Aquaman

Cast: Jason Momoa, Amber Heard, Willem Dafoe, Patrick Wilson, Dolph Lundgren, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, Nicole Kidman

Director: James Wan

Writers: David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick, Will Beall


Aquaman, the latest instalment in the DC canon, is this preposterous miracle of a movie that manages to be fantastically, stupidly ridiculous without ever seeming to laugh at itself the way so many of us used to laugh at the fish-talking hero. That’s not an easy effect to pull off and it takes more than creativity, talent and a blockbuster budget to sustain. You need an unreserved sense of sincerity and a total, wholehearted, unironic love of the material in all its campiness, weirdness and silliness. That is part of the reason why Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice failed where Wonder Woman and Aquaman succeeded; they were produced by a studio that was embarrassed to be making comic book superhero movies. This doesn’t mean that superhero movies can’t be serious and adult, Christopher Nolan proved that they can, but too many filmmakers (Zack Snyder in particular) mistake that gloominess and grittiness for maturity. Aquaman is a mythological opera, a Shakespearian family drama and an Arthurian fable with themes of love, duty and diplomacy and an environmental message. It also happens to have a nation of crab people, a 1,000-foot leviathan voiced by Julie Andrews, and an octopus playing the drums.

Despite having already appeared in two previous films, Aquaman is very much an origin story for Jason Momoa’s scruffy, roguish swashbuckler. We learn about the circumstances of his birth, which was brought about by a forbidden romance between stranded Atlantean queen Atlanna (Nicole Kidman) and her rescuer, lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry (Temuera Morrison). Their union and the life of their son however are both threatened by the Atlantean forces sent out to bring their absconding queen to justice and so Atlanna is left with no choice but to return home where she is sentenced to death for the crime of birthing a half-breed son. Since then Arthur (Momoa) has had to grapple with being the outcast of two separate worlds. He grows up to become the long haired, impossibly buff, ornately tattooed aquatic superman we know from Justice League; a guy who just wants to be left on his own to drink, brood and protect endangered ships and submarines from the perils of the ocean. In his first solo movie Arthur emerges as a reluctant hero who, at the behest of the fiery-haired Atlantean idealist Mera (Amber Heard), embraces his destiny to save the nation that rejected him and killed his mother from the tyranny of his half-brother Orm (Patrick Wilson), who plans to launch an attack against the land dwellers in retaliation for all of their polluting of the sea.

Aquaman adds a bit of an Indiana Jones tweak to the traditional superhero origin formula by sending Arthur and Mera on a quest in search of the legendary lost trident of Atlan, which according to the Atlantean councillor and Arthur’s mentor Vulko (Willem Dafoe), will give he who wields it the authority to rule the seven seas as Ocean Master. Thus we’re treated to an adventure story that spans the globe, bringing us to the Sahara and Siciliy, with occasional interruptions, usually by the pirate mercenary David Kane (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II), so that a fight scene can happen. Personally I could have used a little more of the riddle and puzzle- solving expedition because the movie can get a little tiresome and repetitive as it gets bogged down in the underwater political conflict between the armoured shark-riding and the armoured sea horse-riding (because it’s that kind of movie) tribes. When the action starts, it is awesome and silly in equal measure. There’s a delightfully childish charm to the way Wan is so ready and willing to embrace the absurdity of scuba suited Atlantean troops and their balloon-headed leader emerging on land in broad daylight to engage in some rooftop, hand-to-hand combat. Rather than shrouding them in darkness or using choppy editing to hide the kitschier elements, Wan presents the fight and chase sequence with all the barefaced glee of a Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers kung-fu showdown. The camera view is far-reaching and the movement free-flowing, ensuring that not a single goofy detail gets missed.

It’s interesting to consider how far superhero movies have come since the days of the first X-Men movie where they decided to adorn their characters with plain black leather rather than yellow spandex for fear that they might look too silly. This is something that the earlier DC Extended Universe movies struggled with as well when they opted for a grim, murky colour palette, presumably because they felt it would help sell the audience on a superhero cinematic universe that was altogether grittier, darker and more serious than Marvel’s. Aquaman himself was assigned a steely costume dominated by black and grey. Now he’s in a movie that adorns him with the radiantly orange and green armour he wears in the comic books, where the heroine’s hair shines in lava-red splendour and where the ocean is brought to dazzling life through sparkling shades of pale blue and aqua green and every colour in between. This movie adopts such saturated hues that you’d be forgiven for thinking that you missed a deleted scene where Arthur stumbled his way into the Technicolour world of Oz. By giving the film such a rich and diverse colour scheme, Wan makes it all the easier to appreciate the wealth of detail contained within each frame from the way that Atlantis is so luminously lit by the array of sea creatures that inhabit it to the ostentatiously varied choice of armour that sea-dwellers sport, including those that come with oversized crab and lobster claws.

As outrageous and over the top as Aquaman can get, Jason Momoa grounds it all with the confidence and charm of a star destined to have a lucrative career in the movies. He adopts a persona much like that which Dwayne Johnson has spent the last decade or so perfecting; the tough but loveable doofus who could just as soon join you for a drink and get rip-roaringly plastered as he could beat you into a bloody pulp without breaking a sweat. He can be solemn and thoughtful when he wants to be and he can be badass and funny. Supporting Momoa in his star-making turn is a cast that is devotedly committed to the movie in all of its total campiness. There’s something utterly enjoyable about watching Oscar worthy actors give themselves over to a thoroughly bonkers movie and whether it works (see Alec Guinness in Star Wars) or doesn’t (see Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons) the result is always magical. Dafoe and Kidman are such actors and watching them wield tridents and ride hammerhead sharks with such sincerity and gravitas is one of the movie’s great pleasures. Another is Wilson playing the kind of whiny, diabolical villain you just love to hate, (imagine Commodus from Gladiator and you’re not far off).

Perhaps the most remarkable thing of all about Aquaman is what a surprisingly progressive movie it is. Despite the numerous fight scenes that occur and the thrillingly invigorating ways in which they’re shot, Aquaman proves itself more willing than your average superhero blockbuster to challenge the notion that all conflict can be resolved through violence alone. Even when modern Hollywood movies preach about the value and necessity of peace, co-existence and empathy, too often that idealism gets undermined when the hero ends up having to take up arms to defeat the baddie. This was one of the issues I had with Wonder Woman, a movie whose hero was a paragon of compassion, and Black Panther, a movie of political daring almost unheard of in Hollywood, which both had their heroes win their victories by punching and blasting their foes into submission. In the moments where it matters most, it isn’t strength and might that win the day in Aquaman but de-escalation, diplomacy and forgiveness. It’s not as subversive in its aversion to violence as, say, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, but it is an outstanding break in the precedent set by the nihilism of the Snyder DC movies and could mark a revolutionary step forward in the evolution of the superhero genre.

★★★★

Ralph Breaks the Internet

Cast: (voiced by) John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Taraji P. Henson, Jack McBrayer, Jane Lynch, Alan Tudyk, Alfred Molina, Ed O’Neill

Directors: Rich Moore, Phil Johnston

Writers: Phil Johnston, Pamela Ribon


Nowadays Disney tends to make two kinds of animated movies. One half of these films follows the fairy tale tradition that made the Disney brand, drawing from historical myths and fables and adding in music and colour to bring us the likes of Tangled, Frozen and Moana. The other half (moreso if we also include Pixar) looks more at the present in its search for inspiration in making films that depict complex systems and ideas that many children can often find difficult and scary to comprehend. Zootropolis provided an allegory for racism on a societal level and considered how decent, well-meaning people could be prejudiced in ways that they had never considered. Inside Out explored the emotional psyche of a young girl and concluded that sadness is integral to our abilities to cope with growth and change. Coco ventured into the land of the dead in its ode to the Latin American spirituality of ancestry and death. In this sequel to what is perhaps the only great video game movie in all of cinema, Disney sets its sight on their most complicated, perilous and inscrutable setting yet: the Internet.

The Internet is something that other blockbusters have struggled to depict in insightful yet kid-friendly ways, especially in terms of exploring its darker, more toxic side. Ready Player One dared go no further than to say, rather generically, that people should probably spend more time in the real world. The Emoji Movie didn’t even go that far, instead advertising the Internet as this cool, fun-filled landscape where you can enjoy all these trendy apps. This is rather concerning since so many people who use the Internet, including children, can find it to be a dangerous place where bullying, invasiveness, misinformation, illicit dealings and addiction can be allowed to run rampant. A quick Google search revealed to me that the vast majority of films about the Internet made for an adult audience, including The Social Network, Unfriended and Citizenfour, are overwhelmingly negative in their portrayals. This is why I think Ralph Breaks the Internet could be a real groundbreaker (no, I will not apologise for the pun). While the movie doesn’t hesitate in depicting the Internet as this vast, colourful, dynamic world of endless possibilities, directors Johnston and Moore are not blind to the lesser qualities of the online experience and portray them about as well as one could expect of a product of a multi-billion dollar corporate machine with a brand to advertise and a profit to make.

The set-up is a little flimsy but it does the job. Retro video game bad guy Ralph and glitchy speed car racer Vanellope have settled into a pretty comfy routine since becoming the best of friends. Day after day they continue to fulfil their prescribed roles in their respective games and, once the arcade closes, they’ll spend the whole night together drinking root beer, goofing around and chatting about anything and everything. For Ralph life couldn’t possibly be any better. Vanellope however is less satisfied. Having learnt every race track in Sugar Rush by heart and regularly beating her competitors, she’s grown bored with the monotony. In typical Disney heroine fashion, Vanellope desires something more; a larger world with greater possibilities and challenges. Ralph, eager as ever to be the hero, tries to help out by digging a new track, but things get worse when the detour inadvertently leads to the breaking of the game’s steering wheel. New parts for the arcade game are hard to come by since the company that made the game is no longer in business and it looks like Sugar Rush will be permanently shut down. A solution presents itself however when a strange device called Wi-Fi (pronounced wee-fee) is introduced to the arcade. When Ralph and Vanellope learn that a replacement part is available on the Internet, they use the Wi-Fi to transport themselves there so that they might buy it.

As soon as they get there Ralph and Vanellope are awestruck by the Internet in all its enormity and activity. The web is shown to be an endless metropolis made up of titanic skyscrapers housing such techno-industrial giants as Google and Amazon. Lively avatars representing users from around the globe whiz about in every direction from one website to the next, stopping only to be harassed and redirected by obnoxious pop-up ads and unsolicited video recommendations. One click, whether intentional or accidental, will summon a car that will instantly zoom you over to another part of the virtual world. It is a hysterically accurate representation of what using the Internet is like, one that captures exactly how somebody can log on with a specific task to accomplish only to wind up down a rabbit hole of cat videos and Twitter feeds. Amongst the characters our duo meet are KnowsMore, an enthusiastic search engine that compulsively tries to predict the users’ queries, and JP Spamley, a Gil Gunderson type of salesman desperate to make sales on outrageous clickbait ads. Yet Ralph and Vanellope soon learn that it’s all too easy to take a wrong step and find yourself overwhelmed and lost in the chaotic mess that is the world wide web. All it takes is a visit to eBay and a fundamental misunderstanding of how bidding works for Ralph and Vanellope to find themselves in a sticky situation.

Having massively overbid on the part needed to fix Vanellope’s game, she and Ralph now need to raise a lot of money in very little time. This mission ends up taking them all over the Internet to such sites as Slaughter Race, an online racing game so over-the-top in its dystopian grittiness that Mad Max looks almost tame in comparison, Oh My Disney, where you can take an online personality quiz to find out who your spirit Disney princess is (mine is Belle incidentally), and BuzzTube, a Buzzfeed/YouTube hybrid where videos can be shared and receive likes (just don’t read the comments). While Ralph works on becoming a viral star on BuzzTube with the help of Yesss, the arbiter of all that is trending, Vanellope finds herself wholly enraptured by the thrills and challenges of Slaughter Race, especially after meeting the impossibly cool racer Shank, and starts to consider the prospect of staying there rather than returning to her old life with Ralph. It’s this dilemma that allows Ralph Breaks the Internet to truly come into its own as it explores the complexities of friendship and how difficult it is to let somebody go even if that is what they need in order to grow and pursue their ambitions and desires. Through rich animation and the wonderful voicework of Silverman and Reilly, the film teaches an achingly poignant lesson about how there are changes and limitations we have to accept in our lives and that the best we can do is learn to evolve and adapt.

On a more 2018 note, the movie also provides a surprisingly astute illustration of toxic masculinity and how it is exacerbated by insecurity and negative feedback. Ralph, usually the toughest, most macho guy in the room and infinitely happier since finding respect and reverence in his friendship with Vanellope, is someone whose self-esteem depends on near-constant positive reinforcement. When he makes the fatal mistake of reading the comments to his hot-pepper-eating, goat-screaming, bee-punning videos, he finds himself feeling weaker, smaller and more vulnerable than he’s emotionally prepared to handle. Thus he lashes out in ways that threaten to wreck the friendship he and his bestest friend hold so dear. He reads Vanellope’s actions as reflections of his anxieties rather than as those of her own desires and from there his needy, self-destructive insecurities manifest themselves in monstrous ways that must be overcome if their relationship is to be saved. This is a concept that has grown only too prevalent in online culture over the last few years and it is one that Disney handles cleverly and with great sensitivity. What made Wreck-It Ralph so great compared to many of the other animated movies of that era was how endearing its characters were and how much their actions and emotions drove the story. The same is true of Ralph Breaks the Internet and the sequel is almost as great as the first.

The movie’s main issue is that sometimes it takes a while to actually get to the outstanding character-driven moments and that the quest for the steering wheel gets a little tiresome as it becomes less relevant to the central conflict. The movie tends to work better when it either focuses squarely on the characters or forgets about the plot for a while and has some fun with its depiction of the Internet and pop culture. The main highlight is Vanellope’s much-advertised stint with the Disney princesses which leads to some great laughs as they poke fun at some of the tropes Disney has so happily perpetuated from the questionable sexual politics to the easily shrugged-off traumas (“Are you guys okay, should I call the cops?” Vanellope asks as they excitedly recall being poisoned, cursed and kidnapped) and the casual absence of mothers. While the sequence does feel a little like Disney synergism at work in the form of shameless self-promotion (including their Marvel and Star Wars brands), it’s still good fun when taken at face value and it also leads to Vanellope being given her own Menken-composed Disney princess song. While Ralph Breaks the Internet can feel overlong and aimless at times, it manages to bring it all home in the end through hysterical jokes, superb animation, two complex and loveable characters and a profound and socially relevant moral.

★★★★

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Ezra Miller, Zoë Kravitz, Callum Turner, Claudia Kim, William Nadylam, Kevin Guthrie, Jude Law, Johnny Depp

Director: David Yates

Writer: J.K. Rowling


I don’t mind admitting that I was apprehensive about this film going in despite Harry Potter being such an integral part of my childhood and my having mostly enjoyed the first Fantastic Beasts. While the previous film could be quite clumsy in terms of plotting and world building, I thought Newt Scamander made for an appealing protagonist, there were a couple of fun action scenes and some neat visuals, and the movie also had one or two interesting ideas that I thought could lead to some great pay-offs in the sequel. In the couple of years leading up to this new title however, there were a couple of red flags that gave me pause. One was the studio’s decision to keep Johnny Depp in the film following the allegations of domestic abuse made by ex-wife Amber Heard. Another was the announcement that this next film would not address Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s romantic relationship in any direct way despite it being directly relevant to the story. While one could probably argue that such objections are more moral than they are qualitative and shouldn’t have any bearing on my thoughts on the film itself, I still felt that these announcements betrayed a certain wrongheadedness behind the decision making and also a conservative (some might say medieval) mindset in their approach. I braced myself for disappointment but still hoped that I might be surprised.

I was surprised all right. Not by the movie’s regressive politics and pathological aversion to risk and chance, nor by J.K. Rowling’s lethal case of the George Lucas syndrome. No, what really surprised me about The Crimes of Grindelwald was its staggering incompetence on almost every level. Penned once again by Rowling herself, somebody whom I know knows how storytelling works at its most basic level, and directed by David Yates, his sixth film in this franchise (at least two of which are very good), it astounds me how demonstrably, exceedingly, bafflingly, amateurishly, embarrassingly bad this movie that they’ve made together is. The plot is grossly overstuffed and all but incomprehensible, the characterisation is profoundly nonsensical except when it’s utterly non-existent, and even the basic filming and editing style is so enormously inept it would make a first-year film student ashamed. The opening scene for instance, in which Grindelwald (Depp) escapes from his captivity, is a rainy scene shot in such drab darkness with such sporadic abandon it’s impossible to be sure what’s actually happening at any given second. Crucial cinematic storytelling principles such as set-up and payoff, clarity in spatial relationships and geography and an understanding of the stakes and dangers present; these are all key components in crafting an action scene and Grindelwald’s escape fails on all counts. The colours are all so dark and grey that it’s never clear what’s happening within the space of the shot and they’re all cut together so haphazardly that all the moment manages to generate for the viewer is confusion rather than suspense and excitement.

This chaotic mismatch of indistinct moments is demonstrative of the larger story that the film is trying to tell. Things only go downhill as it soon becomes clear that the blurry opening scene was the first of many steps in the movie’s effort to completely undo the ending of its previous instalment. Thus Grindelwald is free once again after spending an unseen year in between the two titles incarcerated. Next, The Crimes of Grindelwald negates one of the more poignant scenes in the first film by revealing that Credence Barebone (Ezra Miller) did not die but that he instead vanished and has now resurfaced in Paris. No explanation is given as far as I can remember, all we’re told is that his power as an Obscurus has grown and he’s gone searching for his true parentage. The Ministry of Magic wants to bring him in and so they turn to the grounded magical zoologist Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) for his help. Newt refuses because he has no interest in taking sides in a wizarding war, especially if it involves working with his Auror brother Theseus (Callum Turner). Afterwards he is approached by Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law), who persuades Newt that he needs to find Credence and keep him safe before either the Ministry or Grindelwald can get to him. Dumbledore can’t move against Grindelwald himself for vague, heteronormative reasons.

Things get complicated fast as we learn that Newt, the Ministry and Grindelwald are not the only ones searching for Credence. American Auror Tina (Katherine Waterston), who is pissed of with Newt because of a romantic misunderstanding, is also hot on his trail as is a French-Senegalese wizard called Yusuf Kama (William Nadylam), who is on a quest to right a past wrong. Along for the ride is Tina’s mind-reading sister Queenie (Alison Sudol) who has pursued an illegal relationship with Muggle (or No-Maj if you prefer) Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), and wants to move someplace where they’ll be free to marry and live together. Jacob, incidentally, remembers all the events of the previous film, thereby undoing another affective moment. There’s also Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz), Newt’s old flame and his brother’s fiancé, who is in search for some answers about her own past, and Nagini (Claudia Kim), Credence’s girlfriend cursed with an affliction through which she can transform into a snake. These characters all convolutedly end up in Paris where they spend about two-thirds of the movie trying to find each other and having rushed meetings before hurriedly departing in order to find someone somewhere else. All this is in anticipation of a meeting held by Grindelwald where they all come together to watch him deliver a fiery speech. This is one of those movies where too much is happening all at once, yet in the end little has actually happened.

Like with George Lucas and the Star Wars prequels, Rowling has fallen into the trap of creating a series of movies that exist not to tell a specific story, but to answer questions that in the grand scale of things don’t really matter. Even if you’re a Potterhead who loves the Wizarding World and wants nothing more than to keep on living in it, knowing that person X is related to person Y or that Mr. or Mrs. So-and-so is going to reappear in Harry Potter and the Something of the Something doesn’t mean anything if it adds nothing to the story. If you have a series of movies that are more interested in drawing connections with a story that we already know and love than it is in telling one of its own, you get a series where the stakes are completely absent since we know that Grindelwald will be defeated round about Movie 4 or 5 and that his legacy will not have had any lasting effect by the time we reach Harry, Ron and Hermione. It also means that we don’t get any meaningful character development since the priority is simply to introduce them as these moving pieces in a world and story we’re already supposed to care about. What makes The Crimes of Grindelwald so dull to watch is that you have about a dozen or so characters scrambling around like headless chickens without the one thing that they all desperately need: motivation.

If we look at Grindelwald himself, the character whose actions are the entire driving force of the film, what makes him such a weak villain isn’t just Depp’s sleepwalking performance; it’s that the movie never makes it clear to us who he is or what he want (even in the climatic speech in which he states who he is and what he wants). We know that he wants to create a world free of the stain of humanity (i.e. Muggles), yet offers no specific grievances, he merely alludes to the Second Great War that is to come with its concentration camps and atomic bombs. If Grindelwald has a specific goal or a plan through which to achieve it, it remains a mystery by the end of the film. Contrast that with Voldemort who had a clear goal: kill Harry Potter. We learn the reason much later in the story and by then it barely even matters anymore because the conflict has become so complex and personal. All that matters is that Harry is a character we like and know well; therefore we root for Voldemort to fail. Grindelwald’s ambitions pose no threat that matters to us on an emotional level because there is nothing personal about his conflict with any of the main characters save Dumbledore (which the movie is only willing to explore on the most insubstantially Platonic level). Even as a character in his own right, Grindelwald fails to impress as this magical dictatorial predecessor to the likes of Hitler, Mussolini and… another political figure with bleach white hair and fascist tendencies largely because of Depp, a formerly daring and charismatic actor who just can’t be bothered anymore.

Newt Scamander is still likeable enough as the Hufflepuff hero whose greatest power is not strength, intelligence or charisma but rather empathy and fulfils not the role of a warrior, officer or leader but that of a healer. He is however trapped in a series in which he is progressively losing reason and direction. His goal is to try and find Credence and keep him safe, yet there is nothing personal between himself and Credence or Grindelwald compelling him on this endeavour. Even if we were to say that Newt’s motivation is simply ‘he is a good person who wants to do the right thing’, there has to be something at stake for him personally in order for us to become invested in his success. If the case is that Newt feels for Credence, empathises with him, and wants to help him for his own sake, then that’s something the film has to show us and not take for granted. Again, if we were to compare him to Rowling’s previous hero, it’s made perfectly clear to us what Harry Potter’s goal is: to defeat the man who killed his parents. It’s simple, it’s understandable, and it’s personal. The only personal conflict Newt faces in this film is his romantic misadventure with Tina, who thinks he’s engaged to Leta because a gossip magazine printed the name of the wrong Scamander brother. While the first film did hint at some kind of spark between the couple, the idea that they were ever close enough to become an item comes out of nowhere and this silly, easily resolved misunderstanding lifted straight out of an 80s sitcom feels tiringly trite and distracting.

That’s not the worst of the movie’s many subplots though; that honour belongs to the red herring goose chase that takes up so much focus throughout the film, only to then amount to nothing. A tale of dark deeds, tragic regrets and mistaken identities, a large portion of the movie is dedicated towards solving a mystery at the heart of all this and it turns out two-thirds of the characters involved needn’t have bothered because not only did they get it wrong, the answers that they do learn don’t even matter to the film’s ending. Yet that doesn’t stop it from taking up several scenes complete with flashbacks and a final confrontation in which two or three characters stand up in succession to say “No, here’s what really happened”. The resolution is not only laughably stupid, it doesn’t even resolve anything in and of itself because it concerns characters we either don’t know or have never met whose fates we don’t care about because it ends up not having anything to do with what’s actually happening. If that sounds confusing, that’s because it is and I cannot imagine why Rowling felt that this whole diversion was necessary to her story except as a means to get a certain number of characters into a room together near the end.

I suppose there were a couple of things I liked. Jude Law turned out to be a pretty good Dumbledore with his ability to add nuance and depth to even the thinnest of material (just look at The Young Pope if you need further proof) and he played that role with the dignity, wit and dash of mischief befitting a younger version of this familiar character (although a part of me is always going to wonder what Jared Harris might have done with the role). I don’t like the way the film handled Dumbledore, especially in light of the revelation made near the end about his inaction, but I can’t fault Law’s performance. There were also a couple of magical creatures that I liked such as the Kelpie, which is like a sea horse in a very literal sense, and the Zouwu, which looks like a cross between Falcor from Neverending Story and a Chinese dragon puppet. There’s also the Niffler for those who enjoy its treasure-stealing shenanigans. But weighing these pros against the many, many cons feels like praising The Revenge of the Sith for the visuals and Ewan McGregor’s performance; they don’t even begin to make up for the film’s flaws. I haven’t even touched on the deeply disturbing romance of Queenie and Jacob, the shameful character arcs inflicted on Leta and Nagini and other details that spoiler etiquette prevents me from discussing. Suffice it to say that The Crimes of Grindelwald is a shambolic mess of a film that exists only to capitalise on the Potter brand and has none of the magic that made it special in the first place.

The Grinch

Cast: (voiced by) Benedict Cumberbatch, Rashida Jones, Keenan Thompson, Cameron Seely, Pharrell Williams, Angela Lansbury

Directors: Scott Mosier, Yarrow Cheney

Writers: Michael LeSieur, Tommy Swerdlow


The films by Pixar and Dreamworks, I like them a lot; but those of Illumination, I really do not. I hated The Grinch! I thought it great treason against Suess’ beloved ode to the Christmas season. Perhaps my head isn’t screwed on quite right or perhaps my standards are too rigid and tight but having sat through it, enduring it all, I feel all the more strongly that the film’s value is small. “We already have a Grinch film”, I snarled with a sneer, “by Karloff and Jones and it remains without peer”. This film is garish, unfunny and brain-numbing, it was everything that I had feared in the days upcoming. There is one redeeming feature, one saving grace, which is that Seuss’ creation is too great to be defaced. At the end of the day the message still comes through and the studio’s tedious releases are all set to continue.

The story is a classic, we all know it well; it’s about the mean Mr. Grinch, rotten in every cell. That actor who played Sherlock and Strange is the star despite his American accent sounding like Gruber’s in Die Hard. In a mountaintop cave he lives far, far away from those who should dare to try and brighten his day. He hates everyone and everything with gall, and as for Christmas, he hates that most of all. He hates the food, the decorations and toys and he absolutely detests the incessantly cheerful noise. It comes every year and it keeps getting worse, to the Grinch this wonderful time is nothing but a curse. So, as the Whos of Whoville makes their preparations and whatnot, the Grinch has an idea and hatches a fiendish plot. If the Whos will not stop with their goodwill and mayhem, then he’ll have to go into town and steal Christmas from them.

That’s the whole story and it took half an hour for Karloff and Jones to tell it with such wit and power. From where I stand a remake is just unnecessary (and don’t even get me started on the one with Jim Carrey). But this is a feature-length movie with a quota to meet, so it has to be longer and get more kids in the seats. Thus they pad the runtime with backstory and gags, but they don’t add anything except as tiresome lags. There’s also a sub-plot about Cindy-Lou Who whose mom has more on her plate than she knows what to do. She works a full-time job and cares for three kids by herself, so Cindy-Lou wants to capture Santa and ask for his help. The result is a movie that’s overlong and dull without a funny joke in sight or a new idea in its skull.

When it comes to kid’s movies, Illumination sets the bar low and aims mainly for toddlers whose parents have nowhere else to go. The colours are bright and the movement is fluid, but if you’re above a certain age you’ll see there’s little else to it. The jokes are all lame and made of the thinnest veneer, including those of the screaming goat and of the big, plump reindeer. The movie introduces both as if they’ll have major parts to play, but all they do is appear, perform their bits, then go away. The rest of the humour is made up of slapstick galore, and it certainly doesn’t help that the Grinch himself is a bore. Cumberbatch’s grump is a jerk but seldom is he nasty and there’s little pleasure in watching him be villainous and crafty. Instead of a monster destroying happiness where he sees it, all the Grinch wants is curl up quietly with a good book and read it. Gone is that entertainingly malevolent brute, but still I have to admit that his dog Max is quite cute.

While the cartoon had that song by Thurl Ravenscroft, a witty, animated tune still heard around Christmas oft, this movie opens with a droning rap by Tyler the Creator that contrasts with the energetic backdrop made by the animator. It’s pretty typical for a film that is so clearly calculated to make a profit today for a product that’ll soon be dated. This isn’t a movie that kids will return to again and again; this is simply the next car in Illumination’s money train. It has enough going on to keep little kids distracted and the moral is still there so at least it’s somewhat didactic. The Christmas Eve heist has a couple of highlights, what with all those gizmos and gadgets the Grinch uses that night. As cynical cashgrabs go, this one isn’t the worst even if its take on Seuss’ story has nothing on the first. Still it’s shallow, unwitty and lazy and, in my humble opinion, kids today deserve better than this from the studio that made Minions.

★★