The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Cheap Thoughts

It always seems to be the most undeserving of movies for audiences to become champion defenders for against the villainy of critics. These fans believing the delusions that between a combination of two-billion dollar corporations coming together to make a guaranteed blockbuster and individual journalists with opinions on movies, that the former is somehow the underdog. Also this idea that 58% on Rotten Tomatoes is somehow a bomb, and not a sign that the majority of critics enjoyed the movie to some degree. It reeks of insecurity and unfounded arguments such as critics being unable to enjoy movies that aim simply to entertain, as if recent movies Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves which is also a family friendly adventure film that aims to entertain didn’t get good reviews, or rival family friendly videogame mascot Sonic the Hedgehog didn’t also get good reviews, or the majority of Pixar, Dreamworks, Ghibli, Sony and Warner Bros animated films don’t also get good reviews. There are people out there who enjoyed The Super Mario Bros Movie and are seemingly so insecure in that opinion that they need to shout at other people who’s job it is to have opinions on movies and scream “No! You’re wrong!”. This is a warning to state that if this is you, this is going to be another negative review of this movie, so you might want to leave now.

Truth be told it’s not even going to be that harshly negative, arguably more positive than the Sonic the Hedgehog movies which I was very critical of (Though we’ll see). The Super Mario Bros movie is the second attempt by the west to adapt the Mario franchise into a feature length movie, the first attempt in 1993 with a live action film that was truly panned by critics and audiences, it’s main criticism being that it is incredibly unfaithful to the source material, and so this film has gone to obscene lengths to be as faithful as possible, in visuals, in tone, in music and even in plot by being paper thin and lacking anything substantive.

Mario videogames can get away with this because they have always been about spectacle. They have fun gameplay, creative worlds and often multiplayer components to make them entertaining experiences. Being adapted into a movie, and thus having their main benefactor removed you would think that they would replace it with something, perhaps give Mario a personality, an arc, anything resembling a character beyond his iconic look? Nope. He is a mascot first, a mascot second, a mascot exclusively.

The film begins with Mario (Chris Pratt) & Luigi (Charlie Day) recently starting their own plumbing business in Brooklyn and everyone seems to be against them, both their former boss and their family members mock them in their attempts to follow their dreams, yet the two brothers ignore them. On their first job they are shown to be perfectly competent plumbers, and it is due to external forces that disaster happens. Shenanigans occur and they are eventually brought into the Mushroom Kingdom, quickly separated, they meet all the staples of the Mario cast and are dragged into the middle of a war as Bowser (Jack Black) wants to kidnap and marry Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy), while all the two care for is reuniting and making their way home.

When people say their enjoyment for this film comes from what if offers them in terms of entertainment it’s easy to see why they view that, it is a bright and colourful films-truth be told it is easily the best looking film Illumination have ever produced-and it has heavy emphasis on comedy and loyalty above all else. It’s rare for people to root for the corporate overlords over any artistic merit but it is very clear Nintendo were breathing down Illumination’s necks to make this a faithful recreation down to the smallest of details and fill it with dozens of easter eggs for audiences to enjoy.

Yet it also relies on incredibly lazy needle-drops to make sure the audience is paying attention, songs that have no relevance to what's happened but they are broadly appealing enough the film hopes it can cheat by passing this off as quality entertainment. Where critics interrupt this is simply asking why not offer more? Don’t you want something other than cotton candy to eat? Don’t you want something of value to be gained from watching the film? As harsh as I was on Sonic the Hedgehog it at least put in the bare effort to try and tell a story, to give Sonic an arc. I ask you, what does Mario do? What does he learn? What does he want? Several times in the film people exclaim “you just don’t know when to quit” but at no point is he given a reason to quit. He’s a good plumber, he’s a good brother, there is no reason for him to change throughout the events of the film. Well okay, that can also work, have him be a flat character and change the world around him, yet he is an outsider in the world of the Mushroom Kingdom and has no direct impact on anyone and has no skills to offer. He wins because of power ups that anyone can wield. He fails as a plumber due to external forces and he succeeds in being a hero due to external forces.

A big marketing factor for this film was it’s star studded A-List cast, and I’m not going to be arguing against what other people are saying. The scene stealer was Jack Black, the runners up are Charlie Day and Keegan-Michael Key, everyone else was fine, even Chris Pratt. Yet them being just fine does further prove they could have just hired professional voice actors who would have been better and cheaper, but they still are willing to spend all that money for the sake of placing a name on a poster.

Part of me wants to be more lenient on the film and offer it the same benefit of the doubt I did Dungeons & Dragons, where that film took the easy route because their main goal was to prove a D&D movie could work, this film clearly had a similar mindset and just wanted to prove that a Mario movie could work. Yet there was still an attempt in the D&D movie to give their characters some emotion and arcs. Watching this film feels like the equivalent of eating a can of whipped cream, it is sugary and sweet yet lacks anything of nutrition or even solid substance to make it worth something.

-Danny

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves - Cheap Thoughts

What do you do for a Dungeons & Dragons movie? This is a legitimate question as while there is certainly lore and logic to the property that makes for good set dressing, it’s not exactly a product with reoccurring characters & stories, that’s for the players to make, Dungeons & Dragons simply offers you a setting to tell that story in. There have been adaptations of Dungeons & Dragons before, most infamously the 2000 film, most famously would be Critical Role’s The Legend of Vox Machina and most nostalgically would be the 80s cartoon also named Dungeons & Dragons. The appeal of the world of D&D is that you get to tell the story you want to tell in a traditional Tolkein-esque fantasy world with characters of your own creation, without that you are simply watching a standard fantasy film that those in references and easter eggs for hardcore fans of the game…So that’s what they went with.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves is certainly a treat for D&D fans, getting to see certain elements be brought to the big screen and seeing these creatures and magic visualised, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t giggle a bit seeing a Green Flame Blade vs Magic Weapon sword fight, and I’m happy to see some Paladin Propaganda on display. Truly what they captured best from the game is simply the tone, which might sound odd because each game is personalised for your group of players, but most commonly agree the average campaign is a mixture of sincerity and hilarity. We all love to play pretend and do dramatic monologues with our friends but at the same time when your master thief of a Rogue rolls a Nat 1 on unlocking a door, the silly events that are about to play out are going be a comedic delight. While the irony stained comedic senses undercutting dramatic moments are certainly a plague on the majority of comedy/action blockbusters of today, it would honestly be out of character for a Dungeons & Dragons movie of all things to not embrace that tone. There is a character named Jarnathan and I can immediately picture how that would come about in a regular game with the DM failing to prepare a name for a random NPC.

For the non-D&D fans here there is still plenty to enjoy, a fantasy film filled with adventure, laughs and truly impressive practical effects littered everywhere, even with barely present background characters. There is an argument to be made that the film is rather basic, or as the kids say these days “mid”, which is difficult to argue against. The film has a very standard plot, the characters are the most basic interpretations of their respective classes and their cookie cutter arcs offer them little in the way of greater substance. Yet I don’t see this as massive a flaw as I would for other films, simply because when I picture the filmmakers sat down to write this film I don’t imagine they were aiming higher than “Make a good D&D movie” which as history has shown us, is not an easy task, so I don’t blame them for bunting the ball on occasion and going for the less risky options. In a sense I view this film very much how one plans their first D&D character, they often go for something basic and conventional just to get the hang of things, and once they’re comfortable it make something creative and experimental with the second campaign.

-Danny

John Wick: Chapter 4 - Cheap Thoughts

It has been 4 years since the release of the last John Wick film, delays due to covid have given the filmmaking team behind these pictures plenty of time to think on what they want to achieve with this next film. The decision they have come to is not to practise newer crafts to bring something different to the table (for the most part) but to polish and perfect the elements that have already existed. John Wick: Chapter 4 continues it’s predecessor’s video game like structure of sending John to a variety of locations, fight a variety of enemies to achieve some trivial goal, yet as tradition they do it bigger, sleeker and prettier with each passing instalment. Chapter 4 can boast away at its absolutely gorgeous digital photography, stellar use of neon lighting, dark shadows and dramatic poses to make is just a treat for the eyes. Yet it doesn’t stop there, the obscene talent on display from the stunt team continues to impress even all these years later. There’s true style and craft on display with the majority of action scenes, they make them hurt, make them cool and make them memorable. The Wick films put every other western action franchise to shame and they themselves never settle, never too comfortable, always thinking “what more can we do?” and they’ll always find an answer.

One of the bigger developments in modern filmmaking since the last instalment is the popularity of drone cameras, to allow for more 3-Dimensional and uninterrupted shots. It’s a dangerous tool to use unprepared, as the smooth movement of the drone can create a melancholic feeling, as if the camera is drifting through the scene as an impartial and uncaring observer. Wick 4 avoids that by locking the camera in a specific location, a top down shot in an enclosed environment Hotline Miami style. It certainly helps give the scene (and thus the film as a whole) a unique flavour to make it stand out while avoiding the easy pitfalls the drone cameras open up.

Other new instalments include an expanded cast, not limited to Bill Skarsgård as the newest uptight European High Table obstacle acting like if P.T. Barnum as a Bond villain, Clancy Brown in a small role as a strict rule abiding operative known as The Harbinger, and Scott Adkins as an arrogant eccentric German gangster/nightclub owner. This is another example of one of Wick’s greatest strengths, they have so many minor roles across their films yet they love to fill them with great character actors who truly embody the phrase ‘There are no small parts, only small actors’ in the best of ways. Of course, it would be remiss not to mention the absolute scene stealer that is Donnie Yen as a blind assassin and old friend of John Wick (Keanu Reeves) struggling to balance his duty to the High Table and his loyalty to his friend.

Friendship is the word of the day, the film has many characters making emphatical decisions on where their loyalties lie, with the organisation? Or with their allies? These are people who make their money in killing people who bare them no ill-will, in some cases they are ordered by duty to kill good people, even friends. John Wick as a character is one that refuses the call, he challenges the High Table, and relies on the help of friends who follow him as an individual, not a faceless replaceable group of criminals. The High Table as a concept we never learn much of their goals. They are an Illuminati style organisation who secretly control everything, and they have a strict set of rules you must never break, yet they seem to exist simply to exist? To have all the power and must never be challenged on it for the sake of having it. Like a child who refuses to let you play with their toys simply because it is theirs to own. It’s no wonder people flock to John Wick as not only do they have loyalty to him as a person, but should he succeed, they will have proof that the High Table is fallible. They are not the all-seeing, all-knowing hydra they claim to be.

The Wick franchise have always struck an interesting tone. They are expansive over the top action films with deep lore of an underground guild of assassins that goes so extreme into how serious they are that it makes it all the way back round to lunacy. Yet there is a clear self-awareness on the filmmakers part, very aware of this inflated premise, Wick’s uber intense performance of grunts and gritted teeth and Lawrence Fishburne’s dramatic monologues of his Hobo Kingdom, and not a hint of irony to be found they never laugh at themselves, only sincerity from frame one of the original film. It’s a rare balance to meet and that may be why these films have no true competitor, most lean one way or another. No other franchise can do what Wick does, offer a dark & violent world filled with techno music as Keanu Reeves slams a nunchuck into a man’s head again and again and again. What a laugh riot.

-Danny

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