Author: Mark A. Lester

Categories
3 Stars Movies

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)

All of my interactions I had with Sonic as a 90s kid were from my friends.

After my older brother and I got the Super Nintendo (a landmark day in my life at the age of 4 or so), we would have to depend on friends to play on the Sega console and race with Sonic, Tails (being the little brother, I was always second player, so this was my character), and Knuckles. While the Nintendo library is undoubtedly more popular than that of Sega, it is clear the that Sega’s mascot would always be the blue furry Sonic going forward (even if some of his games, like the one in 2006, would come to a crashing halt). Sonic’s roller-coaster career in the gaming world is surpassed by the even more uneven history of movies based off video games, so mixing them together to make Sonic the Hedgehog definitely had me wary, to say the least.

Still, Sonic has a steady loyal fan club. When the first trailer of Sonic the Hedgehog came out, there was online protest that was heard by nearly all those on the internet: Sonic did not look right at all. This forced director Jeff Fowler and the rest of the needed crew to go back and change Sonic’s appearance to be more accurate to the games. As someone who only played one or two of the games, I cannot say how accurate Sonic’s “backstory” is. In the film, the baby hedgehog is born with incredible speedy legs, soon to only be matched by his speedy mouth. When his powers are discovered, he is told by his guardian Owl Longclaw (don’t ask) to use his magic rings to travel through the universe to Earth. He is ordered strictly not to be seen by anyone.

Flash forward ten years. Sonic is living in the outskirts of a small town in Montana called Green Hills. The town is looked after by the local sheriff (or “Donut Lord”, as Sonic calls him), Tom (James Marsden). He and his wife Maddie (Tika Sumpter) are in the process of moving to San Francisco. In the mean time, Sonic has caused an accidental black out of the whole town (if not more of the west coast), leading the government to (somewhat unwillingly) call in Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey). Tom and Sonic team up and are on their way to San Francisco where Sonic has lost his bag of rings he needs to get to his next safe haven: a mushroom planet (“I hate mushrooms” is perhaps Sega’s commentary towards a certain plumber in the Nintendo canon).

No doubt the plot of the film is rather fast paced, yet full of questions. Here is the main one: If Sonic (who is voiced well by Ben Schwartz) is able to run as fast as he can, you would think he could just run to San Francisco and get the rings (though to be fair, the rings have ended up on top of a building). The movie does have one moment where Sonic does in fact run to the West Coast, only to go straight into the Pacific. The movie does its best to show that Sonic is in desperate need of a GPS. Of course, if he could just run there and get the rings himself, not only would there not be a friendship between him and Tom, but there would be no movie.

While I was not the biggest fan of Sonic growing up, I was a very big fan of Jim Carrey. From Ace Ventura to The Mask to (mainly) Dumb and Dumber to Liar Liar, he was the first real movie star I knew by name. His work as Dr. Robotnik is far from his best work (comedic or dramatic), but I would be lying if I said it did not bring back some vibes I had long forgotten about these past two decades.

Though the film does not get as deep as other family films (like those in the Disney library), young kids can still learn a good lesson or two. Sure, the idea of not being cruel to animals is there (Tom’s wife is a veterinarian), but most kids won’t look at Sonic as some kind of pet. He is indeed as human as most CGI characters (the CGI is actually very well done). The real lesson for kids is how to help those in need, regardless of if you know them or not (Luke 6:31). There is also a secondary lesson on life decisions (as shown in whether Tom should take his new offer in San Francisco or not.)

Parents, the film is fine for kids. There is may one minor swear word or two, and light kissing. The action has virtually zero violence in it. Add in some lightly peppered humor the adults might get, and the film ends up being fine for anyone in the family.

Even with the flimsy plot, Sonic the Hedgehog worked on me mainly due to the fact that I am, as stated before, a child of the 90s. The film is like a boxing match of two different bits of 90s nostalgia. In one corner, you have video games (Sonic), and the other corner has Jim Carrey. It is a match of nearly equal amounts of quirky, bizarre energy (both Sonic and Dr. Robotnik seem to clearly have some amount of ADD). While most movies based on video games are genuinely bad, Sonic the Hedgehog has set a nice pace for those to follow.

Here is hoping they catch up.

Overall:

Rating: 3 out of 5.

Categories
5 Stars Movies Vintage

Roman Holiday (1953)

Despite the fact that Superbowl LIV (2020) was the first title for the Kansas City Chiefs, the story most talked about was the half time show, featuring latin pop stars Shakira and Jennifer Lopez performing in ways that offended many.

Though I paid little to no attention to the show (it was not my type of music), it is understandable to see why many were concerned: it seemed to many to send a message that this is how women can act. Certainly, this is a vast difference from 1953, when Roman Holiday came out.

Continue reading “Roman Holiday (1953)”
Categories
5 Stars Movies Vintage

Before Sunrise (1995)

A older couple begins to quarrel. As the situation dies down, we see two young people look up from their books and notice each other. Had this happened in a movie these days, they would be texting, asking each other for their Snapchat profile. Since the film is long before the time of social media, the only thing these two strangers can really do is talk.

The whole opening dialogue on the train sets up what to expect from Before Sunrise: It is not about the content of the conversations, but the outer connection of the two leads.

Continue reading “Before Sunrise (1995)”
Categories
5 Stars Movies Vintage

The African Queen (1951)

“Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.”

This line, as said by Rose Sayer (Katharine Hepburn) to the ship’s Captain Charlie (Humphrey Bogart) is indeed central to the 1951 classic The African Queen. Yes, the film is basically about two strangers who fight the wilderness, but that is not all the nature we are witnessing.

Continue reading “The African Queen (1951)”
Categories
1 Star Movies

Dolittle (2020)

As I get older and see more movies, I realize that nostalgia cannot always work for movies I liked as a kid. Sure, some movies are classics and speak to the child in all of us (The Wizard of Oz, Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, E.T., and a number of Disney films), but some are sadly ones we look back on and wonder, “What was I thinking?!?!”. I recently revisited the original first two Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies from the early 90s, and while the first one is still passable, the second one (the one with Vanilla Ice) is now just laughable. I predict kids who see Dolittle will say the same thing if they choose to revisit it as an adult, since any adults these days who are forced to see it will do what they can to forget it (even more so for the adults who were part of the film).

Back in 1967, the titular role of Doctor Dolittle (unseen by me) was played by theater great Rex Harrison. In the late 1990s, it was Eddie Murphy (the first was enjoyable to me as a kid, but I stopped caring after the second sequel). Now the role is in the hands of Robert Downey Jr. (in his first role after leaving the MCU). Set in the 19th century, we learn in an animated prelude (which was very well animated, and one of the few things of the film I actually was fine with) that his wife Lily (Kasia Smmutniak) is an adventurer who has died at sea. Understandably depressed, Dolittle has secluded himself in his mansion (that was once paid for by the Queen) in isolation. One day, a boy named Tommy Stubbins (Harry Collett) is out hunting with his family, though very unwillingly so. When he purposely misses shooting ducks, he hits a squirrel. Rather than put it out of its misery, he stumbles upon the Dolittle mansion.

At this point, we encounter one of the films many problems. We first see Dolittle talking to the animals as any human would: using animal sounds. We get a close up of him, and it changes to him speaking normally to the animals who now speak clear English to him as well. There is no consistancy in the communication between the doctor and the animals.

At the same time that Stubbins drops in, we meet Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), who has been sent to deliver disturbing news: Queen Victoria (Jesse Buckley) has fallen ill. When the Doctor arrives, we discover the only known cure is from a mystical island that Dolittle’s late wife was looking for as she perished.

There is also a side plot involving Dolittle’s father in law, who blames the Doctor for Lily’s death. The father in law (named Rassouli, a name I don’t remember being uttered but it was on wiki so I guess it works) is played by the just recently Oscar nominated Antonio Banderas.

Wait, there is another side plot I forgot involving Dr. Blair Mudfly (Michael Sheen). A former classmate of Dolittle’s, Mudfly is summoned by Lord Thomas Badgley (Jim Broadbent, another wonderful actor who I had to find his character name on wiki) to make sure Dolittle & Company fail and that the Queen dies (not sure why they wanted the Queen to die, but whatever). There are no points given in finding out right away that Mudfly is the bad guy. In fact, points should be taken away if you did not know that.

If you thought the cast I have mentioned so far is a waste of talent, wait till you hear who the animals are voiced by. Emma Thompson is a wise parrot (as well as the films narrator). Rami Malek is a kind but not so confident Gorilla. Tom Holland is a loyal dog with glasses (for some reason). Octavia Spencer is a duck. Ralph Fiennes is a tiger. Selena Gomez is a giraffe. Marion Cotillard is a fox (with only a few lines). Finally, Kumail Nanjiani is the ostrich who becomes friends with Yoshi the Polar Bear, played by John Cena.

While none of these actors are untalented, they fail because of the script they are given (which is also mind boggling, when you remember that the film’s director and co-writer Stephen Gaghan wrote movies like Traffic and Syrianna, admittedly two vastly different films).

As stated, the film is set in the 19th Century, but the animals are all talking like they are from the 21st. I understand that it is to appeal more to children, but the theater I was in (which did not have many, thought it was a 5pm show on a thursday) had virtually zero laughs from the adults. As for the kids (maybe two or so in the audience), I think I heard three laughs tops.

There is actual detrimental material here for kids, because we have all encountered wild animals at one point or another in our lives. Whether it be a close pet we chat with or a squirrel we honk our horn at to move out of the way. We like to think we are talking with them.

When I get home from work, there is always a nice welcome for me from my dog, Molly (the newer dog, Charlie, is another matter). There is a weird sense of appreciation we get from pets that makes us want to talk to them. Animals (especially pets) help take us out of our daily lives and remember the natural elements of the world.

Parents, if all you are worried about is violence/sexuality/swearing, you are fine. There is none of that here (even the wounded squirrel, who took a shotgun blast to the chest, was not bleeding). The one exception is the post credit scene, where a character is surrounded by bats. While it is played for laughs, I think it would generally scare children.

Though I am not a parent, I would still argue that this movie is not engaging or smart enough for any child over the ages of 5-6. It is as if the filmmakers forgot that kids in a movie theater are actually smarter than they realize.

Dolittle also is unclear on its message. At first, I thought it would be on how to be kind to animals (after all, God did tell Noah to have two of every kind on the ark). The film just became about an adventure that no one asked for.

Somehow, Dolittle did give me a feeling I never expected.

A feeling of nostalgia.

…for the movie CATS.

Overall:

Rating: 1 out of 5.

Categories
"Top Tens", and others Movies

The 100 Best Films of the 2010s

The planning of making a top 100 movies of the 2010s started around a year ago, though the thought that it was a good idea to do so faded away more as time went on.

It almost began to cross the border into frivolity. A self made gordian knot.

Even though my top ten does seem to be set in stone now and for the future, the other ninety keep switching over time. You would think that my favorite movies of a certain year would be higher than those I thought second or third of the same year, but that is not always the case. Like all humans, my mind changes over time.

What I like most about this list is how personal it is to me. It does not have to align with other critics or movie buffs (which no “best of” list should, when you think about it).

That said, films such as Get Out, Black Panther, Knives out, The Farewell, Baby Driver, Eighth Grade, Blade Runner 2049, Joker, and even Frozen were films I had to Let Go of (pun intended).

Well, here it goes…

Continue reading “The 100 Best Films of the 2010s”
Categories
4 Stars Movies

1917 (2019)

Maybe it is just me, but I feel that if you were to ask someone on the street what they know about World War one, they would not have much to say. It seems like World War Two has nearly made the first World War seem dim by comparison (the death toll of the second World War is more than nearly all other wars combined). Perhaps that is why when we think of war films, we tend to think more toward the second one (Vietnam is in there as well).

In short, I had very little knowledge of the history going into director Sam Mendes’ 1917, which the director has dedicated to his World War one veteran grandfather, except for one of my personal favorite patriotic songs, “Over There”, was written during the war.

The story is simple: two young soldiers (Dean-Charles Chapman and George Mckay) are commissioned by General Erinmore (Colin Firth) to deliver a message. The message is to go deep behind enemy lines and call off a raid of 1,600 fellow troops from walking into a trap set up by the Germans, before all of them (including a brother of one of the soldiers) are massacred.

The film does not rely on star power (though we do get appearances from Sherlock alumni Andrew Scott and Benedict Cumberbatch), but that does not at all mean the actors are not effective in their roles. What stands out in the film is that it is edited to look as though the whole film is shot in one take. There were only three or so times I could count where I thought I saw the editing take place (one for sure toward the middle of the film), but it seemed so convincing I was gobsmacked. It truly is an ambitious endeavor that Mendes (who may best me known for helming Skyfall, arguably one of the top three or four best 007 flicks) chose to pursue. It is proof that the film ends (in a sense) where it began.

Everything in the film seems authentic: the search for food, the small talk on the road, the enclosed spaces, and the rats. Seriously, the first half or so of this film has so many rats I feel I should warn you in case you are afraid of them. There is also a true feeling of brotherhood between the two soldiers. I was reminded a lot of that great song “He ain’t heavy, he’s by brother” from 1969 made famous by The Hollies.

What had me somewhat hesitant of the film was whether it would have been as effective had Mendes not gone for the “one shot” method of film making. Had he not, it may not have been as memorable (the same could be said of the Best Picture winner of 2014, Birdman, which also took this approach). Sure, the film would have still looked great (it is shot by the unflappable Roger Deakins, after all), but the affect of the gritty, almost surrealistic feeling of war, would be lacking.

Parents, the movie is unsurprisingly rated R, mainly due to war violence and swearing. There is no sexual content (save for one comment about masturbation between the two soldiers), but nothing else. I think back to when I was eleven or so, and my dad wanted me to see Saving Private Ryan, but he wisely waited for me to be ready for it (I saw it not long after it was released on VHS).

From what I could find, the last known veteran of World War one to die was Florence Green in 2012, just days before she would have reached the ripe age of 111. That generation of heroes are no longer with us in person, but their service and heroism will echo throughout the rest of time. Regardless of the time or situation, war is truly hell for anyone involved, and 1917 displays all this and more as it pays tribute to heroes who need more recognition these days.

As in all the great war films, 1917 hides it’s ideas of warfare in plain sight. Soldiers knowing to follow orders regardless of what the orders are (“If you love me, keep my commands” – John 14:15). Random attacks of outside elements that cause mass confusion. Acting on instinct. Making mistakes both minor and major. Persevering. Protecting one’s brother(s). Being on guard for potential attacks by the enemy (think of how the devil is like “a roaring lion” as described in 1 Peter 5:8, and “roaming the earth” as described in Job 1:6).

Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not also sound like spiritual warfare as well?

Overall:

Rating: 4 out of 5.
Categories
"Top Tens", and others Movies

Top 20 Films of 2019

Toward the end of 2019, only when looking back did I realize how truly strong of a year this was for movies. As I progress in life as a movie goer, finding the good movies becomes easier. I always equate it to picking raspberries when I was a kid: the better ones are not always out in front. As has been the case of the past few years, I have decided to do a top 20 instead of a top 10. Even with 20, movies shown above such as The Two Popes, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Pain and Glory, and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker did not make the cut.

So without further ado…

Cinephiles!…ASSEMBLE!

Continue reading “Top 20 Films of 2019”
Categories
4 Stars Movies

Little Women (2019)

Except for the fact that it was a classic book that had been remade numerous times over the decades, my knowledge of Little Women was practically nil. Of course, as a kid, I would rather have been reading Robin Hood, Frankenstein, or Tom Sawyer over a book with a title clearly meant for the female audience. This left me entering the newest adaptation of Louis May Alcott’s beloved book mystified as to what I would experience, though I had some hopes since it was directed (and adapted) by Oscar nominee Greta Gerwig.

The result was, to say the very least, surprisingly heart warming, as Gerwig and the knockout cast deliver to both newbies (like me) as well as fans. While I may be wrong on some of the characters and their relationships, I will do my best (thankfully, there was an older couple two seats down the aisle from me, and I could here the woman explaining things to her husband.) The film is told in two separate times, seven years apart. The earlier days is during the civil war, where we meet the four march sisters. They are Jo (Saoirse Ronan, teaming up again with Gerwig after their 2017 film Lady Bird), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh), and Beth (Eliza Scanlen).

Their father is off serving the North in the Civil War, so they try to make the best of things alongside their mother, Marmee (the wonderful Laura Dern). We also meet their neighbor, Mr. Laurence (the ever reliable Chris Cooper) and his grandson Theodore, aka “Laurie” (Timothee Chalamet, also from Lady Bird). And, of course, let us not forget Aunt March, played by Meryl Streep. There are many actresses who can proclaim they are “not always right, but are never wrong.”, but can you think of any you would want to have say that over Streep?

As is the case with all siblings (not just sisters), there is love, envy, forgiveness, resentment, and mischief. This is mainly shown in the earlier time, since the sisters are younger and less mature. Each sibling has their own unique strength: Meg (who I believe is the eldest) is drawn to the theater. Jo is a writer of stories. Amy is a painter. Beth is musically inclined on the piano. A good chunk of the film is how each sister (especially Jo) realizes that growing up means going down different roads. As Meg states,

“Just because my dreams are different than yours, it doesn’t mean they’re unimportant.”

 They also have their different character traits as well (which I can only assume is true to the original material). While Meg and Beth are on the gentler side (especially Beth), it is Jo and Amy who are more head strong, which could explain why both are having feeling for Laurie. Jo herself states how she is amazed she was not born a boy. Even so, she is still prone to show her vulnerability.

One of the best examples of this is toward the end of the film, when Jo is talking to her mother about love (one of countless scenes of nearly impeccable acting). When asked if she loves a certain character, Jo responds,

“I care more to be loved. I want to be loved.”

Marmee responds,

“That’s not the same as loving.”

As humans, we are all looking for love. As children, we look towards our parents (or guardians). As we get older, we enter the stage of wishing for a significant other (once we realize cooties are not actually a thing.) Yet we realize that actual love is not a one way street: relationships don’t work if the love is not reciprocal.

Jo also has a moment of trying to defy God (which is an action that sums her character up in detail). While caring for a sick family member, Jo is told,

“We can’t stop God’s will.”

Jo responds,

“Well, God hasn’t met my will yet. What Jo wills shall be done.”

Regardless of where we are in our walk with God, we have all tried to defy God and/or his will at one point or another. This is one of the most raw forms of pride we possess. Of course, when we have a loved one who is sick, injured, or depressed, we feel bad for them as well as ourselves. It is when we start thinking along the lines of “Well God, if you won’t do anything, then I will!” that we start going down the wrong path.

All the performers make their mark, but the two that stand out are Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh. As of this writing, both of their awards buzz has died down a little, but I would still not at all be surprised if they heard their names when the Oscar nominations are announced.

Perhaps the best part of the film, however, is how Gerwig (who clearly has a great film making career ahead of her) adapted the story. She balances the classical nature of the story with the right amount of contemporary energy that makes the film seem almost like a relic, yet still relatable.

Parents, this may be the family holiday movie that you don’t know your family actually needs (though I can see young boys not wanting to see this.) It is rated PG, mainly for the thematic elements. There is no swearing or violence, and only two kisses I can remember. I would guess a girl of any age would heart this film.

Little Women does have moments were it tends to drag on a bit, but very few times: I was basically enthralled the whole time. When you think of it, making this film was very risky. A PG family movie with mainly a female lead cast, no action or songs (basically, a film not steered by the Mouse House). Yet that does not take away from the films morals of life, heartbreak, romance, and all the little things in between. As one character states,

“Morals don’t sell nowadays.”

Little Women is nothing short of a delight.

Overall:

Rating: 4 out of 5.
Categories
3 1/2 Stars Movies

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019) – Spoiler Free

Since the age of 9 or so, I have always considered myself a moderately strong member of the light side of the force. That said, I would be worse than a Sith Lord if I were to even begin to start spoiling what happens in the final saga of the nine episode epic. Though the film is far from perfect, The Rise of Skywalker is still going to offer satisfaction of some kind to anyone who is related to the force.

If you have seen the trailers (and if you haven’t you should probably stop reading), you know we are getting the return of Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid, owner of one cinema’s greatest cackles). All that is left in his way of returning the Sith to power is the remains of rebels in his way. Leading the charge, of course, is Rey (Daisy Ridley), still in search of the mystery of her past, with the tutelage of Leia (the late Carrie Fisher). Also still in rebellion (so to speak) is Finn (John Boyega) and Poe (Oscar Isaac), along with Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo, filling in for the late great Peter Mayhew), Rose (Kelly Marie Tran), and, of course, droids R2-D2, BB-8, and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels, the only actor to appear in all nine films). I would also be remiss if I did not mention Billy Dee Williams returning as Lando Calrissian.

As is always the standard for a Star Wars film, we get a handful of new characters. Again, I won’t try to spoil much, but two come to mind that I was a fan of. The first is a small droid called D-O (voiced by the film’s director, J.J. Abrams). The second is a character played by Richard E. Grant (last seen being nominated for an Oscar for 2018’s Can You Ever Forgive Me?). When you see him, you will see how he fits the role perfectly, and you wish the producers had gotten him earlier on in the series.

Perhaps what lacks in this film is how is does not continue the flow of episodes seven and eight. True, The Last Jedi is the one that is the oddball of the three (and I still defend it), but it seems like there are many elements where the story takes a step back instead of forward. What made the original trilogy so great (probably the best film trilogy there is) is that it not only worked as a trilogy, but as three individual films as well (The Godfather Trilogy would have if part three was up to par). For Star Wars Episodes 7-9, they work as individuals, but lack enough connection as a whole.

Parents, it is a Star Wars film, so it is likely your kids will be begging you to see this. There is mild violence and some swearing (very mild for a PG-13 movie). There is no nudity, and the only sexual content are a couple kisses (1 of them very briefly is between two female pilots and is completely unnecessary to the film; virtual signaling by Abrams).

The Rise of Skywalker indeed has a blissful conclusion, but the road there was rocky at best: Like traveling to Rome via Colorado’s Million Dollar Highway. A colleague of mine also mention how much the film has many similarities towards Avengers: Endgame (mainly in the last act).

Still, it is a satisfying conclusion to the saga that will as the tagline (and the immortal music of John Williams) informs us: No one is ever really gone.

Overall:

Rating: 3.5 out of 5.