Movie Review: Tell Me Who I Am

Tell Me Who I Am *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Ed Perkins.

 

Tell Me Who I Am has the kind of hook that if it was a plot of Law & Order SVU, you would call too far-fetched (and that show jumped the shark at least a decade ago). Marcus and Alex are identical twins, who grew up in the privileged class of England, the sons of wealthy parents. When Alex was 18, he was involved in a motorcycle accident, and although he survived, all his memories of his childhood were gone. The only person he remembered was Marcus, because, well, they are identical twins. Alex relied on Marcus to fill in the gaps of their childhood, and Marcus does so. But not everything makes sense. Why do the two of them live out in the garage of the huge house – and aren’t even allowed a key to the front door of the house? Why do their parents seem like they are hoarders? Why is there dad angry all the time – prone of fits of rage? Why, when their father is dying, and asks his sons for their forgiveness, does Marcus refuse to grant it? Why is Marcus not all that close with their mother? Why do all the strict rules of the house not relax once the father is dead? Alex has been given a clear picture of their childhood by Marcus – but not a complete picture? What is he hiding?

 

You can probably guess some of what those blanks are, and you would largely be on the right track. Over the course of Tell Me Who I Am, the walls start to come down more between the brothers than they ever had before. They both explain their positions on the subject – Marcus wonders why he should want to give Alex those memories, those things that have haunted him for his entire life if Alex doesn’t have them already. And if he tells Alex, he’ll have to relive them himself – and he has never told anyone. For Alex though, it feels like a whole piece of himself is missing – and he doesn’t know what. Eventually, he knows the barest of descriptions, but what actually happened is not something Marcus wants to go into. The twins have remained remarkably close their entire lives – they run their companies together, they are close in every respect. But this is something that Marcus just cannot bring himself to “give” Alex.

div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">  

Eventually, of course, the movie will give us those details. As directed by Ed Perkins, in a perhaps too stylish fashion, the film is broken down into three acts – the first about Alex piecing his life back together after his accident with Marcus’ help, the second about Marcus’ feelings as to why he cannot go to the places Alex wants him to, the guilt he feels about it, and the frustration Alex feels about not knowing. And then, in the final act, a kind of shared therapy session, when the two of them finally sit down face to face, and hash it out. By then, it is a remarkably cathartic moment – and as unlikely as it seems, even somewhat uplifting. These brothers, now in their 50s, still having some new ground to cover – some new discoveries to make. And once again, they’ll get through it together.

Movie Review: Terminator: Dark Fate

Terminator: Dark Fate ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Tim Miller.

Written by: David S. Goyer & Justin Rhodes and Billy Ray and James Cameron & Charles H. Eglee & Josh Friedman based on characters created by James Cameron and Gale Anne Hurd.

Starring: Linda Hamilton (Sarah Connor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (T-800/Carl), Mackenzie Davis (Grace), Natalia Reyes (Dani Ramos), Gabriel Luna (Gabriel/REV-9), Diego Boneta (Diego Ramos), Tom Hopper (Hadrell), Steven Cree (Rigby), Stephanie Gil (Young Grace), Edward Furlong (John Connor),

 

I don’t like to tell filmmakers what they should do – not that they’d listen anyway -because I want great filmmakers to make whatever movies they want to make. When it comes to James Cameron however, I have to say that I’m more than a little sad that one of the best directors of large scale Hollywood blockbusters has basically decided not to make much anymore. He’s only directed one film since his Oscar winning Titanic (1997) – and although we keep hearing about new Avatar films, who knows when they will come out. Cameron is, I know, a divisive figure – but he really does do these types of massive blockbusters better than almost anyone – in particular when he doesn’t write them. But there has not been a film in his career since The Terminator (1984) that isn’t great, or doesn’t at least have major technological advances (perhaps both). I would love to see him direct more – and show others how it is done.

 

I thought about all of this while watching Terminator: Dark Fate – which apparently is Cameron’s return to the franchise he started, in part because there was little else to think about in the movie. Is it an improvement over the last two installments in the franchise – 2009’s Terminator: Salvation and 2015’s Terminator: Genisys? Yes, but that’s not much of an accomplishment now is it. But the film isn’t even half as good as 2003’s unjustly maligned Terminator: Rise of the Machine – let alone the first two films in the series, legitimate masterworks both. Yes, it’s nice to see Linda Hamilton back in the role that she made her own – and realizing perhaps that she is the real anchor of those first two films, not Arnold – but it’s disappointing how little they give Hamilton to do. They would have been better to follow the lead of Halloween (2018) – which made the film all about Jamie Lee Curtis’ Laurie, and the PTSD she has lived with for 40 years. There are nods to that in Terminator: Dark Fate – but it gets quickly shunted aside. This is a film that seemingly wanted to take the lead of Terminator 2 – and essentially be a chase sequence stretched to feature length – but forgot to make us care about anything in the film for that to work.

 

In this new film, we once again get two people from the future war sent back to protect a woman that will be vital to the revolution in the future. That woman is Dani Ramos (Natalia Reyes) – a Mexican woman, working in a car plant. Her protector is Grace (Mackenzie Davis) – who is human, but a human that has been “upgraded” into a hybrid of person and machine. The Terminator sent back is a REV-9 – who takes the name Gabriel (Gabriel Luna) most of the time, and is basically an even badder ass, more unstoppable version of Robert Patrick’s T-1000. And Arnold is back again as well – having succeeded in his mission, he has “retired” and has been living as drape installer named Carl for decades – raising a family (not his own). But he has a debt to pay, so he’ll pay. And Sarah Connor (Hamilton) shows up as well – wanted to protect Dani, the new her.

 

The film is essentially one big chase sequence, with stops along the way for the heroes to try and fight off the REV-9, which they don’t think they can kill, but they just try and get through (why doesn’t either side ever send more than one back? The bad guys send five REV-9’s back, the movie’s over in 10 minutes). Perhaps in Cameron’s hands, the film would work. He’s clearly a director who knows how to do action sequences better than anyone, and suspect they he wouldn’t have done with Tim Miller does here – which is to speed everything up to make it seem more exciting, when really, it’s just a distraction more than anything. I won’t even mention the fact that while Cameron can clearly lay it on too thick in terms of sentimentality at times – he would have made you care about Sarah Connor, Dani, Grace, and yes, even Carl. Here, you don’t care about any of them.

 

It’s sad to see the Terminator franchise go out like this. Those first two films are legitimately great, and yes, I’ll say it again, I quite like Rise of the Machines – an unapologetically bleak blockbuster if ever there was one. But it’s clear now that the people in charge don’t understand what made the films work – or perhaps they don’t care, and are just trying to make money. But audiences are staying away now – which is sad. The Terminator films should be the type of blockbusters we need – not generic, by the number superhero films, but films with a real point-of-view, and something to say. But they haven’t been that in a long time now. Hopefully, they’ll just let the franchise die now.

Movie Review: American Son

American Son ** / *****

Directed by: Kenny Leon.

Written by: Christopher Demos-Brown.

Starring: Kerry Washington (Kendra), Jeremy Jordan (Larkin), Steven Pasquale (Scott Connor), Eugene Lee (Lt. John Stokes).

 

I wanted to like American Son – I really, truly did. I don’t mind when adaptations of plays don’t try and open things up for the movies – in fact, I often think that opening things up is what leads to the film versions losing what made the plays work in the first place. And I genuinely believe that the film has its heart in the race place – that it is earnestly trying to deal with very complex issues about race and police brutality. But the dialogue is so on the nose that you find yourselves rolling your eyes, more than thinking about what is being said. The characters are not really characters either – more stand-ins for their point of view. What ends up happening then is American Son becomes Crash in a microcosm – but not even that good.

 

The movie takes place almost entirely in a police waiting room in the middle of the night. Kendra (Kerry Washington) has been called, because her son’s car was involved in an “incident” – but they won’t tell her what kind of incident, where her son is, or really anything else. He is 18 after all, and the car is registered to her soon to be ex-husband, not her. She grows increasingly frustrated dealing with Officer Larkin (Jeremy Jordan), a young white cop, whose attempt to say things like “I understand” come across as condescending to this intelligent black woman (she is a college professor) – and may be masking some casual racism the cop has. When her soon-to-be ex-husband, Scott (Steven Pasquale) does arrive – it’s a different story. He’s white after all, and a FBI agent, and Larkin doesn’t try any of those condescending tactics on him. Still, he doesn’t tell them much more information either – insisting they have to wait for the AM Liaison Officer – Lt. Stokes – who has been paged, but it is 4 in the morning. But when Stokes gets there (which he eventually does – and not surprisingly, is black – this is a movie that wants to balance everything) – we will eventually find out what happened.

 

I think the biggest single problem with American Son is the large middle section of the film that is basically Kendra and Scott recounting their marriage, and their grievances throughout them. There are a lot of them, and given how steadfast both are in their opinions, you wonder how a marriage lasted at least 18 years (he just moved out 4 months ago) as they don’t seemingly agree on anything (the screenplay tries to address this – but does so poorly). What I was mainly interested in during this time is seeing a film about that marriage – how they negotiated their way through it for all those years. They have different views on, well everything, but Kendra is such a strong woman, you cannot help but wonder why she went along with all the things she clearly did for all those years. The characters don’t match they story they are telling.

 

The opening and closing – the first being with Kendra and Larkin, and the last being with Kendra and Stokes – are better. They are very obvious in everything they are doing, but at least, the characters here make sense. Larkin is the casual racist, trying not sound that way – and not quite pulling it off. Stokes is the realist – he is black man, from a bad neighborhood, who still grew up to be a cop, and he won’t take crap from anyone over it. He expresses not the way the world should be, but the way it is.

 

I will say that Washington is very good in the lead role. All the actors are really. The shot the film as they were doing the play on Broadway – with the same director – and they clearly know their roles very well. And yet, I wish the film were more thoughtful – less concerned about making political points, in on the nose dialogue (the final line in the film is particularly unforgivable) and more about the issues it raises. The film lectures, but I’m not even sure it knows what it’s really wanting to say. That’s why it doesn’t even reach the level of Crash – which was at least very clear about what it was saying.

Movie Review: The King

The King *** ½ / *****

Directed by: David Michôd.

Written by: Joel Edgerton and David Michôd.

Starring: Timothée Chalamet (King Henry V of England 'Hal'), Robert Pattinson (The Dauphin of France), Ben Mendelsohn (Henry IV), Joel Edgerton (Sir John Falstaff), Lily-Rose Depp (Catherine), Dean-Charles Chapman (Thomas of Lancaster), Thomasin McKenzie (Philippa), Sean Harris (William), Tara Fitzgerald (Hooper), Tom Glynn-Carney (Hotspur), Ivan Kaye (Lord Scrope), Andrew Havill (Archbishop of Canterbury), Tom Fisher, Edward Ashley (Cambridge), Tom Lawrence (Westmorland), Nick Wittman (Herald), Steven Elder (Dorset), Thibault de Montalembert (King Charles VI of France).

 

David Michod’s The King is a film about one of England’s great warrior kings – Henry V – who had many legendary wins on the battlefield, but that makes it clear from the get go that it is a role he never wanted. Based loosely on Shakespeare’s various Henriad, without citing the famous writer, or using his language, the film condenses the action, and puts a new spin on it – getting through it all in a little under two-and-a-half hours. It’s not a particularly original film – it won’t make you forget either the Olivier or Branagh version of Henry V, nor Braveheart a film that the battles are clearly inspired by, nor Chimes at Midnight, the Welles masterpiece that remains the best take on Falstaff now and forever, – but it is a different take on this oft-told tale, with some winning performances and filmmaking at its core.

 

When we first meet Prince Hal (Timothée Chalamet), he is a young hedonist, with floppy hair, waking up next to a woman he doesn’t know after yet another hard night of partying. He is the Crown Prince – but he hates his father, Henry IV (Ben Mendelsohn), a petty, puffy tyrant and doesn’t much care when he is informed that he won’t become King after all – that will go to his younger brother. But, of course, things don’t turn out that way – and Hal becomes Henry V, the ruler of England, who is almost immediately mired in one military campaign after another. He doesn’t want fighting – he thinks his father’s infighting within England was petty and silly, and he ignores the first few insults hurled at him by France – while all his adviser tries to goad him into going to war. Of course, who can he trust among his advisers – who also advised his father after all. William (Sean Harris) seems to be the one who listens to him closest, but he’s not truly at ease with him. His sister (a wonderful Thomasin McKenzie cameo) tells him to watch out for those advisers. He will eventually bring in his old drinking buddy Falstaff (Joel Edgerton) – a knight, and former military hero, who now basically drinks, or commits petty crimes so he can continue to drink. And eventually, whether he likes it or, there will be war with France.

 

This is a story you’ve likely seen before – but not quite in this way. The performances have much to do with that. Chalamet would not have been my choice here, but I was clearly wrong – he is excellent as the principled, idealist but undisciplined young Prince, who has to become King, and do what is right. The themes here are familiar – it’s hard for a good man to be King, or for a King to remain a good man or Heavy is the head that wears the crown or whatever cliché you prefer. But it comes together nicely in Chalamet’s skilled hands – making his Hal appropriate for the film, yet seemingly more modern. For comic effect, Robert Pattison has a few scenes as the foppish, silly Dauphin of France – and he’s clearly having a field day with his silly accent just this side of Monty Python, and mannerisms. Had he more scenes, perhaps it would have worn thin – but as it stands, it’s just about perfect. But it is co-writer Edgerton as Falstaff who I think is best here. No, he cannot hope to erase the memory of Welles’ Falstaff in the brilliant Chimes at Midnight – but they do something similar here, taking a comedic character, and turning him into a more thoughtful, tragic figure – someone who drinks as a way to forget what he has done, who doesn’t seek out more war, but does what he must anyway.

 

When the massive battle of Agincourt does arrive, Michod goes for it at full tilt. It is a muddy, bloody mess – but a brilliantly staged one from Michod, which is both viscerally exciting, genuinely moving, and showing off the strategy behind it all. Perhaps he’s cribbing from Braveheart a little – but the battles have their own flavor to them as well.

 

Michod is the talented Australian filmmaker, who still hasn’t topped his excellent debut film Animal Kingdom (although his follow-up, The Rover, is perhaps more ambitious). This certainly makes up for his last Netflix film – the misfire War Machine with Brad Pitt – and shows the talent he has. Perhaps he never will make a film quite as good as Animal Kingdom again – but more films like The King would be fine by me.

Movie Review: Jojo Rabbit

Jojo Rabbit *** ½ / *****

Directed by: Taika Waititi   

Written by: Taika Waititi based on the novel by Christine Leunens.

Starring: Roman Griffin Davis (Jojo), Thomasin McKenzie (Elsa), Scarlett Johansson (Rosie), Taika Waititi (Adolf), Sam Rockwell (Captain Klenzendorf), Rebel Wilson (Fraulein Rahm), Alfie Allen (Finkel), Stephen Merchant (Deertz), Archie Yates (Yorki).

 

Jojo Rabbit is a feel good comedy about a 10-year member of the Hitler Youth, who is such a fan of the furor that his imaginary friend is a friendly, goofy version of Hitler himself. While I certainly understand the criticism that perhaps now is not the best time to make a comedy about Nazis, or that Taika Waititi’s film is uneven in terms of its tonal shifts, and fairly lightweight in its view of Nazis and everything horrible they did, I also find I cannot deny the pleasures of the film. It is funny, the performances are quite good, and the filmmaking has Waititi’s trademark understated comic style, and the mixing of more modern outlooks on a time and place where they didn’t exist. And the film did bring a genuine tear to my eye as it ended. Oh, and another thing, I don’t think there is a possible reading of this film as being pro-Nazi – or even that it isn’t hard on the Nazis – who are portrayed as idiots throughout. I’m not sure that Waititi needs to explain just how horrible Nazis are does he – we know that don’t we, and even those who don’t (aka Nazis) no portrayal of them will ever convince them otherwise anyway.

 

Roman Griffin Davis has the title role of Jojo – a 10-year-old living with his mother, Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) in Berlin in the waning days of WWII. His father disappeared while fighting on the front – no one quite sure where, but certainly the consensus is that he was a coward and a traitor. Jojo is neither of those things – at least not in his mind – he is the most committed young Nazi you can find, fulling buying the evils of the Jews (even if his 10-year-old brain cannot fully comprehend what that means) and wanting nothing more than to work as Hitler’s personal guard. His best friend is the ever sweet Yorki (Archie Yates – who is an absolute delight in this film) – who always greets Jojo with a hug. His imaginary best friend is Adolf (Waititi himself) – a grinning, mugging version of Hitler that only a 10-year-old could conjure up. Jojo’s worldview is shaken when he discovers that his mother is hiding a Jewish teenager – Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) in their walls. He doesn’t want his mother to get in trouble – so he keeps the secret. And he and Elsa begin to talk – and slowly his mind changes.

 

You could argue that Waititi’s worldview in Jojo Rabbit is almost hopelessly naïve – he sees the good in almost everyone in the film, and there are far more sympathetic characters than out and out bad guys. Even Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell) – the head of the Hitler youth group, in charge of training these young men, is more of a drunken, but benevolent, guy than an evil one. His relationship with his underling Finkel (Alfie Allen) is clearly not something the Nazis would approve of – and he’s hardly a hardliner. Few are in Jojo Rabbit – except perhaps Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson), and the late arriving Deertz (Stephen Merchant) – and while both are scary, they’re also clearly idiots. In the world of Jojo Rabbit, most people are still, at heart, good.

 

That is a naïve outlook for Waititi to take – something that has been disproven even in current years, and especially in Nazi Germany. And yet, it’s a comforting one to embrace – if only for the two-hour runtime of Jojo Rabbit. And it comes in a film which is genuinely funny and moving. Jojo’s embrace of Nazism isn’t a real thought through ideology – but the childlike embrace of something everyone has told him is a good thing. Even Rosie doesn’t believe it – but knows the best way to protect him is to let him outwardly be that kid, while subtly trying to undermine the worldview throughout. Johansson is quite good here – it’s a comedic performance, with some physical moments of comedy throughout, but also a genuinely moving one. Thomasin McKenzie, so good in last year’s Leave No Trace, is also excellent as Elsa – who likes to play with Jojo’s embrace of Nazism to show how silly it is. Sam Rockwell is genuinely funny here – although I kind of think it’s the type of role that Rockwell has gotten typecast in the last few years, and should probably do something different.

 

And Waititi himself is quite good as Adolf – he’s not really playing Hitler, but playing the Hitler a 10-year-old could relate to – he’s silly, goofy, scared, but trying to act tough – and also a complete buffoon. This is Waititi’s intent throughout the film at every level. I do think the film is too naïve for its own good – but it sells a fantasy that you want to buy into convincingly, and takes real chances throughout. They don’t all turn out – but you have to admire the effort anyway.

Movie Review: Mike Wallace is Here

Mike Wallace Is Here **** / *****

Directed by: Avi Belkin.

 

When making a documentary about a figure from the past – even the recent past – I often find myself asking the question of “why now?” – why is this story, about this person, relevant to today, and why should we care. Avi Belkin’s Mike Wallace is Here pretty much defines the “why now” in its very first clip – a 2007 interview the legendary 60 Minutes journalist did with Bill O’Reilly – then the biggest thing in TV news – where Wallace challenges O’Reilly on his brash, offensive style – and O’Reilly immediately hits back that without Mike Wallace, there would be no Bill O’Reilly. That what Wallace did for decades morphed and changed into what O’Reilly is now doing. In that way, the film reminded me a little of Best of Enemies – the documentary about Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley at the 1968 Conventions – where the network couldn’t get footage of the speeches themselves, so they just aired the two intellectual titans arguing with each other about them. By the next conventions, all networks were doing the same thing – and eventually it morphed into modern news culture of endless yelling and bickering at each other. That Vidal and Buckley were excellent at it – and had intelligent points to make didn’t matter. Viewers turned in for the yelling.

 

That may be the ultimate lesson of Mike Wallace is Here as well. The film features no contemporary talking heads speaking about Wallace – who died in 2012 – putting him in context, or explaining anything. The film is entirely made up of archival footage of Wallace himself – almost all of it of either him interviewing people, or being interviewed by others. There is also a lot of footage of Wallace in the early days of TV – when he wasn’t a journalist, but kind of a jack of all trades. He could be a pitchman or an actor, a game show host or contestant, etc. – whatever you want him to be. When he did get an interview show, he took that flair for the dramatic with him – and asked deliberately provocative questions, challenging his guests, sometimes angering them. It’s the style that Wallace would keep throughout his career.

 

The film is not an anti-Wallace screed by any means. It documents all the great work he did over his career – on Watergate, on Vietnam, on cigarettes, etc. – and also has a lot of interview footage with him with celebrities, asking the kind of questions that the likes of Bette Davis, Barbara Streisand or Shirley MacLaine probably weren’t used to getting – which is exactly why you’d want to watch those interviews, rather than a puffball interview on a talk show. Was he a prick? Sure – but he got answers.

 

But it also documents perhaps the slippery slope of what Wallace did. He certainly practiced “Gotcha!” journalism – when he did all those stories on scams on 60 Minutes, busting two bit hustlers and scam artists in a way that would seem familiar to anyone who has seen “To Catch a Predator”. And how many degrees is it from Wallace asking hard questions, sometimes pushing the boundary of what is acceptable, and someone like O’Reilly telling his guests to shut up, and turning off their microphones.

 

The film also delves into his personal life – not much about his multiple marriages, but he certainly does admit he wasn’t a good father, and over a series of interviews, over what was obviously a series of years, he gets more and more real about his battle with depression – and suicidal thoughts.

 

The film then is really about the contradictions with Mike Wallace. How he redefined Investigative Journalism – and pushed it to what he probably thought was the brink, never imagining that people would come up behind him, and push it even further. That’s not really Wallace’s fault – although without him, who knows what would have happened instead.

Movie Review: Maleficent: Mistress of Evil

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil ** / *****

Directed by: Joachim Rønning.

Written by: Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster and Linda Woolverton.

Starring: Angelina Jolie (Maleficent), Michelle Pfeiffer (Queen Ingrith), Elle Fanning (Princess Aurora), Harris Dickinson (Prince Phillip), Sam Riley (Diaval), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Conall), Ed Skrein (Borra), Robert Lindsay (King John), David Gyasi (Percival), Jenn Murray (Gerda), Juno Temple (Thistlewit), Imelda Staunton (Knotgrass), Lesley Manville (Flittle), Kae Alexander (Ini), Judith Shekoni (Shrike), Miyavi (Udo), Warwick Davis (Lickspittle).

 

The original Maleficent (2014) wasn’t a particularly great movie, but it was at least an interesting one – and one of the few times in recent years in which Disney tried to actually do something new when updating an animated classic to the real of live action. Perhaps they realized that Sleeping Beauty (1959) is mostly a snooze other than the villain – Maleficent – so making a movie about her was the only logical thing to do unless you wanted to make another snooze. And yet, for all the flaws in the film, there were genuine moments of human emotion – like Jolie’s Maleficent awakening to find that her wings have been stolen from her – a moment made deliberately to resemble a rape victim’s trauma – but in a way the kids in the audience wouldn’t quite pick up the same way. The Maleficent of that film was more of an anti-hero than a villain – certainly the King, and his army were worse than she was, and only Princess Aurora herself (Elle Fanning) was an innocent – something even Maleficent eventually realizes.

 

We didn’t really need a sequel to that film – but it made money, and it was Disney, so of course we got one. And the initial look at the films seems promising – a film in which Angelina Jolie and Michelle Pfeiffer go toe-to-toe certainly sounds promising. And yet, outside of the films best sequence – an extended dinner scene in which Pfeiffer, the queen of a nearby kingdom whose son, Prince Philip, wants to marry Aurora – in which Pfeiffer does everything in a passive-aggressive way to anger Maleficent, we are mostly denied the awesome toe-to-toe that could have been. What we have instead is an another CGI fueled action movie – one in which a giant battle pretty much takes up the last third of the film, before they can slap the happy ending on. We spend so much time on this battle that the film all but abandons any pretense of examining the effects on its characters – flattening them all into bland and forgettable stand-ins for good and evil. Jolie herself seems shunted to the side for far too long here – she spends time with her own kind, in their hidden world, when Pfeiffer is planning and carrying out her genocidal rampage. The movie doesn’t really forget about her – but it almost does.

 

The movie also, probably by accident, ends up being more retrograde in its outlook than Disney has tried to be in recent years. They have tried, even in movies with Princesses, to not tie everything together with a wedding and a happily ever after, but that’s exactly what happens here – where right after a massacre, essentially both sides come together for a wedding that will fix everything – the one and only bad person has been vanquished, so just get over it I guess.

 

The film makes poor use of its talented cast, and the CGI isn’t really up to snuff either – it’s fairly lackadaisical and by-the-numbers, offering nothing all that imaginative. It stands out as a pretty big disappointment after the first film – which was hardly a masterpiece, but tried to do something different for Disney. With this film, it seems, they’re more comfortable with the same old same old.