Categories
4 1/2 Stars

Wicked: Part 1 (2024)

“DISCOVER WHAT HAPPENED IN OZ BEFORE DOROTHY DROPPED IN!”

So said the radio ad as I sat in my room as a High Schooler, when I first heard of the musical “Wicked.” My first reaction as a theater kid was genuine: “This sounds like one of the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.” Not long after, in the band room at school, our teacher mentioned we would be performing the music of Wicked, and everyone burst into applause…including me (peer pressure is a powerful thing). A little over a year or so later, I finally saw the show on stage, and was a life long fan of what would be come possibly the biggest musical to hit the 21st century (at least until Lin Manuel Miranda came around).

I had finally trusted my instincts, closed my eyes, and took the leap.

Categories
2 1/2 Stars

Blitz (2024)

Call it a theory, but I am becoming more and more convinced that World War Two has been used as a backdrop for movies more than any other event in human history (perhaps because it occurred right around when movies really become a cultural phenomenon, not to mention the fact that Nazis never fail to make effective villains).

There have been so many of these movies that I have a timeline in my head (similar to the ones you would find about the MCU online) where certain stories (fictional or not)  are being played, be it Dunkirk (2017), Saving Private Ryan (1998), Casablanca (1942), Grave of the Fireflies (1988), The King’s Speech (2010), Empire of the Sun (1987), Come and See (1985), JoJo Rabbit (2019), or Inglorious Basterds (2009) (the latter two being in an alternative universe). That does not even account for films about the Holocaust (which I would argue is a separate event).

Categories
2 Stars

Here (2024)

There has always been a special place in my heart for Forrest Gump.

It was always that “gateway” movie for me when I realized that movies are more than just kids entertainment (Disney or otherwise): they could also be for grown ups. While many a cynic may have dismissed it at the time (and in the following years), it’s straightforward charm has not diminished on all of us. That makes it all the more clear why marketers are pushing the new movie Here as one by the stars, director, and writers of the 1994 classic.

Regretfully, that is where the similarities end, as Here strives for the cinematic magic, and misses the mark by a fair amount. The idea of how this movie would be presented would have totally sounded like a wonderful idea at the pitch meeting. Based off of a graphic novel of the same name by Richard McGuire, the film is basically one long take from the corner of a living room (or where it would be in moments when we are in the past before the house was built).

Like many a Robert Zemeckis film, it is impressive on a technical level (each scene is interlocked with these blocks on screen connecting the different scenes/time periods). Also like many of his films, it stars Tom Hanks, playing Richard Young. He is married to Margaret (Robin Wright), who he has been with since High School.

The film decides to jump back and forth in time to other families, including time spent with the inventor of the lazy boy chair (David Fynn), a romantic pair of indigenous people (Joel Oulette and Dannie McCallum), a modern day African American family with a teenage son, and the times of Benjamin Franklin himself along with his family. And that is just to name a few of them.

I have no problem with a movie having multiple story lines and characters to follow, yet one of my main issues with the film is that each segment is on screen for no more than a few minutes, each one ending just before we are able to have any connection to the characters. It also does not help when the stories are not in any specific order, jumping both forward in time and backward in time as well.

As I mentioned before, it is impressive at a technical level, but not entirely. This is another film that uses AI to de age certain characters (mainly Hanks and Wright), yet it runs into the same problem seen in movies like Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) and The Irishman (2019). While they look younger, they don’t always move as a young person (there are also times when Hanks clearly does not sound young at all when he is supposed to.) The same cannot be said for Paul Bettany as Hanks’ father. Bettany is a good actor of course, but he barely seems to age at all in this film (both physically and in his voice).

Parents, aside from swearing (one F bomb), minor sexual content (no nudity), and thematic elements, there is nothing else to watch out for. Middle Schoolers and up would be fine (if it appeals to them).

Robert Zemeckis is indeed a very talented filmmaker, but his movies since winning Oscars for Forrest Gump three decades ago have not been able to match his earlier work. Since Gump, the only movies of his I’ve actually liked (that I have seen) are Contact (1997), Cast Away (2000), The Polar Express (2004), and Flight (2012). Again, good movies, but since Flight, he has not done much to be proud of (while I have not seen Allied (2016) or Welcome to Marwen (2018), I have heard not the best of reports about them). Mainly, I think I am still recovering from his abomination that was the 2022 Disney Live Action remake of Pinocchio.

I have nothing at all against movies that take place in a single location (who could dislike movies like Rear Window or 12 Angry Men?), but not when the idea of staying in one location (no matter how it is filmed) is the main selling point. I remember in the intro of his first Great Movies book, Roger Ebert talked about the masterful Japenese director, Yasujiro Ozu (who very seldomly moved his camera). Ebert mentioned about how, when a movie lover gets to Ozu (as all eventually do, he says), then one learns that cinema is not about moving, but about when to move.

By the time Here learns this, it is too late.

Overall:

Rating: 2 out of 5.