Wonka

Wonka (Paul King, 2023)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=4, P=4 / Average OJ

Scale 1=3, Scale 2=3, Scale 3=3, Scale 4=3

Musical, Comedy, Family, Based on Book

I am a HUGE fan of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory from 1971, starring the incomparable Gene Wilder, so when I heard that there was going to be a prequel film about Willy, I was skeptical. With Timothee Chalamet? OK, I'm more interested... and other comedians I love (like Rich Fulcher and Keegan-Michael Key)? More interested... I always try to keep an open mind with any film, despite how difficult it seems to compare to another--after all, I firmly believe that each film stands on its own and is individual, and should be given a chance regardless if it is an adaptation or a reinterpretation. That being said, I liked Wonka. I liked it because it was cheerful, fun, and heart-warming. I liked it because it was an escape that I enjoyed being immersed in. I liked the winks and nods it gave to its predecessor and the music it made--it felt like a self-aware musical, with some of the numbers verging on parody. The cast and crew of Wonka knew what it was up against and didn't back down, in my opinion. If anything, they went all-out in full, Mel Brooks fashion. The writing was punchy and silly and zany, and I burst out laughing at a few gags and lines.

Of course, Timothee Chalamet is no Gene Wilder and his singing felt overly auto-tuned, but I believed that he could be a young Willy. Despite many reviews I read, I thought choosing to play him as an ultra-optimist with energy to spare fit perfectly. And the supporting cast felt like they were pulled directly out of a Roald Dahl book--extreme/one-dimensional characters worked here.

So, I was satisfied. Not epic or brilliant or particularly noteworthy, but very solid and fun. I will watch it again, for sure.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

The Boy and the Heron

The Boy and the Heron (Hayao Miyazaki, 2023)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=4, P=4 / Drooling

Scale O=4, Scale P=4, Scale Q=4, Scale R=4, Scale S=4

Animation, Coming of Age, Grief and Coping, Fantasy, Adventure

I had never managed to see a Miyazaki film in the theater when first released. And I never thought I would be able to until I heard that the master filmmaker's (likely) final film, The Boy and the Heron, was finally complete.

There is so much emotion in this film and I can feel the finality of this one--from the topic/storyline to the urgent pace, and the many meanings. Miyazaki is the sage imparting his final words of wisdom on us in each moment. This story is a swirling, twisting dream-like adventure that grapples with very real and difficult questions. How do you grieve and cope? Why is life full of pain? What is the purpose of living? And the broadest one, from the novel referenced in the story and the Japanese title, How do you live? This is not a light film. There are a few cheerful moments and some occasional light-hearted humor, but it is ultimately a serious story. I will need to watch this again and again to notice everything and to understand all that is going on. I don't think Miyazaki meant for this tale to be entirely comprehensible on the first or even second viewing. Like the philosophical questions the characters seek to answer, the film viewer (and the director, too) must search in lots of places and ways to find the answers. And that takes time. A whole lifetime, maybe.

A beautiful film that I will watch many times again, I'm sure.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

Loki Season 2

Loki Season 2 (Michael Waldron, 2023)

Click here for the basics

Rating: DSQ=11, SP=7 / Decadence

Scale A=4, Scale B=4, Scale C=3, Scale D=3, Scale E=4

Marvel, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Action, Adventure, Complex Relationships

I had high hopes for the second season of Loki, mostly because I was so surprised at how good the first season was. Season 1 brought us a new take on Marvel, with an emphasis on artistry and vibrancy that harkened back to the traditional comic books. I was again surprised by Season 2--while the show was still vibrant and visually intriguing, the emphasis impressively shifted to telling a very philosophical story about time, destiny, and the meaning of life. This is not what I would ever expect of the new MCU universe that usually chooses flashy and escapist fantasy over narrative depth. Loki Season 2 is a time travel adventure, but it is dark and deep. It's even a religious allegory, at times. Loki, as well as the other characters, must grapple with his "glorious purpose." There are hard choices, difficult realizations, deep philosophical conundrums. And all of this in serious urgency--the fate of the entire universe... needless to say, I was quite impressed by this one. 

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here

Napoleon

Napoleon (Ridley Scott, 2023)

Click here for the basics

Rating: Q=6, P=4 / Average OJ

Scale 1=4, Scale 2=2, Scale 3=2, Scale 4=2

Biopic, 19th Century, Historical, France

I went in to the theater with no expectations, but I had seen the very mixed reviews about Ridley Scott's latest film. I knew that the French were upset and disappointed, that much was not historically accurate, and that Joaquin Phoenix's performance was...different. That being said, though, I had an open mind.

Napoleon is a beautiful, epic cinematic experience. The visuals are stunning and leap from the screen, the battle sequences are phenomenal and immersive. There are moments that are breathtaking. The costume design and art direction are mesmerizing--like being in an exquisite and intricate oil painting. But the story of one of history's most mythologized and famous (or infamous) leaders is, quite frankly, flat.

I don't know how it is possible for Scott to make a story that is simultaneously intriguing yet also boring, but somehow he manages to do that. We are shown Napoleon as a general and as a rather annoying and boorish husband. We see him as an emperor, too, but in all these situations we know nothing about him. We see his citizens and soldiers following him without blinking, but we don't know why. Why? What did he do that makes you adore him so? We don't know. We aren't shown. What makes him tick, what interests him? What is his background? And what did he do for France besides fight battles? And the part that is confusing is that we know this information--he was a real figure. Why not show us Napoleon the leader--building up the economy and making reform? Why not show us that he was intelligent off the battlefield, too? That he had...a personality?

Phoenix's portrayal is interesting, I rather enjoyed it but there was so much missing. Not necessarily his fault, though, he worked with what he had--a very lackluster script.

One thing I will say: I would watch it again and enjoy it again. And I will be watching more Napoleon films from the past, as I'm aching to see a performance of him with more depth.

--Don't understand the ratings? Click here