​The idea of movies being created from novels is one that is as old as film itself, but, to me, is a fairly polarizing idea. On one hand, you want to see the story that you read come to life on the big screen, experiencing the emotions of the novel through a different lens. However, on the other hand, there is always the fear that the film will butcher a story you already love, removing a number of elements that you felt made the novel shine or changing characters in ways you don’t deem fit. I have actually begun gravitating towards seeing a movie before I read the novel, as it is less common to have the novel not live up to its film adaptation. As is the case for me with Roald Dahl, whose children’s stories and novels have quickly become modern classics. I have never read a Roald Dahl work, but have seen a few films based on his movies and, in preparation for the adaptation of his novel The BFG set to release this Friday, figured it would be fitting to discuss them.

​Based on what is arguably Dahl’s best known work, Willy Wonka is quite possibly the textbook definition of a classic children’s film. The movie follows Charlie, a young boy who lives in poverty, who lives in the same town as an old chocolate factory. The Wonka factory is riddled in mystery, being closed to the public for years, until it is announced that six golden ticket holders (tickets can be found inside Wonka chocolate bars) will be given a tour of the factory by Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) himself. After finding one of the golden tickets, Charlie and his grandfather, Grandpa Joe, venture into the factory with the other five winners, finding a place more magical than they could have ever imagined.  
​
Willy Wonka is a rare film, in that it manages to maintain a level of whimsy and intrigue merely through its aesthetic. The world of the chocolate factory is so spectacular and imaginative that it is easy to get lost looking at the beautiful scenery. The movie uses this excellent setting to its advantage throughout the film, especially when the children first enter the factory and see the chocolate river in the first room. Like most Dahl adaptations, the imagination used to create the world is astounding, and the creative team that put the Wonka factory together deserves constant praise for their work.

The universe of Wonka’s factory is greatly enhanced by Wonka himself, and a lot of the credit for how interesting he is goes to Gene Wilder. Wilder’s performance is as crazy as the factory his character operates in, constantly switching between snide remarks and over-the-top antics. He keeps the audience on its toes constantly, keeping him as mysterious to the audience as he is to the characters. His nature is complimented by the aesthetic, and the aesthetic complimented by him in a way that I don’t think I’ve ever experienced. The movie does everything else excellently as well, but it is the way the movie fells (and makes you feel) that makes it a timeless classic.

​Grade: A+

The marriage of Roald Dahl’s whimsy and Wes Anderson’s charm creates one of the most original feeling children’s movies in recent cinema with Fantastic Mr. Fox. The movie follows Mr. Fox (George Clooney), a thief turned newspaper columnist who decides he wants to go back to his life of crime for a few nights, stealing from three evil farmers. However, his return to a life of crime has more repercussions than he could have bargained for, including a change in his relationship with his wife (Meryl Streep).

If any of you have ever seen a Wes Anderson film, you know pretty much exactly what you are in for. The movie has all the excellence of your standard Wes Anderson film: great dialogue, superb timing, a wonderful aesthetic and beautiful cinematography. These aspects are always present in his films, but are not always the most prominent aspects of children’s movies. Fantastic Mr. Fox’s biggest asset is that it feels like a Wes Anderson movie, not toned down for children. It never feels like it is talking down to its audience, and never feels like it was written with specifically children in mind. Other than having a lack of graphic violence and language, the movie is no different feeling from any other great Wes Anderson film, which is extremely refreshing. 

The dialogue, like in many of his other films, is so interesting and well put together. The dialogue feels so natural and flows in way that sounds more like a normal conversation than the script to a film. That fact is even more impressive in this film, where the lines are coming from animal creatures who steal crops and livestock from farmers. When characters that could not exist in the real world can sound natural, the movie feels so much more real than it looks. The characters are far more relatable and interesting when the dialogue is natural, and Wes Anderson is one of the masters of this. Overall, what results is one of the most original feeling children’s movies I’ve ever seen, and an excellent edition to Wes Anderson’s already amazing filmography.
​
Grade: A 

There are very few instances in which an upcoming film is not screened for press before its release, and in those rare instances it’s usually for one of three reasons. First: the movie is a small indie film which can’t afford much advertisement and publicity. Two: the film is a massive, highly-anticipated release and the studio is worried about spoilers for the movie leaking out (in which case press screenings may be held under extreme secrecy). Three: the studio doesn’t bother holding screenings because the movie is expected to be a massive flop. Independence Day: Resurgence was not screened for Boston press prior to release, so I naturally assumed the worse: that the movie was going to be absolutely terrible. As it turns out, Resurgence is not a completely awful film, but compared to the original it is generic, cluttered, and a bit soulless.
​
Twenty years have passed since the events of the original Independence Day (termed the “War of 96”). Since repelling the alien invasion, humanity has worked to rebuild the Earth. The nations of the world have put aside their differences, and have formed an international military organization called Earth Space Defense to act as the first line of defense against any further alien attacks. Reverse-engineered alien technology has led to startlingly advancement in weapons technology and enabled the creation of defense stations on the Moon and elsewhere in the solar system. With the exception of a few remnant alien guerilla fighters in Africa, the world is peace. But on the eve of the twentieth anniversary of the invasion, humanity’s greatest fear is realized: the aliens return.

Independence Day: Resurgence features most of the cast of the original film, most notably Jeff Goldblum as David Levinson (now head of Earth Space Defense), Bill Pullman as (former) President Thomas Whitmore, Judd Hirsch as Julius Levinson, and Brent Spiner as Dr. Brackish Okum. Joining them are a number of brand new characters, such as pilots Jake Morrison (Liam Hemsworth), Dylan Dubrow-Hiller (Jessie Usher, the son of Will Smith’s now-deceased character), and Patricia Whitmore (the once-First Daughter, played by Maika Monroe), 45th President of the United States Elizabeth Landford (Sela Ward), and a psychologist and xeno-linguistics expert Dr. Catherine Marceaux (Charlotte Gainsborough). And if you think this is a lot of characters, just wait until you see all the ones I didn’t mention. The huge number of characters in the film sometimes work to its advantage, acting as a Game of Thrones-style round-robin where there is no ‘main character’, but more often makes the film seem cluttered and with too many side-plots. Characterization also suffers as so many actors fight for the precious 120 minutes of total screen time.

But the real problem with Independence Day: Resurgence is that in the twenty intervening years between the original and now, the spark of fun and comedy that makes the first one such an entertaining blockbuster has been lost. Although Resurgence is just as over-the-top as its predecessor, it takes itself far more seriously and ditches most of the charm and humor of the original. But once you take that element out of Independence Day, all you’re left with is a generic sci-fi action/Roland Emmerich disaster flick, which is exactly what the sequel is.

Independence Day: Resurgence is not completely devoid of value, for even if it is a generic sci-fi action movie, it’s a fairly competent sci-fi action movie, complete with all the aerial dogfights, technobabble, Roland Emmerich disaster porn you could ever ask for. But without that spark that made the original film a classic, the one-liners ring hollow, the plot holes are glaringly obvious, and the rousing speeches just aren’t that inspiring. If you want nothing more than a typical sci-fi action popcorn flick, then you’ll be satisfied, but if you’re hoping for a repeat of the original than you’ll go home disappointed.

Grade: C 

​It seems like a common theme I’ve been writing about recently is the topic of originality and uniqueness, as discussed here and here. If you didn’t see those reviews, the long story short is that we live in the era of the franchise, the sequel, the prequel, the remake, the animated reimagining… It’s so rare today to see a really good and original film. But every once in a while, there is something original and unique. And when that happens, it’s a thing of beauty. This week I watched a film that was so different, so bizarre, that when it was over and the credits started to roll, everyone in the theatre collectively looked at each other and said: “What the FUCK did we just watch?” What we watched was Nicolas Winding Refn’s The Neon Demon, and it was awesome.

Our main character, or character archetype in this case, is a young girl named Jesse (Elle Fanning). She has just moved from a small town in Georgia to Los Angeles to make a career for herself in the LA fashion industry. She’s young, innocent, seemingly naïve, and possesses an enchanting and haunting beauty. Jesse is soon taken under the wing of a local make-up artist named Ruby (Jena Malone), but not before her quick success and incredible looks arouses the jealously of a pair of competing models, Gigi and Sarah (Bella Heathcote and Abbey Lee, respectively). As Jesse learns to navigate the cutthroat competition of the fashion industry, she quickly learns of the power her beauty bestows upon her, and of the terrible price she may have to pay for it.

Now, while that blurb probably reminded you of Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan, it’s really only similar on the surface. First and foremost, The Neon Demon is a Refn film through and through. It has all the same defining characteristics as Drive and Only God Forgives. It has the impeccably well-done camerawork and scenes drenched in garish neon colors. It has long stretches of silence, including lots of people staring intently at each other (although he has toned that down from his past films). And just as Ryan Gosling played the strong, silent male archetype, Elle Fanning plays the young, sweet, innocent female archetype (although Refn does subvert it to an extent). It very much feels like the logical successor to his two previous works.

However, where The Neon Demon differs is its subject matter. And by this I don’t mean just violence, although Refn has certainly never shied away from graphic violence in his films. The Neon Demon is not only graphically violent (although to a lesser degree than Only God Forgives), but depicts the characters committing a wide range of morally reprehensible acts in ways that leave absolutely nothing to the imagination. I know I’m being somewhat vague here, but I really do think that apart from the disclaimer that you might be incredibly disgusted and disturbed by what you see on screen, you should go into the movie knowing as little as possible. I will say, though, that at least a dozen people walked out of the screening I attended, including one women who yelled about how this movie is “sick and twisted” and that “you’re demonic if you enjoy this!”

But apart from those who literally walked out of the theatre, and the collective bewilderment of the audience, every single person I talked to after the screening loved the film. Why is that? The Neon Demon made me confused, terrified, and frequently disgusted at what was being depicted on screen. It’s a surreal (and surprisingly comedic) mind-fuck which feels like a giant middle finger from Refn to everyone who told him to make a more “normal” or “accessible” film after Only God Forgives. It is a movie which revels in its ability to shock, offend, and disturb its audience, including its ability to make us laugh at some truly awful things.  To be honest, I’m still not entirely sure why I love it so much- I feel like I need a few more days to digest the film before writing a review of it. But what I do know is that Refn has made the most perplexing, disturbing, and beautiful film of the year. And that it is amazing.
​
Grade: A

​The summer blockbuster had gone through many phases throughout the years, with the disaster movie having had its heyday quite a few years ago. Films where the world, and the people in it, are put to the test by some kind of natural or extraterrestrial disaster feel very mid-nineties, a style of movie that has gone out of fashion. During the nineties and the early noughties, Roland Emmerich dominated the disaster movie genre, creating hugely-budgeted and special effects-heavy movies that were meant to make audiences feel as though the world was crumbling around them. However, like the person who continues to tell the same joke years after people found it funny, Emmerich has continued making the same disaster movie over and over again. This Friday, the sequel to Emmerich’s 1996 hit Independence Day, Independence Day: Resurgence, is set to release. And, if it’s anything like the rest of his works, it will be boring, repetitive and as flashy as possible.

Generally, when I write these pieces, I review each of the movies individually. But, I felt like it would genuinely be a waste of time to talk about the two movies I watched this week separately. The two movies are so similar, and my opinions of them so nearly identical, that I don’t think there is any reason I shouldn’t just talk about them at the same time. While one movie is about an alien invasion and the other is about the Mayan prediction of the end of the world, both movies follow an eclectic cast of characters as they deal with the disaster. However, while one of these films embraces the over-the-top nature of the disaster genre and attempts to make the film fun, the other completely flounders as it attempts to be a piece of higher drama.

Many of Emmerich’s movies involve a group of people who know the disaster event is going to happen but are ignored (even though they are experts in their field whom one would think most people would believe), those in power who try to stifle knowledge of the disaster event and the every man, whose normal life is tragically altered by the event. These groups of people come with every cliché in the book, feeling literally copied and pasted from one script to another. Where Independence Day has Jewish scientist stereotypes, 2012 has Indian scientist stereotypes. Where Independence Day uses Will Smith as the cool soldier version of the everyman, 2012 has John Cusack to be the absentee, novelist father. On the surface these characters may seem different, but they serve identical purposes to the plot.

What is interesting, however, is how Independence Day manages to be enjoyable despite its corniness, while 2012 is, at times, nearly insufferable. Perhaps it is because Independence Day has a cast of actors that are far more charismatic, using Will Smith, Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum to make the film entertaining. Or perhaps it is because 2012 seems to take itself far more seriously, trying to inject the constant use of tropes that plague Emmerich’s movies with drama rather than with campy fun. Both movies, however, are far too long for what they are trying to be. There is no need for a disaster movie to be two-an-a-half grueling hours long, and any semblance of enjoyment that I got out of either film dissipated quickly after about ninety minutes.
​
And there honestly not much else I can say about these films. They are the most generic kind of movies out there; the type of films that play on Cinemax at 3:00 AM. And I’m sure at 3:00 AM, when you are barely conscious or crazy drunk, these movies are either enthralling or entertaining enough to hold at least some interest. But I found little joy out of either of them, feeling as though it were a chore to make it all the way to the end. The characters are one-note, the dialogue cliché, the plot exceedingly basic and the special effects flashy in a way that seems to hope you’ll be distracted from the rest of the movie. I found nothing compelling here, and highly doubt I will ever be compelled by his other, similar disaster movies. ​

Independence Day Grade: D+
2012 Grade: D-

​PS: I just read that Roland Emmerich called the Marvel movies “silly”, claiming his films are more down to Earth. Independence Day features a scene where the President of the United States pilots a fighter jet against a group of aliens. His 1992 film Universal Soldier is about a man who dies in Vietnam and is reanimated as a deadly cyborg. 2012 features an extended scene where Woody Harrelson tells John Cusack about the end of the world with a wacky animated film he made, while constantly eating pickles. Just makes me curious as to what his definition of “silly” is.

This loss is a large one to bear. In his short twenty-seven years of life (fifteen of which were spent as an actor), Anton Yelchin gave performances more energetic and powerful than any actor could hope to in triple that time. Anton worked alongside many of the greats, and was debatably one of them himself.

Each time I watched Anton on the screen, it felt like he was reaching out and pulling me into whatever universe he was occupying at the moment. His filmography is expansive and diverse, ranging from commercial hits like Star Trek to goofy, indie coming-of-age flicks like Charlie Bartlett. One of his latest and final credits was Jeremy Saulnier's Green Room, a brutal and intense horror film. Anton's performance in this film encapsulates his strengths as an actor: emotional rawness, ability to transform into any character thrown his way, an almost chameleon-like sensibility that makes his performances immediately relatable to the viewer.

Anton Yelchin's presence in the film industry will be greatly missed. This loss leaves a gaping hole in the hearts of many, as well as in the heart of the American film industry. He brought life to each screen he graced. It was a pleasure and honor watching him grow as an actor, and I am devastated that will not see what was left in store for him, which was certain to be great.

Rest in peace, Anton Yelchin. ​

There are few dates on each year’s film release schedule I look forward to more than the opening day of a new Pixar movie. As anyone who read my articles on Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur know, Pixar is one of my favorite film studios. Their movies, with unique premises, impeccably well-written characters, and emotionally moving stories, have set a new high-bar for animated cinema. Films such as The Incredibles, Inside Out (which was my top film of last year), and Finding Nemo are some of my favorite films ever. It is for this reason that Pixar’s increasing reliance on sequels in recent years have started to concern me. Yes, the Toy Story 2 and 3 are fantastic, but Monsters University was somewhat disappointing, and don’t even get me started on Cars 2. Finding Dory, although certainly still a good film, has not done much to allay my worry about Pixar’s recent lack of originality.
​
It has been one year since Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) returned to the Great Barrier Reef after rescuing Nemo (Hayden Rolence). Dory has become a part of their family, but one day her memory is jogged and she suddenly remembers her parents (voiced by Diane Keaton and Eugene Levy) and where she grew up on the coast of California. Dory decides that she must embark on a journey to find them and, after some trepidation on Marlin’s part, the three set of a new adventure. Along the way they meet some new friends, including a pair of sea lions (Idris Elba and Dominic West), a whale shark and childhood friend of Dory’s named Destiny (Kaitlin Olson), an injured beluga named Bailey (Ty Burrell), and a cranky octopus named Hank (Ed O’Neill). But will Dory be able to remember enough about her past to find her parents, and will they still be waiting for her after so many years?

What made the sequels to Toy Story so great, in my opinion, is that they’re not just more of the same. Each of the three Toy Story films are very different movies with very different stories. Each of them is unique and vibrant and, well, a great movie independently of each other. Finding Dory, on the other hand, is very much a normal sequel in the sense that it’s more of the same of the first one. And don’t get me wrong, that doesn’t make it bad. Finding Nemo is one of Pixar’s greatest films, and having more of it is certainly great. It lets you see the characters you know and love again, and it brings you back to Pixar’s loving-crafted undersea world (which looks better than ever thanks to 13 years of advancement in animation technology since the first film). It makes you laugh, and it may bring tears to your eyes at times. Plus, Dory was always the most interesting character in Finding Nemo, and her short-term memory loss is utilized in this film for both humor and somewhat haunting drama. 

But the problem is that Finding Dory never does anything more than Finding Nemo did- it’s essentially the same plot a second time. Unlike the Toy Story sequels, it never tries to be anything more than the original one. Finding Dory cannot stand on its own as a great movie because it never tries to step out of its predecessor’s shadow. And frankly, this isn’t enough. It’s not enough for Pixar to tread water because we know they’re better than that. Part of the problem is the Pixar Effect, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have such high expectations of them when they have consistently shown that they can do better than this.

Now, I don’t want you to get to the end of this and think Finding Dory is a bad movie. It absolutely is not, and any fan of Pixar will thoroughly enjoy the film. But this isn’t enough. If Pixar is going to continue to make so many sequels to their earlier films, they need to demonstrate that those sequels can have a life beyond the original film- that they can stand on their own as great movies. Finding Dory, good as it is, cannot do this. Trapped in the shadow of its forerunner, it never learns to swim on its own.

Grade: B