​“Something Wicked This Way Comes” stars Jason Robards, Jonathan Pryce, Diane Ladd, and Pam Grier.  Released on April 29, 1983, the film follows two young boys as they encounter a mysterious carnival led by its ominous host.

The film was directed by Jack Clayton, who directed films such as “The Bespoke Overcoat”, “The Innocents”, “The Pumpkin Eater”, and “The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne”.  It is based on the 1962 novel by Ray Bradbury, who also wrote the screenplay for the movie.  The 1980s are often regarded as the “dark age” for the Walt Disney Company.  After providing family-friendly content, particularly in animation, the studio adopted a more mature approach in its films, introducing numerous adult themes and unsettling imagery that could scar young viewers for life.  The outcome was a mixed bag at best, with most of the films from that decade failing to recoup their production budgets as Disney had anticipated.  However, the studio did deliver a few underrated gems that haunt our memories, especially those in the live-action department.  

One notable film was an adaptation of Ray Bradbury’s 1962 novel, which featured two best friends encountering plenty of spooky stuff from a traveling carnival.  It was plagued by troubling production issues, including rewrites, reshoots, and editing struggles.  Its repeated production slates didn’t translate into a healthy box office run, though it did receive some mixed reviews, which was better than nothing.  However, it didn’t get the re-release treatment until forty years later, debuting on Blu-ray as a Disney Movie Club exclusive in 2021, back when it was a thing.  Four years later, this long-forgotten Disney fright-fest finally became available for the first time on Disney+.  Better late than never, I suppose.  Now that we have another overlooked piece of Disney memorabilia available, was this wickedness worth experiencing again or for the first time?  Let’s find out. 

The story revolves around two best friends living next door to each other in Green Town, Illinois: the reclusive Will Halloway (Vidal Peterson) and the rebellious Jim Nightshade (Shawn Carson).  After serving time in after-school detention, the boys hear the news about a carnival coming to their town, sparking their curiosity to investigate.  Upon their arrival, Will and Jim encounter a series of strange and eerie occurrences surrounding the enigmatic carnival, including its ominous manager, Mr. Dark (Pryce), and a carousel that contains mysterious powers.  They soon learn that Mr. Dark holds the ability to fulfill people’s desires, but he is also a malevolent entity who feeds off the life force of those he enslaves.  This revelation leads the boys into a battle against their fears as they strive to confront and overcome Mr. Dark’s terrifying wrath.

I have a faint recollection of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” until it was mentioned in some shape or form.  From what I remember, I watched the film for the first time at school.  It might have been during my elementary school days, since I distinctly remember the carousel scenes being etched into my brain.  After that, I never had the chance to revisit this creepy-as-hell movie, mainly because it was pretty rare to find at the time.  That is, until I discovered that the film was made available for the first time on Disney+ this month.  I was surprised it hadn’t been released earlier, during the streaming service’s launch, especially during the Halloween season.  Regardless, it allowed me to confront my hazy childhood memory, now that I’m an adult who enjoys watching horror films every October.

After watching the film, I realized my memories of specific scenes were not entirely clear.  I either remembered certain scenes differently or had forgotten about them entirely by the time I transitioned to middle school.  Nevertheless, “revisiting” this dark Disney movie was definitely an interesting experience, not just for exploring the studio’s mature route during its “Dark Ages” era further, but also for seeing whether it’s worth adding to my annual Halloween watchlist.  Regarding the latter part, “Something Wicked This Way Comes” was wicked enough for me to consider visiting again each year, mainly because of my fondness for family-friendly horror.  It may not be a truly terrifying masterpiece that stands alongside other horror classics, but the film evoked a commendable blend of maturity, creepiness, and Disney’s signature pizazz to deliver an unsettling yet enjoyable Halloween treat.

“Something Wicked This Way Comes” is another movie that, despite its PG rating, serves as a reminder that not all “family-friendly” movies are necessarily suitable for young children.  This is evident in the film’s mature themes and imagery, eschewing cheap jump scares in favor of a deeply unsettling atmosphere and an aura of dread.  You’ve got your never-ending supply of tarantulas, a sinister carnival manager, and a carousel capable of altering a person’s age.  Fun for the whole family, am I right?  Regarding its scares, the film didn’t offer much to make me terrified to go on any carnival rides in the near future.  Fortunately, it more than makes up for it with its unnerving mood and themes.  Sure, jump scares and the supernatural are typically the prime elements to make a horror movie scary.  However, it’s also the persistent fear of uncertainty — especially from a child’s perspective — that truly gives the film its spine-chilling quality.

Amid its spookiness, the film delves into themes of fear and temptation, underscoring the dangers of receiving something that seems too good to be true.  This fear extends beyond the seemingly benign carnival to life itself.  The film’s adult characters, such as Will’s father, Charles (Robards), and Ed (James Stacy), the amputee bartender, grapple with feelings of being past their primes, yearning to reclaim their youth through Mr. Dark’s “promises".  Charles, in particular, is troubled by his advancing age and its impact on his relationship with Will, pushing him to confront his regrets to protect his son.  The interactions between Will and Charles are certainly the film’s highlights, offering a mildly sweet reflection on their father-son relationship.  They also demonstrate Disney’s mature storytelling, delving into the uncertainties of aging from Charles’s viewpoint.  Ray Bradbury’s screenplay doesn’t offer much emotional resonance in its themes, due to iffy dialogue and restrained explorations, possibly from reshoots.  Nonetheless, the film’s heart beats strongly enough to complement its dreary, cautionary Twilight Zone-like tale about temptation.

Director Jack Clayton was renowned for adapting literature to film through his vision.  Although I’m not familiar with his other works, I can tell that he had a pretty decent streak in bringing specific famous books to the screen through his vision.  For “Something Wicked This Way Comes”, Clayton was tasked with retaining the book’s haunting aesthetics while making it somehow accessible for families with older children, because Disney.  The result was a pretty commendable effort from the filmmaker.  As mentioned before, I didn’t find myself scared at all, but I do admire Clayton’s ability to convey dread, terror, and suspense through a darkly lit atmosphere and unsettling visuals.  The scene where Will and Jim are besieged by tarantulas was one of the few sequences that effectively exemplified this approach.  However, that also means I won’t recommend this movie to viewers with arachnophobia.  

Regarding the visuals, there were a couple that appeared dated, but others managed to hold up well, especially given the $20 million budget, such as the 2D animated green smoke and the film’s climactic sequence.  I’m pretty sure that the visuals might have been impressive at the time, but I couldn’t help but be one of today’s viewers who point out which effects still shine and which appear less convincing.  I would also commend James Horner’s score for encapsulating the film’s eerie tone, balancing dread with a few moments of light-heartedness.  Originally, Georges Delerue was chosen to compose the music, which would’ve reunited him with Clayton following “The Pumpkin Eater” and “Our Mother’s House”.  However, his music was replaced by Horner’s due to concerns about it being “too sinister”.  I guess Disney didn’t want to go too far in scaring its young audience.  After hearing about what happened, I’m curious about checking out Delerue’s unused score someday and seeing how it compares to Horner’s work.

As for the cast, there are only a couple of standouts that made a wicked impression on me.  One of whom is Jonathan Pryce, who was relatively unknown during that time.  Fortunately for the studio heads, it seemed to become one of the roles that put Pryce on the Hollywood map, and I can see why.  Mr. Dark is quite a terrifying villain, mainly because he’s a devil in disguise.  His subtle attitude beneath his menacing aura evoked a discomforting feeling that warned me this guy should not be trusted, no matter how many “promises” he delivers.  Pryce delivered a performance that strongly captured that aura to a tee, especially during his confrontation with Charles in the library.  That scene alone showcases the remarkable talent he has in bringing these types of characters to life.  Another standout was Jason Robards as Charles Halloway.  I believe this was my first full-on exposure to Robards, as I hadn’t watched any of the other films he starred in before his passing.  Regardless, I thought he did a solid job with his performance as Charles, offering a compelling depiction of a man wrestling with his own mortality.  Vidal Peterson and Shawn Carson were also commendable in their roles as Will and Jim, respectively, though there were a few moments when their performances felt a bit phoned in.

Overall, “Something Wicked This Way Comes” is a wickedly spooky treat that suitably captures the source material’s eerie aesthetics and mature themes.  While it may not be a completely faithful and groundbreaking adaptation, this Disney horror film offers a creepily enjoyable narrative that balances a cautionary look at temptation with a subtly heartfelt tale about confronting one’s fears.  The result is far from perfect, as its desires were overshadowed by some iffy dialogue, restrained elements, and scare-free moments.  Nonetheless, it’s another piece of family-friendly horror that’s tempting enough for me to visit more often every Halloween.  Jonathan Pryce delivered a chillingly impressive performance as Mr. Dark, supported by a solid cast.  Jack Clayton’s directorial approach instills a solid sense of dread and discomfort throughout the film’s atmosphere and creepy visuals.  Along with some striking imagery and James Horner’s haunting score, the film is a worthy display of sinister woes and dark fantasy that fits within Disney’s “Dark Ages” era.  If you haven’t seen it yet or want to revisit it, the film is available on Disney+ for your spooky viewing pleasure.

​“Gladiator” stars Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Connie Nielsen, Oliver Reed, Derek Jacobi, Djimon Hounsou, and Richard Harris.  Released on May 5, 2000, the film has a Roman general becoming a gladiator to avenge his family and the emperor.

The film was directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed films such as “Alien”, “Legend”, “Black Hawk Down”, and “American Gangster”.  Nowadays, audiences are only entertained by their electronics, ranging from television to video games.  However, back in the good old days of Rome, the population had their form of entertainment that no other piece of electronic can capture, mainly because they weren’t invented yet.  That’s right, folks!  I’m talking about watching several people with armor plates and skirts kill the stuffing out of each other.  With the raw intensity and unrestrained violence, gladiator matches were the grand events that captured the crowd-cheering spectacles of the matchups way before modern sports like football took over.  Many years later, these historical battles had been recaptured by different types of media, like video games, television shows, and movies.  

One of them was Ridley Scott’s Oscar-winning historical epic, “Gladiator”, a timeless tale of revenge and honor that elevated the careers of such actors as Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix.  While Scott has its share of misses in his filmography, it’s hard to ignore the filmmaker making a name for himself with his iconic classics that shaped the film industry for the better, especially the ones in the 2000s.  “Gladiator” was one of those classics, even though its storytelling and historical accuracy left critics divided when it was first released.  With its long-awaited sequel on the way, I decided to take the opportunity to watch this film for the first time and see what made it an entertaining epic.  With that said, let’s head into the arena and see if this cinematic classic is worthy of ruling over the film industry.  

The story occurs in 180 AD.  The Roman general Maximus Decimus Meridius (Crowe) has recently led his army to victory against the Germanic tribes.  He is then approached by the country’s emperor, Marcus Aurelius (Harris), who informs Maximus that he wants him to become the next emperor to restore the Roman Republic.  This didn’t bode well for Marcus’s son, Commodus (Phoenix), who proceeded to murder his father and claim the throne for himself.  Commodus then executes Maximus’s wife and son when Maximus refuses his rule.  Now reduced to slavery, Maximus is forced to fight in local tournaments under the guidance of his gladiator trainer, Antonius Proximo (Reed).  As he gains popularity and rises through the ranks, Maximus seeks to avenge the murder of his family and the emperor and overthrow his false king.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way first.  I had not seen “Gladiator” all the way through until today.  I’ve only seen a couple of clips from the film, including Crowe’s classic quote, “Are you not entertained?!” but that’s about it.  It was released during my childhood when I was only restricted to watching movies that were rated G or PG, so my interest in Ridley Scott didn’t surface until I watched “Prometheus” in 2012.  However, even though I was old enough to watch the director’s adult-rated material, I had not taken the opportunity to visit most of his older masterpieces, including “Gladiator”, save for “Alien” and “Blade Runner”.  Fortunately, with “Gladiator II” on the horizon, I decided to take advantage of this by watching “Gladiator” in its entirety, which is available on Paramount+ as of this writing.  Considering that Paramount and DreamWorks distributed the movies, this seemed like a no-brainer.

So, after my experience watching “Gladiator”, do I believe it still holds up to this day?  Yeah, it does.  Would I consider it a masterpiece like everyone else did?  Well, in a way, it’s undoubtedly one in its own right, but I wouldn’t say it’s one of my favorite movies from Ridley Scott.  While far from unique in its storytelling, “Gladiator” serves as another example of emotion and scale joining hand-in-hand to create a cinematic epic rich in visual grandeur and sublime entertainment.  Regarding its story, “Gladiator” is an old-fashioned tale of revenge, with Maximus avenging the deaths of those closest to him.  However, it also represents honor and freedom, both defining a true ruler.  Maximus was seen as a potential leader full of mercy and integrity capable of restoring political balance, which is why Marcus Aurelius chose him to succeed him.  Of course, he finds those traits tested when he’s forced to kill for survival in the arena.  As for Commodus, he’s seen as the opposite of Maximus, as his jealousy and obsession with power made him an unworthy emperor seeking to win people’s approval through manipulation and fear.  This hero/villain duo embodied both the good and bad of an inspired beacon of hope as they confronted each other not just with their swords but also their psyche.

Regarding the screenplay by David Franzoni, John Logan, and William Nicholson, it offered pretty much everything you’d expect from a revenge action film set in 180 AD Rome, including its formulaic structure and blockbuster violence.  This was complicated by the script rewrites they had to endure, with one of the reasons being the unfortunate death of Oliver Reed before production was finished.  But, at the very least, their struggles led to them earning an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay.  There’s also a matter of its runtime, clocking in at over two and a half hours long.  For a movie involving a general seeking revenge and “winning the crowd”, it was a bit draggy for me to endure, especially since it’s more dialogue-driven than action-packed.  However, I didn’t find myself bored with it, as its presentation and driving emotion elevated the spectacle of gladiators fighting and killing, even if some of the dialogue can be mid-tier.  Except for Crowe’s iconic quote, that one was pretty memorable.

One of the things I appreciate about Ridley Scott is his ability to convey a sense of grandeur and immersion, even within a somber atmosphere.  With the combination of practical effects, CGI, and real-life locations, Scott envisioned the rawness and authenticity of Rome as if we were seeing a portrait of history come to life.  Of course, it does fall into the category of historical movies with inaccuracies, a flaw that has plagued Scott’s other historical epic, “Napoleon”.  Thankfully, the inaccuracies in “Gladiator” were overshadowed by Scott’s visually dynamic appeal, balancing the grandness of the production design and cinematography with its grim tone and saturated color palette.  Even the action scenes directed by Scott were riveting, with the opening battle sequence being the highlight for its robust violence and tension, despite the shaky cam being slightly annoying.  Those elements were accompanied by the wonderfully striking music by Hans Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard, whose orchestrated tunes elevate the dramatic scale without overpowering it.  This is another movie that showcased Ridley Scott as a cinematic master whose visual scale speaks as loud as his narratives, even though some of his films are less effective than others.

Finally, we have its cast, whose performances were just as lavish and satisfying as a gladiator achieving victory over their opponents.  Russell Crowe delivered a grand performance that effectively combines Maximus’s honorability and goodwill with subtle rage, with the latter coming from Maximus battling internally not to lose his merciful self to vengeance.  Crowe has proven to be a charismatic actor showcasing physical prowess and appeal in most of his movies, but he’s also at his best when providing dimension and heart into characters like Maximus.  It’s no wonder he won an Oscar for his role.  Joaquin Phoenix was also excellent as the power-hungry Commodus, as his acting range reflected the villain’s internal conflict with maintaining his rule without sparking a riot himself.  I would also credit Richard Harris, aka Albus Dumbledore, for his brilliant portrayal of Marcus Aurelius, the former emperor of Rome.  While he’s only in the first act of the film, Harris’s scene with Crowe’s Maximus proved that a performance can shine even in the smallest of roles.  I also discovered that a young Djimon Hounsou was involved in the movie before he garnered my full attention in 2014.  He played Juba, another gladiator sold into slavery and Maximus’s closest ally.  Long story short, he was sublime with what he was given.

Overall, “Gladiator” delivers entertainment and spectacles that are as raw and visually engaging as an actual gladiator match.  When it comes to storytelling, its originality was buried beneath the sands by its formulaic and bloated narrative and grim tone.  However, the film is another example of utilizing its style, visual grandeur, and emotional core to elevate most of the narrative shortcomings.  As mentioned earlier, Ridley Scott is seen as a visual storyteller attempting to balance the seemingly straightforward plots with the splendor of the cinematic scales, gloomy atmospheres, action set pieces, and character-driven drama.  While most of his films aren’t as great as others, Scott has repeatedly proven that his presentation shines the most in balancing blockbuster aesthetics with an authentic and down-to-earth atmosphere, with “Gladiator” being one of those examples.  With its stellar cast, compelling direction, suitable screenplay, and outstanding technical aspects, the movie has enough bloodshed and appeal to entertain plenty of fans of Scott’s works.

​"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" stars Chow Yun-fat, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi, Chang Chen, Lang Sihung, and Cheng Pei-pei. Released in Taiwan on July 7, 2000, followed by the United States on December 8, 2000, the film has two warriors attempting to retrieve an ancient sword.

The film was directed by Ang Lee, who is known for directing films such as "Sense and Sensibility", "Hulk", "Brokeback Mountain", "Life of Pi", and "Gemini Man". It is based on the Chinese novel by Wang Dulu. The wuxia genre has been the source of inspiration since the beginning of history regarding its fictional stories involving martial artists. Because of its popularity, the genre has expanded to many types of media, including literature, comics, television, video games, and film. Since the 1920s, movies have introduced their audiences to wuxia through action choreography and storytelling. They even made several actors from the genre, like Cheng Pei-pei, Jet Li, and Michelle Yeoh, into big-time stars. However, the biggest turning point of wuxia took place in 2000, when the genre gained more popularity among Western audiences through Ang Lee's award-winning action classic, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". With its captivating story and martial arts sequences, the film became a critical and commercial success, earned ten Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, and is often cited as one of the best wuxia films ever made. It even inspired Hollywood to make their own attempts at the genre with films like "The Forbidden Kingdom" and "Kill Bill". This weekend, the movie is re-released in theaters with a 4K restoration 23 years after its original release. Seeing that I have never watched the film from start to finish, I decided to use this opportunity to experience it for the first time in a way that's meant to be seen: on the big screen. With that said, let's revisit the action classic and see if it still holds up.

The story takes place during the 19th-century Qing dynasty in China and tells the tale of two warriors. Li Mu Bai (Yun-fat) is a renowned Wudang swordsman, while his friend Yu Shu Lien (Yeoh) is a warrior who heads a private security company. The two have feelings for each other but can't express them due to Shu Lien being engaged to Mu Bai's late friend, Meng Sizhao, and the two being bound by loyalty. One day, Mu Bai, choosing to retire, tasks Shu Lien to give his 400-year-old sword, the Green Destiny, to their benefactor Sir Te (Sihung) in Beijing. There, Shu Lien meets Jen Yu (Ziyi), the daughter of Governor Yu, who's in an arranged marriage. When a masked thief infiltrates the estate and steals the Green Destiny, Shu Lien, along with Mu Bai and their new allies, travel to retrieve the sword while battling the Jade Fox (Pei-pei), who's responsible for the death of Mu Bai's teacher.

I didn't get fully invested in the genre until 2018 when I saw "Kung Fu Panda" and "The Forbidden Kingdom". Afterward, I gradually appreciate the wuxia genre and even Chinese culture through the art of film. This led me to experience more movies released outside the United States, even the martial arts ones. But, of course, even with my expansive knowledge of filmmaking, I still neglected to watch "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" during my spare time. Although, I was introduced to it through its 2016 sequel from Netflix, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny". Long story short, it was an inferior follow-up to the 2000 classic despite being directed by the first film's action choreographer Yuen Wo-ping. Luckily, that didn't stop me from becoming curious about Ang Lee's wuxia masterpiece. Seven years after watching "Sword of Destiny", I finally gained the opportunity to experience "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" for myself, in an empty theater, no less. All I can say is that it was way better than the Netflix sequel.

This is mainly due to its engaging drama, packed with enough interesting characters and scenarios to balance well with its incredible action sequences. The film offers a classic "good vs. evil" storyline involving a swordsman coming out of retirement to avenge his master's death and retrieve his mighty sword. But it's also an old-fashioned and poetic depiction of love, loyalty, and forging one's destiny in a traditional society. Its storytelling and themes deliver a satisfying amount of emotion and beauty and hearken back to the old-school wuxia films of yesteryear through Ang Lee's stylish direction. Ang Lee has made various movies that allowed him to express his cinematic presentation and approach toward his characters, including "Hulk" and "Life of Pi". For "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", Lee was able to balance the complexity of the characters with a style that's as swift and elegant as their fighting skills. The result is a visually stunning and narratively compelling action drama that's only grand in its artistry and characters, not just the action set pieces.

There had been talks about the cast and their different Chinese accents when the film was first released, especially Chow and Yeoh. Despite that, they impressed their audiences well enough to become the superstars they are today, especially Yeoh. Personally, I thought their performances were great, with Chow Yun-fat and Michelle Yeoh being superb together as Mu Bai and Shu Lien, respectively. Yeoh provides a sense of delicacy and wholesomeness that reflects her character's fierce and honorable personality. At the same time, Yun-fat offers a compelling depiction of a warrior surrounded by guilt for his past and suppressed feelings toward Shu Lien. Yeoh has come a long way in her career, especially since she recently gained traction from "Everything Everywhere All at Once", and her role in "Crouching Tiger" is still a great reminder of that. Zhang Ziyi was also terrific in her role as Jen, and Cheng Pei-pei makes for a convincing antagonist as Jade Fox, a woman obsessed with learning Wudang skills.

But, of course, the true stars of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" are the technical aspects, mainly the action sequences. Nowadays, we have several movies with fight scenes relying on shaky camera maneuvers, quick cuts, or both to make the action more "exciting". But in reality, they're just painful eyesores that overshadow their action choreography. "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" is one of the movies that remind us of the genuine excitement of their action sequences. Choreographed by Yuen Wo-ping and shot beautifully by Peter Pau, the fight scenes between the characters are fierce, heart-pounding, and swiftly energetic. Yes, they also involve people walking or gliding in the air, which looked goofy at first but became a remarkable sight to behold back in the day. Speaking of beautifully shot, the cinematography is another highlight of the film's quality. The scope works wonders for its action, but when it comes to showcasing the excellent production design and the drama, it's nothing shy of gorgeous and majestic. It's enough to keep me distracted until the next exhilarating fight scene comes along.

Overall, "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" remains a spectacular example of combining classic storytelling with great action and engaging drama as it was 23 years ago. The movie left a crucially successful mark in the careers of those involved and the genre's early days in the Western market. It's not just because of how great it was and its inspiration for the films that came after it. It also gave actors like Yeoh and Ziyi a chance to expand their careers due to the Western audience's interest in them. Without this film and the other wuxia movies like "Hero" and "Memoirs of a Geisha", they wouldn't have been where they are now in the film industry. So not only do I appreciate the film for introducing us to the genre and the actors involved, but I also respect the filmmaking techniques used to craft this stunningly thrilling martial arts masterpiece. It is worth a watch if you're a fan of the wuxia genre or even action movies.

​"Avatar" stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriquez, and Sigourney Weaver. Released on December 18, 2009, the film has a former Marine and a mining team exploring a mysterious planet.

The film was written and directed by James Cameron, who also directed films such as "The Terminator", "Aliens", "True Lies", and "Titanic". We have several directors who understand the importance of cinematic experiences, including Christopher Nolan, Guillermo del Toro, and James Cameron. Cameron has been widely known for pushing the boundaries of cinema, not just in storytelling but mainly in the technology he uses. Time after time, he has impressed thousands of film enthusiasts and audiences with his groundbreaking visuals in his movies, mainly "Terminator 2" and "Titanic". In 2009, the filmmaker made cinematic history once again with an original sci-fi movie that transported people to a world unlike any other.  

That movie was "Avatar", an epic blockbuster that utilized new types of technology, including motion capture, and revived the 3D trend, for better or worse. Thanks to its groundbreaking visuals, the movie broke several box office records and became the highest-grossing film in the world at the time. Additionally, it earned three Academy Awards, including Best Visual Effects. As time passed, however, the film was quietly forgotten by people who only see it as a good or bad movie, with most of them calling it "Pocahontas in Space". The visuals are the only reason why "Avatar" earned its popularity. Its storytelling, not so much. However, that didn't stop Cameron from expanding his blockbuster with its sequels, with the first long-awaited follow-up arriving this weekend. To celebrate this occasion, I decided to look back on the one that started it all and see if it's highly misunderstood or a typical blockbuster that favors spectacle over substance. With that in mind, let's head to Pandora and find out for ourselves.

The movie takes place in the year 2154. Humanity has left Earth due to the depletion of natural resources. They eventually arrived at Pandora, a moon in the Alpha Centauri star system where it houses a valuable mineral known as unobtainable. Additionally, it is inhabited by the Na'vi, a species of tall, blue humanoids that live in harmony with nature. The Resources Development Administration is formed to colonize Pandora and mine the rare mineral hidden underneath the planet.

The story's primary focus is Jake Sully (Worthington), a disabled former Marine sent to Pandora to replace his deceased twin brother. He participates in the Avatar Program, led by Dr. Grace Augustine (Weaver), which has humans using genetically engineered Na'vi bodies to explore Pandora and interact with its natives. While exploring the wildlife, Jake meets and befriends Neytiri (Saldana) and her clan, the Omaticaya, who teaches him the ways of the Na'vi. However, when the head of the mining operation, Colonel Miles Quaritch (Lang), plans to destroy the Na'vi's way of life, Jake attempts to save his new home.

The first time I experienced this visual marvel was undoubtedly at the theater. I remember inviting my dad to see "Avatar" because we don't go to the movies as much as I do with my mom. We saw it in 3D, and I was blown away by how fantastic everything looked, from its lush locations to the designs. My dad also enjoyed it, to my surprise. So much so that we got the collector's extended cut of the film on DVD for him. In case you're wondering, this was before I switched to getting movies on Blu-ray. I haven't gone back to the film since then, mainly due to the 3D version being the best way to watch it and its waning reputation. However, since "The Way of Water" is coming out, I figured now would be the best time to revisit it with a fresh pair of critical eyes.

For this review, I watched the collector's extended cut version of the movie, which includes 16 minutes of scenes not shown in the original version. Additionally, it has an alternate opening set on Earth before Jake's trip to Pandora. It's been a while since I watched the regular cut, so I can't compare the two in full detail. But I can say that the collector's extended cut is why I enjoy the director's cut more than the theatrical cut. It gives us plenty of additional scenes left on the cutting room floor and delivers more context to the film's plot. The extended cut of "Avatar" further explores Jake's background and his journey from being a former Marine to becoming the leader of an alien planet. It also showcases more of the conflict between the humans and the Na'vi. Because of this, the collector's extended cut is now my preferred version of the movie.

As for the film in its entirety, it's still an impressive achievement for James Cameron and visual effects in cinema. The movie is a dazzling and visually immersive roller coaster that reflects the mass creativity of its environment and the creatures that inhabit it. When looking at it from a storytelling perspective, it's understandable where the criticisms came from regarding its similarities. It borrows plenty of elements from other movies like "Dances with Wolves", "Pocahontas", and "FernGully", making its plot far from an original piece of work. But, of course, just because a film is similar to the others doesn't mean it's automatically bad. It all comes down to the story's execution and entertainment values. Fortunately for me, "Avatar" is entertaining and emotionally grasping enough to overshadow its familiar tropes.

The story represents a journey of self-discovery for Jake and an anti-war message that sees him preventing his own kind from destroying the Na'vi's home for their personal gain. While it may not be a perfect representation of its themes, the movie does benefit from its likable characters and Cameron's direction. Cameron is a beast when he's showcasing the majesty and grandness of the visuals. However, "Avatar" also proved that Cameron can make the story entertaining and the action epic and intense, mainly in its third act. The showdown between the RDA and the Na'vi is one of my favorite parts of the film, mainly for its visual splendor and thrilling set pieces.  

The cast also did a solid job with their performances, including Sam Worthington, who offered a considerate amount of charm and drama for Jake. "Avatar" is one of the few movies where I was introduced to Worthington. The last film I saw him in was "Hacksaw Ridge", which was way back in 2016, as he only appeared in lesser-known movies after that. Let's hope that "The Way of Water" can put him back on the Hollywood map. Zoe Saldana also did very well with her motion capture performance as Neytiri regarding her emotional weight. Stephen Lang was compelling as the heartless and vicious colonel, and Sigourney Weaver is undeniably attention-grabbing as Grace.

As I mentioned earlier, the visual effects played a huge part in the film's success. Regarding its production designs, the Na'vi, and the creatures, the visuals represent something you'd find in a dream or a "Star Wars" film, whichever makes sense to you. The fact that it took Cameron years to complete due to waiting for the technology to involve shows how ambitious he is with his intended vision. So did the visual effects still hold up 13 years later? Honestly, yes, it did. The CGI still looks fantastic when considering the designs and the memorable settings. It's one of the few films that don't look dated even after decades of existence. You can rewatch it 30 years later and think, "Wow, these effects still look great". If that's the case, I have high hopes that its sequel will blow me away as this film did.

Overall, James Cameron's "Avatar" remains a technical marvel that relies on imaginative visuals and a strong sense of wonder. Its storytelling may not be on the same levels as the other sci-fi masterpieces, but it serves as a great example of Cameron's ambition for filmmaking technology. The cast was solid in their roles, Cameron's direction was top-notch in displaying the background's grandness, and the visual effects were brilliant and absorbing. Some may argue that the movie only existed to popularize the 3D trend. However, when you look at the bigger picture, "Avatar" is part of the reason cinema still exists, even after the COVID pandemic. People go to the theater to be immersed in the unknown and be captivated by the imagination and thrills, whether the narrative is excellent or not. Films like "Avatar" succeed in providing that escapism, which led to their massive successes at the box office. As long as there are more films that can deliver a unique cinematic experience, especially "The Way of Water", there's still hope that cinema can survive the future.

“Hocus Pocus” stars Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, Kathy Najimy, Omri Katz, Thora Birch, and Vinessa Shaw.  Released on July 16, 1993, the film is about a teenage boy who accidentally resurrects a trio of witches.

The film was directed by Kenny Ortega, who also directed films such as “Newsies”, “High School Musical”, and “Descendants”.  Hold on to that witches brew, boys and girls, because I got another witch-related film to talk about, and it’s from Disney.  This should be fun.  Before he turned “High School Musical” and “Descendants” into cultural musical phenomenons, choreographer/director Kenny Ortega helmed two theatrical films for Disney, “Newsies” in 1992 and the main topic of my review, “Hocus Pocus” in 1993, with the latter being a straight-up fantasy-comedy instead of the usual musical film that Ortega is known for.  The film was released during the summer season instead of Halloween in order to attract a lot of children that are off from school.  Unfortunately, the strategy didn’t turn out as well as the studio hoped, mostly due to being overshadowed by another family film, “Free Willy”.  In addition to being a commercial disappointment, it also received mixed-to-negative reviews from critics upon release.  Years later, the film was rediscovered by audiences through annual airings on television, resulting in massive spikes in home video sales every Halloween season.  It became a cult classic for Halloween fans later on.  Given how popular it is, I thought it would be good for me to finally see what makes it a “classic” to begin with, especially since Disney is already developing a sequel to it for Disney+.  I didn’t remember watching this film all the way through as I was growing up because of my focus towards other Halloween-related materials.  With Halloween being today, I figured now would be the best time for me to experience this kid-friendly spook-fest from start to finish.  With that in mind, let’s ride our brooms into the sky and see what I’ve been missing. 

The story follows Max Dennison (Katz), a teenager who just moved from Los Angeles to Salem, Massachusetts with his parents and his younger sister Dani (Birch).  While trick-or-treating with Dani, he encounters a mysterious cottage and inadvertently revives a trio of witches (known as the Sanderson sisters), who were hanged for their crimes 300 years ago.  They placed a spell on themselves so that they will be resurrected during a full moon on All Hallows’ Eve when a virgin lights the Black Flame Candle.  The sisters, Winnifred (Midler), Sarah (Parker), and Mary (Najimy), have the power to absorb a child’s youth and regain their own in order to live forever.  In terms of them making themselves young for eternity, they’re the 90s interpretation of Mother Gothel from “Tangled”.  With the help of his new friend Allison (Shaw) and an immortal black cat with a mysterious past (voiced by Jason Marsden), Max and Dani must find a way to send this villainous trio back to their graves once and for all before they harm any more children.  This is another dark fantasy film from Disney that combines kid-friendly scares with a sense of fun and charm in its environment and the characters, which was something that “The Nightmare Before Christmas” did three months after it.  What these two films have in common is that they’re both made by Disney, they’re both classified as cult classics, and they’re both part of a Halloween tradition for families who are in need of some spooky fun without giving the kids nightmares for weeks.  What sets them apart, however, is that “The Nightmare Before Christmas” is an animated masterpiece that has wonderful characters, fantastic visuals, memorable songs, and an engaging plot.  “Hocus Pocus”, on the other hand, is a harmlessly hokey live-action horror comedy that features bland characters and a story that’s as thin as ice, but admittedly, it isn’t without its fair share of likable moments.  I think what made “Hocus Pocus” such a Halloween classic for people is that even though the story was a bit of a mess (in terms of the characters and the direction it took), it had that type of appeal in its narrative that kept them from resisting its mesmerizing spell.  The majority of that appeal has to do with the three main actresses: Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, and Kathy Najimy.  They are, without a doubt, the best parts of the film because of the energetic chemistry between them and the distinct personalities they brought to their characters, the Sanderson sisters.  I also really liked the characters’ experiences with modern technology as well as the modern Halloween traditions, which brought out some pretty good laughs.  Yes, they’re obviously the main villains in the film, but they’re the type of villains that you couldn’t help but love every time they’re onscreen.  As for the main characters, which consists of Max, Dani, and Allison, that’s where the film fell flat for me.  For the character of Max, the film was attempting to portray a fish-out-of-water story that has him struggling to fit in when he moved to Salem with his family and trying to impress Allison.  It also displays the sibling relationship between Max and his little sister Dani.  With those elements, the film had the opportunity to be a true Halloween classic.  Problem is, it lacked the proper depth needed to make me care more about these characters, especially Max, who I thought was pretty mediocre in terms of character development.  The young actors’ performances for these characters were also not as highly memorable as the main actresses, although Thora Birch was the most tolerable as Dani.  On the plus side, it did feature a couple of well-known supporting actors, such as Jason Marsden, who is known for providing the official voice of Goofy’s son Max Goof, and Doug Jones, the actor responsible for portraying some of Guillermo del Toro’s most memorable creatures.  Jones plays the zombified Billy Butcherson who is sent by Midler’s Winifred to catch the main characters, in case you’re wondering.  Some of the visual effects held up fairly well for a film that’s made in the 1990s, especially the practical ones.  The CGI for the cat’s facial expressions can be a bit weird at times.  Fortunately, it didn’t get to the point where it looked jarring or dated.

Overall, “Hocus Pocus” still has its share of issues that prevented it from successfully casting its spell, but it also has its share of moments that made it an enjoyable Halloween treat in the first place.  It’s easy for me to admit that it’s not a masterpiece when it comes to its story and the main characters.  However, it did its job at being a harmless family film that was just made to entertain the young kids and their parents as well as the people who grew up with it.  The chemistry between the three main actresses, its respectable amount of spooky charm, and its tolerable use of special effects are what kept this film going strong today and will continue to do so for many years to come.  Here’s hoping that its legacy doesn’t get tarnished by its upcoming sequel.