Pete's Dragon

It’s no great revelation that Disney, while continuing development and production on original content like the upcoming Frozen and Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, is releasing numerous remakes of its classic titles, including Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book that came out earlier this year, Bill Condon’s Beauty and the Beast starring Emma Watson as Belle, due for release in 2017, and the subject of this review: David Lowery’s Pete’s Dragon, based on Don Chaffey’s 1977 Disney musical of the same name where a cartoon dragon (with the ability to turn invisible) interacts in a live action world. While the original film had some decent special effects for its time, its logic and storytelling was nonsensical and has not aged well, and its soundtrack, with the exception of the Academy Award nominated “Candle on the Water” performed by Helen Reddy, was forgettable and repetitive. Put simply, the bar has been set quite low for the adaptation.

There are a number of major changes made to the remake. The location is moved from a turn-of-the-century port town in Maine to a more modern-contemporary forested area and its town therein. None of the characters save for Pete and Elliot the Dragon retain their names from the original. Pete is adapted from a runaway orphan slave to a feral child raised by a dragon; in fact this film is one of at least three released in 2016 involving feral children, the other two being the aforementioned Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book and David Yates’ The Legend of Tarzan. Elliot the Dragon is updated from a goofy cartoon character into a generally playful but occasionally fearsome animal. The design of Elliot is good – the film tries to update not only the method of animation but also gives the character a relatively unique design while having some features recognisable to the original with a similar personality. The CGI version is more anatomically correct than the tiny-winged overweight dragon (who can still fly for some reason) and looks more like a classical western dragon but with a mammalian appearance.

The film is about a young boy named Pete (Oakes Fegley), raised by his friend, a dragon whom he has named Elliot (John Kassir), as he is discovered and taken to civilisation by forest ranger Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard); Elliot tries to find Pete while Grace’s unofficial brother-in-law Gavin (Karl Urban), a logger, cuts further into the forest, eventually happens upon the dragon and plots to capture him. Also starring is Robert Redford as Mr. Meacham, the non-alcoholic equivalent of Mickey Rooney as the tipsy lighthouse keeper Lampie, Wes Bentley and Oona Laurence as Jack and Natalie, Grace’s boyfriend and daughter. Fegley bears somewhat of a resemblance to Sean Marshall’s depiction. He does a seamless performance of this version of Pete, outwardly simple, childlike, and showing Pete’s adjustment to his reconnecting with the human world. There’s a moment where an 11-year-old Pete thinks that he is 5, having not counted his birthdays for six years in the forest, and Fegley’s expression of confusion is subtle and effective. Kassir’s voice acting as the animalistic Elliot works well too – thankfully there’s no silly clicking and dragon gibberish like the cartoon Elliot did. However, the performances from the rest of the cast are…unremarkable. Whether because of the performances, the characters portrayed, or the tone of the film, the overall acting seems rather bland.

The plot is basically that of a tired environmental movie. Howard plays the gentle but rebellious type trying to save the forest while Urban plays the arrogant logger trying to make a profit. There are a number of clichés in its plot points and mannerisms; for example, when Elliot looks out to the sky, indicating that he misses his family, when Elliot looks sad and slinks back into his forest because he saw Pete with Grace and her family, and when Grace is reunited with Pete she puts her hands on either side of his face. Even Elliot’s story arc up to the midway point is basically the plot of Andrew Stanton’s Finding Nemo (2003). They’re plot points and gimmicks that audiences have seen several times before, and so audiences will catch onto them and lose interest.

To the pessimistic mind this film undermines Pete’s story arc. While the moment where a 5-year-old orphan Pete (Levi Alexander) meets Elliot is an undoubtedly touching scene, the film underplays the emotional consequences of Pete losing his parents immediately before, having only the sound of his crying off-screen. True, for a children’s movie it would be a hefty ordeal, but the crying as it is only lasts for a few seconds before Pete moves on, and there aren’t any tears running down his cheeks to illustrate the emotional state he’d be in. Also, Pete gets along with people a lot better than he realistically would, considering his separation from human contact for the latter half of his life. These may be the words of one lacking a suspension of disbelief; however, this review puts to its audience that the tone of this film doesn’t necessarily have to be compromised in any capacity in order for it to more closely represent the emotional conflicts that would arise from these situations. Pete can be more resistant to other characters and find difficulty in adjusting to a human environment. The emotional aspects of Pete’s story play it too neat and tidy.

And then there are the small parts of the story that can be somewhat bothering. For example, why doesn’t Pete consider Elliot a person after being raised by him for the last six years? He may be a dragon, but he does have a level of sentience, an understanding of verbal language, and is practically Pete’s adoptive father who provides for him. What are the rules of Elliot’s invisibility? Is it full invisibility, partial invisibility, or is it camouflage? There’s also what seems to be a dark turn once Elliot breathes fire and nearly kills some people. It’s an awesome sight to see the dragon have that kind of power after ever so much screentime, and the anger with which he unleashes it is understandable given the animalistic nature of this version, but it also seems out of character given how he is depicted throughout the film. Yes, he threatens Gavin at one point but never with the intent of harming him, just scaring him away.

In conclusion, the 2016 remake of Pete’s Dragon is bland. It doesn’t hit its audience hard enough like a timeless Disney movie would, it’s full of clichéd plot points and visual gestures, and while the music contributes to the kind of tone this film seems to be going for, it is generic. That said it does seem like a nicely designed picture, visually speaking, apart from some darker scenes that can be a little hard to see. Oakes Fegley as Pete and the character design of Elliot are enjoyable and there wasn't nearly enough of the two together. Finally, the film needs more depth if it were to have a unique identity and leave an impact with audiences. Sadly though, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume the remake will soon follow its predecessor into obscurity.

League of Gods

Koan Hui’s League of Gods, known as Fēng Shén Bǎng in Mandarin, is a marvelously beautiful Chinese fantasy film based on Xu Zhonglin’s 16^th Century novel Fengshen Yanyi.

The premise of the plot is very much that of a classic fantasy adventure – a hero goes on a journey to find a legendary sword and defeat an evil king, going from place to place and finding allies along the way. The story follows Ji Lei (Jacky Heung), the last surviving member of the Wing tribe with an unexplained electric psychokinesis called Adept power. The dispatcher of the narrative is Master Jiang (Jet Li), essentially a quirky Gandalf the White, who sends Lei to find the Sword of Light in order to defeat the evil King Zhou (Tony Leung Ka-fai), his queen, the seductive and deadly fox demon Daji (Fan Bingbing), and the cruel General Leopard (Louis Koo). Along the way he comes across his proud sidekick Magic Grass and fellow heroes, the impatient and nigh-unstoppable Naza (Wen Zhang) and earth god Yang Jian (Huang Xiaoming). All of the actors emote excellently and portray clear and varying characters.

The visual design is by far the most attractive part of the movie. The sets are breathtakingly crafted, costumes and character designs are adorned and colourful, and the mythology is greatly interesting. The CGI creatures appear a little obvious or cartoony, but not bad overall and well animated. The cinematography is decently put together, as it shows off the environments and plays around with camera movement somewhat. Strangely, the editing is sometimes similar to that of Ang Lee’s Life of Pi (2012), especially in the opening infiltration scene.

The action is interesting and fast-paced, full of flips, hard hits, magic, monsters, shield-surfing… Couple these with the wonderful visuals and these action scenes are amazing to watch. There is a romance subplot between Lei and a secretive girl called Blue Butterfly (Angelababy). Heung and Angelababy portray this relationship as one might young love. Despite the lack of time and development between the two, the music and their performances show a great deal of emotion by the end of the subplot. Referring to the story in general, it follows a relatively linear narrative; there are really no big surprises. Besides that there are parts that seem incomplete. After meeting Yang Jian, he goes to find his Gold Armour and is not seen again until the climax, having retrieved his armour off-screen. Naza’s motivation for allying himself with Lei is to find his Wind Fire Wheels; he will use this treasure against Zhou and Daji, but he doesn’t seem to recognise that he and Lei have a common enemy that would give him all the more reason to join him. The movie ends with a cliffhanger, which means it is not a self-contained story, though this is understandable as the film is based on a large book. It may require some sequels to tell the whole story, but given the uncertain reception there are no guarantees.

League of Gods is definitely a visual spectacle. There are admittedly some dents in the story, but the classic fantasy narrative and astonishing mise-en-scène is more than enough to blow the audience away. The heroes have distinct character designs, personalities and unique powers, the action is extremely creative, the music works wonders in every scene, and the actors are all completely invested in their roles. It is a thoroughly enjoyable adventure from start to finish.

Suicide Squad

David Ayer’s Suicide Squad is the third film in the current DC Cinematic Universe, also known as the DC Extended Universe, also known as Zach Snyder’s Murderverse (so named on account of Zach Snyder’s Man of Steel (2013) and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)). In a world where the movies about our most iconic DC Comics superheroes are dark and unpleasant, only the movie about a team of villains dares to be fun and colourful.

Following the events of Batman v Superman, ruthless government official Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) assembles a team of convicted supervillains as a deterrent against future threats. It’s just like The Avengers, only with criminals, and Hawkeye having the most useful powers! These supervillains consist of sharpshooter Deadshot (Will Smith), the Joker’s crazy girlfriend Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), human sewer gator Killer Croc (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), pyrokinetic El Diablo (Jay Hernandez) and Flash adversary Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney). Also joining the team is vigilante swordswoman Katana (Karen Fukuhara), Special Forces operative and team leader Rick Flag (Joel Kinnaman) and Enchantress, an evil witch possessing the body of Dr. June Moone (Cara Delevingne).

The entire cast gives great performances; there are faults, but overall one enjoys the acting and appreciates the casting. Will Smith’s coolness excels for his confidence and humorous sarcasm, while appearing tough and portraying Deadshot with sympathetic qualities. Margot Robbie’s performance is pretty much what fans would expect of Harley Quinn – perky, insane, sexy, deceptively dangerous, with a grin befitting of the Joker’s girlfriend. The one thing that may throw an audience member off is her impersonation of the character’s accent; the general performance doesn’t have this accent, so when it does surface it seems out of place. From a storytelling standpoint these two characters are focused on the most. While introducing the characters, the first act lists off the team members in the form of a series of flashbacks (with onscreen stats that go by so fast one can barely read them), revealing Deadshot and Harley Quinn to have the most humanising qualities due to their personal motivations, and therefor audience cares about them the most. The closest any other characters come is El Diablo and Rick Flag – El Diablo being held back by guilt, and Flag having an undeveloped romance.

In Killer Croc’s case, he appears large, muscular and threatening, with a crude savage fighting style, as the character should, but he is barely given dialogue until the last third of the film. It is probably a good performance on Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje’s part as he is a skilled actor, but unfortunately the audience is not given enough focus on Croc to appreciate it, and thus he ends up as a hunk of scaly muscle in the background, without much of a character, for most of the feature. Jay Hernadez, as mentioned, plays a character plagued by guilt. The character’s skull face tattoos can hide expressiveness to an extent, but simultaneously allows the emotion to come through his eyes, exaggerated by the black socket tattoos around them. Hernadez does well at portraying defensiveness over tragedy under a subdued demeanor. Captain Boomerang is basically built up as a comedic member, fighting with the others but perhaps meant to be ineffectual as he was portrayed in the comic books, but with a tough rugged exterior. In this version he doesn’t seem to have an Australian accent as his character came to have in the comic books, though in fairness it is possibly just not such an obvious one. To be honest, it’s more of a disappointment that he doesn’t throw many boomerangs! Cara Delevingne can express the duality of Dr. Moone’s vulnerability and Enchantress’ coldness, and she is a fair belly dancer (which I’m sure is totally necessary for casting spells). Adam Beach takes the part of another villain, Slipknot, but the story gets rid of him almost as soon as he is introduced. While he only exists in the movie to illustrate part of the situation, one may feel compromised if they also consider this a waste of a character.

And then there’s the recasting of Jared Leto as the Joker. Now, when the character was shown in trailers, not everyone was keen on the redesign, as it went from the energy, smart dress and ear-to-ear grin of Jack Nicholson and the unruly hair, makeup and “cheap suit” of the anarchistic Heath Ledger’s Joker to a pale, creepy guy wearing a grill in his teeth and tattoos all over his face and body. By the time of the film’s release, one can assume audiences will have gotten used to the look and accepted it as another interpretation of the character design. While the Joker in most media is presented with the traits of being scary, a genius and funny at times, this version of the Joker is more on the scary side, perhaps not intended to have that comedic element. “Why so serious?” Leto’s portrayal of the character has eyes like daggers and feels unpredictable, but the guy seems so intense that one has to wonder why he’s called the Joker, aside from the occasional creepy laugh, which Leto does excellently. The most Joker-esque part is where he laughs maniacally as he and Harley drive like maniacs around Gotham. If Lex Luthor was turned into the Joker in Batman v Superman, who is the Joker in this film?

The action is built up with some tension and there is a fun element to it, mixing it up with energy and a little bit of humour. What one may feel is a little boring is the faceless minions of Enchantress, essentially zombies with heads that smash like stone for some reason despite them being so squidgy. If you’re not interested in guys with guns shooting swarms of zombies, you may not be too interested here. In all fairness, these enemies are shown to pose a threat to our heroes to an extent, although realistically these alone should not pose a great threat to a group of supervillains backed by Special Forces. For some reason, Killer Croc seems quite held back in the first few action scenes when he should be wailing on the creepy creatures. Two of these action scenes take place within mere seconds of each other, seeming too frequent and improperly paced.

The visuals are welcoming. Character and costume designs are changed up somewhat from the comic books, but they stand out nonetheless. One such change is Deadshot having both his eyes, with the eyepiece is on his left eye instead of his right… Worst adaptation ever. Worst adaptation ever! Harley Quinn’s costume has been criticised for sexualising the character, which is irrelevant since she has always been sexualised to an extent. At one point during the flashback of Harley’s backstory, the film pays homage to the artwork of Alex Ross on the cover of Batman: Harley Quinn (1999), the character’s first appearance in the main DC Comics continuity, and a famous cover. Enchantress and Incubus’ (Alain Chanoine) glowing eyes are effectively creepy, especially when the characters are silhouetted. Captain Boomerang’s blue “captain” hoodie seems a little silly, but it looks quite good with the heavy jacket over it. There are great uses of colour in certain scenes and throughout, and colour grading is sweet and simple. Some special effects are quite creative too, like in the shot of Dr. Moone’s hand as she transforms into Enchantress.

While the visuals, characters and humour is enjoyable, the story component of the film has its downsides. Positives first. Certain cameos are made in the flashbacks, which are effective to the situations and well portrayed. The characters may behave badly, as they well should, being villains and all, but they are humanised (some more than others, given the focus on them) so the audience can sympathise with them and wish for them to survive and see them succeed. There is some clever subtext around Harley Quinn and the Joker that suggests a certain background and helps to illustrate her as a complex character.

The major negative is that the plot makes little to no sense. The premise of the story is to form a team to counteract metahuman crises. Not only is the team not briefed on what it is causing the crisis, their initial mission isn’t even to stop it. It seems they’re given very little information that would allow them to be helpful and are sometimes even told to stand back while the Special Forces fight. Why have a team of metahumans if you’re not planning to use them?

The climactic action scene has some interesting features, in particular a revelation about El Diablo, but since the origin of his powers is ambiguous in this movie, until this point at least, one unfamiliar with the comics may wonder how this revelation is possible. Since the team is given no information on the magical threat, they have no specific way of winning the day, and so the solution is generic and lazily conceived given the circumstances of the supposedly godlike supernatural villain. The scene is not particularly well written, such as Deadshot telling a man to get out of the way while they’re trapped under Incubus’ foot, and then there’s the general stupidity when, instead of staying at a safe distance, Enchantress walks right up to one of her enemies who is kneeling where she threw everyone’s weapons not seconds before, leaving her wide open to attack!

The Joker subplot, though resolved (with what is probably an obvious twist), essentially goes nowhere. There is potential to integrate the Joker more into the story instead of building up to nothing. It does give Margot Robbie a couple of emotional moments to work with, but the subplot itself is not used to its fullest potential. This next point is relatively minor: there is a joke in the trailer that was left out of the film, where Harley serves the team some drinks, like beer for Killer Croc and a shot for Deadshot, and El Diablo, whose power is fire, asks for water. It’s a decent joke, and if anything the types of drinks they order supposedly reflect their personalities in some way, so it’s a shame it was taken out.

There is a question one must ask in response to Incubus’ transformation. Why is it in movies, such as those that utilise horror themes, when a man keels over on the street, the people who try to help him are those who die because of it? What kind of message does that send? Be a decent human being and you die for it? Why is this a recurring thing?

Suicide Squad is an entertaining movie. It is well acted, humorous, has energetic action, a likeable visual style, well-crafted mise-en-scène, and the soundtrack is a fantastic selection. The dialogue has a few unfitting lines but is not bad overall. It is a breath of fresh air from the last two films of the DCEU and what films are surely to follow in the series. Its failing, however, is of a fundamental component: the plot. The majority of the journey has no connection to overcoming the problem, therefor the ways the protagonists ultimately defeat the antagonists range from lazy to stupid. For a movie about a team, it really only gives two of these villains the focus necessary for the audience to genuinely care about them. The plot feels like it belongs in the dark age of comic book cinema, before it was truly beginning to be taken seriously. To the film’s credit, there is effort put into its subtext, and the characters are enjoyable. On principle, one can’t praise the film too much on account of its lack of plot. Recognising that, it is a thoroughly entertaining picture. These conflicting opinions make it difficult to decide whether or not to recommend it. Its merits are truly in its cast, characters and style rather than its basic storytelling.

Star Trek Beyond

Justin Lin’s Star Trek Beyond is the third addition in the J. J. Abrams-produced film franchise reboot of the classic science fiction television series and related films, Star Trek, the previous two films having also been directed by Abrams. The film is dedicated to late Star Trek stars Leonard Nimoy, who famously portrayed Spock in the original series (sometimes known as Spock Prime in the reboot), and Anton Yelchin, who plays the newer version of Pavel Chekov in the trilogy.

The story follows the crew of the Starship Enterprise during their five-year mission through uncharted space as they are attacked by Krall, a warmonger with a grudge against the Federation, and stranded on an unknown planet. The main characters are divided into Captain James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) helped by Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin), an injured Spock (Zachary Quinto) with Doctor Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban), Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Hikaru Sulu (Jon Cho) taken captive, and Montgomery Scott (Simon Pegg) as he meets with Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), who is also stranded on the planet – they must find a way off the planet and stop Krall from using a deadly weapon. The performances from the cast are quite good. The characters look their parts and have distinct personalities. The moods of the characters and how the actors convey these moods are simple but far from one-note.

The makeup on the human characters is subtle but has the effect of making them look tired, supposedly from their prolonged time in space. Alien character design is fantastic. One can barely tell it is Idris Elba playing as the villain under all that makeup. Set design is well crafted. Some in the past have disliked the sleek iPod-looking design of the Enterprise’s bridge; though the bridge is the same design here, it and the corridors have a feel closer to that of, say, The Next Generation. Starbase Yorktown has a great design like a city in an artificial see-through hollow moon, though its exterior shield has the typical science fiction-y hexagons. Other sets like ruined starships have dark technological backgrounds while the small buildings on Krall’s planet have somewhat hive-like, organic or smooth shaped backgrounds. Computer-generated imagery used here is beautiful, especially those used to create astronomical objects and warp effects.

Cinematography unfortunately has its hits and its misses. Sometimes the camera movements are well used and integrated with the special effects, and those are easily the most memorable. Vertical tracking shots utilising cranes are nicely used on certain sets with two or more levels. Action scenes are energetic, entertaining and sometimes tense, though certain ones have a combination of excessively shaky camera, close proximity and fast editing that make what is happening hard to see. In terms of visual style, the most laughed-at part of Abrams’ directing is his use of lens flares, but Lin’s film doesn’t put so much emphasis on them. There is an issue with audio in some parts - when a character moves off-screen or behind the camera and continues talking, their voice goes far too quiet and unnatural. This perhaps suggests live audio recording and/or a neglect to reproduce dialogue in a studio at a later date, or an error in sound mixing.

The story is inventive in its elements of survival and mystery. It attempts to keep you guessing and there is foreshadowing, though more towards things that are featured in the film rather than the plot itself. There is quite a good twist at the beginning of the third act. The story introduces Jaylah as a tough fighter and gives her humanising qualities in the form of musical tastes. The film has a number of humorous moments to keep its audience interested, playing on the personalities of the characters and their emotional reactions. Technobabble can go right over the audience’s head, specifically in one scene where the script downright bombards them with it. Kudos to the cast for saying those lines as naturally as they did. It must have taken a good deal of tongue-tied outtakes before getting them right.

The villain of the story, while threatening and sometimes terrifying, has questionable motivations. Krall’s plan is more logical than that of Nero in the 2009 film (which isn’t saying much), if only because Krall’s rationality is affected by his psychology. However, it is that same quality that leads one to think his motivations are merely the result of his mental state rather than cultural differences or relatable motivation. He’s still a credible threat to the heroes and the audience can sympathise with him to an extent given what is revealed about him; perhaps the reason one might think he isn’t a particularly strong character is because in one’s mind one may compare him to the cold but greatly sympathetic performance of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan from Abrams’ Star Trek Into Darkness (2013). The moral of the story that could surround the villain is not necessarily apparent, as it is not made a theme.

Star Trek Beyond, in terms of camera and sound, has its number of flaws, though it also has impressive shots here and there and the musical score is powerful, sometimes melodic. The visual style is colourful, the physical design is well made, and the film is overall attractive to look at. The actors’ performances and moments of humour make the film very enjoyable and pleasing. The characters are all well represented, including, despite negative criticism on the part of this review, the villain, who is an arguably redeemable character, and the story is creative. Not perfect in terms of technique, but it is an appreciable effort and an enjoyable flick.