REVIEW: Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

  First off, this is a spoiler-free review.  If you've seen the trailer and/or commercials, that's about as detail-involved as I'll get.

     Secondly, henceforth with these reviews I'm going to assume that if you're reading this, you have at least some passing familiarity with the subject material, so from now on I will forego the 101 about the director, cast, position in series, etc.

     So - Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi:(TLJ):

     It's quite a well-made movie.  I don't know that I'd call it a great one, but it's certainly well-crafted, well-acted, and remarkably complex.   There are a number of things to admire about this movie; there are some things I outright loved, and a few things I really disliked.

     The biggest complaint I had about The Force Awakens was how much of a retread of the original Star Wars film it was, and I had concerns that TLJ might end up rehashing The Empire Strikes Back.  Fortunately, those concerns were largely unfounded; while there are a few plot/tonal similarities with both Empire and Return of the Jedi, most of TLJ heads into new territory.  It is, perhaps surprisingly, not a cliffhanger...it ties up the plot threads enough that theoretically they could end it here (they won't) without any major dangling points.  In that respect it's satisfying, though I do concede the film is long, and feels it...particularly in the last reel, it does go on a bit.

    It's far funnier than the trailers would have you believe.  Some of the humor is wistful, some goofy, but while the movie is rather dark, it's not as bleak as it may appear in the advertising.   There are a few moments where the language is too modern for Star Wars (one character refers to books as not being "page-turners", there's a "your mom" joke, etc.) that doesn't quite sit right on the ears.  In particular, there's a funny bit very early in the film between Poe and Hux that I really enjoyed, and a very sweet, quietly funny exchange between Luke and R2-D2 that I loved.

   There is a thematic focus on new vs. old in TLJ, and that carries over to effects, plot points, locations, creatures, etc.   We see the Force and lightspeed used in brand new ways, and there are a few beautifully staged fight scenes with new tricks.  Flashbacks are used, which is novel, and there are some cinematographic tricks, mainly via the Force, that give the film a different flavor.  The porgs, which have featured heavily in the commercials, are not overused, and are cute and inoffensive; there's a race of crystalline foxes that I really liked...I'm sure they'll get a name at some point, if they haven't yet already.  (Edit:  Vulptex)

    The new generation of Star Wars characters are quite well established already, and TLJ develops them further.  Rey is a wonderful character - a bit of an ingenue at times, but a strong, smart, capable heroine.  Poe Dameron, who I felt was somewhat underused in Force Awakens, gets a lot of time to shine here.  I like Finn, but I still feel he's a bit uneven as a character.  We get a few new faces; Kelly Marie Tran's Rose Tico is a satisfying addition, and Laura Dern and Benicio Del Toro have supporting roles, both of which manage to be intriguing while understated.   But it's Carrie Fisher who may strike the strongest chord in this movie; that may be real life filtering in, but her Leia is at her most poignant in this film, and I am not sure how they're going to move on without Fisher (to whom this film is dedicated.)

     It's also worth noting that Leia is far from the only strong, wise woman in the movie.  Rey, Rose, Vice-Admiral Holdo, (and even Captain Phasma, to an extent) are all portrayed as smart, canny, powerful, capable of not only taking care of themselves but inspiring and even rescuing others.  It's a resonant and refreshing trend.  In fact, a lot of the film's dialogue and subtext is incredibly topical - a balanced, inclusive world can exist, as can hope, resistance to, and rebellion against, corrupt power, and a certain condemnation of the wasteful 1%.  In the days after 9/11, we saw the cinematic rise of Middle-Earth, superheroes, and the Potterverse.  In 2017, it's nice to see Star Wars taking a stand.
 

     Moral ambiguity is another key focus in TLJ, and it is magnificent to see characters'  motives and actions examined as not just "Light" vs. "Dark", but right and wrong, and it isn't just the Force users subject to the analysis.  There's a lot of discussion as to *why* characters act the way they do, and the reasons behind the actions they take, and you end up with better developed heroes and villains as a result.   None of it is cut-and-dried, so TLJ benefits from being an engagingly complex movie - and avoids the cyclical repetition that we've seen in Star Wars before.

       There's one aspect to this movie that I really hated, though, and it's hampering my overall opinion of the movie.  You may be able to guess from what I haven't mentioned so far:  The whole storyline involving Luke Skywalker, Kylo Ren, and Snoke.   I have to be very careful about what I say, because I don't want to give anything away.   We do get a number of answers about what happened in the intervening years since the original trilogy, but there is way too much still missing, and based on the content of this movie, I don't think it's going to be forthcoming onscreen (there will, I'm sure, be a novel about it at some point down the road.)  But I found the explanation of these characters' history muddy, frustrating and unsatisfying, particularly vis-a-vis Snoke.

    Along those lines, I was really unhappy with Luke's character for a good chunk of the film.  I understand why things are the way they are, and from a certain angle it makes narrative sense, but - not to put too fine a point on it - I simply don't like it.  It doesn't feel right, and while the latter half of the film improves upon it, the first half just felt ...off.  Put another way, for many scenes, Luke did not feel like Luke, but rather, that Mark Hamill could simply have been playing "random crotchety embittered old dude".   It's hard to elaborate without giving anything away, so let's just say it simply doesn't feel true to the character.

    After The Force Awakens, I wasn't sure how I felt about Kylo Ren.  Now, having seen TLJ, I can safely say:  I don't like him.  Not in a love-to-hate the villain kind of way - I dislike the character.  Nothing against Adam Driver, who is a fine actor; it's the way he's written.  Kylo is written to be the Vader of the new series, but the writers decided to go with Anakin's least attractive qualities....posturing, sulking and temperamental problems, to craft Kylo.   I find him to be a self-important brat with unexplained daddy issues, and his outbursts aren't funny any more.   There are moments where he seems compelling, but they seem consistently undercut by vague brooding and peevish flouncing.  I'm starting to feel about Kylo the way I felt about Anakin circa Episode II.

   With that said, though, the movie is fun, engaging, and thought- (and discussion-)provoking.  Best of all, we as an audience really don't know where we're going from here, which truly opens up the Star Wars universe in a way that hasn't been done since 1977.  There is a major revelation about Rey late in the film that I absolutely love, because it's importance is not only narrative, but symbolic of the franchise as a whole.   And the final takeaway from the movie is one of hope, which on one hand ties the whole series together, but on the other, offers exciting new possibilities.

   I don't have any guesses right now how Episode IX will be structured, and I really like the idea that there's a whole magnificent galaxy to be explored.  We have new heroes to follow; TLJ has a passing-of-the-torch feeling to it, at least in part, and these new characters feel up to the challenge.  But for now TLJ leaves us with a lot to consider about what we know, why we do what we do, and about destiny....that good, like evil, is a choice.  There's still light and dark, but there's also more than that.   And a richer, broader, more nuanced universe can only be good.

    (Now, not to dwell too much on the past - but can we have Lando Calrissian and Boba Fett back, please?)

FINAL RATING: 6 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: Justice League

   Some dry stats for you:  1960: The Justice League makes its first appearance in comic book form.   2017:  The Justice League makes its first live-action major motion picture appearance, in the rather obviously titled Justice League.    Starring Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher as the titular team, the movie is the fifth entry in Warner Bros.'  "DCEU" film series, directed primarily by Zack Snyder with a pinch-hit from Joss Whedon, and also features  Amy Adams, Diane Lane, Connie Nielsen, Jeremy Irons, J.K. Simmons, Jesse Eisenberg, Joe Morton, Amber Heard, Billy Crudup, and Ciaran Hinds (the latter a vocal role only.)

    That's the basic 101.  The color commentary?

   I loved it.  I absolutely loved it.  I have no fear of committing myself unambiguously to my sheer delight in this film.  So let me just say this: if your reaction to the preceding sentence features scorn, sneering, or disbelief in any way, take your depressing attitude elsewhere.  You have no power here.  Begone, before somebody drops a house on you, too.

   I'll get into why I loved Justice League as much as I did, but let me get some of the critiques out of the way.  First and foremost, the tone of the movie is inconsistent.  It clearly has a thematic goal from the opening frame of the movie, but rather than gradually building to its climax, it meanders in getting there - not so much in peaks and troughs, but more like tonal zigzags.  It's clear a lot of thought went into the movie, so I suspect the uneven result is due to two factors: first, the switch in directors - we may never know which elements were specifically Snyder and which Whedon, but changing horses eighty percent of the way through production could account for some of it.  The second issue, which may simply be a corollary to the first, is that it feels like scenes were missing, and that the film may have been trimmed down prior to release leaving transitions on the cutting room floor.  I suspect we'll find out on the DVD - but even if there's footage added back in, there are still parts of the film that could mesh better.

   The movie also has a lot going on, which wasn't so much of a problem for me as a long-time fan of these characters, but could be an issue for new or casual viewers.  Half of the first two acts of the movie are a direct sequel to (and, honestly, something of an apology for) last year's Batman v. Superman.  The other half is used to establish the 'new' characters (all of whom appeared as cameos in Bvs).  Because WB jumped more or less feet first into the team without establishing all of the team members in separate projects, The Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg and Steppenwolf have to be given motivation and backstory, which contributes to the uneven feeling.  That may also be a contributing factor if it turns out scenes were cut out, since there's quite a number of moving parts to keep up with.  Once everything comes together (ahem) for the third act, it's fine - in fact, there's a very definite moment in the film where it feels like all of the pieces have just snapped together, but it's a bit bumpy getting there.

   Another issue is the film's villain: Steppenwolf.  Those who are not longtime DC fans could be forgiven for asking "Who??"  (And no, it's not the band.)  Steppenwolf in the film is a big (literally) alien warlord whose motivations are cursory and whose character is essentially bloviating and threatening, without much in the way of personality, even considering Ciaran Hinds' mellifluent purring.  He's fine as a physical threat, but is not a particularly compelling or memorable character.   To be fair, though, this is pretty much in keeping with Steppenwolf in the comics - he's only ever been Darkseid's general, and has never been a major character in his own right - I defy anyone to name a major Steppenwolf story in the comics...ever.  He's a fourth-tier villain, who the film is using (I presume) as a set-up to introduce the coming big bad, and as such is fairly disposable.  So while I can understand complaints about an underdeveloped villain, it's not as though they took a well-established multi-faceted villain with decades of rich history and made him a 1-D antagonist.  He's pretty much a 1-D antagonist to begin with, so in that sense he'd fit in quite well alongside your average MCU villain.

   Where the movie truly shines, though, is with the heroes, as six (yes, six - minor spoiler if you have been paying no attention whatsoever) classic characters come together (sorry, I can't help it!).  The movie just nails all of them.  The characters feel true and right - no deconstruction or awkward shying away from the source material here.  Justice League embraces its heroes, and the cast is superb.  It is wonderful to see a Batman who is not a self-loathing, snarling force of violence; he's still the Dark Knight, but the movie brings him back to being the Caped Crusader again.   Affleck, Cavill and Gadot now have an easy chemistry and its wonderful to interact, but the rookies are just as much fun.  Ezra Miller's Barry Allen is the source of much of the comedy, but he's earnest and sincere without being snarky or self-congratulatory.  Momoa's Arthur Curry is something of a mash-up of previous incarnations of the Sea King - part 'Iron Age' exile, part bombastic "Brave & the Bold", but clearly having a blast.  Ray Fisher's Cyborg owes more to his original Bronze Age stories than he does to his more familiar image from the Teen Titans cartoon, but that works well with this take.   Amy Adams has a few good, key moments (and it's weird to see J.K. Simmons with a full head of hair), but the movie belongs to the League.

   What was crucially important for this film to get right, in light of the dour BvS and Suicide Squad, was the right attitude.   It was the element I was most concerned with going in; DC's characters have always been icons, but while Batman alone may work in the grim-n-gritty, that's not the right tone for the universe.  I've had more than enough relentless brooding and cynical anti-heroes to last a lifetime, thank you very much.  BvS may have been a worthwhile experiment, drawing as it did on The Dark Knight Returns, one of the most famous DC stories ever written, but that cannot be sustained, nor, frankly, should it.  Justice League opens with 'found footage' of Superman, and from that moment on, the movie reminds us as it does its characters that it's okay to believe in bigger things.  It's okay to want heroes, it's okay to accept a world of gods and monsters, and it's okay to believe a man can fly.

      It's also nice to have fun, incidentally, and Justice League is.  The script is on point, with well-written heroes with clear voices, and humor that fits the characters.  It's enjoyable without being silly, and never descends into the hyuk-hyuk territory that seems to have become prevalent.  Even Batman has some good bits, many of which stem from his awkwardness at interacting with friends.  These characters learn to embrace their identities, and the movie profits from it.

    Speaking of fun, the score of the film, courtesy of longtime WB composer Danny Elfman helps the movie along considerably.  It provides energy and mood - though I'm not embarrassed to admit that the musical callbacks to previous DC movies were pure fanjoy.  Wonder Woman's theme from BvS appears, as does John Williams' legendary Superman theme at a key point in the movie, with a bit of a twist.  But I never thought I'd hear a certain iconic melody on the big screen again, and when I did, I felt like an eleven-year old again, hearing it for the first time.

   Say what you will about Zack Snyder, but the man knows how to make superheroes look good on camera.  There are plenty of frames that look like comic book panels - some slow-motion, some dramatic poses, and a few money shots, but the action sequences zip along as well.  The cinematography is clear and the movement of these super-powered beings is amazing...though I admit that for all of the speed-force and super-strength, I am more in awe of how Batman moves when he's grappling from point to point than anything else.  It just looks perfect.  The army of Parademons are beautifully realized...another one of those comic book elements I never thought I'd see on the big screen.  And while the movie does start out in funereal tones, replete with blacks, grays, and washed out environments (even Themyscira seems gloomy at the beginning), color - blessed color - starts coming into the movie and everything comes to life.

   This is an enormous step in the right direction for DC.  They've got the tone, they've got the characters, they've got the heart and the humor.  This movie fixes pretty much all of the missteps of BvS and then some, though there's still some room to improve.   Overall, this has been a good year for DC, not only with JL but also Wonder Woman and the Lego Batman Movie, several excellent live-action TV shows, cheerful animated series, and a much healthier, more enjoyable adjustment to the comics, appropriately called "Rebirth".   After the last several years of feeling like I practically didn't recognize these characters, it's intensely gratifying to see this team come together (sorry, sorry, I'll stop!).

   Justice League features a mid-credits and a post-credits scene, so stay until the end. 

 
FINAL RATING: 9 PAWS (OUT OF 10):

REVIEW: Spider-Man: Homecoming

    ...."spins a web, any size, catches thieves just like flies, hey there, there goes the Spider-Man..."

       Yes, true believers, Spidey's back, swinging (ba-dum-bum) into theaters this weekend in Spider-Man: Homecoming.  It may be the sixth Spidey movie in fifteen years, but it's the first in which Spidey headlines an MCU film.  

        Spider-Man Homecoming is not, thank goodness, yet another retelling of Spider-Man's origin.  This movie assumes you know the basics - outside of a few vague allusions, none of the typical Spidey-origins are discussed - but it does open by tying in Peter Parker's entry to the MCU via a cute 'behind the scenes' sequence from Civil War.    Most of the Spider-Man-associated characters in the film are new to the franchise, so we get some new blood rather than another Harry Osborn retread; no goblins were harmed in the making of this picture.   In fact, this film's energy is incredible, which probably benefits at least in part from taking off in a different direction from previous entries.

      Most of you probably know that Spidey's self-appellation is "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man", and Homecoming does a bang-up job reinforcing this idea; this Spidey is meant to be tied to NYC, Queens in particular, and is very much the classic, street-level comics character.  Wisecracking, nervous, awkward, and possessed of a surfeit of that old Parker luck, Tom Holland's Peter is likable and eager-to-please, but cocky and short-sighted.   Tobey Maguire was fine; Andrew Garfield was great, but Tom Holland is the best Spidey yet.   This is a teenager who can be of a bit of a klutz, who can be forgetful and even arrogant, but is ultimately sincere, hopeful, and who has a big heart.    There's a visual nod to Spidey's famous self-rescue from Amazing #33 (lifting the villain's collapsed, leaking lair off his back) which goes right to the heart of the character; Homecoming manages to get its protagonist close to perfect, but more on that in a minute.

      Not only is the hero of the movie amazing (ba-dum-bum?), but for once an MCU film manages to knock the villain out of the park as well.  The Vulture/Adrian Toomes, played by Bruce Wayne...Michael Keaton, is a well-written, compelling, sympathetic character who manages to be cold-blooded without being a raving loon, who has clear motivations and a personal connection to the hero.  His design is incredible - let's be frank, the classic look for Vulture is not precisely the most intimidating in comics - and I love the way the designers worked Vulture's fur collar into the costume.  However, as impressive as the Vulture's rig is, Keaton is even more threatening in the film's quieter moments.  There's a menace to the character, devoid of bluster, that just works beautifully, but he also has relatability and a certain sense of honor.  Spidey easily has the best rogues gallery in all of Marvel, and Homecoming capitalizes on that, delivering a refreshing change from the one-note cartoon characters we've been getting.    Vulture is not the only villain in the film - Shocker and Tinkerer are both along for the ride in supporting roles, and Mac Gargan (he who becomes the Scorpion) appears as well, as does Aaron Davis, the Ultimates version of the Prowler - but Vulture is far and away the dominant threat.

    As solid as the two leads are, though, the rest of the cast left something to be desired.  Not in terms of acting ability - there weren't any poor performances - but rather in the overall reconceptualization and writing of the supporting cast.  If you've ever had the misfortune of seeing one of Disney's live action TV shows geared towards kids, you'll recognize that there's a certain trite formula which tends to prevail, and I was disappointed to see Homecoming go down this path.  Marisa Tomei is woefully miscast as Aunt May, and it's more than a little distracting having people talk about how hot she is.  It's also bizarre to have Peter calling her simply "May".  It's a chummy, simplified relationship that reduces a complicated guardianship into something superficial.  Worse, however, is Peter's social circle, all reduced to tropes:  Chubby nerd best friend (because fat people are *always* hilarious, right, Disney?) spouting predictable inane one-liners, pretty but bland girl there to be the requisite love interest, sneering rich snob, and quirky iconoclast.  It's like the Breakfast Club Lite, -these characters could have been lifted from any Hannah Montana-esque production, and none of them resemble their comics counterpart.

     Speaking of said quirky iconoclast (as played by Zendaya), much has been made of the 'mystery' character she's playing, called for most of the film "Michelle".   There's nothing wrong with the performance, and the character itself is mildly interesting, but the decision to write her the way they did is just embarrassing.  Recall, if you will, the debacle of Benedict Cumberbatch's character in Star Trek: Into Darkness, and the ludicrous insistence over his true identity, which ended up being both pointless and anti-climactic.   Michelle is more of the same.

     As much fun as the movie is,  and as happy as I am that Spider-Man gets to be included in MCU projects, I found myself extremely frustrated by some of the revisions to the character because of that inclusion.  Tony Stark looms large over the film, in both civilian and Iron Man modes, as a sort of mentor to Peter, and Happy Hogan serves as Tony's proxy.   Because of this, Peter's actions revolve around a desire to impress Stark, and there's precious little motivation coming from guilt and failed responsibility.  While it's refreshing to not have another origin story, it's a huge mistake to remove Uncle Ben from the picture.  One could argue that he's likely present in Peter's internal monologue, but anyone who knows the character knows exactly how pivotal that relationship is to Peter's raison d'etre.  Making Peter an Avenger-Apprentice and having that be the driving force of the film just makes Spider-Man feel like yet another card in the deck, and robs the character of part of his essence.  It's the one major misstep the movie makes in regards to Peter's character.

 

     There are constant references to the Avengers and to the previous movies in the MCU - some are plot based (Vulture's whole plot revolves around alien/Stark technology), but many are just dropped in.   It feels like the same MCU gimmick - everything has to sell the Avengers, and so everything has to feel the same, look the same, and ultimately service the Phase.  It's an unfortunate restriction to place on the film.  For one thing, Spidey - of ANY Marvel character - is more than capable of standing on his own,  and for another, I'm starting to get a little tired of Marvel acting like there's no life outside of Tony Stark.  Peter's Stark-tech enhanced suit is a major part of the plot, but I have to say I could live without Spidey having conversations with his clothing.  It's way too far into Iron Man territory, and I really hope future appearances downplay the A.I. aspects as much as possible.  

    

     Otherwise, the soundtrack is solid (though why a group of kids born after the year 2000 would have an '80s-themed homecoming is a bit puzzling), and there's a nice callback to the classic animated Spidey theme.   The effects are generally good, though Spidey does come across as cartoony at points and I'm not entirely clear on whether or not that's a question of the CGI being less polished then it could be, or if it's a deliberate choice.  The film certainly does a great job with Spidey's movements, though - wall-crawling, swinging around, deliberately-dramatic posing, etc.  I never get tired of seeing that on the big screen.

    

    If I sound like I'm being a bit harsh, that comes more from disappointment about Spidey being forced into tired cliches and MCU advertising, and the realization that this is likely to be de rigeur for the webhead going forward.  But the movie is still a lot of fun - I don't think it's better than the first two Spider-Man films, but it's far and away better than the three most recent.  It's a different take, to be sure, but a rejuvenated one, with a strong hero (and villain!) and a great sense of energy and adventure.

FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

A Moment of Silence: Adam West

   Adam West, star of the 1960s Batman TV series - and companion film - passed away yesterday at the age of 88 after a brief battle with leukemia. 

   And I am, I admit, quite sad about this.

   If you know me even at all, you know to some extent exactly how prevalent Batman has been in my life.  What you may not know is that I don't even know why.   I'm sure most of you can remember how you first came to your hobbies and interests...a first exposure, an introduction, et cetera.  For all of other things I'm interested in - Masters of the Universe, Dick Tracy, Star Wars, Shakespeare, etc, I can remember how I found them.  Not so with Batman - I can say in all sincerity that my love of the character and his world goes back as far as I have memory.  There was no time when Batman was not.

   But there's something about Batman that I don't think a lot of younger fans realize.  When I was a kid, Batman was nowhere near as ubiquitous as he is now.  These days, he's everywhere - multiple movies, tv series, video games, toylines, roller coasters, merchandising, and of course, comics.  But that was not always the case.  In fact, long before there was the DCEU, the Arkhamverse, the Dark Knight Trilogy, before The Animated Series and before anyone knew who Kevin Conroy was, before Clooney, Kilmer, Keaton, before even the Dark Knight Returns or Super Powers - yes, Pre-Crisis - things were quite different.   When I was knee-high to a grasshopper, Batman was not on big screens or action figure sales.  There were only three ways to have access to the character.  The comics, of course, the Super Friends cartoon, and re-runs of the 1960s Batman TV series.

      Think about that: this was not a question of "who is YOUR Batman?", because there was not a smorgasbord of options.  For two generations, any concept of Batman in live action was defined by Adam West.  No offense to Lewis Wilson or Robert Lowery, but if you asked anyone who they thought of, West's name was what you'd hear.
  

   I was addicted to that show.  I can remember so vividly trying to catch every episode of the show, not really understanding that it had been in re-runs for over a decade.  Didn't matter - even if were on vacation down the shore I'd come tearing home from the beach mid-afternoon to sit in front of that old 13-channel faux-wood paneled TV in the living room all atingle to see who the guest villain would be (and always hoping for the Riddler.)  There was one episode whose second half I didn't see until I was well into high-school, and I'd spent the intervening years frustrated at the lack of knowledge as to how Batman and Robin escaped.   Remember, kids, this was before the internet - there was no way to look it up!

    I didn't know then that it was silly.  I didn't get the meta-humor, or (benign) innuendo.  I just had so, so much fun.   Of course, years later, when I started catching it again as a teenager, I understood how goofy it was, and started to really get - and appreciate - the humor.  But I'll say this for the show - goofy or not, it was always sincere.

    Things changed; the world of Batman got darker and far more serious.   And by the late eighties/early nineties, a new Batmania had exploded, but now Batman had fully become the brooding Dark Knight that he's largely been ever since.  The vast majority of people who became Batman fans could and would only accept this newer incarnation as the only legitimate one, and the 60s series - and West - became nothing more than a joke, to be dismissed with scorn and oh-so-superior eye rolls.

   Now, please do not misunderstand - I love every incarnation of the character.  The Dark Knight Returns, and its spiritual companion, Year One, revitalized the character and began a tradition of rich storytelling with multi-faceted psychological underpinning.  I can probably quote the dialogue of the 1989 Batman film verbatim.  And I've seen every episode of the Animated Series more times than I can count.  But I never lost my love for the brighter days of West's version, and that take on Batman was never anything less than fully legitimate in my eyes.

   

   West would pop up regularly, usually in the context of someone interviewing him about his thoughts on the newer iterations.  When he appeared onscreen, he was often playing a pastiche of him famous character; he'd been quite public about his frustration regarding his inability to get other roles because of the typecasting.  There was something a little tragic about it, actually.  But he was never forgotten.  The Animated Series did a full-on tribute episode to West, having him guest star as Simon Trent, AKA the Gray Ghost, a TV star from an old superhero series that Bruce Wayne loved and was inspired by as a child.  It was a magnificent and touching homage.

   That seemed like it was going to be it.  And throughout the nineties, as the Batman franchise got bigger and bigger, the more scorn seemed to get heaped on West and his show.  Many of the original stars and guests were passing away, and the show itself was not made available on home media, though eventually the theatrical film was released.   But it seemed like West himself had become a bit of a punch line.

   I had always wanted to meet him.  Not to be overly corny, but I wanted to tell him that there were those of us who cared, who remembered.  And yes, I wanted to say thank you.   In 1995, I actually wrote and starred in a high school production of Batman that was based largely on the 1960s series, with a modern aesthetic.  It was in effect a love letter to the franchise as I saw it; Danny Elfman music but brightly-colored "Biff!", "Bam!' and "Pow!" signs.

   Well, some years later I did actually get to meet him, and a small convention not far away.  This was before NYCC had started up again, and these shows were far smaller and intimate affairs, so it wasn't quite the celebrity-dripping, high-cost wristband-required events they've become.  I stood on line for about twenty minutes, rehearsing what I wanted to say.  So naturally, when I finally came face to face with West, and got to speak to him and shake his hand, my carefully prepared speech of admiration and gratitude came out in such fashion as to make me sound like a resident of Ork.  I think I bewildered him, honestly.  But he was unfailingly polite and gracious, and ever since, be it ever a brief and slightly embarrassing encounter, I can say I'd met Adam West.

   Not to push my luck, but as conventions got bigger and opportunities arose, I thought about trying to meet him again.   It never happened, though.  Sure, Julie Newmar told my wife she was beautiful.  Frank Gorshin shook my hand and thanked me for being a fan.  And when I met Kevin Conroy I couldn't stop grinning like an idiot for hours.  But I never quite got my chance to let West know that I was keeping the faith.

   But then something unexpected, and wonderful, happened.  The world found him again.  Thanks to the work of devoted fans, the long-standing legal wrangle that was the 1960s series was resolved.  And the show exploded, all over again.

   Yes, West had been working regularly - fans of The Family Guy certainly know that.  And for five seasons, CN ran a series called "Batman: The Brave & the Bold" that was a spiritual, and in some ways, direct, sequel to the '60s series.  But now the original show itself was FINALLY made available after almost fifty years and sales were incredible.  Not only that, the show could at last be marketed.  So yes, I now have an Adam West Batman figure.  (Two, actually, in different scales.)  A full length animated feature was made with the surviving stars of the show, and even the grimmest versions of Batman have incorporated the brightest...you can play through the Arkham games with a 1960s costume, if you so choose.  And don't even get me started on the joy that is Lego...

   West lived long enough to see the reputation of the show restored, and to see people - original fans, later generations, kids - embrace it for what it was:  silly, over the top, and utterly fun.  It has become acceptable for Batman to be less grim again (take note, DCEU), and it is wonderful.   West found himself sought out - at long last he even got a star on the Walk of Fame - and instead of derision, he found admiration and even respect.  I know people who have met him on multiple occasions, or who knew him fairly well, and never have I heard anything other than he was always a kind, gracious man who came to appreciate his position in the legacy of Batman and had the warmest regard for his fans...a number which, in his later days, only grew.

   Some celebrities die forgotten; some are honored throughout their lives.  But not many become representatives of a different time, a different spirit.  West was the figurehead of a fan movement, of light-hearted fun and humor that for too long was sadly lacking.  It was incredibly touching to see how well received that series was when it came back a few years ago, and I am so happy West got to see it.

   So no, I never did get to tell him how much he meant.  But in the end, I'm just one fan, and I can say with a certain sense of joy that I am far from the only one.

    Ultimately, West was the inverse of Nolan's Dark Knight.  He was the one we deserve and the one we needed - and he lived long enough to see himself become the hero.

    Thank you, Adam West.  Thank you for always keeping the faith.  Thank you for never apologizing for what you gave us.

     Thank you for being my Batman. 

REVIEW: Wonder Woman

     Seventy-six.

     That number represents a few things.  The birth of our nation.  A particular number of trombones.
  And the number of years it took to get the world's first and greatest female superhero her own movie.

     Yes, that's a long time - too long.  But at the very least, that movie has come.  And Wonder Woman has arrived.

    To be fair, Diana debuted in last year's Batman v Superman, but she was only a small (if excellent) part of that film.  Now, however, she's got her own feature, and it is her movie, all the way.

   I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the socio-political importance of this movie, cultural significance, or any of the somewhat bizarre controversies that have sprung up in recent days regarding screenings of the film.  Those subjects have been, and will be, covered by others at greater length.  Suffice it to say, this movie is every bit what it needed to be, and there is now at long last an empowered, strong, fearless super-heroine headlining not only one film, but what I suspect may become her own franchise.  And speaking personally, I am heartened to see exactly how much she's being embraced.

   The film itself is nuanced, well-written, shot, and acted, but above all it is bears a lighter tone than the three previous DCEU entries.  That's not to say it's devoid of gravity, or descends into glib banter and cutesy one-liners.  Far from it; the film revolves around war and violence, and the consequences and sacrifices required therein.  But there is warmth and humor, natural and genuine, and a tenor that is ultimately uplifting and inspiring.  If this film is any indication, WB Studios are listening and learning as they develop the DCEU, and allowing their characters to be who they were made to be without falling into melodramatic angst or frivolous repetition.

   This movie is all Gal Gadot's.  She gives the Amazon Princess remarkable charm and sincerity, playing idealism, ferocity, and compassion with equal aplomb.  Gadot has incredibly expressive eyes, which radiate sympathy, bemusement, determination, vulnerability...sometimes in the same shot.  Diana is something of a contradictory character, the warrior of peace, capable of both boundless love and intense fury, and that comes through beautifully here.   Her action sequences are elegantly choreographed, exciting and borderline poetic in motion.

   Chris Pine gives the potentially thankless role of Steve Trevor his own humor and charm, achieving chemistry with Gadot and a likability of his own.  He's never hapless or dim-witted, and he never usurps Diana's center stage though he does manage to be every bit the hero in his own right.  He's surrounded by a support team of memorable and engaging allies: the funny but underused Etta Candy (Lucy Davis), con-man turned soldier Sameer (Said Taghmaoui), PTSD-suffering sniper Charlie (Ewen Bremner), and opportunistic Chief (Eugene Brave Rock).

   The first act of the film takes place on Diana's home of Themyscira, the aptly nicknamed 'Paradise Island', which is a beautiful set that is sadly not fully explored.  Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright play Hippolyta and Antiope, Diana's mother and aunt, respectively, responsible for her protection and training.  Both are fine performances, but are on screen for a surprisingly short amount of time.  Also featured are Danny Huston as General Ludendorff, a bloodthirsty German officer; David Thewlis as Sir Patrick Morgan, a British MP trying to conclude the Armistice, and Elena Anaya as the rather creepy Dr. Maru, better known to comics fans as longtime Wonder Woman foe Doctor Poison.   All three are perfectly fine performances but none are particularly meaty.  In fact, if I do have a complaint about the movie, it's that the villains of the piece are not particularly developed, even if they are reasonably accurate to the source.  To be fair, though, the point of the movie is more about the nature of war than about personal conflict, so that's not necessarily a huge fault.

   Director Patty Jenkins has given Wonder Woman a grounded sensibility that makes the protagonists relatable and appealing, while still making a point about greater issues.  In an era where we're all too quick to point fingers and spew hatred, we are given a character-driven summer blockbuster that's about finding hope and redemption in the face of darkness.  Some of the beats are less subtle than others, to be sure, but there are moments - Diana's first introduction to ice cream, for one, or a post-battle dance in snowy war-torn village - that are simple and touching.   There are also several small scenes throughout as Diana learns about her compatriots, and the real-world problems each faces in their own way, that add a poignancy to even the secondary characters.  It is a remarkably human film for such mythological subject matter.

    Another mark in its favor is that this is purely a Wonder Woman movie, by which I mean to say that it is not a commercial for Justice League or any other projects.  The film is predominantly set in the waning days of World War One, but there is a brief frame at the beginning and end set in the modern day, which references Bruce Wayne and one of the plot points of Batman v Superman, but it's merely a device to set up the narrative structure of this film.  There is no post-credits scene, and as such, this movie is fully capable of standing on its own.

   All told, this is a nearly perfect superhero movie, a definitive origin and clear and concise exploration of a character whose time is long since overdue.  Wonder Woman may be the greatest female superhero, but that gender distinction should not cloud the fact that she is one of the greatest superheroes of all time, regardless.  In continuous publication since the early days of World War II, a key member of the Justice League and a part of DC's Trinity, Diana is a giant in the world of superhero comics and deserves to be treated as such.  As shameless as it might be, coming from a lifelong diehard DC fan, WB has done a fantastic job with this film.  It is exactly what I needed, wanted, and hoped it to be.  There is still plenty of ground to cover with what I'm sure will be the forthcoming sequel (Dear DC, please note: cast Peter Dinklage as Dr. Psycho), and we'll be seeing Diana again later this year as part of the ultimate superhero team when the Justice League arrives in November, but for right now,  we have a lot to be happy with.  It's a good time to be a fan.

   You might even say it's...wonderful.

FINAL RATING: 9 STARS (OUT OF 10)

  

REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

   "It's a pirate's life", says you.  "Ay, it's a pirate's life.  Savvy?", says you again.  "Yep, It sure is a pirate's life", says you yet again.  "Stop trying to make fetch happen", says I.

   Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is the fifth installment in the Disney franchise inspired by the theme park ride.  Johnny Depp returns to his iconic role as Captain Jack Sparrow; franchise veterans Geoffrey Rush, Kevin R. McNally, Orlando Bloom, and (briefly) Keira Knightley return as well, and they are joined by newcomers Javier Bardem, Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelario, and David Wenham.   They come together in a movie which could, by rights, be called "Stale Writers Tell No Tales".  You may ask yourself, does it hold up to the earlier entries in the series?  And I would respond that it is disinclined to acquiesce to your expectations.

    That means no.

    I saw this last night and have had to mull over my feelings on the film, which I concede primarily feature disappointment and irritation.  I enjoyed the first three films in the series immensely - a fun, swashbuckling trilogy with brilliant characters, gorgeous locations, incredible fight choreography, a sharp and quotable script, and some interesting thematic considerations lurking just below the surface, to rise occasionally in an explosive burst much like the prow of the Flying Dutchman.  While keeping up with the characters' shifting allegiances and motivations could be, at times, tricky, it was a thoroughly rich trilogy.  It was followed some years later by a lackluster, perfunctory sequel, which while not a bad movie in and of itself, lacked the panache of the first three (but did include Ian McShane, for which it got quite a lot of credit).  Pirates 5 is very much akin to the latter movie, and while it attempts to head back in the direction of the original movies thematically, it fails utterly at charm, wit, or excitement.

    Have you ever had a relative - maybe an old drunk uncle - who you see only at infrequent family functions, but who you just *know* is going to make the same stale, unfunny jokes and embarrassing comments, delighted in his own wit?  That's rather what Jack Sparrow has become.  Johnny Depp has incredible talent, but he's in that group of actors, Will Ferrell, for example, who think that whatever idea pops into their head must be golden  - and the movie indulges them.  These are actors who, in conjunction with a skilled director and when properly reined in, can create wildly entertaining and memorable performances - very much as Depp did in the first three movies, working with Gore Verbinski.  However, his acting in these last two movies, especially this most recent, is horribly off.  Jack was formerly a wily, canny operative whose goofy mannerisms and bizarre behavior masked a complex schemer.  Lately, though, he's become nothing but a tired, repetitive drunk.  The character lacks all of the spark that he once had, and as the central figure in the movie, he drags the film down, making it stale and boring.

"It is not neither proper nor suitable, it is neither adequate nor acceptable, it is, in obvious fact, an abomination"

   It's Depp's fault to a point, but the script and the direction are absolutely lackluster.  There are a few perfunctory elements that are vintage Pirates - but we've seen them all before.  Multiple times.  While 5 is a better movie than 4 in the sense that this time at least the principal characters have clear motivations, it's all mechanical.  The movie takes way too long to build certain threads up, and disposes of others with an annoying nonchalance.   The script is full of telegraphed jokes and trite dialogue that is remarkably bland...most of the lines could be delivered by any character in the movie, they're that unspecific.  Even the 'easy' elements of Pirates movies - brilliant swordfighting, energetic action scenes, and dazzling locations - are all largely dismissed.  The film's climactic sequence is admittedly well done, but you have to sit through two hours of underwhelming rerun to get to it.  It's just not fun.

  The movie has two main plot thrusts which converge (of course) without gelling.  Brenton Thwaites plays Henry Turner, the son of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, seeking to overturn the curse of the Flying Dutchman under which Will fell at the end of the third movie.  And while seeing Bloom, Knightley, and the Dutchman again is one of the best elements of the movie, it's really just the set-up for Henry's actions in the movie, as the main instigator of the plot.  The other main thrust is Javier Bardem's Captain Salazar, captain of a cursed ship of ghostly henchmen with a mad-on for Jack Sparrow...not that we haven't seen that particular angle before.  While the visuals on Salazar and his crew are undeniably impressive, there's a profound lack of explanation for much of what's going on.  For example, it's not made entirely clear *why* Salazar is cursed, and the how is rather vague as well.  The audience is just supposed to go with it, but since we've seen this sort of thing before, it simply becomes a recycled plot device - same idea, different flavor.

"Do you fear death?  No?  How about a certain lingering redundancy?"

  Bardem is always an interesting actor to watch, and Salazar is certainly distinctive visually, but there is so much more they could have done with him.  Previous antagonists - Barbossa, Davy Jones, Lord Beckett, and to a much lesser extent, Blackbeard, were nuanced characters that you couldn't help but like; they each had their own unique foibles and humor.  Salazar's more of a one-note character - a remarkable visual propelled by a great actor, and at points quite terrifying, but hampered by a weak script.

   The rest of the cast is hampered as well.  Henry starts out strong, and is very much the child of Will and Elizabeth, but in the second half of the movie his character is all but absorbed into the background, and he's there simply to fill the 'Will Turner role'.  Scodelario's character, a brainy astronomer, fares somewhat better; while much of her dialogue in the movie is repetitive (I lost track of how many "I'm not a witch" conversations she had to endure), she's at least grounded and her motives are clear and consistent.  She's probably the best-written of the new characters.  David Wenham plays a British officer out to hunt pirates, or anyone else he can, but he's an incredibly vague character - we learn very little about him, and frankly, I didn't even catch his character's name.  Norrington, he was not.

    Barbossa is one of the bright spots of the movie, especially in the second half as we learn more about his past than we have to date, but even he spends a lot of the film serving as little more than a vehicle for the plot to advance.  However, when he's good, he's very good.  On the other hand, McNally, who is the only other actor besides Depp and Rush to appear in all five films, is completely devoid of personality.  Instead of the gravely-voiced wise but superstitious veteran who could impart lengthy tales of lore, he's reduced here to a generic lackey.  Similarly, Angus Barnett and Giles New return as Mullroy and Murtog, but I have to think these roles were meant for Pintel and Ragetti, who do not return.   Paul McCartney also has a cameo early in the movie, but it's very much a riff on the appearances by Keith Richards in the two preceding films.  Who knew Beatles songs were around in the 18th century?

"So tell me - what's become of me franchise?"

   I really wanted to like this movie, but ultimately I find myself quite let down.  I know I'm judging it in comparison to the series as a whole, but even on its own merits it's a bland, lifeless film.  I will say that the resolution works very well, not only for this movie as an individual entry, but for the series on the whole.  There are specific character plots tied off nicely with some solid closure, even if some of it is bittersweet, but also a thematic wrap-up involving the MacGuffin of the piece (the Trident of Poseidon) which is also a rather brilliant way to conclude.    While I would argue that there was no need for a fourth or fifth Pirates movie, I can say with certainty that at this point that the franchise needs to stop.  As a concluding entry, this movie does at least serve that role, and offers a clear and satisfying ending.  But as the rest of the movie shows, especially when coupled with the fourth film, they have nowhere else to go, because they keep sailing the same waters.

  Please let Jack Sparrow sail off to his horizon, Disney.   The story is done.  It's not that world has gotten smaller.  It's that there's less in it.

FINAL RATING: 3 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Ooga-chaka ooga-chaka ooga-chaka ooga-chaka.....

    Now that earworm's firmly entrenched, let's talk movies.  Specifically, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the sequel to 2014's Marvel Cinematic Universe, about a group of spacefaring superheroic misfits.   The original movie was a surprise hit, with a colorful blend of memorable characters, great visuals, an eminently quotable script, a phenomenal soundtrack and a goofy charm that made for a refreshing addition to the summer blockbuster pantheon.   It was, of course, no great shock that there'd be a sequel, which has now arrived at your local megaplex.

     This latest addition bears "Vol. 2" as a cognomen, and it's apt, because the sequel is very much more of the same.  This is both good and bad; good in that it includes the same cast of likeable characters and humor - bad in that it feels very much like a formulaic retread.  Much of Vol. 2 feels as though director James Gunn and co. looked at the original, picked out bits that worked, and then did their best to get as many of those exact same bits into the sequel.  So while that does make for a consistent aesthetic, it means we end up with a film that lacks the sparkle of the original, and is thus somewhat bland.

    Dancing Baby Groot?  Check.  Goofy opening credits?  Check.  Heavy on the '70s/'80s soundtrack?  Check.  Banter Banter Banter?  Check.  Unnecessary love story?  Check.  Multiple cameos and post-credit scenes?  Check.    That's not to say that any/all of these elements are bad in and of themselves- but I can promise you that if you've seen the original, then the sequel is bound to be rather predictable. 

Ego Mania!

    I'm going to assume that you *have* seen the original movie, and are therefore familiar with the characters.    Whereas distribution of development was fairly well-balanced among the characters in the first go-round, the sequel is far more uneven.  Drax in particular gets shorted, reduced largely to a source of extremely rote humor, and of a few moments of repetitive 'deeper' dialogue that fall flat.  Gamora, for all that she is not lacking in screen time, is really there merely to fill role of the token female heroine - even a subplot with her sister doesn't really do much to deepen or build her character, and her personality gets no growth.

     On the other hand, Rocket and Yondu get much broader roles than either had in the original.   They're responsible for many of the stronger character beats, as well some genuinely hilarious bits that are far and away the best parts of the movie.   Nebula also gets a larger part this time around, but the filmmakers can't seem to decide what they want her to be, so her function in the movie is somewhat erratic.    Baby Groot has minimal bearing on the plot, and is mainly there to be adorable and silly.

I'd pay to watch a movie that's nothing but these three.

     As before, Star-Lord is the main focus of the film, with this entry providing more to do beyond being a swashbuckling wise-ass - though there is plenty in the way of buckling of swashes and wry comments.   Unfortunately, the movie continues to reinforce the idea of Star-Lord as a less brilliant Tony Stark in space.  Still, Chris Pratt holds his own, and his likability helps keep Star-Lord from coming across as insincere.  Plus, I never get tired of '80s-related humor...one shout-out in particular earned Vol. 2 a few bonus points from me.

     For new characters, we get a rather fun turn by Kurt Russell as Ego, Star-Lord's hitherto absent father, and Ayesha (Her/Kismet) as played by Elizabeth Debicki.   Ayesha's the means by which the plot of the movie gets going, and I suspect she and her gold-hued people will be popular in cosplay circles this year.  The Guardians also acquire Mantis, a character who in the source material is powerful, dangerous and enigmatic, but who is here played by actress Pom Klementieff as a rather disappointingly stereotypical geisha-esque servant.   Sylvester Stallone has a small but important role in the movie, which I won't spoil here, suffice to say that he - along with a few other notable cameos - offers a very, very cool nod to long-time comic fans, which may bear some fruit in the eventual Guardians vol. 3.

 

"For a golden girl knows when he's kissed her...it's the kiss. of. Death!"

     Speaking of spoilers - I have to be very careful how to say this so I don't ruin anything - but I want to address one element of this movie that I found to be a considerable improvement over most of the previous MCU entries.  One of the things Vol. 2 gets right is that it finally gives us a worthwhile villain.   Comic fans will likely know exactly what's coming, but for anyone not familiar with the source, it may be a surprise, so I won't get specific.  But as I've made no secret of my ongoing frustration with ill-defined, easily-beaten throwaway big bads that have no development or emotional depth, Vol. 2 gives us an exception to that trend, with a well-written character with clear motives, a defined agenda, with serious consequences for the hero and impact that while I wouldn't call it sympathetic exactly, is at least compelling.  Yes, it does delve into the typical "Mwahahahah I want to destroy everybody 'cuz reasons" plot, but at least the villain's arc lets them have a personality before that.  So that's progress.

    Another thing I have to mention, specifically in light of ongoing complaints with the MCU, is that Vol.2, much like the original, does not feel like a commercial for the rest of the Marvel movieverse.   It's almost entirely stand-alone in its own corner, with the exception of a clever little meta-cameo at two points in the film.   It allows the world to exist on its own merits, without the nudge-nudge-wink-wink-coming-soon of the most of the related Avengers movies.  That will go out the window with Infinity War, of course, but for now, it's nice to be unencumbered.   And no, outside of one reference, the Infinity Stones do not factor into Vol. 2.

 

Gardens of the Galaxy?

   If you liked the first Guardians, odds are good you'll like this one as well.  It's certainly entertaining...it's genuinely funny and the characters are engaging, and the special effects are of course phenomenal.   By nature of its existence, though, it's not novel, which was one of the biggest appeals of the first film, and so a significant portion of this movie feels rehashed or recycled.  It's rather like leftovers from a particularly good meal....it's all well and good, but you've had it before and you know what to expect, and it doesn't taste quite as fantastic the next day.

   There are five (5!) post-credits scenes, by the way, and they do imply some interesting directions for the already-announced Vol. 3, though we'll be seeing the Guardians crew next in 2018's Avengers: Infinity War.

FINAL RATING: 6 PAWS (OUT OF 10)

REVIEW: Beauty and the Beast (2017)

     Sitting in the crowded theater, having just seen coming attractions for the fifth films in the Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers franchises, I heard the woman sitting next to me turn to her boyfriend and sneer "Has Hollywood just completely run out of ideas?"  My inner monologue said to her, "You mean like this movie we've all just paid to see, which is a remake of a remake of a remake of a remake?"   My inner monologue isn't always very nice, but I sometimes wish it was a bit braver.

   Anyway, yes, let's talk about Disney's live-action Beauty and the Beast, a remake of one of the more beloved Disney films, and one of the most acclaimed animated features of all time.

   The new Beauty and the Beast, or "BB17" as I'm going to refer to it henceforth for the sake of brevity, is a more-or-less straight-up remake of the original 1991 animated film, but a bit sideways as it meanders slightly through the Broadway musical adaption of the same cartoon.  All, however, are adaptations of a 1946 French film, which of course is itself based on a much older story.  At any rate, BB17 hews closely to the animated feature, albeit with some minor deviations, and there is some new content as well.  If you've been living under a rock and don't know the story, an attractive bookish young woman named Hermione Granger...er...Belle (Emma Watson) is held prisoner by a brooding Beast (Dan Stevens), whose transfigured servants (Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson, among others) conspire to help the pair fall in love in order to lift the curse they're all under.  Luke Evans plays Gaston, a boorish suitor of Belle's, and Kevin Kline plays Belle's father.  Josh Gad, Audra MacDonald, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw (I love her name) also appear, as does Stanley Tucci in a role not in the original film.

    There's a whole conversation to be had about the justification of remakes, which someday I'll write about in more depth.  So discussions about artistic validity and cash-grabiness aside, the worst thing I could say about BB17 is that it really doesn't have the same soul or charm of the original film.  It feels very much like an adaptation, much in the way most movie musicals do, so if you know the original, you know what to expect.  The movie acquits itself well enough, but you can't help but feel that you've seen it all before.  It says something about movie making technology, though, that the gorgeous CGI-enhanced animation of the original film from Pixar's nascent days which was so eye-catching has become perfunctory by 2017.  It's certainly nice, but it's nothing revolutionary.  Indeed, some of the most astounding effects I've ever seen in live theater were in the Broadway version, which are carried over here but seem like run-of-the-mill computer work.  There's definitely less of a 'magical' quality present.

   The film is pretty enough, but the CGI doesn't always work.  Beast is often a bit TOO animated to be convincing; though Stevens' features are clearly discernible there are points where he doesn't feel quite real in shots with Watson.  Strangely, the opposite is true of the servants - there's something lacking in their animation that makes them seem almost a little creepy...Lumiere in particular is nowhere near as expressive as his 2D incarnation.   The computer animation does not serve the characters as well as the hand-drawn versions.

    CGI not withstanding, the production quality on this film is amazing.  The costumes are beautiful, as are the sets.  The score is everything you'd expect, with some new content added - only a bit from the Broadway version, but with some brand new songs by Alan Menken, with Tim Rice stepping in for the late Howard Ashman.  Of particular moment is Beast's solo late in the film, which gives some much needed emotional time for one of the titular characters.

   All of the acting turns are quite good...even if McGregor's accent is a little silly... though the quality of the musical performances varies.  Emma Watson has a lovely voice but it lacks power, so some of Belle's singing is passable if a bit weak.  Stevens has a fine voice and acquits himself well, and Thompson, MacDonald and McGregor are absolutely solid, as one would expect.  Kline and McKellen don't really have much singing to do, but the standout for me was Luke Evans....I wasn't aware he could sing, but he does an absolutely fantastic job, not only musically, but also giving Gaston more charm and likability for a character who is, frankly, a creep.  Josh Gad, too, gives a far more nuanced performance than one might expect, and was another surprise.

  Incidentally, I should mention that there has been something of a furor over the revelation that Gad's character would be openly gay.  I think this is something of a manufactured scandal, as the original film certainly implies that LeFou is in love with Gaston, even if it's not as explicit as it is here.   That people would call for a boycott of BB17 speaks volumes about their stupidity as a.) there is nothing even remotely salacious in this film, and b.) some people are gay, get over it.   It's hard not to equate the people foaming about LeFou with the angry villagers in the film, going after anyone different or unusual with torches and pitchforks.  Missing the point, much?

   Some of the best things about BB17 is actually what has been added.  While there are a few cuts and changes ("Human Again" is missing, and Gaston's proposal scene is less public and far more subdued, for example), the movie does add in some backstory, flesh out some characters, and tweak a few sloppy plot points.  There are some scenes added in flashback about Belle's mother, which are superfluous, though it does allow for some beautiful shots of 18th-century Paris by night.  Maurice, Belle's father,  is no longer an inventor, but an artist, and his character is far less kooky.  Beast, in particular benefits from some exposition that explains his personality, but best of all is the correction of what is to my mind a huge problem with the original film...in this new take, rather than being a nigh-illiterate brute, Beast is a well-educated literature lover.   This gives Belle and Beast a grounded connection, and, more importantly, something to talk about, as it makes them far more of a matched pair and greatly lessens the feeling of Stockholm Syndrome.  The whole relationship is therefore improved, and this also makes Beast a far richer character.

    The original film also has a few major plot holes that the remake closes nicely, particularly in regards to the problem of Beast's age at the time of the curse...while there must be a time freeze, by clearly making Beast older it neatly sidesteps the implication that he was a child at the time.  The enchantress who casts the curse gets more screen time, which is a benefit, and the weird weather shifts in the animated film are explained, speaking of a time freeze.  (Caveat: I know there was an additional animated feature dealing with some of Belle's time at the castle called "Enchanted Christmas", which may have elaborated on some of the plot issues in the original film, but I have not seen it.)  For the most part, the additions are beneficial, which I think is key to any remake - if you're going to do it, you might as well do your part to add something worthwhile.

    So while BB17 is going to inevitably be saddled with comparisons to the original movie, and therefore lacks the soul of the first outing, it's a perfectly enjoyable film in its own right.  I would have to think that any children coming to this movie for the first time without having seen the original will be just as taken with it.  There's no doubt that Disney's trend of turning animated classics into live action films will continue (indeed, Aladdin and The Lion King are apparently already underway), but at least they've been quality productions so far.   In a vacuum, BB17 is an excellent family film.   It's well made, it's fun, and what the movie lacks in freshness it adds in new depth...so all in all...there may be something there that wasn't there before.

FINAL RATING: 7 PAWS (OUT OF 10)