Rocketman [2019] ★★★½
It probably won’t get the same attention as “Bohemian Rhapsody”, but in many ways, “Rocketman” is a superior movie. This musical biopic about the highs and lows of Sir Elton John, from his early days living in a loveless family, to his rise to fame with such hits as “Your Song” and “I’m Still Standing”, is truly outstanding. Credit writer Lee Hall and director Dexter Fletcher for not following the same formula we’ve come to expect from most biopics. Instead, “Rocketman” emerges as a full-blown musical extravaganza that truly captures Sir Elton’s state of mind. And at the center of it all is Taron Egerton. Known mostly for his role in the “Kingsman”movies (we do not speak of that horrible “Robin Hood” reboot), “Rocketman” could finally be the movie that puts him on the map permanently. Simply put: he’s phenomenal. Musically, the film is a miracle, fueled with beautiful sets that are riveting in every detail. Egerton lets it bleed, giving a performance awards were invented for. If you’re an Elton John fan or if you appreciate music in general, you won’t be able to take your eyes off him. It’s one of the best performances of the year. Same goes for the movie.
Let’s take care of the elephant in the room right away: “Mary Poppins Returns” was never going to replace the beloved 1964 classic starring Julie Andrews and Dick Van Dyke. The original means so much to so many people to let any modern movie diminish it. That being said, I breathed a sigh of relief as soon as the new film opened. This is a joyful and well-made film, the kind Mary Poppins and its fans truly deserve. It manages to capture the spirit of the original with a terrific production design, eye-popping visuals, and catchy new songs. In terms of story, it’s important to know that this isn’t a remake by any means. It’s a sequel that takes place decades after the first story. Michael and Jane Banks are now grown ups, still living in their parents’ house. We learn that Michael’s wife passed away recently and he’s trying to take care of his three children. This is where Mary Poppins re-enters their lives, with her joyful spirit and magical skills. Cue the music and the dream-like sequences that truly defined the original. Emily Blunt is excellent as Poppins (and that’s no easy feat), and she’s surrounded by a first-rate cast that includes Ben Whishaw, Emily Mortimer, Julie Walters, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Colin Firth, and even Meryl Streep in a small, but memorable role. There is just enough comedy and drama to satisfy fans of the original. Shortcomings? Upon first viewing, I’d say some of the songs were forgettable, and I felt the story dragged a little bit. But that’s a small price to pay for a movie that has “classic Disney” written all over it. I’ll say this with full confidence: it’s great to finally have Mary Poppins back in a movie that audiences of all ages can enjoy.
We can sit here and debate for hours whether this sequel should have been made or not, or you can just sit back, relax, and enjoy it for what it is: a fun, light-hearted continuation that surprisingly works, with beautiful scenery and unforgettable music. For die-hard fans of the original, it’s a good opportunity to reunite with their favorite characters, and learn more about Donna’s past (played by Lili James here), as a fresh graduate in the late 1970’s. Which means the movie goes back and forth in time to tell two stories that finally come together at the very end. I’ve seen reviews calling it “The Godfather part 2” of the “Mamma Mia” series, in the way this sequel tells its story. That’s not completely untrue, but unlike “The Godfather part 2” (which surpassed the original), I still prefer the first Mamma Mia film. Still, the movie’s a lot of fun, and everyone seems to be having a great time here, including the great Cher, who has a brief appearance as Donna’s mother.
It seems that third time isn’t the charm for Rebel Wilson and the rest of the Bellas. This second (and hopefully last) sequel takes everything that was good in the first two film and ruins it. Wilson gives it her best shot. The movie never does. The plot? Just a silly excuse for a reunion. It’s been a while since the Bellas have seen each other, so they reunite for a singing competition at an overseas USO tour. And that’s pretty much it. The jokes? They fall flat. The music? Nowhere near as catchy as the previous films. The newcomers? Forgettable. I’m falling asleep writing this. Director Trish Sie, taking over from Elizabeth Banks and Jason Moore (who both did a much better job), seems equally dazed. If there’s another sequel, they better fire everyone who was involved in this sorry excuse of a third installment.
Forget the Fast and the Furious movies, if you want a truly original car movie that pumps up your adrenaline level with first-rate action scenes and a killer soundtrack, “Baby Driver” is the summer film for you. This instant classic from director Edgar Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”, “Scott Pilgrim Vs the World”) is everything you would want from a popcorn film, and then some. Wright grabs us with his dynamic story and delivers non-stop excitement from beginning to end. I can’t remember the last time I had such a good time watching a movie on the big screen. For that, credit Ansel Elgort (“The Fault in Our Stars”), who plays Baby (weird, I know), a young getaway driver who listens to music on his iPod while performing tasks for crime boss Doc (Kevin Spacey, never better). He wants out, of course, but there’s one more job to do and this is my cue to shut up. The music is propulsive throughout, featuring tracks from Queen, The Beach Boys, Beck, Simon & Garfunkel, and a long list of classic tunes to keep things exciting. As for Elgort, his lively, colorful performance adds the one ingredient that can make or break any film, no matter how entertaining: the human element. “Baby Driver”, as silly as it may sound, is a breathless rush of a film that spins your head around and quietly works its way into your heart. It’s easily one of the year’s best films so far. For the love of movies, do not miss it.
“Beauty and the Beast” is one of my favorite Disney animated movies, so naturally, I wanted the live action version to be as enchanting. First the good news: the film is beautiful to look at and well cast. Emma Watson needs no introduction, and she effortlessly becomes Belle, the young woman who finds herself taken by a beast in his castle. Anyone who grew up watching Disney animated films probably knows the story all too well. Cursed by a witch, the beast is doomed forever unless he finds true love. Screenwriters Evan Spiliotopoulos And Steven Chbosky have brought some new ideas to the classic story (and added a few songs), but the outcome is still pretty much the same. Which brings me to this: was this version really necessary? I suppose kids deserve to see this timeless story on the big screen, but I can’t think of any other reason why this movie should exist. That’s not to say that I didn’t have a good time watching it. The songs brought back so many memories and I especially enjoyed watching Luke Evans as the film’s main villain Gaston. But when it was over, I found myself indifferent to an experience that should have left me in awe. In an era of reboots and repetition, I suppose it’s pointless to question why we needed an exact replica of the 1991 film. Is it impressive? You bet. But I don’t think I’ll ever feel the urge to visit it again.
Hollywood has always had a soft spot for musicals. “The Broadway Melody” in the 1920’s, “Singin’ in the Rain” and “An American in Paris” in the 1950’s, “Oliver!” in the 1960’s and “Chicago” in the early 2000’s. In 2011, french director Michel Hazanavicius hired Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo to star in his film “The Artist”, a tribute to the silent era that managed to win 5 Academy Awards, including Best Picture. Already nominated for 7 Golden Globes, “La La Land” could be on its way to replicate the huge success of “The Artist”, and deservedly so. If it were merely a tribute to old Hollywood musicals of the 1950’s, it would be easy to dismiss it as an amusing stunt and nothing more (think “Hail, Caesar!”). But writer-director Damien Chazelle (who directed “Whiplash”) has other ideas. His direction is so sure, his actors so engaging and charming, that he manages to grab us with his dynamic story and holds us in the palm of his hand from beginning to end. Leading man Ryan Gosling needs no introduction, and his leading lady, the wonderful Emma Stone, is a perfect match. Together they make “La La Land” an irresistible film that wins its audience the old fashioned-way: through songs and a love story. Gosling plays a Jazz musician who dreams of opening his own Jazz Club. Stone plays an aspiring actress who dreams of showing the world what she can do. I shouldn’t reveal more. But I will say that in Damien Chazelle’s hands, “La La Land” becomes an instant classic. My advice to approaching it is to sit back and let it engulf you. In terms of acting, imagination and spectacular musical numbers, “La La Land” is a masterpiece, a miracle of a film that deserves every award that is coming its way.
As a long time fan of the Grimm brothers’ fairy tales, I had high hopes for this elaborate musical adaptation (which in turn is based on a Broadway play). I’m sorry to report that I came away disappointed. It would take a lot to completely spoil the original material, but I never felt a connection with any of the characters or their stories. In fact, I think the movie, for all its songs and fancy production values, offers a diminished experience. In the theater one doesn’t need all those elements to feel the impact of the story. The movie has all of that and more, but director Rob Marshall doesn’t belong to the “less is more” school of thought. His movie offers more of more, and I didn’t care for most of it. If you’re unfamiliar with the Broadway version, “Into The Woods” interweaves the stories of “Cinderella”, “Little Red Riding Hood”, “Rapunzel” and “Jack and the Beanstalk”. Everyone tries his or her best, from Chris Pine as a Prince charming, to Anna Kendrick as Cinderella. But this is Meryl Streep’s show, and she makes the most of it (she’s probably the only reason I stayed until the end). There are some enjoyable scenes, and some of the songs are well realized. But I was utterly unprepared for the second half of the film, which turns into one gigantic musical scene, without letup. As a feat of moviemaking it’s impressive, but merciless. And by the end of the picture I was exhausted, not exhilarated. Instead of being moved, I felt a curious remove. It is, perhaps, not insignificant that the Grimm brothers’ stories were short, and not meant to sustain the length of a 2 hour film. Either way, I can only call the finished product a misfire.
Let's Talk About Movies 