Review by Adam Donato Certain actors just play themselves in every single movie. They've cultivated an image for themselves that can seldom ever be transcended. Mark Wahlberg has given some great performances in his career. Boogie Nights, The Departed, and The Happening are all unforgettable roles for Wahlberg. Way more often than not, he's playing more or less the same dude. In Arthur the King, Wahlberg plays himself if he were a racer. The film tells the true story of Mikael Lindnord, who embarks on an adventure race for one last chance at redemption for his career. Along the way, his team encounters a dog that becomes a part of the team. Does this Wahlberg vehicle feel good enough to win the hearts of audiences? Dog movies are so simple. All they have to accomplish is putting a dog on screen for "ruff"-ly ninety minutes, and dog lovers will lap it up. Arthur the King plays the exact same game. Every time the dog makes a noise or puts a paw in someone's hand, it's met with a collective "aw" from the audience. If that's your bag, more power to you. There's something beautiful in the simplicity of dog movies. To the movie's credit, Arthur is an adorable dog, and his journey with the team is cute. They form the strongest bond possible in the shortest amount of time. With a runtime of ninety minutes on the dot, Arthur the King has no time to spare. In fact, the movie feels like it barely has enough to take up the entire runtime. The adventure race they go on is quite thrilling when it's the story's focus. Seeing them overcome treacherous obstacles like a botched zipline is the movie's highlight. Too much of the runtime is full of overdramatic melodrama. In reality, Wahlberg's character is just going through a midlife crisis. It's the most baseline feel-good sports movie. There's a scene where a board of executives asks Wahlberg why he races, and he just screams at them. Nathalie Emmanuel's character has a tacked-on internal conflict, and Simu Liu is really focused on Instagram likes. The concern for whether or not they win the races goes out the window about halfway through the movie, and some of the character decisions are baffling, considering the circumstances. Lame humor and cheesy moments flood Arthur the King. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the whole movie.
Fans of dogs and/or Mark Wahlberg will deem this flick a good time, but its genericism and feeble presentation make it a negative experience for film fans. While Wahlberg condemns his involvement with Boogie Nights, it's much preferred than his recent output. Luckily, this one will get lost in the woods at the box office as Dune: Part Two and Kung Fu Panda 4 are cleaning up before the arrivals of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire and Godzilla x Kong: A New Empire. Fortunately for Wahlberg, dog lovers have a very low bar. Arthur the King opens in theaters on March 15. Rating: 1/5
0 Comments
Review by Adam Donato Dreamworks has seen success recently in their Puss in Boots sequel, which has led to further franchise expansions. A new theme park section for Dreamworks properties, a live-action How to Train Your Dragon trilogy, and a Shrek reboot, among others, are all a go for Dreamworks. It's been almost a decade since the last Kung Fu Panda, and Jack Black is arguably as popular as ever. The first three Kung Fu Panda movies are all quality animated films, so there's plenty of hope for a fourth installment. Will Dreamworks face the same backlash the Toy Story franchise had when they continued despite a perfect ending to the franchise? Toy Story 4 won an Oscar. It's not a problem continuing the franchise if there are stories that demand to be told. Kung Fu Panda 4 has Po finding a successor to the dragon warrior mantle. It feels just like Cars 3. Imagine remaking the most mid movie in the most mid Pixar franchise. Kung Fu Panda 4 is just that, mid. It's not offensively bad, but it doesn't justify its existence in any way besides franchise recognition at the box office. Before the press screening, there was an ad for the Peacock original, Megamind vs. the Doom Syndicate (syndicate — a word that children definitely understand and know how to say). It was quite poetic because Kung Fu Panda 4 also feels like the pilot movie for a spinoff series. This makes it very easy to be cynical about a fourth installment. Adding to the cynicism is the choice in casting. Fans of the franchise will immediately notice that the Furious Five is not in the marketing for the film. They're explained out of the story right away, which is unfortunate because the litany of fun side characters is part of what makes the franchise so great. The villain can shapeshift into anybody, which allows the movie to bring back Po's former villains. Only Ian McShane returns as Tai Lung and is given an unnecessary amount of lines to justify bringing the actor back. It's easy to assume that the only reason these characters are brought back is to further connect these films with the first three in a way that appears meaningful. All this does is remind audiences of the better films in the franchise. The two significant additions to the cast of Kung Fu Panda 4 are Awkwafina and Viola Davis. Think of the amount of blackmail that Awkwafina must possess to get her to star in every single movie known to man. These days, she feels like a Kevin Hart type. Actors work for a living, and she's just doing her job, but she may be hurting her career in the long run by over-saturating the market today. On the other hand, Davis is a welcome addition, as she's always great. Her character leaves more to be desired, though. She's an intimidating presence and has cool powers, but she doesn't have the emotional connection that Tai Lung and Shen had in the first two movies. Po is more motivated to defeat her as not only does she threaten the Valley of Peace, but there's also the added connection of her shapeshifting into his past foes and even himself.
The animation and jokes in this sequel are a major step down. The third movie has a recurring joke where the villain is constantly disappointed that other characters don't know him and his legacy. That joke is spammed in this installment and is even less funny this time around. The shticks of all the characters feel like they've run dangerously thin. There's a subplot where Po's dads follow in Po's wake to try to help/save Po. Everywhere they go, they make the same joke about pretending to be an intimidating presence when, in reality, they're just silly dads. This whole subplot feels like filler and doesn't lead to anything substantial. One of the things that made Puss in Boots: The Last Wish so good was that the animation was not only more advanced than its predecessors but also stylized in a way that made the franchise feel fresh. Kung Fu Panda 4 doesn't have more advanced animation, nor does it attempt to mix up the visual style. While Kung Fu Panda 4 is unnecessary and disappointing, it's still a mildly enjoyable experience. It will probably be skipped during rewatches of the franchise, but it was good enough hanging out with Po for another ninety minutes. The new additions are hit or miss, and the missing pieces leave this installment feeling empty. It's the worst film in the franchise, but kids will probably enjoy it and not be aware of how painfully predictable the story is. It's a movie that feels like it'sa Peacock original, and it would probably be a better experience waiting to stream it anyway. Kung Fu Panda 4 hits theaters on March 8. Rating: 3/5 Review by Adam Donato Esther Povitsky turned down the opportunity to star in a comedy series about her life. That’s not where her opportunities end, as she starred in, wrote, and executive produced Drugstore June. The film is also directed, written, and produced by Nicholaus Goossen, who experienced niche success in the comedic movie Grandma's Boy. It tells the story of a woman stuck in life by her delusions of being a social media influencer. When the pharmacy she works at gets robbed, June makes it her mission to solve the case. With hot comedic talents attached, such as Bobby Lee and Bill Burr, can this modern comedy make an impact? Povitsky’s character begins the movie at the most annoying place possible. This can be draining, but over time, it becomes one of the funnier aspects of the movie. Her character lives in her own world outside of everyday reality, so the other character’s reactions to her are quite comical. While the character works from a comedic perspective, once the plot really starts to kick in, she becomes much less engaging. She goes through an arc that has been done to death, and Drugstore June does little to make itself stand out amongst similar stories. At the end of the day, this movie is a comedy, and the title character supplies consistent laughs throughout. It will be interesting to see what projects Povitsky chooses going forward. Not only does Povitsky’s character become less engaging as the plot thickens, but the story ends up dragging the personality down. The mystery of who robs the pharmacy is not compelling and has an underwhelming payoff. It was a shame to see such little inclusion of Bill Burr’s character, as his scene was one of the funniest in the film. Weirdly enough, Bobby Lee has a very reserved performance. He’s still funny when used, but his character becomes a non-factor for most of the second half.
Drugstore June has a charismatic lead and a solid supporting cast. This movie looks to be a launching pad for Povitsky’s comedy career in film. From the poster alone, this looks like the perfect movie to be dropped on a streaming service. Seldom do movies feel more appropriate for streaming than on the big screen, but this film would thrive off casual at-home watches to find its audience. While the plot doesn’t keep up with the humor, Drugstore June is worth the watch. Drugstore June is now in theaters. Rating: 3/5 Review by Adam Donato Sony has cultivated as awful of a reputation as a major movie studio can have. Their handling of the rights to Spider-Man has been bailed out by partnering with the MCU and taking a risk with their animated movies. They've tried to build off this success by attempting to expand their Spider-Man universe. While Warner Brothers has found outstanding success with their solo villain movies like Joker, Sony has shit out solo films for Venom and Morbius, and this year will see the release of both Madame Web and Kraven the Hunter. Thanks to the selfish studios causing a writer's strike, both Madame Web and Kraven the Hunter have been pushed back. Sony probably wishes they could erase these movies for insurance money like the hack known as David Zaslav. Is this negative buzz/momentum going to manifest a shit show, or can Sony see their own future and avoid a total disaster? Morbius asserted itself as one of the most infamous releases of this decade, but with Madame Web, Sony has truly outdone themselves. At least Morbius looked like the comic book character sometimes. Madame Web has three scenes where the superhero characters are in their costumes, and the first two are in the trailers. It's so vile of Sony to market this movie like it's a superhero movie when it's clearly not. They're so desperate to squeeze every last drop of viability from the Spider-Man brand. Watching this movie is like eating the peel of an orange with the stickers still on it. Every conceivable connection to Peter Parker is already exhausted in the marketing. If you're only interested in this film for the cameos and references, steer clear. That is unless you're interested in hearing yet another interpretation of the "with great power comes great responsibility" line. Remember when Dakota Johnson's second role was a bit part in The Social Network? Choose your projects wisely, or you can fall down the same path. Johnson is learning that lesson now, as this movie made her switch agencies. This was due for her as she's a three-time nominee for the Alliance of Women Film Journalists award for Actress Most in Need of a New Agent. You don't need to watch the movie to tell that Dakota Johnson doesn't want to be there. Just watch her interviews! They're far more entertaining than her performance in the film. After this performance, the two-time Razzie winner is certainly due for a lifetime achievement award. At least Jared Leto tried with Morbius. The marketing outside of Johnson's indifference has been the sex appeal of the film. It's a female-led superhero film starring the star of the most iconic sex trilogy of all time. There are several promos for the movie where Johnson and Sydney Sweeney play up the sex appeal of watching this movie. It comes out on Valentine's Day, for Christ's sake. This is such a sleazy marketing move, as there's nothing overtly sexual about the film. How many types of movies will Madame Web try to be to entice anybody on the planet to see this movie in a theater? It's not a superhero movie, a thirst trap, or a romance. Who is Madame Web even for?
The rise of superhero movies in terms of quantity has not been met with a subsequent rise in great supervillains. The Batman aside, the supervillain landscape has been completely barren since the fall of Thanos. Tahar Rahim plays Ezekiel Sims in Madame Web. His character murders Madame Web's mother and takes the spider they discovered back with him to the States. He uses the spider to gain wealth and powers but is haunted by the visions of three young Spider Women killing him. He's a standard mustache-twirling villain, but not in a fun way. He's just the bad guy, and even his personal connection to Madame Web is completely squandered. His look is so bland it's ugly. There's no interesting backstory for his character. There's no compelling performance. There's no moral gray area. His powers are lackluster. What a waste of a villain. Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced, and Celeste O'Connor will probably get away with this disaster of a movie. Obviously, there will not be any sequels or continuation of this story whatsoever. They're young enough in their careers that they will be able to endure this shit show. Sweeney still has the surprise hit Anyone But You in theaters for an encore release, Merced has an Alien film, and O'Connor has another Ghostbusters film coming out this year. This trio has to deal with the stereotypes of their characters dialed up to the absolute maximum. Their wardrobe is reminiscent of when Disney adults go to the theme parks wearing regular outfit versions of Disney costumes. They sport the color scheme of their superhero counterparts, and they're rarely allowed to be proactive in the action. These helpless schoolgirls annoyingly bicker throughout the entire film, and their default move for playing around is throwing things at each other. While it's frustrating only to see these characters in costume during visions, nobody will be clamoring to see these characters continue forward. Madame Web is a film that will make audiences lose respect for ambulances and never want to drink Pepsi again. Johnson is due for a career redemption arc after this stinker of a performance. There isn't an ounce of anything compelling here, from the story to the characters. It's an embarrassment to the genre and is sure to inspire many empty theaters. In what has been a pitiful year at the cinema so far, Madame Web blows itself out of the water. Only a Dune sequel can save us now. Be sure to catch Dune: Part Two in theaters starting next month. Madame Web hits theaters on February 14. Rating: 0/5 Review by Adam Donato Bosco tells the real-life story of an incarcerated man and his pursuit of freedom. Aubrey Joseph stars as the title character in his first-ever leading role in a film. The film is based on a book from the real-life Quawntay Adams, and the fact that he produced this movie adds to how inspiring his story truly is. Nicholas Manuel Pino writes and directs the film, with his only other major credit coming from composing for The Equalizer. Since the film is debuting on Peacock, it will be tough to see Bosco making a huge splash. Is this true story inspiring enough to attract subscribers to Peacock? Joseph pulls off a solid performance despite his character being hard to understand for most of the movie. He mumbles throughout the film, making it difficult to discern his character's words. This was exceedingly frustrating since a good bit of the dialogue in the movie is from the narration of the title character. Tyrese Gibson is one of the more notable names attached to the film. The star barely clocks any real screen time, but his opening scene does a good job of setting the tone for the film and setting up the themes for the piece. Vivica A. Fox and Thomas Jane also top the billing and are welcomed names on the project. Nikki Blonsky, star of the Hairspray remake, is one of the better surprises of the film. Her character deeply sympathizes with Bosco, and it's one of the more engaging threads of the film. While Bosco does ham up the inspiring storyline, it's supposed to be overtly inspiring. It's more poignant to hear Bosco's inner monologues — the real thoughts of a man incarcerated with no end in sight — since the story is based directly on the book. The mental and emotional bargaining of the main character is compelling enough to hold the audience's attention throughout. The third act is the film's brightest spot, as all the individual threads come together in a thrilling escape. It's no Shawshank Redemption, but it's a solid prison film with plenty of interesting and relatable reflections.
Would Bosco have the sauce to attract a crowd at the box office? Probably not, but it's solid enough to attract fans of the real-life Bosco — it's an uplifting story about a subject of real divisiveness in our country today. Tales of the downtrodden not letting the system hold them down deserve to be told. If it's condemned to the depths of Peacock's library, so be it. The film releases on the second day of Black History Month, and checking out the film is a good way to support Black stories and artists. Bosco is now streaming on Peacock. Rating: 3/5 Review by Adam Donato Jenna Ortega has wasted no time this decade becoming one of the most iconic “it” girls working today. From X to the Scream franchise, she has asserted herself as many people’s celebrity crush. There’s a subgenre of film whose specific purpose is to be visual softcore erotica, and Ortega is taking her swing at it with Miller’s Girl. Ortega is a passionate schoolgirl who begins a relationship with her teacher due to their mutual love of writing. This is Jade Halley Bartlett’s debut as a writer, director, and producer. With this kind of star power, does Bartlett have the juice to deliver a satisfying sexual awakening? Ortega can’t control her height or cute face, but she can control the projects she chooses. The schoolgirl look is brought to life here as her character tries to pursue an older man for sex. It’s one thing for movies like The Voyeurs and My Policeman to be built around their sex appeal, as Sydney Sweeney and Harry Styles play consenting adults in their sex dramas. How is anyone supposed to indulge in their sexual fantasies of situations like Miller’s Girl without coming across as a total pedo? Ortega is a legal adult, so it’s fine for an adult to be attracted to her, but the nature of the context removes all sexual comfortability. It’s not sexy to watch an underage girl seduce a married middle-aged man. If the goal is to turn on the audience, Miller’s Girl fails. The moral question the film begs about adolescent sexual fantasies is the most interesting aspect of the film. Ortega’s character is a child, so she cannot consent to sex, but that doesn’t change her feelings. The blame would then befall the parents who hold zero presence in their daughters life as she transitions into a young woman. Martin Freeman plays the teacher Ortega’s character with which is infatuated, and his character is not exactly innocent. He aids and abets his fellow teacher friend, who is openly courting a promiscuous student. Who could blame Freeman’s character as he shuts the situation down when it becomes too sexually charged? His pleasure in the situation seemed more so to derive from a place of appreciation for previously withheld recognition for his work, but it’s implied he has sexual feelings for his student, too. The moral of the story seems to be to not neglect parental duties, for the child’s pursuit of love may become misguided.
Ortega’s performance is nothing she hasn’t already done before. Fans of her work will find this role to be a lateral move. It doesn’t seem like she will be venturing outside her comfort zone anytime soon, though, as her next big project is the Beetlejuice sequel. While trying to withhold judgment, it feels problematic to portray Ortega’s character here as cool. She's certainly shown as a villainous character, but a cool one at that. Her character is not condemned in the way it should be as the context of the story is very troubling. Freeman is similarly uninspired. It feels like his role could be played by a litany of similar actors and it’s easy to wonder why Freeman would be the man to inspire such a sexual awakening. While Bashir Salahuddin’s character is the most reprehensible, his performance is the standout of the film as he brings life to every scene he participates in. Miller’s Girl goes down a problematic path for a movie trying to arouse its audience. The moral dilemma at play is flirted with, but the story wraps up before anything is allowed to get really interesting. The goal of the film clearly is for Ortega to be portrayed as cool and hot. Check Miller’s Girl out if you’re a die-hard Jenna Ortega fan or if your kink is the Hobbit from the prequel trilogy. Other than that, steer clear of this one. Miller's Girl hits theaters on January 26. Rating: 2/5 Review by Adam Donato It's funny that the conversation around movie musicals seems so negative when there are so many out today: Wonka, The Color Purple, and now Mean Girls. The Color Purple is the closest comparison to Mean Girls as they're both musical adaptations of popular films from decades ago that got stage productions. While The Color Purple gets a shiny Christmas release date, Mean Girls is relegated to January. Why is Mean Girls not getting a big holiday release? Why is Mean Girls arguably the biggest offender of musicals with marketing campaigns that hold back the fact that they're a musical? The answer is that it's bad. Two significant things differentiate the original from the musical adaptation. The obvious one is the fact that this movie is filled with songs. If the songs aren't any good, then what's the point of the musical adaptation? At least it's adding music instead of just doing a shot-for-shot remake. The songs aren't horrible, but terribly underwhelming. You know you saw a good musical when you're adding multiple songs to your music playlist or even if they're stuck in your head after the movie. "Revenge Party" is probably the most memorable of the bunch, as it's led by the two most well-done characters. All the numbers are full of energy and colorful, but the lyrics and performances are lackluster. The villain song was especially disappointing as Renee Rapp reprises her role from the stage. It just feels like there's so much meat on this bone, and this soundtrack only eats the skin. The other major difference from the original is the cast, outside of Tina Fey and Tim Meadows. Angourie Rice looks the part more, especially since the main character is supposed to be this shy nobody. That's a lot easier to buy if it's played by the news girl from the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies rather than the star that Lindsey Lohan was at the time. That being said, Rice's lack of musical talent holds her back from the comedic heights achieved by Lohan. Rapp is similarly lackluster, but that's more understandable as the crowning achievement of the original film is Rachel McAdams's performance. Regina George is the most important character to nail, and for her villain song to be so basic was tragic. It's frustratingly hard to understand what she's even singing. There are some attempts to add "star power" to this cast with Jenna Fischer, Jon Hamm, and Busy Phillips. The only one of the three to utilize their screen time is Phillips, and even she is a significant step down from Amy Poehler. It's not all terrible, as Jaquel Spivey shines here. That's not to say he's better than Daniel Franzese — just that his interpretation is also appealing. Everyone else from the rest of the plastics and Moana herself is mid, especially in comparison to the original. It wouldn't be so easy to call out how this adaptation pales in comparison to the original if the songs were better.
If you're looking for a reunion special or a musical encore, Mean Girls is certainly the affair for you. People who are not fans of the original will not be as easily amused by lame cameos and references. Mean Girls is a great time if all you want to do is remember the original Mean Girls. While nothing is offensively bad about the music and performances, it's the cinematic equivalent of the question: "Is Pepsi okay?" That's why it comes out in January. Mean Girls hits theaters on January 12. Rating: 2/5 Review by Adam Donato The best and worst thing for the marketing of this remake is that the original film was directed by Steven Spielberg (who also serves as a producer here). It puts butts in seats, but it also comes with lofty expectations. Luckily, there’s full support from the stars of the original. Still, remake holds its own because the changing of the genre. Who doesn’t like musicals? It seems a good chunk of audiences don't, as studios are disguising their musicals as regular movies. The Color Purple is the least of these recent offenders as the music is front and center in the marketing. Will this musical push pay dividends, or should this story have stayed in the eighties? Like it or not, the theater experience is a communal one. Some movies capture the passion of audiences in an almost interactive way. The Color Purple is sure to inspire elation from its audience as it is a full meal of a movie. The tragedy is heartbreaking. The struggle is torturous. The pursuit of justice is a triumph. The music puts an exclamation mark on all of these emotions. The story is one most of the target demographic has probably seen before, and they're rewarded with little winks to the original film. Save movies like The Holdovers for midweek afternoons, The Color Purple is for Friday night. It's sure to inspire people to feel their hearts out and join in on the fun. When it was announced there was a remake of The Color Purple, it was refreshing to hear they're coming at the story from a new angle. The musical aspect of the movie makes the story more upbeat than the original, which can sometimes conflict with a story mainly about female suffering. This line is toed well, though, as the music emphasizes how uplifting the story is supposed to be. The most fun number is "Hell No!" by Danielle Brooks. Meanwhile, the most powerful number comes from Fantasia Barrino with "I'm Here." While it does come too late in the story, it's such a triumphant number. Barrino and Brooks are definite stars in The Color Purple. Barrino is the more likely of the two to get nominated, but it would be no surprise to see Brooks getting a Supporting Actress nomination. What Barrino brings to the lead role is special. She has the kind of smile that looks like she's holding in a laugh. It's very infectious. Especially since it's a character that faces so many hardships, when the audience gets to see her smile, it's a blessing. These are two smaller-time actresses who hopefully get more of the spotlight going forward after these standout performances. The rest of the cast was good as well, including Colman Domingo and Taraji P. Henson. Hopefully, musical regulars of today, like Halle Bailey and Corey Hawkins, will keep the ball rolling as well.
The Color Purple gives a musical adaptation that stands on its own with the original. The songs bring life to a sad tale, and the new cast is exciting. There's a world where this movie dominates the Christmas box office and sneaks its way into the Best Picture race. While the public opinion of musicals has not been too favorable, musicals like this are going out of their way to make a case for their continuation. The Color Purple hits theaters on December 25. Rating: 4/5 Review by Adam Donato George Clooney has had a remarkable career in filmmaking. He’s won Oscars for both his work as an actor and as a producer. The aspect of filmmaking he has tried and failed at has been directing. That might be a little harsh as his movies are more mid than terrible. His latest effort is The Boys in the Boat, a true story about a team of junior varsity rowers who make a miracle Olympic run. Starring Joel Edgerton and Callum Turner, The Boys in the Boat looks to duplicate its story’s underdog spirit at the box office. Does George Clooney have a surprise winner on his hands? Sports movies are pretty formulaic, and when they’re true stories, they aren’t full of surprises. The Boys in the Boat is about as standard as it gets when it comes to sports movies. The leads are so ordinary and uninteresting. As the buttoned-up coach, Edgerton plays the role well but isn’t given much to do. Turner is the lead character and is less than charismatic. He’s poor, likes his girlfriend, and has daddy issues. His story did not need to be front and center. It’s not outwardly bad — it’s just remarkably unspecial and bland. Clooney saps this story up for the old folks looking for an uplifting underdog true story. The guy who played Hitler in the movie had a better performance. If one of the main characters was more religious, it’s funny how Dennis Quaid would play the coach. You’ve seen this story before. The only thing the movie has going for it is that rowing crew is not an oversaturated type of sports movie. It’s one of the most beautiful sports in terms of terrain. There is beauty in how in sync the towers are as they glide through the water. There are some creative shots of the boys rowing in the boat that are pretty cool. It’s a niche sport as it’s very upscale, requiring commitment to physical fitness and high cost. The main character joins the team because it pays well, which is just a testament to the physical toll the position takes on someone at the highest level. Rowing crew is a beautiful sport that makes The Boys in the Boat stand out in a crowded genre.
To call The Boys in the Boat Oscar bait would be unfair. There’s no way Clooney is seriously expecting even to get nominated for any kind of Oscar for this. Pumping back on the hate for Clooney, though, there are much worse things than being mid. The Boys in the Boat is a competent sports film that showcases a gorgeous and underrepresented sport. The old guy made a cameo in The Flash movie; he can make his rowing movie in peace. Clooney better love this movie, as audiences will only have a mildly enjoyable time at the theater for this one. The Boys in the Boat hits theaters on December 25. Rating: 3/5 Review by Adam Donato Stop-motion animation fans rejoice! Another feature-length entry is added to a subgenre seldom given its due credit. Unfortunately, this entry comes in the form of a sequel that nobody was asking for. The original Chicken Run is a childhood classic at this point, straight from a time when it wasn't abnormal for a G-rated movie to be in theaters. In what world does the sequel require parental guidance, but the original is a whole rating safer? With the movie premiering on Netflix, parents will likely throw this on and leave the room anyway. Are people nostalgic enough to stream a sequel to Chicken Run? It's a cliche to call a sequel "The Empire Strikes Back of the franchise." Luckily for Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget, that won't be a problem. Characters keep using the word "again" in the movie. How original can a Chicken Run sequel be anyway? This time around, the chickens are trying to break into a chicken farm to save some chickens, instead of the chickens trying to break out of the chicken farm like in the original. The opening prologue recaps the original film as if audiences need catching up. One could watch this sequel without watching the original, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The animation is arguably a lateral move from the original film. Just watch the original instead. This sequel brings nothing new to the table whatsoever. Not even a new villain. We're doing the same thing again. This sequel isn't an exact carbon copy, as the lead roles are recast. Despite Julia Sawalha and Mel Gibson still kicking, their roles were recast with Thandiwe Newton and Zachary Levi — recent Netflix favorites as Newton stars in the Big Mouth series, and Levi recently starred in a Spy Kids reboot. One could argue recasting Gibson was necessary due to his poor public perception, but to replace him with Levi is hilarious. Levi is a worse version of Chris Pratt these days. Both of these recastings are unremarkable. Rising star Bella Ramsey from The Last of Us series stars as the daughter of the main couple. Casting celebrities as voice actors is a marketing attempt that doesn't seem fruitful here as nobody is watching the Chicken Run movie because these stars are in it — it's totally uninspired casting.
Few Netflix films have stood the test of time. Even if they're good, they fade into the background of the streaming service unless they have clout like The Irishman. Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget is franchise nostalgia bait that will almost certainly fade into obscurity. The only way this sequel getting nominated for Best Animated Feature is a good thing is if it means Wish doesn't score a nomination. There are too many quality animated films this year to justify recommending people prioritize this one. I respect the animation style, but other than that, it's an uninspired whatever of a movie. Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget hits theaters on December 8 and Netflix on December 15. Rating: 2/5 |
Archives
March 2024
Authors
All
|