Pinocchio (2022) - Cheap Thoughts

In front of every film there is a question to be asked, “What is the point?”. This can be anything from to entertain, to educate, to experiment, to empathise, there are a multitude of answers. The answer to every one of these live action Disney remakes is “To make money”. Which is why Pinocchio’s existence is so confusing. It is a straight to Disney+ film, and it’s difficult to see who exactly benefits from that. Do they really see people signing up for the platform just to watch a remake of Pinocchio? Well, perhaps that’s not the actual answer, perhaps there is just a genuine inspiration to remake the film, to modernise it and tell a new version of the tale…No.

With each passing live-action remake Disney have been putting less and less effort into creating any sort of distinction between the clone and the original. 2019’s The Lion King stole the script verbatim, and now 2022’s Pinocchio is cloning the exact visuals of the original, everything from the character designs to the bloody entrance to Gapetto’s shop, smearing it all in unfinished CGI from likely overworked and underpaid artists. Meanwhile Robert Zemeckis returns to his motion-capture filmic style of gently gliding the camera through the scene at a breezy pace with no sense of motion or purpose, just pure visual noise to keep things going, as if the camera was strapped to an escalator by accident. The film steals the visuals-because yes, this is theft-regardless of it being owned by the same company, the crew of the original film are the artists that brought it to life and are now seeing their work ripped-off and made worse-while losing any sort of character. Classic Disney films have a tendency to rely on their visuals, they lack narrative cohesion because they never really strived for it, you’d simply see characters walking down the street and appreciate the slow, relaxing pace and detailed animation painstakingly drawn by hand. Modern films are too busy, everything has to be made fast and move fast-yet simultaneously take longer in a paradox of incompetence-which if you’re adapting a visual focused picture like Pinocchio, you can’t rush through that and hope the narrative you’re copying will carry it for you.

Speaking of, who thought it was a good idea to copy the narrative yet remove any of the spine that gave the original film a point? 1940’s Pinocchio may not have had much for character arcs or textbook loyal plot points, but it was a film blunt and heavy in its messaging for kids. Pinocchio lies and his noes grows, lying=bad. Yet this film decides to use this ability as a method of the wooden boy escaping his cage, so…lying=good? How about Pleasure Island, where in 4kids style censorship they have replaced beer with root beer, removed all reference to smoking and gambling, and now have Pinocchio realising that this place is bad and never once gives into temptation. This is despite the fact the whole point of Pleasure Island is that Pinocchio learns the dangers of temptation, that’s what temptation is; something that feels good in the moment but has negative consequences long-term (Being turned into a Donkey), that’s why they used alcohol, cigars and gambling, very common addictions that have a divisive appeal. If Pinocchio is never tempted, then he has no indulgence, and thus no reason to be punished. It’s amazing how the original film can be so incredibly on the nose about these lessons and yet the grown adults who wrote this film missed them entirely.

This is becoming the worst aspect of these live-action works of theft, they steal the scripts, steal the visuals, yet leave behind the themes and morals that gave the original works any sort of spirit and meaning. It is as hollow and transparent a film can get, it doesn’t deserve to be referred to as a film, it is a nothing, an empty shell, a meaningless display of noise and colour that will leave no signature it ever existed.

-Danny

Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Movie – Cheap Thoughts

One of the greater strengths of the Ninja Turtles property is its versatility. There have been dozens of adaptations since their comic debut in 1984, and the majority of them bring their own flavour to the franchise. In truth there is no one way to present the Turtles. That being said, to give some of my own history with the series, I have been a fan of them since I was a child and have watched most of the shows and films, with the only exception unfortunately being the series this film was based on, besides a few spectacularly animated fight scenes, Rise is a version of the Turtles I am unfamiliar with, so was going in as a mostly newcomer, which would explain my more complicated feelings towards this version.

The first thing of note, I like anyone who has a passing knowledge or more of the Rise series would have gone in with great expectations over the animation, after all if they can achieve great feats on a television budget and schedule, surely they can do even more with a film? The short answer: Yes. Not just with the action sequences which are as spectacular as one could hope, but every scene is wonderful to look at, thanks to the detailed character animation, beautiful lighting and fluid movement.

It also has the best version of the Krang I’ve ever seen, genuinely making them a threat and dare I say…intimidating? Yeah, who would have ever thought the Krang could be describes as intimidating, but here we are. Krang being turned into John Carpenter-esque body horror visually toned down for younger audiences while keeping the psychological trauma it unleashes to its characters, and who doesn’t love watching a film knowing it could scar children?

This leads us into the biggest issue with the film…Ben Schwartz as Leo. Look, if Ben Schwartz wants to spend his career playing the same character, that’s fine, many actors do that, and he’s good at it. I would ask you do it with new characters and not ones with pre-established characterisation that has to be thrown out for your benefit. Leo is traditionally the noble leader of the group who has to ground the others. All other adaptations have stuck to this principal while finding ways to expand on the character in their own distinct ways. Yet here we have a Leo who is arrogant and childish is having to be grounded by Raphael of all people. Who would have ever thought we’d see the day when Raph was the level-headed one!?

They’ve taken it so far that this version of Leo literally has the same arc as Schwartz’s version of Sonic seen earlier this year in Sonic 2. A powerful yet cocky and childish wannabee hero who has to learn to respect the responsibility needed to be a true hero. Even down to their opening scene involves both characters chasing after thieves in a speeding truck and in their efforts to save the day cause just as much chaos and destruction due to their own hubris. If I had a nickel.

It doesn’t entirely ruin the film as the other 75% of the Turtles are the perfect blend of staying true to their counterparts while doing something different to make them stand out, but when your main Turtle who takes up the most screentime is the complete opposite of who he’s supposed to be, you have to ask what is the point in adapting this property if you’re going to ignore everything that came before it?

-Danny

Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero – Cheap Thoughts

Irrelevancy is the number one concern for any Dragon Ball character not named Goku or Vegeta. A long running series with a multitude of characters means some get left to the wayside, particularly in a series obsessed with power scaling, if you can’t keep up, you get left behind. It has taken 4 movies and 131 episodes of modern Dragon Ball to figure out how to rectify this problem.

Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero (Yes, that naming is awkward) is not only a film for fans – of course that statement is true, no modern Dragon Ball movie has been made for anyone but the fans – but specifically for the fans of the supporting characters, the underdogs, the unrepresented pillars of this universe. With Goku and Vegeta off-world training with Broly (a great continuation from the previous film), it is down to Piccolo to act as Earth’s mighty defender, very much begrudgingly as he would rather anyone else deal with the problem so he can be left alone in peace. The return of the classic Red Ribbon army now building up their own forces to take on Capsule Corp and the Z Warriors, recruiting new hero-themed androids who have been fed propaganda representing our protagonists as threats to the Earth (to be honest, they’re not far off) and now seek to prove themselves as heroes by defeating these alien threats.

It's always a delight to be reminded of how far Piccolo has come as a character, from enslaving demon king to protector of Earth by night, and uncle babysitting the adorable Pan by day. However, he would certainly wish Gohan would take more of an active duty in raising his child instead of obsessing over his hobbies and improving himself in those fields (Like father like Son-Gohan). Gohan on the other hand is a more difficult character to say where his character arc should go. From early Z he was hinted to one day be the greatest fighter on Earth and become its main protector, by the end of the Cell Saga, this goal was achieved. However his story didn’t end there, as his mother also dreamed for him to thrive academically and live a happy normal life. Come the Buu saga this character arc seemed to have come to fruition, and Gohan would live out his life as a scholar, loving father and retired fighter. All well and good, except the story kept on going, a story all about fighters, and if Gohan doesn’t fight, then what does he do here? Not much really. Super Hero brings him to the foreground and challenges this identity, though to questionable success when it is no longer a choice of Gohan’s to make whether he will become a fighter or a scholar, but instead others trying to force him into one specific side. It ends in questionable success, though to be honest, just seeing Gohan actually be given any kind of character development is a blessing at this point, let’s be thankfully for what we get.

The fanservice does not end there, as this may also be the funniest Dragon Ball film released so far, filled with plenty of references both obvious and subtle, character-based humour, meta-commentary and even basic things as characters modernise themselves for current audiences (Piccolo struggling to hold a smartphone will be funny every time).

There is some hesitancy amongst the fans over the animation style, being the first fully 3D animated Dragon Ball film and considering the franchise’s history with CGI people were…sceptical. Thankfully those fans can take a sigh of relief, the film looks great, the character designs mostly translate well into the new style (Saiyan hair can look somewhat wonky in 3D) and it’s great to see the series experiment in new ways, both with its writing and the style of animations.

That sums up this film perfectly. Dragon Ball is a very old franchise in terms of anime and yet is still going strong to this day, and is even making new fans with the younger generations, this is despite no easy entry point besides going back to the original anime from 30 years ago, and yet people go through it, and they stick around because of these newer films that offer them something they still haven’t seen before. Broly offered the best fight scenes the series has ever seen, Battle of Gods expanded the universe into scopes yet undiscovered, Resurrection F…well you can’t win ‘em all. Super Hero continues that trend by not only experimenting with the animation, but offering the supporting cast a chance to shine and even bring in new characters to the ensemble. This film is a welcome edition into the canon and a breath of fresh air into a very old franchise.

-Danny

Lightyear - Cheap Thoughts

No one should be surprised when a spin-off film based on a literal toy franchise feels like nothing more than a big advert for toys, yet that doesn't make the feeling any less hollow. The Toy Story trilogy are 3 of the greatest films in modern animation, they literally birthed the format that every animated feature partakes in, meanwhile they took traditional animation down to the river and shot it in the back of the head. They were certainly profitable through supplementary products, no one's denying that and no one's judging either, they are literally toys, of course they took that and ran. Yet there is only so much you can do before milking this franchise dry, they learnt this with Toy Story 4, a film that has much of a right to exist as a malignant tumour. Rather than continue to whore out their beloved entourage of Andy's former toys, they decided on a spin-off, featuring the "real" Buzz Lightyear, a premise so confusing they have to open the film with it just to explain how this film can possibly exist.

Lightyear like its predecessor has no reason to exist and is just here to make money, but that’s not upsetting, because this is not the Buzz Lightyear we all know and love, this is just…some guy. Some guy who looks similar to him, just enough that they can sell him again as a new toy, but familiar enough people will want him, he also travels around with a toy cat pretending to be a robot, but looks very much like a toy cat for very obvious reasons.

Again, this shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, wanting to make a profit through merchandise is not the sinful anti-art message some would deem it so; but when there was clearly no other motivation behind it. Nobody ran into the Pixar office one day begging to make a Lightyear film because they had the passion and the story the world needed to hear. They were told to make another Toy Story film so they could sell more toys and they worked backwards from there, and what we have is a sloppy narrative held together by tape and gum.

Lightyear sees Buzz (Again, not the one we already know, a different guy in the same suit) go on an adventure to save the day and hopefully along the way learn the value of teamwork and relying on others, except this theme shared throughout the narrative is as clumsy as one can expect in a film that was forced into the world. The film opens with Buzz (Chris Evans) and his Commander (Uzo Aduba) exploring a new world with a Rookie Space Ranger-something Buzz actively dislikes-and disaster strikes while Buzz tries to save the day with the help of his Commander, while actively refusing the help of the Rookie and eventually failing.

Later and in a large chunk of the narrative we see Buzz team up with a ragtag group of untrained misfits to save the day and earn Buzz his redemption and learn the value of teamwork. Except no, Buzz very clearly does understand the value of teamwork, he trusts and respects those who are competent in their positions, such as the Commander or his robot partner Sox (Peter Sohn) and works well with them. The people he doesn’t work well with are the Rookies, the people unprepared for the mission and any responsible officer would make the correct decision in leaving them behind as taking them aboard would make them a danger to themselves and everyone else.

The film naturally is a beauty to watch, Pixar continue to improve on their detailing and lighting engines far beyond what anyone could expect, once you think they’ve reached their peak they somehow top themselves. In fact while many complain (rightfully) that Turning Red should have gotten a theatrical release being the better of the two films, to be perfectly honest Lightyear earns that honour as well as it’s visuals are stunning on a cinematic scale.

This isn’t anything new, no matter what the plot of a Pixar movie is, they are never going to disappoint on the technical aspect. Where this film is a disappointment begins and ends with the narrative…which is sadly rather important to most films.

-Danny

The Bob's Burgers Movie - Cheap Thoughts

When the news broke that Bob’s Burgers was getting a movie it seemed…odd. Not due to the show’s lack of quality or popularity, but the fact it’s not a very “cinematic” series. Bob’s Burgers is a series about a working-class family in a small town running a struggling business. The conflicts are always small and relatable, the show in both tone and plot was grounded, there was no rubber band logic of other animated hits turned into films like The Simpsons or South Park. You were never going to see Bob Belcher fly into space, but you will definitely see him worry about how he’s going to pay rent this month. Then there is the whole aesthetic of the show, which is very minimal and to be honest, ugly. It certainly has it’s charm but it’s not exactly silver screen worthy, the most they can do to improve upon their presentation is the typical transition of TV Cartoon to Movie Cartoon: Characters now have shading. Even the more cinematic element of the show’s identity, their passion for music is underplayed in a seemingly missed opportunity when the film opens with a catchy number implying a full blown musical but it fizzles out after the second song.

This is all a very negative introduction to what is honestly a good film. The Bob’s Burgers Movie is sure to please all fans of the series, it maintains their trademark good sense of humour, family friendly and consistently chuckle worthy from beginning to end thanks to talented writers and equally talented voice cast. It’s unlikely to cause any belly buster laughs but that was never what Bob’s Burgers was as a franchise, it’s comfort food. It is something to relax to, know you’ll be comfortable and have a jovial time for the next twenty minutes, only this time it’s stretched out to an hour and a half yet maintains that momentum (however glacial it may be).

If you have never seen Bob’s Burgers, it’s safe to say you’ll get just as much enjoyment out of this picture as any long-term fan. Heck, you might even get more out of it by hopefully becoming a fan and now having 9 seasons worth of television to enjoy. It’s as simple as that, The Bob’s Burgers Movie is an enjoyable quick picture for all audiences, fans or otherwise.

Elvis - Cheap Thoughts

Musical biopics have risen in popularity over the past few years. With the baffling success of Bohemian Rhapsody it seems it opened a floodgate for more (and better) films of the genre. 2019’s Rocketman framed the narrative as a traditional musical, and this year’s Elvis approached it with Baz Luhrmann’s trademarked maximalist style of fast editing, loud visuals and an awful lot of passion. Everything you could want from a Luhrmann picture is found here, his rapid pacing, sweaty emotional outbursts from characters and a bricolage of styles and aesthetics coming together to somehow make a cohesive vision.

Luhrmann’s style is definitely a welcome approach to the subject matter, it is the films beating heart to prevent it from becoming stale, as on a script level this is still as standard a musical biopic as you can get. Show their childhood, their influence, their rise to fame, their inevitable downfall and end it with one final great performance to show their comeback. The film tries to add something new of a framing device formed from the perspective of Elvis’ (Austin Butler) manager Colonel Parker (Tom Hanks), traditionally viewed to be the bad guy of the King’s story that we’re told through a Salieri style narration. The man who destroyed Elvis presents his side of the story…except not really. It is very clear from minute one that Parker is the villain, that all of his actions are manipulative, selfish and damaging to Presley and his family. There is no debate or discussion, no presentation of an unreliable narrator, just a man claiming he is not the bad guy, only to spin you a yarn in which he makes no attempt to present himself as anything other than the irredeemable monster of the narrative.

Hanks’ performance is somewhat of a divisive nature, there is a level of goofiness to it, after all its Tom Hanks in a fat suit putting on a cartoonish Dutch accent, in itself fine and fitting for a Luhrmann film, but when contrasted with Butler who is putting in a career defining performance is where the issue lies. Delivering nuance and depth to a performance that could easily fall into a cheap impression, after all people have made entire careers out of being Elvis impersonators and in comes Butler to dance on that line, only to act across the cartoon character Hanks has developed.

If Biopics are here to stay then it’s nice to see developments in the styles these films approach the tales, but if there are truly going to stick around then it is imperative they all find new ways to approach the narrative structure on a script level. If any screenwriters out there are writing their big biopic on a classic musician, ask yourself if your script shares any similarities with Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, then maybe rethink your plot.

-Danny

RRR - Cheap Thoughts

This is as far removed from a picture as I can be. My experience with Indian cinema, culture and history is astonishingly small, and all information I do know about this film and it’s cultural context comes from secondary sources, so this is practically my entry point that came to me entirely through word of mouth. This is important context to establish when discussing RRR because my god, what a film to start with.

If you’ve heard anything about RRR it’s most likely been hyperbolic praise claiming that everything the film does is simply…the most it could be done. Every action, every emotion, every camera movement is as bombastic and grandiose as it could be, which is very much the truth. There is no ambiguity or room for personal interpretation, the film is determined to make sure you not only understand exactly what the characters are feeling, but they are feeling the most of that specific emotion than anyone possibly could. If two people are friends, they are frolicking in fields with glee, if someone is heartbroken, they are screaming their heart out and flooding their home with tears, if there is a fight scene they strike with so much adrenaline and power the Earth will tremble at their presence. The film follows the story of two men who quickly become best friends, not realising they are on opposite sides of a war, and we follow the tale of their friendship and their inevitable clash of ideology as well as fists. The two are described as the friendship between a storm and a volcano, and they absolutely earn those comparisons, these men Bheem (N. T. Rama Rao Jr.) and Raju (Ram Charan) do everything with the passion and force that alters the world around them.

These large personalities aren’t just limited to their macho violence but in their love for one another, their sympathy for those around them and their utter joy when dancing together, oh yes because this film is also a musical, they really put everything in here and somehow do it all excellently. This is the true beauty of RRR, yes everything is dialed up to 11, but it never loses the passion and love that focuses the picture, everything the characters do is not for their hatred of the enemy, or the external desire of the actors to look cooler than everyone else, but on Bheem and Raju’s love for their people, for their families and for one another. They will move Heaven and Earth for them and the talents of director S. S. Rajamouli gives them the girth and gravitas to make it happen.

RRR is a little bit of everything, actually, no, it’s a lot of everything, it is the most of everything and it is the best of everything. A Maximalist Modern Masterpiece.

-Danny