actual people playing their parts in front of backgrounds resembling a building's interiors. If there's one thing I learned from Anderson, it's that he knows how to combine filmmaking with the art of theatre. As for the film's story, I surprisingly found it to be divisive. The film is just the newspaper team making one final publication and nothing else. The articles themselves were fascinating to witness despite some pacing issues. However, I did feel that people who went into this film blind may be confused about the goal Anderson's attempting to accomplish. In my eyes, I thought Anderson did a pretty decent job resembling his film as a love letter to journalism, even though the story couldn't match his superb artistic style. Overall, "The French Dispatch" is another visual treat that's worth a read for Wes Anderson enthusiasts. While its flaws were reasonably easy to spot on paper, such as its plot and pacing, the film shines in its artistic serenity and quirky enthusiasm. "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", and "Isle of Dogs" are still my favorite films from Anderson. However, I will still call this a worthy piece of cinematic art from the imaginative director. If it's playing at a theater near you and you loved some of Anderson's other works, it's worth checking out. B |
Home of the most friendly movie reviews on the planet.
Categories
All
Follow Me |