KWIF: Zootopia 2 (+3)

 KWIF=Kent's Week In Film. Normally at the start of each year I take a week off work with the intention of doing little else but watching and writing about movies. This year, I have a different break coming up, so the usual week off wasn't in the cards.  

This Week:
Zootopia 2 (2025, d. - in theatre)
Caught Stealing (2025, d. Darren Aronofsky - crave)
The Great Land of Small ("Tales for all #5" - 1987, d. Vojtěch Jasný - crave)
Skinamarink (2023, d. Kyle Edward Ball - Tubi)

---

I liked Zootopia just fine (apparently, like everyone else, I loved Flash the Sloth), and I like Detectives Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) and Wilde (Jason Bateman) just fine too. It's nice to see them again. But I looove the city of Zootopia, this wonderfully ridiculous and improbably realm where all the anthropomorphic beasts cohabitate in an attempt at harmony. I love all the knick-knacks and tchotchkes, all the bells and whistles, all the details big, very big, small and very small. More that watching the story, I love looking around on screen at all the details that make up this exciting and ridiculous world. And I like the bizarre logistics and near Brazil-esque bureaucracy of it all much more than any conspiratorial detective story. Just give me a virtual map on a 1999 dvd-rom to while away the hours in, or make a 2-hour virtual tour and I'll keep coming back.

But I haven't gone back to Zootopia since watching Zootopia 8+ years ago, at least not until now. And I was just as enamoured with the world and all its nuggets of details in this tour as I was back then. My interest in this story...about the same.

Picking up shortly after Hopps and Wilde's success in busting a mayoral conspiracy, they're looking for validation from their fellow detectives, trying to break the next big case, which they do, but in disastrous fashion. They're pushed into group therapy with other mis-matched detective pairings rather than getting assigned another case, but Hopps can't let go of certain clues she found and certain signs of something bigger coming up. She ropes Wilde into infiltrating a high society dinner, and her hunches were right, and they descale another conspiracy involving the reptiles who have been banished from Zootopia for decades, but are also framed by the evil, rich, powerful architects of Zootopia, the Lynxley family, as co-conspirators in the disruption of the nights events by a snake named Gary (Ke Huy Kwan).

Can Hopps and Wilde find Gary before the Lynxleys do? Can they uncover the evidence they need to reveal the conspiracy that doesn't just get them out of trouble, but allow the reptiles to have a home in Zootopia once again? And can a hyperactive altruistic rabbit and an easy-sleazy, lemon-squeezy sarcastic loner fox really be good partners?

Yes. Yes. and Yes. Spoiler alert for a children's film.

The key points the film is trying to drive home are:
1) society is better when it's diverse. They're right, but it's hardly the film's thesis. It's kind of the conclusion to the whole affair, the tidy bow at the end. The porkchop sandwiches of the piece.
2) doing something about a problem is better than doing nothing, even if it seem insurmountable, and the odds are stacked against you. It's a message I fully believe in but also one I have a very hard time living up to.
3) just because you are doing something about a problem, it doesn't mean it all rests on your shoulders. Which is an important thing to remember, that there's still life to live on top of dealing with problems.
and
4) Sometimes you just need to tell someone how you feel about them (whether romantically or platonically) instead of, you know, pushing them away. Aww, yeah.

Anyway. It's a charming picture with a weird Shakira/Ed Sheerhan co-production as interlude that just wasn't for me. But Patrick Warburton doing a thing that's so very Patrick Warburton...that's so for me.

---

After a perplexing half-minute of the title card on a subway motif jumping to a junior league baseball game and back again, there's a hard cut to the New York skyline and the screen caption "1998". The pan across the skyline is among the most thrilling visuals I've seen from a 2025 film, maybe just below visuals from Sinners, F1, Frankenstein and Weapons. I don't know anything about camera lenses and the depth of field they create, but as that camera pans across the skyline and neighbourhood buildings interfere with the vista of skyscrapers, I felt tingles. It seemed like New York had never been shot this way before. It felt less like city streets than an elaborate diorama, expertly crafted. I am reminded why Aronofsky became one of my go-to directors, even if I can't really say I love any of his films.

We meet Hank (Austin Butler) working behind a bar, closing time at 4 AM. We see he's very personable with the barflies, and handles the drunks well, as well as manages to de-escalate any conflict threatening to arise. These are not skills that will serve him well in the story to come. We see him drop the night's take into the slot of a steel door in the basement before meeting up with his girlfriend Yvonne (Zoë Kravitz). As they arrive hot and heavy at Hank's place, Hank's punk neighbour Russ (Matt Smith) is frantic. His father had a stroke and he needs to go to London. Hank needs to watch the cat, Bud.

The next morning, after Yvonne has gone to work and Bud has moved in, two Russian skinheads (whether they're just bald or actual skinheads is besides the point) are beating down Russ' door. Hank intercepts and for his troubles has the living shit kicked out of him. As he's laying on the ground he pisses himself, and blood starts running with the pee. "That's not good," he utters before passing out. 

It's at this point that I realize the movie the trailer was selling is not the movie Aronofsky has made. The trailer presents it as a Coen Brothers-esque crime romp, where the protagonist is in over his head dealing with all manner of unusual wacky characters as he gets sucked further into a plot he desires nothing less than to escape. But Aronofsky isn't the Coen Brothers, and his tendencies are either to stay utterly grounded, or go operatic. Lightness of tone and satire isn't really his strong suit. Where the bad guys of a Coen Brothers film would usually be inept in their own right, here they are quite intense and really threatening.

Hank's hospitalized, losing two days and a kidney, returning home he narrowly avoids the return of the Russians as they bust into Russ' place. The cops arrive and Hank is treated with suspicion as an accomplice to Russ' suspected drug running by Detective Roman (Regina King). She eventually leaves him with a warning about a particularly nasty duo, the Drucker Brothers (Liev Schrieber and Vincent D'Onofrio) whose Hasidic aesthetic betray their violent nature.

Hank finds himself deeper and deeper in trouble, the severity of which gets greater and greater, and he is a beaten, hunted and haunted man. He's effectively fighting for his life and the safety of people in his life, but he has no clue what it is the people after him are really after (except the trailer pretty much spoiled the reveal). It's not until Russ' return at the end of the second act that this flips its tone into a near-buddy comedy and finds levity in Hank's engagement with the Drucker Brothers and their Bubbe (Carol Kane).  It's an attempt at tone shift that feels too little too late, and the missed opportunity of being a much more fun production looms large.

Despite an exceptional cast, all delivering exactly what is requested of them, the film was not successful at the box office which is unfortunate given that these sort of mid-budget adult films are few and far between at the theatres these days, instead being relegated to streaming. The audience (myself included) aren't going to the theatre as much for the type of content we're used to watching at home. But Aronofsky is a big movie maker, there are shots and sequences in here that are ambitious and exciting that direct-to-streaming movies don't bother attempting. Aronofsky more than once uses depth of field and forced perspective to make New York feel like an alien place. Long ago Aronofsky was tapped to make a Batman film that obviously never materialized. This really tweaked my interest as to what the director's Gotham City would have looked like.

---

As I step through the "Tales for all" series of low-budget Canadian all-ages films from Quebec producer Rock Demers, it really does seem like he's working through genres: war, horror, drama, superhero and, with The Great Land of Small, fantasy. 

With The Dog Who Won The War, it cleverly uses the setting of snowball fights as it artillery and a snow fort as the prize. It was effective at melding the tropes of war with the perspective of children. Horror movies have long been made on the cheap anyway, but even still The Peanut Butter Solution was ambitious and upsettingly weird. Dramas like Bach and Broccoli don't need much budget to be effective for its drama about an orphan trying to connect with her distant guardian, while the Polish co-production of The Young Magician seemed to have budget for its superpowered tale but an unadventurous character arc and a lack of clear intention. 

What all these movies have is central characters who are children, children on a journey. Here David and Jenny have left "New York" with their mom (a trapeze artist) to visit their grandparents in small town Quebec. David doesn't want to go, certainly not without his dog.

Meanwhile Fritz (Michael J Anderson of Twin Peaks fame) is visiting this realm from the Great Land of Small because...he wants to...test(?) whether... mankind(?)... is ready to... accept(?)... the gift of gold dust which... grants wishes(?).  He is invisible except to those who believe in magic, but he runs afowl of hunters, and the local mob(?) boss, Flannagan, finds Fritz's bag of gold dust. He's obsessed that there's more gold dust in the forest and gets his gang of goons out searching, until the local police officer tells him to stop.

David and Jenny roam into the forest and find Fritz. They make friends despite Fritz being a bit of an annoying Pee-Wee Herman type. He misses his return trip home on a rainbow, so they bring him home and feed him peanut butter sandwiches and Pepsi in the horse stables which make him gassy. They look for help from the local crazy hermit, Mimmic, but they hunters catch up to them and they have to escape on the river in a canoe, which somehow transports them to The Great Land of Small.

The Great Land of Small is pretty much just the grounds of the Olympic Stadium in Montreal populated by a bunch of neon-coloured spandex-wearing Cirque de Soliel performers. It's direly unimpressive or fantastical. The production is so confined by their limitations that there's really only two areas of the grounds they use, and one of them is a horrid concrete interior where the kids meet a big hairy man and his even hairier dog man who is never not disturbing to look at. Oh yeah, and the queen of the Great Land of Small looks exactly like their mom, and the king is Fritz's brother. (This dual-role conceit may be a Wizard of Oz-like reference, but is more likely a sign of budget restrictions).

The kids are told they can never go home and they're to be adopted by the king and queen, but first they're going to be "Slimeo'd", dropped into a pit where a big orb-shaped troll-like creature will ingest them and spit them out as butterfly people. Fritz asks the big hairy man to use one of his wishes to return the kids home (meanwhile, the kids have been missing for some time, and their mom and grandparents are distraught and the town has set up a massive search party for them). They are found by Flannagan's daughter, who learns that her dad has been doing bad stuff for the first time?  (He has henchmen, honey, get a clue). She spies him power-tripping with the gold dust. And then the race is on to stop Flannagan from capturing the folk from The Great Land of Small before they can return home. Except Fritz can never go back. Except he can. What?

This is pure low-budget fantasy nonsense. There's no rules to the fantastical elements of this film and as such anything can happen at any time because the script needs it to. Rules are set up and then immediately broken at least three times. What the "gold dust" actually can do is never really clear, but certainly it has some power of some sort, the kind that drives men mad. Flannagan runs a bar with his daughter, but it's never clear what his side business is and why he has so many lackeys. The grandfather tells the kids a bedtime story about elves and faerie and whatnot and how you can only ever see them if you believe in magic, and it seems inferred that the grandfather believes in magic, but when they bring Fritz home, he doesn't see the guy at all.

The entire production feels so shoestring. It's clear the dialogue was all performed in English, and yet it's all been recreated in studio, as has all the sound. And often it seems like the voice work has been tweaked to add exposition that doesn't actually help to clarify anything. It also seems like so many scenes are just ad libbed, as if they weren't properly scripted and the actors being told what to do off camera. So much of the performances here are real awkward.

It's a direly boring film up until the emergence of Slimeo, which is so utterly bizarre that it can't help but liven things up, but it's a fleeting moment with the big ogre ball, and once we're "back" in Quebec, things get pretty dull once more. 

I'm not sure what could save this film, as it has so little going for it (Michael J Anderson excepted, clearly a charismatic performer with a good sense of whimsy), but unlike most "Tales for all" here our central character is not a child.  It is meant to be David, but it turns out it's Fritz, and yet it doesn't give anyone a character arc of any sort. It just shows how haphazardly executed this whole production is.

C'est mal. 

---

Horror, Not Horror

Some movies aren't meant to be watched at home. In homes with big, attention seeking dogs. Or in homes with gaming teenagers shouting profanities at their friends loud enough to hear through the vents two floors away. Or in houses with neighbours who can't seem to go a week without screaming at each other. Or in houses in the winter where the sound of the furnace creates a distracting ambiance for a quiet film. Or in an old house that creeks after the furnace shuts off as the wood rafters start cooling again.

Some movies aren't meant to be watched in the daytime, in a house where the light creeps in from almost all sides, even with the blinds shut, even in a basement. Some movies aren't meant to be watched in a house where the dryer has been home-repaired a number of times and the rattle of ... something gets a little worse every time. 

Some movies aren't meant to be watched when you are sick. Some movies aren't meant to be watched when you've not slept properly. Some movies aren't meant to be watched when you've taken medication. Some movies aren't meant to be watched when you're sick, haven't slept well and just taken medication.

Skinamarink is one of those "some movies". It is a low-budget independently produced (on a shoestring budget) Canadian (yay) film that is all about sinking into its atmosphere, settling into its vibe, partaking in little else audible but its sound design. Any distraction, including heavy, fluttering eyelids as one's eyeballs fight not to roll into the back of one's head, is working against the film's intended effect.

The final nail in Skinamarink's coffin... if the sleepy, sickly head, big happy dog, shouting through walls, ambient noises and unavoidable light sources weren't enough to seal its fate...is watching it on Tubi, where you are going to get ads, big, bright, noisy, annoying ads, anywhere from one to four of them at a time.

Skinamarink is not really about a story, it's an experience. It's experimental art-house horror, as much out of budgetary necessity as design. The at home experience presents in a very narrow widescreen format (I don't know my aspect ratios). It feels, generally like the top, or the bottom, of the screen is cut off. The point of view is often from a low, but sometimes high angle, evoking sometimes (if not always?) the perspective of a child. The film is dark. Digital grain has been added to make it very gritty and noisy (I found the digital grain a little distracting at first as I started focusing on whether I was sensing a repeating pattern or not...but that went away).  The imagery is largely present of a darkened household, with only the odd ambient light source, whether from a distant room, or a television, or a flashlight, lighting the way.

At home are little Kevin and his slightly older sister Kaylee. At one point we see Kevin's dad, on the phone with someone, talking about Kevin's fall down the stairs. The kids don't interact much with each other, and mostly are on the receiving end of a forceful, hushed, but hoarse voice. "I want to play." "Pick up the knife." That sort of thing. It's it creepy? Depends...depends on your surroundings at home.

The windows and doors start disappearing on Kevin and Kaylee, so too their access to their parents. Attempts to call 911 fail, until they succeed, and Kevin says "I hurt" and "I feel sick". 

Even with all my distractions, it's an evocative movie. There's clearly a malevolent spirit at play, but it could have very easily been a metaphorical film about an abusive parent if not for the supernatural interjections. The early moment with Kevin's father, and the conversation with the 911 operator nod towards this reading, if only so slightly.

I was quite taken with the film's aesthetic, minimalist though it is. The shot compositions, just keeping most relevant details out of frame, as if Kevin or Kaylee were too scared to look at things head on. At one point the spirit warps reality and suddenly are POV is moving across the ceiling, instead of the floor. The sound design as well keeps things so, so hushed and muted. Yes, there will be noise scares, real basic route 1 horror startles, but there's no score outside of the music of public domain cartoons playing on the TV.

I'm pretty much convinced Skinamarink can only work in theatres, and it's experimental, low-key nature will turn away as many viewers as it will enthuse. I think it could have shaved 20 minutes off it's 100 minute experience without really missing anything (there's not really a story or plot per se), but I think I'm keen to actually see it in a theatrical screening, just to see if there's anything *really* there...or if I'm just gon' get sleepy again.

BUT...is it horror? Undecided.

31 Days of Halloween: Something Wicked This Way Comes

1983, Jack Clayton (The Great Gatsby) -- Disney

OK, what is it with classic America not decorating for Halloween around the time of Halloween? Are you telling me on October 24th in the 1940s, middle America didn't at least put a jack-o-lantern on the porch, or maybe a spooky scarecrow or two? Trick or Treat-ing was already a thing in the 40s so there should have been at least some reference to the kids building costumes. Alas...

The movie begins with "the lightning rod salesman" (Royal Dano, The Outlaw Josey Wales) wandering into Green Town, Illinois with an evocative voice over of a boy being all nostalgic over Autumn in the 40s. This is prime Bradbury writing style, as he wrote the screenplay for Clayton based on his 1962 novel which he had already adopted from his own 40s short story. We are then introduced to Will Halloway (Vidal Peterson, ST: TNG: Unification II), the narrator, and his best friend Jim Nightshade (what a last name! Shawn Carson, The Funhouse), and their picturesque little town with iconic shop keepers and Will's dad, the librarian, who is suffering a mild depression over his age, and having married late in life.

The carnival is coming to town, and almost immediately it proves itself magical. From just the sound of a steam whistle, to an instantaneously built midway, the boys recognize something is just not right here. And then there's its ring leader Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce, Slow Horses) littering the town square with his advertisements. And things get scarier and more mystical after just opening night with the locals lured into various traps of an arcane nature.

This is a classic Disney style adventure of a magical & horror nature meant for kids. The victims of Mr. Dark's dark magic are all adults, falling to their own desires and folly, and only the kids seems to recognize something is awry. But its also a story of the love between a father and a son, who despite their challenges, are strongly bonded. There is really no true violence, not real death, but a lot of kid-level scary things. Maybe I am not as in touch with my kid-level whimsy as I thought (dude, this post says otherwise) but it didn't do much for me. Its just another example of things that don't hold up as well over time.

I love David Grove's poster work....

31 Days of Halloween: The Menu

2022, Mark Mylod (Entourage) -- Disney

Why am I not surprised he directed episodes of Entourage and Succession; this was most definitely an exploration of wealth and privilege. And assholes.

So, its inevitable every year that we watch at least one movie that gets the label of "horror" by its respective service and/or end up on a list of "best horror", but I would personally label more "thriller" than anything. I came into this movie expecting more of a horror theme; I honestly thought there was going to be a significant element of cannibalism to the movie, as in "eat the rich"; I guess I just convinced myself that is what the movie was about.

Last little preamble bit; yes, this was one of the movies on my "finally got around to" list given its foodie nature.

A bunch of rich fucks are heading to an exclusive island restaurant, essentially in the harbour of some nameless coastal city. Our point of view characters are pretentious foodie Tyler Ledford (Nicholas Hoult, Superman) and his date Margo (Anya Taylor-Joy, The Gorge); she is our primary connection to reality, but the two seem to somewhat appreciate each other. The rest include a movie star, a renowned restaurant critic, an old money couple, and some hedge fund bros. From the moment they arrive on the island and meet Elsa (Hong Chau, The Whale), their guide to this experience, things feel extreme and off. The resto is Hawthorn and the famed chef is Julian Slowik (Ralph Fiennes, 28 Years Later). Everything is told to us as if we, yes we the viewer, should know who this man is and be in awe of what is happening. Which is typical upscale eating bullshit.

Of note, I have never eaten food at this level. Some of my friends would consider me a foodie because I try so many things. I am not. I just enjoy eating, and because I have a diminished sense of smell, I usually enjoy strong flavours, varied flavours. But yes, I do enjoy the idea of haute cuisine, food prepared as much for technique & presentation as it is for taste & substance, but could never really subscribe to it, even if I could afford it. I want to relish food, eat food and yes, I prefer the restaurant at the beginning of The Bear than what it becomes.

But, wow, is this story told with precision and menace! All the expected details are there, but amped up a bit. The pretentious menu, the cult like behaviour of the staff of the resto, the yells of "Yes Chef!!", the constant stream of irritants as we get to know the guests, the control with which Slowik demands over how the guests behave. We are learning, and yeah, it doesn't take long, to not life these diners, nor are we expected to like the staff nor Slowik. Margo is abrasive but, we easily warm to her because she challenges everything ! 

It doesn't take long for Slowik to reveal his End Goal, in that everyone here will die. Everyone. Everyone seems terrified and angry, except for Ledford. He, now matter how horrible Slowik gets, seems thrilled by it all. More than a little unhinged. Unfortunately there is no eating of the guests, just some light abuse, for the goal of this eating adventure is to just fucking kill everyone. Boo. Still, the movie is incredibly well done, and I really enjoyed myself but I wish there had been some real terror in the situation instead, "Weeee, yeah boyz, let's see everyone die." 

But not Margo, because Margo likes fucking cheeseburgers.

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): The Amateur

2025, James Hawes (Slow Horses) -- Disney

Because of his association with Slow Horses, I was expecting a more gritty, dialed down feel to the movie, but Hawes was a director, not the show runner, so his thumb-print on the series is more about the handling of the details, than the tone. In this rote espionage thriller, the details are handled more than competently, giving us an almost early-2000s  "based on the novels by _____" movie, which... well, is based on the novel by Robert Littell. Littell's books were cold war era CIA spy stories, and I am kind of surprised they hadn't been milked for the aforementioned era of movies.

Anywayz. It was fine, but I shouldn't have let it sit and stew for so long.

Charlie Heller (Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody) is one of the smart guys behind the keyboard at the CIA -- a cryptographer. He's seen as unequalled in his job. He also seems to have a side project where he makes contact with an asset named "Inquiline" and they turn over highly encrypted documents to him that implicate his own boss. He hides that shit.

Soon after, his wife Sarah (Rachel Brosnahan, Superman) who has gone to London on a business trip, is killed by terrorists. My first thought, based on seeing a ton of these movies and TV shows, is that he didn't hide the shit well enough and his bosses had his wife killed as a preemptive warning. But no, it was just some international terrorists who got cornered and she was an innocent bystander. Well, not just any random terrorists, but it was not a 2 + 2 = 4 situation.

She was Charlie's world. He is entirely lost without her. In his grief, he formulates a plan. He will blackmail his own superiors into training & outfitting him, so he can go to Europe and find the terrorists that killed his wife. Find them and kill them. They reluctantly comply, with their own plan to find Charlie's evidence and then have him eliminated. They honestly don't expect him to get very far.

Of course, nothing goes exactly to plan, but... the movie does roll out exactly to form.

Normally when I say a movie just (just?) follows a formula, I am being derisive. But in the viewing of this movie, it did more than that. Whereas formulaic action or adventure flicks provide me as much nutritional value as popcorn, followed by a burp and they're gone, these middle of the road thrillers usually leave me quite satisfied. I always like the structured details, the settings, the characters. I think back to the 90s movies like The Firm or The Pelican Brief. They were never critically acclaimed, but they always more than satisfied. I like the way the main character is played, I like how he adjusts to the change in scope on his Hero's Journey. I like how he retains who he needs to be, despite the corruption around him.

But do I have a whole lot to say about the story? No, not really. Charlie does uncover the Who and the Why, and is able to attain some modicum of justice. Its not the rote story that attracts me, but the competent, satisfactory play through.

One final thing that came to mind while watching. Charlie and his wife were doing quite well for themselves. A key point to the plot was that his wife bought him a run down Cessna plane, to let this puzzle and component piece obsessed man learn everything he needs to know about it, take it all apart, and put it all back together, repaired. How much does even a junker plane cost? Much more than my life time and economic bracket will ever provide. Why are so many of these movies about people in the upper end of the economic demographics? And if they don't go that way, they go the other direction, making the "hero" a rundown broken man without any money, a redneck or street thug. What about us squarely in the ever-widening middle class people who have to think about paychecks and bills and not, "Ooooo I have a plane that needs fixing!"

ReFried Disney: Snow White

2025, Marc Webb (The Amazing Spider-Man) -- Disney+ 

Stupid Boy Project? Oh, stupid stupid boy.

This is one of the rare movies in this project that is not a remake of a recent Disney animated movie, and by recent I mean that "new era" of original Disney animated musicals that started all the way back in 1989 with The Little Mermaid. Its kind of odd to say "new era", because only ten years prior had been Disney's last animated musical, Pete's Dragon. Ten years is not all that long in cinematic eras, at least it isn't these days. But what I am getting at is that this movie is a "live-action remake" of the Classic Era of Disney Animated Musicals (deemed worthy enough to get capital letters) that stretch from the 60s to beyond. The original Snow White was in ... 1937. Nineteen Freaking Thirty-Seven!! And I probably haven't seen it since my days sitting in front of grannie's TV during The Wonderful World of Disney every Sunday afternoon.

I don't have much recollection of the original animation, but a lot of imitators came to mind as I watched this movie. Less imitation of the animation and more of the motif that became part of the collective conscious. Think Amy Adams in Enchanted. Less imitator and more homage? I mean, the story of Snow White is built into our fairy tale brain, but was that ever from a non-Disney source? I am old enough that I had an actual collection of classic Grimm / Perrault fairy tales, so it must have been in there, but admitedly the core of the story must have come from 50+ years of exposure to Disney's adaptation. From the colour scheme, to "heigh-ho", to an evil queen with her hair tucked inside a skin tight dark wimple, all are indicative of the fairy tale but visuals from Disney.

Anywayz, this movie. Cough.

I was tempted to write three paragraphs consisting only of "Fair fair fair. Fair fair FAIR fair. FAIR ! Fair fair." This movie was really really REALLY trying hard to rebrand "fair" as not referring to Snow White's skin colour, but to fairness of judgement. As in, her father was a Good and Fair Ruler. But not even Mjolnir herself could have hammered that definition into the Magic Mirror's proclamation that the Evil Queen was ever fair. Snow White was the fairest, always and forever, as was her father. That mirror was a fucking liar.

Not bothering to comment on the "her skin isn't snow white" utter whiner troll shite on the Internet. If I roll my eyes any harder at that, I will hurt myself. There are plenty of other things to dislike about the movie without that weaksauce.

The tale begins with a fair (cough) kingdom ruled by a fair King and Queen who are equal with their people. Oh, they live in a castle and wear finery and probably don't actually do anything but they also spend one day a year picking apples and preparing pies for their people. I mean, I highly doubt they bake the pies, as they probably have people to do that but they carry the prepared pies to the tables, for the villagers & castle folk. The fair princess Snow White helps, so named because she was born on a cold winter night, and sure all the people seem to love her, but one does wonder what would happen if they didn't defer to her.

Fuck you King; howsa 'bout instead of serving us over-sized pieces of apple pies (from our orchards by the way) you release us from our vassal-state and pay us a living wage? Sure, you might own the land but....

Then the queen dies and the king gets a new wife, and almost immediately after sets off to fight in a foreign war, where he dies. New Wifey (Gal Gadot, Wonder Woman) takes the throne, and immediately makes changes. Once prosperous villagers (OK maybe they were making more than a livable wage) are conscripted into her royal guard, and Snow White is relegated to scullery maid. Nobody argues, because Evil Queen.

Waitasecond here; she doesn't actually have a NAME ?!?! She's really just called "Evil Queen". I would love to see her business card.

Snow White (Rachel Zegler, Y2K) grows up in her now impoverished kingdom, locked behind castle gates. One day she bumps into a thief stealing potatoes. Snow White's royalty shows through, as she does not like him being a thief. He is caught and tied to the gates, I guess the Evil Queen's version of a crow cage, but Snow White frees him anyway; I mean, it was just potatoes. That pisses off the Evil Queen, who has been getting "yer the fairest" from the Magic Mirror, until that act by Snow White. I am still convinced the Mirror was lying all along, but not sure why he suddenly got some courage. No matter, pissed off Evil Queen orders her Huntsman to take Snow White into the forest and cut out her heart. Not sure why she just doesn't have Snow White murdered right there in her throne room; its not like she has a reputation to uphold.

Part of me wonders whether the source fairy takes tell us why.

Of course, the Huntsman feels guilty and sends Snow White off into the forest to hide. In this version, he doesn't even kill a deer, from which to cut out a heart, but puts an.... apple into the box? He knows his fate; he's just delaying. The forest is initially dark and scary and definitely UnSeelie. I know that this is supposed to be representative of Snow White being a city girl and dark rural forests are scary, but I have always like to think of it as an actually fae infested wood with its periphery tainted by proximity to the Evil Queen. Luckily though, some Uplifted Animals find Snow White and guide her to the quaintest of quaintest cottages deep in the wood.

The Dwarves Miners own the house and are away for part of the day slaving away in the mines, using their magic powers (yes, the exhibit magic) to light up the location of gemstones, which they cut out of the stone and load into mine carts for... well, I am not sure we are ever given a reason the "miners" mine the gemstones. I kind of thought they were hinting that the Evil Queen has tasked them with this duty for her throne room is going to be littered with an endless supply of perfectly cut gemstones. But I am not sure if it was edited out, or underplayed, because I don't recall any reason for all this labour. 

But complaining about minor miner duties is burying the lede. The real complaint here, and admittedly, I thought it was all the blame of Disney's terrible sub-titling, but why aren't they called DWARVES ?!?!? Seriously, if anyone is going to give fuel to the "woke agenda" bonfires its choosing to ... to what?? Choosing to not offend little people? I mean, they went with entirely CG representations of these not-dwarves!! If they wanted to separate themselves from whole "dwarf" label (and we will completely ignore the fact these are not and never were "little people" but fairy tale dwarves, i.e. the folk tale fae creatures used as inspiration for Tolkien's story species) then just make them weird human miners with odd personalities and funny names.

Umm, isn't "dwarfs" more correct in this context? 

Shaddup you.

When the miners return home, they find the lady who broke in and slept in their beds. Most of them are suspicious but a few are at least understanding of her plight, being a Princess who was almost murdered by her step-mother (cough, E. Queen). Despite being a bunch of bachelors (no implication of familial connection) living together, they don't really get along. Even if you ignore their distinct personalities and/or named-traits, they all seem to pick on Bashful. But with a song and some gentle chastising, she shows them how to work together and clean up their house, in a way only a young woman can. And by whistling. Not at young woman, but.... oh nevermind.

Snow White is convinced her father is actually not dead, just that he never came back from the war in the south. She hopes to find the rebels in the forest, or bandits or whomever is rumoured to be still loyal to her father, and not beholden to E. Queen. What she finds instead is that the rebel/bandits are actually just unemployed minstrels, and more than a little buffoonish, led by the potato thief Jonathan (Andrew Burnap, The Front Room). The two make googley eyes at each other when the Evil Queen's henchmen show up and attack. Jonathan is injured and she takes him back to the "miners" where she begs Doc to help the cute boy. "I'm not that kind of Doc," he says, implying he's probably a doctor of philosophy or something to that eye-rolling effect. Whatever he does helps either way. The two decide they are in love, and that Jonathan and his Minstrels should head off to look for their King. They instantly get caught, cuz, you know they aren't bandits nor rebels, just fucking useless musicians and actors.

From them the Evil Queen learns where Snow White is hiding and concocts her poisoned apple bit. Apparently the Fair King had a rather diabolical Evil Queen Ready dungeon/lair in his basement all along. Putting on the Kindly Old Woman disguise, which has never ever been kindly looking but Halloween Witch scary, she gets Snow White to bite the apple, and thus, sleep of death. Jonathan and the now imprisoned Huntsman escape and find Snow White and all the weeping miners (folk core prog rock band). He steals a kiss and she wakes up. 

Snow White's pissed, and decides that even though she doesn't have an army, not even any rebels, she will head back to the castle and ... guilt them into surrendering? Which is exactly what she does. Once the Evil Queen realizes that five guys wearing her armour would rather do what Snow White says, instead of her, she runs back inside and gets all pissy in front of the mirror, sealing her fate. Seems her power, and maybe long life, was tied directly to the mirror - smashing it out of frustration is not the best choice. The End, but for one long song and dance number which must have used up the urine of every man, woman and barn yard animal to get all the clothes that bleached white.

I did not like this movie, in case my mockery was too subtle for you. I knew going in that I am not a fan of musicals, but usually I can tolerate, and some, I even like. Give me one banger of a tune and I am OK. There were none, not even the ones they stole from the original. To me this felt like a boardroom full of Purple Suits (I guess that is the collective noun?) paving the way for a off-Broadway stage musical production, and didn't really care if the movie did well or not -- they just needed the framework, set visualizations, musical numbers and visually appealing costumes. 

It does not adapt the original nor any fairy tale source material well. It seems to shoe-horn in some standard, run of the mill musical components, wedged in between all the "I remember that!" scenes from the original. The (lack of) story is forgivable in a 1937 animation, but here it is just brain-numbingly empty. Nothing feels like world building, nothing feels lived-in, nothing feels enchanting. Not a single song is memorable nor are any of the visuals above passable. Characters are more often labels, not people -- see E. Queen reference above. This movie does not have much going for it, so I hope it at least appeals to seven year old dim witted children.

As for the dwarf controversy, the CG one, as we already covered the dwarf vs miner one, I was not horrified nor annoyed. I get what they were trying to do -- recreate the original animated visuals but with some resemblance to ... real people? For Average People they must seem very Uncanny Valley (maybe that's where dwarves er miners come from?) but for someone raised on video game cinematics and The Lord of the Rings they are just passingly acceptable fairy creature depictions. Nothing offensive, nothing too terrible. But to tie in the original complaint, if they were not mythical creatures, why the fuck not just cast real little people?

Hmmm, too late to back out of the Stupid Boy Project, Mr Stupid Boy?

ReFried Disney: Lilo & Stitch

2025, Dean Fleischer Camp (Marcel the Shell with Shoes On) -- download

Note: I just re-wrote the title based on what Kent suggested below. And because I loooove me some refried rice, refried beans, refried pizza, etc.

And thus begins my "stupid boy project" wherein I choose, of my own volition, to watch all the Disney live-action adaptations of their own animated movies, in order from most-recent to first. Why? Cuz. That's it, no deep reason. Just cuz. But a proper "why" may emerge as I write about them.

We, again the Peanut Gallery and me, were devotees of the "new wave" of Disney animation back in the cinema & VHS days. That was back when owning a movie for home viewing depended on finding a copy, usually second hand, from a VHS store. Eventually Disney would re-release them for home purchase, but for a time, when these movies would "go back into the vault", they were worth their weight in gold. I briefly worked for a place that hunted them down and resold them for hundreds of dollars a piece. This made them exclusive, precious, sought after things. It was an industry, but still, we just enjoyed them, songs and all. 

And then we grew up (that's highly debatable). And Disney switched, almost exclusively, from traditional to CG animated. Things just feel... different. We stopped dedicating effort to seeing things. These live-action re-imaginings derailed the watching, entirely.

I think this movie's original (from 2002, which is astounding unto itself [it still feels new], and explains no post) was one of the last of the traditionally animated movies, after which 3D CG animation became the norm. So, its not surprising that the merger of live-action and CG animation would follow as a "new thing". Yes, CG is used in probably all movies to some degree, but ... actually, I am not sure what I am trying to get at, but there is a difference in intent between movies that add in CG to enhance the fantastical/challenging-to-shoot (or too lazy to shoot) elements, and movies that come from the approach of cartoons but with real people. If I think about this anymore, I am probably going to end up rabbit-holing into questions of whether Barbie was a live-action cartoon. Better not, not yet.

Some rules, because what are "projects" without rules. I will do them all, so that means two versions of The Jungle Book, even the 1994 one, but I will not be doing live-action spin-off's or sequels of a live-action adaptations. So, no Maleficent or Mufasa watching. Also, I think that I need to write my posts from an original viewing perspective, as opposed to comparisons, though I doubt I will stick much to that. It will be too difficult to not compare, especially when the live-action version is lacking.

And we begin.

On a distant planet, a mad-scientist Dr. Jumba Jookiba (voiced by Zach Galifianakis at this point; Muppets Most Wanted) is being sentenced for his genetic experimentation and creation of Experiment 626 (voiced by Chris Sanders; Lilo & Stitch original), a nigh indestructible little agent of chaos creature. Jookiba will be incarcerated and 626 will be exiled, which strikes me as folly considering the characteristics Jookiba built into it, but this is a family movie so shooting it into the sun is not on the table. Buuuut, 626 doesn't like being "captured" so it steals a police starship (the red one) and escapes. Its ship is tracked to backward planet Earth and Jookiba is tasked capturing, and returning 626, along with assistance from Earth expert, Agent Pleakley (voiced by Billy Magnussen at this point; Velvet Buzzsaw). Again, seems like the opposite of a good idea, but this is a cartoon / family movie.

There is a side note of 626 becoming incredibly dense when submersed in water so it crash landing on an island (Kaua'i) is to everyone's advantage -- it won't be getting off the island anytime soon.

So, yeah crashed into Hawaii, where we are given our main characters: Lilo Pelekai (Maia Kealoha, feature debut) and her older sister Nani (Sydney Agudong, At Her Feet). Lilo is an agent of chaos unto herself, being left alone most of the time as barely out of teen years Nani attempts to work enough jobs to keep them alive. Their parents' death is not explained, but ever present. Also, Nani has to prove to CPS, under the stern but sympathetic eye of social work Mrs Kekoa (Tia Carrere, Wayne's World), that she is a suitable guardian for Lilo, or she will lose her. 

Neighbour Tūtū (Amy Hill, Magnum PI), who takes care of Lilo on occasion, thinks getting Lilo a pet is a good idea (its not) and that is how they run into 626, napping in a little cage at a local shelter. 616 realizes quickly that it doesn't look like the other dogs, and sucks in its extra pair of arms and antennae. Still doesn't look like a dog (blue fur for one) but sure, whatever -- adopted ! Not long after, Lilo names it Stitch.

Jookiba and Pleakley show up, armed with a portal gun and their own agendas. Pleakley loves the planet and its people but, the rest of the galaxy doesn't care for us humans -- its only protected as a sanctuary for mosquitos. Umm, thankyou mosquitos? The pair are mismatched, of course, dressed in odd looking human holograms. Their pursuit of Stitch is interrupting the little blue monster's attempting to blend in with the little broken family. He's not pleased.

Eventually Lilo and Stitch's antics get Nani fired from one job after another, and its becoming certain the two sisters will be separated. But Stitch is starting to see beyond the end of his own nose, and even Lilo is starting to see that antics (fun antics, but disastrous) can have consequences. The two are learning from each other.

In the end, once Jookiba's desire to recapture Stitch, not for the safety of the galaxy but for his own further experimentation, reveals that the little blue dog is a sentient alien monster, but one with a really big fondness for a little girl named Lilo, Nani has to fight to save the really heavy when submerged creature, and explain to Grand Councilwoman (who shows up in her space ship; voiced by Hannah Waddingham, Ted Lasso) that Stitch is not a mindless monstrous experiment but a member of their little broken family. She gives in and leaves 626 in exile, on Earth.

And breathe. Impressive sentence, if I do say so... 

Its a challenge doing a recap of such a flick because they are all so much about the multitude of moments. Live-action has to be about the performances and pacing, and not just what happens. The two leads of this movie are spectacular. I was able to not be lost comparing casting choices against the images I have in my head (I mean, those images were put there by the original animation) and also not get dragged into the ever present controversy ANY movie is going to get when casting peoples of colour. If I had any gripe, its not re-casting Ving Rhames as Cobra Bubbles (here via Courtney B Vance, Project Power), the man-in-black masquerading as a CPS care worker. I can only assume Rhames was busy doing MI stuff. And I was incredibly surprised how much I loved the silly slapstick performance of Bleakley; only a little of my guffaws were at inappropriate "I needed this stupid shit" levels (its been a challenging last few months) and I was equally not annoyed with the Jookiba man-suit as performed as/by Zach Galifianakis, which was a surprise.

As a beginning to this project, I am not sure I captured what I want to capture. As reboots of their original media, they cannot stand entirely apart. Its not like comparing the two Robocop movies, which are entirely retooled in order to give an updated version. Nor was this movie a scene for scene retelling of the original animation. Was it a success, as a movie, in my mind, apart of comparing to original? Somewhat? Its fine, its a fine fun movie. But I have to claw back my desire to not compare the movies to each other, but I am not sure I can write about the new one without doing so. 

The original is a cartoon and therefore can be quite easy to leverage acceptance of silly situations. Unlike a family movie like Paddington where the suspension of disbelief is built into the world making of the movie, this one is supposed to be set in our world, and I had trouble understanding why anyone would take this blue furry definitely-talking creature as a dog. Yes yes, its for kids, but... that's my brain folks. At least the movie's David (Kaipo Dudoit, Magnum PI) says it for me, as he did in the animation, "Did that dog just talk???".

If I can say one final thing, its that I can like cartoon kids. I have trouble endearing myself to real kids. Sure, I liked Kealoha's performance fine enough, but I didn't want to hug & squeeze her like I would the animated Lilo.

What I Have Been Watching: A Catchup Post

I said many times recently that I am not currently writing about TV. As my brain is powered on whim, I decided to write "watching" post, but not in the adopted Kent Method (1-1-1) but just my old catchup kind of post where I write a paragraph or two on shows I recently watched, or I am currently watching. Its a blather-on kind of post. It will skip ones from way back when.

Dropping stubs; to be filled out.

9-1-1, Season 8, Disney+

We used to download this show as it came up, but eventually our dedication to the show waned, so we now just wait for it to appear on Disney+, where they are actually dropping weekly episodes. They just finished off Season 8. 

Given I am not using the 1-1-1 format, I will just blather on a bit. 

This was the season they killed off not just a main character, but the main character -- Captain Bobby Nash. In a two part episode about a crazy epidemiologist who releases a mutant virus, and infects some members of the team, Bobby sacrifices himself to save one -- Chimney. There's no fake out, no walk back with a miraculous cure. He dies, horribly, quickly. And it tears apart the people present. This show has always been good at trauma, less the people they are supposed to be saving, and more the members of the 118 Station House. I mean, this year, 911 Operator Maddie Han had her throat slashed by a serial killer who had kidnapped her. But she survived, unlike every other throat slashing on TV which is played out as insta-death. But the show is silly and melodramatic and over the top and near-deaths are the norm. Real Death is not and it was really really tragic. 

Also, on a less traumatic note, the hunky hunk Buck came out as Bi; oh wait, that was last season. Also, yes there was a season opening episode about bees.

Andor, Season 2, Disney+

Likely the best thing I watched in the past year. Definitely the opposite of the last show given it is smart, well written and deftly paced. Never has there been a show which successfully had me rooting for the Bad Guy, and not in an ironic way, but growing to actually like them. Begrudgingly, grumpily so. Not entirely, and not for the usual quippy Buffy-Spike reasons, but because they are played as such strong characters with strong motivations. But they remain the Bad Guy. And I commend the show for having them remain a Bad Guy until the very end, not shoe-horning in some redemption arc, despite giving us openings. Such. Good. Writing.

The tailoring of this season through 3 episode arcs that cover one year's period, counting down to Cassian Andor leaving the rebel base, to begin the movie Rogue One, was brilliant. Utterly brilliant. It allowed build up, in degrees, and also resolution, in degrees. It also allowed us to fill in some details, build out the characters, establish some utterly engrossing moral dilemmas and sum up some things that just had to be summed up. More precisely: the establishment of Yavin as the Rebel Base, the rise and fall of "necessary evil" Luthen Rael, the rise and fall of aforementioned Bad Guys Syril Karn & Edra Meero, 

Doctor Who, Season 2, Disney+

I am still kind of annoyed at the rebranding of this as a new series (i.e. the 'season 2' component) and also somewhat disappointed that Ruby Sunday only truly lasted one season as the main companion. While I really like Belinda Chandra as a companion, I just haven't really warmed to the season. Just nothing stands out, at all. I watch, I mildly enjoy and then I burp, and its gone. 

The show definitely continues the "piss off the anti-woke folks" being more gay, more brash statements than any other series, which is kind of gleeful unto itself. The episodes which were blatant send-up's on incel rhetoric were a hoot. And, they have been having some fun extending the pantheon related storyline from "first" season, but I am just ... not invested.

Doctor Odyssey, Season 1, Disney+

I wanted to watch this for two reasons: I have an odd fascination with alternative cruise ships, i.e. the more akin to classic, smaller ships than they mega-ships run by companies (ironically) like Disney -- see Death and Other Details. And because it seemed it would be in the vein of 9-1-1 with a "situation of the week" wherein the mains have to deal with something dramatic and tense. Alas, it more devolved into personal politics, which I am not adverse to in theory, but the whole love-triangle (full blown, let's have a threesome triangle stuff, between a "boss" and co-workers) between the mains just had me rolling my eyes.

I have just stopped watching.

Murderbot, Season 1, Apple TV / Download

Based on a scifi book series I just started reading ("just started" at my snail pace and attention span means I read the first book over a year ago) and enjoyed. But for some reason, they have positioned the TV show as a straight up comedy, something I did not attach to how the free-willed cyborg behaved in the books.

A Security Unit, a cyborg that is more weapon/tool than person, is assigned to a hippy-dippy group of scientists. Unbeknownst to them, this SecUnit has devised a way to break their "governor module", the device that keeps them from thinking for themselves. But it, and it most definitely identifies as "it", doesn't want to be found out, so it has to play the part. Exceeeept, its doing weird, more human things.

Two thoughts, as not much has happened two episodes (30 minute-r type episodes) in, but: since "it" is played by Alexander Skarsgård, it will soon, inadvertently become "he". And when reading the books, I somehow identified it as she. And I really like that they "let" David Dastmalchian display his vitiligo. Not overtly, but at least its not all covered up.

The Bondsman, Season 1, Amazon

Horror/Comedy show about a hillbilly bail-bondsman who is murdered by his ex-wife's new criminal boyfriend, and then is kicked out of Hell to act as a demon-related bounty hunter, for Hell. Its a long line in ?killing demons for Hell" shows we have watched, and weirdly enough, they are almost comedic in tone.

Kevin Bacon, who plays main Hub Halloran, is ten years older than me!! Jeezus the guy looks good for over 60. And he just moves well, considering its an action role and he's likely playing a guy in his 40s.

The show itself unfortunately dials down some of the stock elements of these shows. He has a handler, who helps him "identify" the types of demons he is hunting, but really, other than it presenting some flair for the demons, it doesn't play much into his interactions with them. Most of the drama of the show plays up his dysfunctional family situation, and the reasons he went to Hell in the first place. 

It was not bad, but I doubt it will get renewed.

MobLand, Season 1, download

This is another Guy Ritchie series, right? Its very dialogue heavy violence heavy in the Richie-an style. It covers an Irish mob family syndicate in London who get broiled in a war with another family syndicate after their shit grandson murders another shit grandson. Tom Hardy tags along as the unflappable fixer for the main family.

But alas, no, it's not direct Guy Ritchie, just has him in to direct an episode or two. 

It has just started and horrible people are doing horrible things to each other, but I am convinced that the matron of the Harrigan family, Maeve played by Helen Mirren, is plotting to bring down her own family just for the spite of it.

Poker Face, Season 2, download

Yay! Charlie's back! 

When season one ended, she had finally met up with her nemesis, mob boss Sterling Foster Sr, who had had his mook Cliff chasing her all season, pretty much a year's worth of bad hotels, bad food and near misses. But he finally caught her and sat her down in front of Foster. But the year had softened him to the ideal Charlie represented. What got her in trouble in the first place was the cluster-fucked deal Foster's son tried to strong-arm her into, using her lie-detecting ability to con high-roller gamblers. Foster Sr offers Charlie the same deal; except Cliff has turned on his boss, likely due to  the shit job he had been on for a year, and kills Foster. Cliff tries to frame Charlie for it, but fails.

Season Two starts with Charlie being offered the same deal by Beatrix Hasp, a boss of one of the "five families", but Charlie turns her down, and is on the run again. The first few episodes play out like a speedy version of season one, with Charlie solving a murder, and then running from mob goons with guns. BUT pulling an Andor out of their butt, they end that chase quickly having Hasp turn informant on the mob. Now Charlie, having become used to the idea of stopping in town to town on her windy-bendy trip around the US, solving murders, continues the ideal.

They have changed showrunner for this season, and the quick opener sum-up was a surprise. Time will tell whether we enjoy this season as much as the first.

The Last of Us, Season 2, download

The popular, critically acclaimed mushroom-zombie series based on a video game returns and actually does the shocking thing that the sequel game, that the season is based on, did -- killing its main character! Well, one of them. I was shocked that they took the second game, which pissed off the fan-base for the first game to the n-th degree, and are following it pretty much verbatim. Not having finished the second game, it will eventually diverge from my memory, but having played out the primary element, with heart-wrenching results, they seem just as invested in legitimacy.

Ellie has aged, Ellie has come out, Ellie is very very VERY angry. With the murder of Joel, the season quickly shifts from her being an annoying teenager with daddy issues to a Quest for Vengeance. It leads them west to a Seattle where a war is being waged, a war into which Ellie and Dina blunder.

This season is going to be all about the moral dilemma of violent response. Joel killed each and every Firefly because he couldn't sacrifice Ellie for the "greater good". After the death of his daughter he devolved into Not a Good Man, and during his travels with Ellie, he gained some of his pre-apocalypse viewpoint back. But the ruthless murders come with their own consequences. Not only does Ellie, when she eventually finds out, find it hard to forgive him, to believe he was that man, but also the children of those Firefly leaders he killed finally, many years later, put two and two together, and lay the blame squarely on his shoulders. And they track him down, and they most brutally kill him in front of Ellie. They leave Ellie and Dina alive with that memory.

Ellie understands what they have done, and why they have done it. But in a mirroring of Joel's choices, she sets out with Dina, against the wishes of all in their community, to find and murder Joel's killers. The same kind of vengeance for the same kind of reasons. The daughter becomes the father. 

Just like the game's release itself, the season is pissing off, or at least it is fueling the unhinged rage that anti-woke Internet has for.... well, pretty much anyone who is not a straight, white male. I know the Angry Internet has awoken significantly in the past decade or so, when they used to hide in the 4Chan holes to only share with each other, but part of me still wonders/hopes is the online rage is fabricated (to a degree) by foreign/local parties that just want to foment disruption. An unstable world is easier to control, and we do know how much this utter clusterfuck of a situation down south (of Canada) is about controlling the utterly stupid masses. I am just so fucking tired of it all. Can't we just enjoy something good because it is well done, instead of finding ways to bring it down? If anything, the review bombing will not stop the people who enjoy it from being the people who enjoy it.

A Pan-tastic Journey: looking at various renderings of Peter Pan

Peter Pan - 1924, d. Herbert Brenon - youtube
Peter Pan - 1953, d. Hamilton Luske, Clyde Geronimi, and Wilfred Jackson - Disney+
Hook - 1991, d. Steven Spielberg - Netflix
Peter Pan and Wendy - 2023, d. David Lowery - Disney+

"I don't ever want to be a man. I always want to be a little boy and have fun!" - Peter Pan

I have been alive for just shy of 2550 weeks, and in the past week I have spent more time partaking in and thinking about Peter Pan then every week prior to that in total. I have never really cared much for Peter Pan as a character, nor the "boy who never grew up" mythos. Neverland has never enchanted me as an escapist fantasy. 

There are famous people who have obsessed over Peter Pan... Michael Jackson probably the most notable, himself a boy who never truly grew up. Stephen Spielberg was another, as for quite some long time in the first two decades of his career, he seemed to be targeted by his most severe critics as a director who never wanted to grow up. The Blank Check podcast has been picking at Spielbergs early career, especially framed in the light of his pseudo-biographical film The Fablemans, leading up to the trifecta that was the turning point in his career: Hook, Jurassic Park and Schindler's List.

But I'm here to talk about Peter Pan, not Stephen Spielberg, suffice it to say that I decided to watch Hook (perhaps for a second time?) before listening to the Blank Check episode on it, and knowing the pop-culture tourist tendencies that I have, I knew I would be sampling other Pan wares soon after. 

Hook is an "unofficial" (whatever that means) sequel that presupposes that one knows the tale of Peter Pan rather intimately, which, at the time of viewing, I did not. It posits Robin Williams as Peter Banning, a workaholic father of two who can't seem to break away from his career to spend time with his children. It's very Spielbergian in this regards, the regrets of fatherhood and the feeling that one's career means both abandoning one's own youthful enthusiasms and one's tolerance for youth. Many times Williams' Peter yells at his pre-teen son to grow up. 

In a 1992 interview (stealing from the research done by the team at Blank Check) Spielberg said about initially abandoning his intents for a faithful Pan adaptation following the birth of his son "...suddenly I couldn’t be Peter Pan any more. I had to be his father. That’s literally the reason I didn’t do the movie back then. And I had everything ready and Elliot Scott hired to do the sets in London. In a way, my son took my childhood away from me.”  This unlocks a lot of Hook for me, the fact that Peter has given up his childhood to be married, and to have children and to have a career...he's bitter and resentful for having let go of his eternal youth.

Hook is not a great film, but then again, I don't think Peter Pan in general is a great story. Hook at least has a...ahem... hook to it, a reason for existing, which is to remind adults that it's okay to still connect with your childhood.

It's a long, long half hour (plus!) of the film before we get any hint of real whimsy or magic, and in that time the film is exploring its theme intensely while also trying to catch us up on Peter's life following the fabled story. It's definitely too long and most of it wholly unnecessary (although there's a bittersweet sentiment to Wendy becoming the mother to lost boys for decades, and something unsettlingly weird about Peter, effectively, imprinting on Wendy's granddaughter...it's like when Steve Rogers kisses Sharon Carter in Captain America:Civil War...it's hard to explain exactly why it's wrong, we just sense that it is).

Peter's kids are kidnapped by Captain Hook (how Hook enters the real world and steals the kids, I don't rightly understand) and Peter is brought to Neverland by Tinkerbell (Julia Roberts) to get them back. Peter, having forgotten all about his past youth, hasn't the skills, the magic, nor the playfulness to take on Cook.  Tinkerbell bargains with Cook to get Peter into fighting shape over three days so the pirates can have their epic war with the Lost Boys that they've been dreaming of (boys will be boys).  This leads Peter to the current spate of Lost Boys who have been living under the protection of Rufio. Where we see Lost Boys in other interpretations in animal costumes (like Max from Where the Wild Things Are), here they're like the lost children from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, all feral looking.

The best part of Hook is the actual Hook of the film. Dustin Hoffman puts on a surprisingly game performance (I don't know why I'm surprised any time Hoffman puts on a game performance, I always just am...like I think he's a more annoyingly serious actor than he is) and his plot to woo the children, which leads to him effectively adopting Peter's son Jack, is the smartest and most resonant part of the film. Unfortunately, Hook isn't terribly interested in developing Captain Hook beyond his well-mannered, if anxiety-ridden pirate persona. It never truly establishes any desires, any objectives, any growth beyond Peter's destruction, and the film is the poorer for it.

Roberts is wasted as Tinkerbell, a real thankless role, given a sub-plot that intones that she has still been pining for Peter all this time, even for grown-up, hairy Robin Williams-looking Peter.

What the film really needed was a character Peter could introduce Neverland to, whether it be his wife (who just gets left behind for the whole adventure) or his kids. Instead it gives us an amnesiac Peter rediscovering Neverland which, for me, didn't work at all.

Of course the classic Disney animated feature would be the first stop after Hook, as it seems to be what Spielberg's film is most directly referencing. The cartoon is, point blank, gorgeous. It's is so vibrantly coloured and so lovingly illustrated that it's clear this was a labour of love for the folks at Disney at the time.

I noted in the opening credits that the film was based off a play, which was the first that I'd learned that Peter Pan was indeed first scripted as a play by J.M. Barrie in 1904 ("Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up") and only later adapted into a novel in 1911 ("Peter and Wendy"). The credits also held the tidbit that the right to Peter Pan were (and still are) held by the Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital (though it seems anyone can use Peter Pan without oversight, as if in Public Domain, royalties must be paid to the hospital by special concession).

The credits also play under a groan inducing choral crooning of the like that was surely outdated even by 1953's standards, and there's a few other sing-songs in the feature that don't quite hold up to the high standards of songs featured in Disney films.

As we saw in Hook, and we'll see again in Peter Pan and Wendy, here the Darling children, John and Michael are playing Peter Pan and pirates in their room. It's this weird part of these stories where Peter Pan is already a legend, and not something new to be discovered, and I don't quite care for it. It doesn't make a lot of sense, and adds nothing to the story.  In the cartoon though, it hints that Wendy has been having visits with Peter on a regular basis, and so it makes sense when her father is telling her it is time to grow up that Peter looks to remove her from that threat.

It seems like the story is meant to focus on Wendy's turmoil over growing up, with "the boy who never grew up" both her guide and her cautionary tale, but once taken to Neverland, the perspective of the tale shifts quite heavily to adventure centering around Peter, such that we lose most of the narrative thrust on what Wendy is going through.  

Tinkerbell is great in the film, Peter's faerie companion who gets immensely jealous of Wendy, as does every other young lady in Neverland, from the mermaids to Tiger Lily, the daughter of the (*cough*) "Indian Chief". (Ok, those are the only other female characters in the film, and they're all gaga for Peter who doesn't seem to have the time of day for girls or kisses. 

There's an aspect of this story where Peter's only relation to women is looking for a mother figure, for which he presents Wendy to the Lost Boys as. It's weird, and confusing and oedipal in so many ways that I'm sure there's many an essay written around it.

The use of indigenous people on Neverland basically intones that they are fantastical beings like elves and orcs, and not real people and culture. Peter and the boys like to appropriate that culture, and the godawful reductive stereotype that they're presented as here is really hard to stomach.

The Captain Hook of the joint is, again, a highlight. Hans Conreid (in a performance very much coopted by Hoffman for Hook) delivers a vocal performance that make Hook far more charming than insidious. He is a likeable guy, but can be totally callous when the time comes. The rivalry with the alligator leads to some intense Looney Tunes-inspired slapstick which is both delightful and somewhat out of step with the rest of the story.  It's a real mixed-bag of a production.   

But that bag only gets more mixed up in Peter Pan and Wendy, David Lowrey's follow-up to the assured and magical The Green Knight. Disney has been on a decade-long kick of turning their classic (and even not-so-classic) animated features into live action versions, with, at best middling results, and this is not a best-case scenario. In many respects, Lowrey seemed to be keen on re-imagining the Peter Pan story into something more Wendy-forward, but then seemed to have to compromise that with being beholden to scenes and sequences from its animated predecessor.

From the film's opening moments it shows this Wendy is much more free-spirited and action oriented as she gets in the mix of John and Michael's bedroom swordplay, taking a sword of her own, until a mirror is smashed (no talk of 7 years bad luck) and father (Alan Tudyk) comes down hard on her. In the animated version, Wendy is the great bedtime storyteller that Peter wants to bring back to the Lost Boys as mother, but in this version, Peter's been listening to Mary Darling (Molly Parker) tell bedtime stories. It's because Wendy is sad that she's getting sent off to a boarding school that she proactively asks Peter to take her with him to Neverland.

This Neverland, like all the Neverlands, is a small, unimpressive island in the middle of a great sea. As a fantasy retreat, I just don't get the appeal. Here, at least, the Lost Boys aren't all boys at all, which I liked tremendously... or would like if they had any distinctive personalities to speak of at all. At least in Hook there were a handful of the lost boys who had prominence and screen presence.  Here, they're basically crowd fill.

Jude Law plays Captain James T. Hook (ok, I added the "T") and... well.... Look, Law is a great actor, but he's a pretty serious one. He can be playful, and charming, but his playful charm is always filled with different levels of menace (see A.I. Artificial Intelligence or Star Wars: The Skeleton Crew), what he's not great at is giving over to anything overtly comedic or silly, and, in my very limited and recent experience with the Peter Pan mythos, that is absolutely what Hook needs.  As such, Law's Hook comes off as too intimidating, too scary.  Peter Pan and the Lost Boys shouldn't be frightened of what are essentially bumbling pirates (clearly the animated Hook and crew was part of the inspiration for Our Flag Means Death...like a total prototype) led by a Captain with a clock phobia.

In any of these adaptations the flying sequences have all been pretty ho-hum though each of them have a moment or two that comes close to grandeur (if never fully obtaining it). Here, the flying is perhaps overextended, basking too much in it, but I did like the visual of flying through Big Ben, the clock separating into component pieces intoning that they've left our reality and are traversing to another. But the effects of Peter Pan and Wendy vary drastically, from very impressive to utter ass. I have no issues at all casting a Black actress (Yara Shahidi) as Tinkerbell, but it's the way in which they shot her, the cut-tos, the center-of-frame framing, the clearly Volume soundstage backdrops...it's all really ugly and the effect is off putting. I appreciate that they kept her dialogue as a tinkling bell, but they took away Tink's swooning and territorial aggression towards Peter which was, I have to say, one of her charms in the animated feature, and in the 1924 silent film as well.  There's not a scene that I can think of in this production where Tinkerbell works well, and it's all a matter in how they decided to employ her visually (again, nothing to do with skin colour and all to do with cheap special effects that look more Disney Channel than Disney Motion Picture).

The biggest change of the Pan story (besides the total elimination of the "Indians" as residents of Neverland - Tiger Lily is instead another Lost Boy ... I think...) is in Hook's story. The reveal here is the Peter and Hook used to be mates, best friends, Lost Boys forever, until James decided he wanted to go seek out his mom, and Peter would not accept him back. James did not find his mom, and he lost his friend, and his youth. No wonder he's so bitter and angry. I actually liked this shift to the story, it really did add something, it's just a shame it's largely an ugly, muddled mess of a production that truly doesn't work.  If there's a signature style to COVID lockdown-era productions, this one hoists it in spades. Everything seems so sparse, and full of hesitation. I really would have liked to have seen Lowery's vision for Pan without meeting the needs of Disney.

Of the versions of Peter Pan I watched, the 1924 Paramount production, available in multiple forms on YouTube, was perhaps my favourite. Maybe it was because it was a silent picture and I could put it on double-speed and not lose anything at all about it, and for me, shorter Pan is better Pan... but also the practicality of it all, the hybrid between early studio cinema and stage production really gave it a feeling that I was watching something closest to its roots.

I'm not a lover of silent films, generally, but I was rather engaged by this, I feel moreso than I have been about any of the other Pan films. Weirdly, because of the title cards in the film, I had to pay more attention to it, rather than distract myself with IMDB deep dives or looking up trivia (or playing a game) on my phone while the film runs its course.

Nana, the Darling family's Saint Bernard which also doubles as the children's nanny, is played by a man in a dog suit. It's not convincingly real in the slightest, but for 1924 it's pretty great (except those eyes).  Nana performs all sorts of actions, like drawing and bath and giving the children their medicine, which are clearly tasks above and beyond what an real-world dog can do. I thought the ever-active Nana in the animated Disney version (the best character in the film) was purely a Disney creation for comedic purposes, but no, it's clear it was in Barrie's source material.  Lowery didn't bother with much Nana business at all in his movie and Hook, being sequel decades in the future meant Nana wasn't around anymore.

Though used sparingly, I think Tinkerbell is incredible in this film. For the few up-close scenes, they created maximized sets to look like she was interacting with giant drawer handles or window latches, and in other scenes the compositing is astonishing (any time I see compositing in a silent film I'm always astounded, first by just the sheer ingenuity in the face of limited technology, and second because it almost always looks fantastic). 

In this telling of the story, Wendy is once again running away from growing up, and Peter is her escape. As in most versions, its clear she likes Peter and, as always, wants to give him plenty of kisses. And just like in most versions Peter is curious about kissing, but where later films try to play it as youthful romance, here Peter seems to be confusing romantic versus maternal.  All throughout he debates with Wendy about whether she's a mother figure to him or something else...and he's always on the side Wendy being his mom (except when he's not).  The oedipal confusion is especially high in this version, as is Wendy's vexed feelings about Neverland. It is an escape from the growing up her father is charging her with, but if she's only going to become a mother to all the Lost Boys then isn't that just another form of growing up too soon?

Peter here is played by a woman, Elisabeth "Betty" Bronson, as was traditional for stage versions of Peter Pan. I really would like a version of Peter Pan that plays with the gender fluidity of Peter, and tells a more queer story of puppy love. It's subtext that should have been there this whole time but seems to have been cleared out of every major version of Peter Pan where a male lead stars.

This version also has "Indian" inhabitants of the island, but I dare say (besides my earlier comment of envisioning indigenous culture as something mythical) they're role is far less ugly than in the animated version, in no small part thanks to it being a silent movie. Their role is much more limited as well, but, unfortunately they're also brutally slaughtered by the pirates when watching over the Lost Boys encampment, so they're definitely not treated well.  In fact there's certainly more death and violence in this version than any of the others I saw (the Lost Boys, including young Michael get real busy stabbing pirates dead).

This silent version moves the story's framing base from London to...somewhere in America, and along the way makes young Michael into a rah-rah-America boy, who at times elicits yelps of pro-America patriotism that, somehow, remains quaint, I guess. At one point, the boys (all the Lost Boys included) start singing "My Country 'tis of Thee" (how do the Lost Boys know that song)a, and in another scene after the boys defeat the pirates, they lower the Jolly Roger and raise the Stars and Stripes (where'd it come from....? Magic?). 

"The Lost Boys are the children who fall out of their perambulators when their nurses aren't looking," Peter says, and to me, there's an aspect to Peter Pan that has me wondering if metaphorically Neverland is meant as some form of afterlife, that the Lost Boys are dead children.  It's a theory that doesn't hold water in the actual execution of these stories, but it is said that Peter Pan was based on Barrie's brother who died at 14 and his mother would say he was the boy who never grew up.

One of the aspects of Peter Pan that isn't always consistent is that the actor who plays Captain Cook *sometimes* also plays Wendy and the boys' father. I'm not really sure whether that's just casting simplification or, if there's supposed to be some thematic connection there, well I'm not seeing it, especially since Wendy barely interacts with Cook at all. This is true of 2003's Peter Pan from Australian director P.J. Hogan for Universal/Columbia where Jason Isaacs plays both roles.

I started watching this version of Peter Pan, and, honestly, think I was enjoying it more than any of the other retellings, since as a live action translation it was really effectively threading the line between live action and cartoon, and it was setting Wendy up in a way I found lacking in most other interpretations. But I only got maybe 20 minutes in before I was pulled away and I can't say I've found the urge to go back to it. My trip into Neverland is over and it's likely to be a while before I'm ready to go back.

[For the record, my favourite all-time Peter Pan adaptation is the legal musical Michael Bluth starred in as a child in Arrested Development.]