Luca [Disney+]

A joyous and exuberant celebration of life, youth, friendship and la dolce vita. Simply executed and beautifully rendered by director Enrico Casarosa, this was a top tier Pixar animation. It may not have the big and ambitious thematic scopes like Inside Out or Soul, but it was highly reminiscent of classic, touching, Pixar like Toy Story and Coco. 

A simple, easy-to-understand story with lot of memorable and standout characters that was highly involving and emotionally resonant. It will surely speak to the children and entertain the adults.

The closest comparison to Luca would be last year's Onward. But where the latter faltered, the former shone. The chemistry and relationship between the two leads felt genuine and sincere. The joys and highs were palpable, and the lows and pains were well-earned. The town and the fantastical elements were gorgeously designed and created, and the inventive use of mixed animation style - a bit Soul-ish and Wolfwalkers-ish - was delightful and exciting. Even the score, by first time Pixar collaborator Dan Romer, was a lot more memorable than the ones by the Danna brothers for Onward.

In all, Luca just boldly embodied the carefree, joie de vivre - pardon my French - of its Italian setting. Everything felt looser, easier and less constrained by structure, and that translated beautifully to the screen, and, in turn, to the audience. 

Jacob Tremblay and Jack Dylan Grazer voiced our two intrepid young leads, and they were outstanding. Tremblay effortlessly captured the wide-eyed, innocent, naïveté that propelled his journey and allowed his sincerity and honesty to emanate through. Whereas Grazer, slightly older, had a rebellious edge to his voice that belied a need for acceptance and bonding relationships. It was not hard to imagine that their friendship was true.

Other standouts in the voice cast included Maya Rudolph and Sascha Baron Cohen. And Emma Berman as their female third-lead had an easy, infectious chemistry with our two boys. The code switching and interspersing of Italian throughout was a fun touch and will sure to get lots of kids - and adults - repeating them.

And let's give it up to Giuseppe, Mona Lisa and friends, and Machiavelli! LOL.

As mentioned, Romer's score was a standout. The Italian-Mediterranean tinged score was very fitting and it not only propelled the narrative but enveloped the audience into the environs. Each musical interlude was a highlight, and perhaps all that was lacking was a big, musical, sing-along number.

A pity that Disney decided not to put this up theatrically. Hopefully many people can watch this really good, tears-inducing, fun and funny, top notched animation! Stay till the end for a hilarious post-credits scene!

A Quiet Place Part II

 

A watchable and competent sequel to the original that held more thrills than scares. John Krasinski remained an effective director and his approach to presenting a story and editing did help to ratchet up the tension in two effective sequences. However, as a screenwriter, his storytelling lacked finesse. And even in a film that essentially had minimal dialogue the clunkiness was apparent. Krasinski asked his audience to suspend most logic and critical thinking, make wide and large assumptions, and just enjoy the ride. 

Thankfully, the ride was enjoyable and his stars were more than compelling and engaging. 

Blunt, having much less to do this round, took over as the pillar of strength and stoicism. 

But this film belonged to Millicent Simmonds. The last outing's MVP had been elevated to the main star of this film and she rose to the occasion. As the heart of the film, her thread was the A-plot and she was definitely a heroine that we were rooting to win. The only thing going against her was that it never really felt that she was in any kind of danger. 

[Spoiler Warning]

This was true for all the cast. They were never going to kill Blunt. Noah Jupe - the Jupe - made stupid (the stupidest!) decisions but his life was never in jeopardy. They were never going to kill a baby. So that left newcomer Cillian Murphy. 

Murphy was a welcomed addition to this cinematic family and he had an easy chemistry with Simmonds. Also, he exuded a similar 28 Days Later -like vibe which was oddly comforting for his role. The only way he would die was a heroic death a la Krasinski, but if Krasinski did so then the film would seemed more repetitive than it already is. 

[/End Spoiler]

The show's universe got expended a little more but not much new is glimpsed. The beats felt the same and the creatures/aliens felt as they were - maybe even a little less scary since we know what they are and how they looked like now. 

The prologue showed lots of promise in terms of the plot and Krasinski's directing, but just like the film itself, as exciting as it was, the end of the prologue was riddled with questions and doubts. Perhaps it would have been a lot more fun to spend more time in the past than in the future, building the foundation of this world a little bit more sturdier before aiming for the heavens.

Nonetheless, this was a good end-of-pandemic cinematic experience. A fun watch in the cinema with a crowd - albeit smaller than usual - and much better than the previous cinematic films like Tenet or WW84. Here is hoping Marvel will save the cinemas as it did on television recently.

Cruella

 

An overly long, overly stuffed, entirely rote and predictable film that purportedly aimed to give this Disney villain a credible backstory, but instead it just meandered and dragged for over two hours, getting lost in its own narcissistic revelry, and only ultimately providing the most superficial exploration of its titular character. Emma Stone's Cruella lacked depth both personally and in her relationships with the people are around her. Disney, as a brand, may appeal to children but this live-action feature was an insult to anybody who has a bit more intelligence than a 5 years old.

Craig Gillespie's direction was uninspiring and utterly unexciting. Nothing really felt original or fresh and it seemed that he was just going through the process of getting from plot point A to B to C and not caring about the hows or whys of it all. 

Screenwriters Dana Fox and Tony McNamara would have to take a share of the blame too. At 134 minutes long, the screenplay had way too much padding. It was one thing if these extra minutes served to enrich the experience or the characters, but it did neither. 

And to compound matters, this film had one of the worst CGIs of a big budget tentpole. Gosh, at times it felt like I was watching an episode of The CW's Arrowverse! Did they blow all their budget on employing the Emmas - Stone and Thompson - and the costumes? And the song licenses?

Now, that brings us to the three double-edged swords of the film. 

Firstly, the Emmas. 

What this film had going for it was the chemistry between Stone and Thompson. Their tête-à-têtes were highlights as both Emmas showed why they are at the top of their craft. 

However, when separated, Stone was an unlikeable anti-heroine who was underserved by the script and the direction. She preened and snarled and baby-voiced her way through the film but had nary a single redeeming factor that would have made her a compelling character, much less a sympathetic villain.

To make things worse, Stone's accent was atrocious. It was horrendously inconsistent. I get that she is a big, newly-minted Oscar winner, but they could not get someone with a better British accent? Was the other Emma, Emma Corrin not available (she would have slayed!)? Or Emma Watson (a bit too sweet but could have been a great turn for her acting)? Or Saoirse Ronan (more Irish than British but Ronan can do almost anything)? Or Emily Blunt (might have aged out of the role, and too reminiscent of her  time in The Devil Wears Prada)? Seriously, even Kate Winslet did a much better Philly DelCo accent through all seven episodes of Mare of Easttown than Stone in seven minutes of Cruella.

Thompson, on the other hand, was a fabulous delight. She obviously channeled Glenn Close's original Cruella and Meryl Streep's Miranda Presley, but gave it her own personal spin. I would be way more interested in seeing her origin story rather than Stone's Cruella. Thompson gave us a villain that almost begged for sympathy. 

By the finale - an anti-climatic climax - Thompson was the one that we were rooting for and not Stone. And I seriously doubt the film makers had that in mind.

The costumes by Oscar winner Jenny Beavan were a highlight. They were stunning and gorgeous and really suited/fitted the Emmas very well. Both of them rocked the designs they were wearing. However. it would have been better if we could have seen more of their designs given that they are supposedly geniuses, and the glimpses of runway fashion seemed more blah than cutting edge. Which then made their expertise - especially Stone's Cruella ingenue label - a bit more suspect.

In addition, Gillespie could have done a lot more to showcase some original fashion hijinks. Instead, we ended up with copycats of Vivian Westwood, Alexander Lee McQueen or John Galliano runway shows and concepts. Fashion guerrilla pop-ups that were done better and funnier on Emily in Paris. Even some designers on Project Runway had more originality and show-stopping ideas than Stone's Cruella.

Lastly, the music. There were a lot of great 60s/70s era pop music littered through the whole film. And for once, perhaps a bit too many. For a lengthy period in the first two acts, it was practically one song in every scene - or every other if I am being generous - and they did not all work. Dropping songs just for dropping songs sake was an money-move that resulted in the songs losing value and purpose. 

At least the original song, "Call Me Cruella" over the end-credits by Florence and the Machine had a purpose.

A quick note on the supporting cast: Paul Walter Hauser gets the funniest lines and is the MVP after Thompson (he and the two doggies); Joel Fry had no chemistry with Stone or Hauser; Kirby Howell-Baptiste was absolutely wasted; Mark Strong was being Mark Strong-esque; John McCrea as Artie was a plot device that fulfilled the inclusivity clause; and Andrew Leung reminded me of a young Andrew Garfield/Ben Wishaw or a Will Sharpe. 

In all, Cruella was an overlong, tedious and unnecessary prequel movie that served no greater good in fleshing out a once-iconic villain. Superficially enjoyable but it is not gonna save the box office. Likely better enjoyed on streaming. Stay for the mid-credits scene which gives a little nod-and-wink to the original 1996 film.