2022 is not a good year for movies...
Titles Covered: Uncharted, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Turning Red, The Thief of Bagdad (1924), My Blue Heaven, Broadcast News, Under Siege, West Side Story 2021.
Uncharted (** and a half)
“"With novels and comics, people have already enjoyed their stories, so I think movie adaptations guarantee a certain amount of enjoyment. But with video games, it is the gaming experience that makes them compelling, so a movie that adheres to the story of a game will not necessarily be interesting.” - Shigeru Myamoto, 2022
I’ve played the first three Uncharted games, which are known for their exciting action set-pieces and cinematic presentation. However, I can’t say that I was super-jazzed for a movie adaptation, as the premise isn’t anything particularly unique (it’s just off-brand Indiana Jones), and the plots of the games actually aren’t very good once you look past the flashy action and solid acting. However, some people have told me the movie is good and… well, it’s OK.
However, the casting is all wrong. Mark Wahlburg is supposed to be the aging “Sully,” but his acting style makes him a better fit for the main character, Nathan Drake. Meanwhile, Tom Holland is horribly miscast as Nathan Drake, and recycles most of the character choices he used as MCU Spider-man (a character I’ve liked less and less with each appearance). The actress for Chloe Frazer at least looks the part, but her character doesn’t have much purpose. At one point, the movie teases her as a possible love interest (or at least some eye candy), but fails to even deliver that. Yes, you can argue that these are younger versions and they change over time, but at the end of the day, they don’t stick as authentic recreations or memorable characters in their own right.
As for the rest of the movie? It’s OK. It’s a silly adventure movie with some fun bits here and there. It made me laugh, there were some action bits that were pretty tense, and the generic structure of the plot didn’t bug me as much as other similar movies such as Red Notice (which I swear was written by an AI). There are two big, implausible action setpieces, and they’re good silly fun if you don’t think too much about the physics involved.
Uncharted is a decent videogame adaptation. I’m not sure what I expected. The videogames are shallow stories about a guy who fights a bunch of other guys because he wants to find a treasure that’s worth a lot of money. The movie is only a hair deeper than that, so… again, it’s OK.
Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (***)
For what it’s worth, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is one of the better videogame movies. It’s definitely a step up from the 2020 “Sonic” movie, mostly because it focuses on Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Robotnik. The story flows well enough, the videogame references are pitch-perfect, and at least half of the jokes are decent. The only major problem with this movie is a ridiculous wedding subplot (with the boring human characters) that could have been cut.
The plot is that Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey acting even crazier than usual) teams up with Knuckles to get the Chaos emerald, a wish-granting artifact hidden by Sonic’s owl mentor from the first movie. This actually makes the first movie slightly better, since it explains some of the origin story and builds on the earlier conflict we saw with Sonic's adoptive “mother.” The main highlight for me was Knuckles. The animations and sound effects associated with his powers make him a convincing adversary for Sonic, while his oblivious nature provides a source of comedy (somewhat similar to Drax in Guardians of the Galaxy).
The action scenes are also an improvement on the previous movie, providing some actual tension and stakes. The first movie had Sonic moving SO fast that he could literally stop time, making him invincible. His abilities seemed toned down in the sequel, and the villains are also more fearsome. Zelda watched the movie with me, and found Robotnik’s final form to be scary.
Oh, and there’s a weird nonsensical subplot about space-cops who set up an elaborate scheme to catch Sonic, which ends up not mattering about 5 minutes later. This segment is almost in the so-bad-it’s-good range. There’s also a dance battle sequence that IS so-bad-it’s-good. Props to the actor who played the lead Russian dancer. His facial expressions and dance moves are very funny.
Otherwise, I don’t have much to say about this one. It's a simple, easy-to-watch family movie about a silly cartoon hedgehog who outruns killer robots and cracks cheesy one-liners. Oddly enough, that probably puts it in the top 5 videogame movies of all time. Your move, Mario!
Turning Red (** a half)
Turning Red is now the 3rd Pixar movie to skip theaters and go straight to Disney+. Serious question here: at some point, will Disney no longer release Pixar movies at all? I’m not necessarily suggesting that the corporation would shut down the studio and lay everyone off. However, there could be a re-branding that removes the distinction between “Pixar” movies and “Disney” movies.
I ask that question because I’m honestly not sure what the Pixar brand represents anymore.
The plot revolves around a pre-teen girl who turns her into a giant red panda whenever she experiences strong emotions. Her ancestor made a deal with the panda gods or something like that. I’m not entirely sure what the panda is supposed to signify. The transformation is initially confused with menarche, but then the movie abruptly changes from “body changes can be difficult” to “we must exorcize the demon but hey maybe you can also use it for financial gain in the meantime.” Meanwhile, the theme shifts from puberty to mother-daughter conflicts, specifically those experienced by Chinese-Canadian teenage girls living in Toronto in 2002 (notably, Turning Red is the second Pixar film to be based on director Domee Shi’s highly specific childhood).
Actually, the themes of the movie are pretty relatable, and the humor avoids being overly esoteric. I did find the movie pretty funny, and enjoyed watching the camaraderie of the 4 teenage girls. I also like the musical elements used in the climax, which includes the first Billie Eillish song that I don’t hate. The best part of the movie is definitely the dad, who plays a quiet understated role and gets the only scene that evokes any real emotion.
Turning Red is fine, I guess. It’s a silly cartoon comedy about a girl who randomly turns into a red panda and really wants to see a boy-band concert. I enjoyed the humor revolving around silly girls acting silly, but wish there was more to it.
Sigh… this has been one sad year for movies! Let’s go find some older movies to spice things up!
The Thief of Bagdad (**** and a half)
Here’s a puzzler: a silent Arabian adventure that very politically incorrect by modern standards… that still shows more reverence from Islam than modern movies.
The story goes something like this: an Arabian princess meets with many suitors, including a villainous “Mongol” prince. A charming thief infiltrates the group of suitors in disguise, and the princess decides she likes him best. However, the thief is exposed. To avoid having to pick one of the other suitors, the princess sends them all on a quest to find the most amazing artifact. Thus, the thief goes on a quest through many mythical lands to find a magical wish-granting relic, which will ultimately be used to fight off the evil Mongols.
The Thief of Bagdad is the distant predecessor of Disney’s Aladdin. Actually, the bad guy even looks like Jafar, and many of the stunts and magical elements (such as a flying carpet) were borrowed as well. A major difference is that The Thief of Bagdad has a stronger moral core. Aladdin’s thievery was excused: “gotta eat to live; gotta steal to eat.” This time, the Thief is clearly a selfish man who needs to change. His change is advised by an Imam who teaches that true happiness must be worked for, not simply taken. Dang, can we get more kid’s movies with that message?!
Anyway, Thief of Bagdad is an awesome movie, and provides a very different experience than modern movies. The silent style is used exceptionally well, allowing facial reactions and physicality to tell most of the story. The production is also very lavish, with crazy stuntwork, big fight scenes, huge sets, and even some giant monsters. The movie is a bit long, but otherwise is a VERY entertaining silent adventure.
Even our two-year-old liked it, though she was confused by the title cards, and thought we had stopped the movie each time.
My Blue Heaven (***)
The most interesting part of this movie is actually its backstory. The screenwriter, Nora Ephron, helped her husband do research for his book Wise Guys and the movie adaptation Goodfellas. She then wrote My Blue Heaven as a comedic “spiritual sequel” to Goodfellas, imagining the silly hijinks that could follow a gangster in witness protection. This is an interesting idea, and one that would have worked much better if they’d actually gotten Ray Liotta (RIP) to star in both movies, playing opposite Steve Martin as his FBI handler.
Instead, Liotta’s character was supposed to be played by Arnold Swarchenegger (odd choice), who dropped out, causing Steve Martin to switch roles. So now Martin’s badly miscast as an Italian gangster, playing opposite the character that he probably should have stuck with.
But gosh darn it, Steven Martin really tries. He goes all in with his bonkers character, chewing all the scenery and reveling in the worst fake Italian accent he can muster. It’s not good, but it’s pretty amusing.
To provide some grounding to the film, we have Rick Moranis, taking over Steve Martin’s original role, and doing pretty well. Moranis’ meek physical presence makes his role as an FBI agent more absurd, and allows us to believe that he really would get pushed around very easily. Also holding up the “straight” end of the cast is Joan Cusack as a love interest for Moranis. There’s a funny dynamic in that Cusack (a district attorney) keeps trying to throw Steve Martin in jail, and Moranis keeps bailing him out so that he’ll testify against the mob bosses.
And then there’s the dance sequence…
Other than that, I don’t have a ton to say about this movie. It’s amusing, but definitely no classic. It’s worth seeing if you enjoy the actors involved.
Broadcast News (****)
Instead of reviewing this in my usual style, I’m going to try to imagine the pitch meeting for this movie:
Producer: So, you have a movie for me?
James L. Brooks: Yes, sir, I do. It will easily be the best script of the year, with nuanced and believable characters that defy basic stereotypes.
Producer: Such as…
James L Brooks: We have a tall handsome guy who only gets to be on TV because of how tall and handsome he is, even though he’s not very smart.
Producer: Ooh, I don’t like this guy!
James L. Brooks: But he’s actually a decent person, and is genuinely hurt when people call him dumb. He’ll sadly respond with, “I hate what you said, and not just because it’s true.”
Producer: Wow, that’s kinda deep. Maybe he’s not so dumb after all.
James L. Brooks: I’ve got a killer cast in mind, including Jack Nicholson, William Hurt, Joan Cusack, and Albert Brooks. We’re also going to cast Holly Hunter in the most memorable role that she’ll have until someone makes her a superhero.
Producer: A superhero with a hard-to-place Southern accent? That sounds like a stretch.
James L . Brooks: Anyway, my script is insightful, witty, funny, thought-provoking, and will provide an interesting behind-the-scenes look at how TV news gets made, including how false stories get promoted.
Producer: OK, this sounds WAY too good for Oscar Bait. What’s the plot?
James L. Brooks: Oh, it’s a generic highschool-esque love triangle.
Producer: Ah, there it is.
Under Siege (***)
Not much to say about this one. It’s a fun bit of early 90’s cheese, with silly action scenes and a simple plot. It also represents Steven Seagall’s brief stardom before he went direct-to-video. In truth, he’s not bad in this one. However, the good acting is really only found in the villains, played by Gary Busey and Tommy Lee Jones. The girl is also cute, and the scene in which she pops out of a cake is a pretty amazing combination of humor, absurdity, and sheer sexiness (NSFW if you decide to look it up!).
Overall, Under Siege is a decent Die Hard rip-off, but only those who remember the early 90’s will find it anything special.
West Side Story (****)
Why, Spielberg, why?!
Why remake West Side Story, a musical that’s been done to death on stage, and already has an extremely well-known movie version that’s considered the best of its kind?
Why remake an older musical with modern-day “woke” elements, knowing it will alienate the older demographic that likes this material, while doing nothing to placate those who consider the original work offensive?
And… gosh darn it, why did you have to actually make the movie good?! If you’re going to embark on such an ill-advised venture, at least make it rightfully suck so that we can point and laugh at it. Instead, we get a gorgeously-shot and extremely entertaining movie that would probably be the best movie of the year if it wasn’t an unwanted remake. The dancing is amazing. The singing is pitch-perfect. All the actors are well-cast, and the Afro-Latina actress who plays Anita is incredible. New character “Valentina” (replacing “Doc”) is remarkably well-written and acted, giving Rita Morena much more than a cameo.
In conclusion, West Side Story is a pointless remake... but it's also really good. Almost as good as the original movie. Which makes it slightly frustrating, because such an impressive effort could have been spent adapting a Broadway musical that hasn’t already been made into a movie (Carousel, Big River, Miss Saigon, The Secret Garden, Avenue Q, Children of Eden, etc.).