Tag: Iron Man

MY OSCAR PICKS FOR 2020

AUDIO PODCAST OPTION OF: MY OSCAR PICKS FOR 2020

PART ONE

PART TWO

Well it’s that time again – tucked right between Groundhog Day and Valentine’s Day – to hand out the Oscars! Some think of it as a time to recognize outstanding achievement in the art of cinema. Louis B. Meyer referred to it as a trade show. George C. Scott called it a meat market and refused to participate. But, however you think of it, the winning of this award confers a great deal of attention and is a heck of a resume enhancer for those on both sides of the camera.

Let’s start by identifying the categories. You can get your own ballot HERE.

Originally called the Academy Award of Merit, it was the brain child of Louis B. Meyer who thought up the idea in 1929, allegedly to forestall unionization, asserting: “I found that the best way to handle [filmmakers] was to hang medals all over them.”

Sculpted by George Stanley, a native of Iota, Louisiana (significant to me, personally, as that is my home state), Stanley followed the design by Cedric Gibbons, the Art Director for such classics as The Wizard of Oz, Gaslight, and Brigadoon.

The far more famous moniker for the Academy Award of Merit is, of course, Oscar – supposedly dubbed by a passing secretary who was alleged to have quipped: “That looks like my Uncle Oscar!”

The most anticipated awards are for best: Picture, Lead Actor and Actress, Supporting Actor and Actress, Director, Screenplay and Song. But there are, all told, 24 standard categories plus the periodic endowment of a Life Time Achievement award and a variety of lesser known technical and merit based awards.

I’m only going to cover the areas on which I feel comfortable expositing – acting, directing, cinematography (with some assistance from my excellent photographer husband), writing, and music.

Below I offer some rules of thumb.

ACTING

Do you get to know the character? I think a good rule of thumb in evaluating acting is to ask yourself after having seen the performance – do you know this character? Has the performer put so much nuance and exposition into his filmatic creation that you could take a good guess as to how they might react in any given situation? Now limitations here are not always the actor’s fault. There just might not be enough pallet in an individual film to paint enough of a spectrum to allow this kind of extrapolation. But some actors can, with just a glance, body language, change of inflection or what they DON’T do or say, get into the skin of their character.

This becomes evident when noting there have been awards handed out for the smallest of screen time characters: such as Beatrice Straight’s 5 minutes and 2 second supporting actress performance in Network, or for Ingrid Bergman’s 5 minute continuous shot in Murder on the Orient Express.

MUSIC AND CINEMATOGRAPHY

Does it serve the film? Though, obviously, two different categories, music and cinematography have the same job – do they both “act” as performers in their own right AND blend in, in such a way that unless you are listening or watching for it, you don’t notice? Examples are the way Stanley Kubrick recreated the first significantly realistic cinematic experience of being in space in 2001: A Space Odyssey – astonishingly accurate for its time, especially given the limited technology with which to innovate. Watching it now the visuals seem natural – of COURSE this is what it would be like – the weightlessness of the floating pen, following Dave Bowman as he runs in the circular habitat. But if you step back and realize Kubrick did it without actually going into space with 60 year old technology you realize what a stand out performance the cinematography really is. Or how the music in Casablanca fits, enhances and captures the mood and time of the era and place of Vichy France during World War II, as well as reflects the personalities of the outstanding cast. The music buoys up the performances of Bergman and Bogey seamlessly, yet later you realize how enchantingly memorable the themes are.

WRITING

Was it done with a conscience? Is the story created within a coherent Universe which, depending upon the rules IN that Universe are: reasonably without holes, with believable characters, structured by a convincing plot and with a worthy theme that made the time you spent watching a good investment?

DIRECTING and BEST PICTURE

Is it timeless? Does the movie come back to you again and again, revealing layers you never saw the first or second or tenth time you saw it? Like: It’s a Wonderful Life, Groundhog Day, or Branagh’s Hamlet.

So armed with these admittedly somewhat shallow explanations for what is, fundamentally, an intellectually driven visceral response to the films at hand, I give you:

MY PICKS FOR THE OSCARS 2020

Of the ones I pick, I’ll do them in the order the Academy more or less USUALLY presents them. In full disclosure, I have only seen ALMOST all of the movies in play. I promise not to declare a vote for anyone/thing I haven’t seen. I also plan to see all the ones in the categories for which I’m voting – and if that causes a later change in vote I’ll do an update.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood – Hands down the most incredible performance of 2019 (See my review HERE) Hanks WAS Mr. Rogers. Every subtle vocal and physical mannerism, the kindness, the deeply spiritual charisma of Evangelical belief that was Fred Rogers, is all on gentle display with Hanks. In this movie I got to know Rogers as though he HAD been my neighbor.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

There are some terrific performances up for nomination this year. But my nod would have to go to Scarlett Johansson as Rose in Jojo Rabbit. Her presentation of a single mother leading a double life in the heart of Nazi Germany gives us a view of this woman in every possible light. She is shouldering the impossible task of protecting her son and trying to maintain the facade of a normal life while her country is under the thumb of psychopaths and soulless serial killers, all while harboring a heroic secret which could get them all brutally killed. We see the struggle in her eyes while admiring the courageously thrown up jaunty attitude with which she faces the world. Johansson reveals the beautiful soul of this woman all while operating within the confines of a supporting role.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Klaus (See my review HERE) Clever story, engaging and personable characters, delightful animation, unique take on an old traditional tale, excellent vocal performances, and a richly worthwhile theme make this my absolute favorite for this category.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Jojo Rabbit is one of the oddest films I have ever seen. Without diverting into “Springtime For Hitler” territory, it shows Nazi Germany near the end of the war through the eyes of a pre-adolescent boy forced into the Hitler Youth. We see through his naive eyes as he concocts an initially Tigger-like jovial bouncy Hitler (performed with bizarrely adorable exuberance by the writer/director Taika Waititi, whose unusual sense of humor reinvigorated the Thor franchise with much needed humor). We understand the child-innocent well meaning enthusiasm toward the Hitler Youth in general and Nazi Germany in general, the way children today might go to summer camp. He simply did not understand what was really going on. There is an unexpected lightness to Waititi’s script, based on Christine Leunen’s book Caging Skies, which darkens with the characters the more Jojo matures and comprehends. Jojo Rabbit is a profoundly moving piece of work which is both hard to watch and endearing to embrace as it demonstrates how the smallest of lights can illuminate so much even in the darkest of places. Waititi creates a world wherein decent credible people are trapped in the insanity of the Nazi death culture, who fight it with the strength of their courage and the beauty of genuine other-centered love.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

I struggled a bit with this one because all of the entries are outstanding. Knives Out (SEE REVIEW HERE) is a funny and clever anti-mystery. 1917 captures the World War I era with a terrifying beauty. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a refreshingly unique take on such a horrific moment in history. OK Parasite is terrible. Had no trouble bumping that one.

But Marriage Story is the stand out winner – a brilliant, insightful, gut wrenching take of a marriage as it is torn apart piece by piece from the inside out in a way only Hannibal Lector could approve. Two perfectly nice, compatible people decide they have different goals and instead of DECIDING, against any other consideration, to work it out for the sake of their vows, their child, and their own sanity – they consult …. divorce attorneys. This is, of course, a bit like trying to wash a bloody wound in a river full of piranhas and expecting to get something back other than a stump. Written by Noah Baumbach, the gifted director/writer with unfortunate first hand experience of the subject, it is the most tragic love story I have ever seen. It is also one of the single most convincing expositions against seeking a divorce for anything other than abuse or something life threatening.

And yet the tale as written is also warm, funny and paints even the attorneys in ways which allow the audience to empathize with every character to a certain degree. Marriage Story is gifted writing with a conscience, at its best.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

1917. Honestly all the other contenders, as good as they are, should graciously bow out. There is no competing with this astonishing visual accomplishment, whereby we seamlessly follow soldiers for two edge-of-your-seat hours, during a desperately perilous mission, in what appears to be one uncut shot, through the Hellscape that was the front line in France during World War I.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Joker. (SEE REVIEW HERE). While I truly enjoyed all of the music from all of the movies (even from Little Women, which story I thought awful {SEE REVIEW HERE}), all but one painted “simple” enhancing atmosphere. All but one film had soundtracks which were: original, inventive, witty, romantic, tense, frightening and/or just lovely musical tapestries. But only one – only Joker – created an entirely different character just with sound. The Icelandic composer, Hildur Guðnadóttir wove, from the ephemeral air, music that did not just set a mood but companioned Arthur Fleck, giving tangible auditory representation to his descent into utter madness. While Phoenix’ performance was riveting, the presence of his accompanying soundtrack achieved a visceral connection with the audience which he could not have created from mere visuals, no matter how brilliantly wrought.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

I am not a big fan of the Frozen movies but I really think Kristen-Andersen Lopez and Robert Lopez’ “Into the Unknown” deserves special commendation. The haunting melody is far more complex than you might expect, especially for an animated feature. “Into the Unknown” is a gigue in 12/8 time (a very fast waltz time likely undanceable) in C#. While, unless you have absolute pitch or a music degree, the relevance of that won’t be obvious, suffice it to say it is a complex key signature using a TON of sharps. Choices like these are made by composers for almost subliminal reasons – to give a specific flavor and feel to music using a particular keyboard range, for example. There is also a psychological aspect to using all those sharps. As a “sharp” is a half step UP from a “normal” note, it LOOKS, on sheet music like it rises, so lends itself to a feel of spritely upbeatness. Since anything written in the key of C# would be bathed in a “sea” of sharps (“see” what I did there – sorry couldn’t help myself), this visual helps facilitate the intense  forward moving personality of the song.

This fascinating piece is sung with an irresistible rhythm and mystery which not only gives an arc to Elsa’s character, admitting her previous failures, but is written in a way that, performed independently of the movie, could be interpreted in a variety of ways. It could be someone holding back from an enticement to temptation or conversely, being compelled to accept a challenge. It could be someone trying to talk themselves either into or out of something and that is part of the song’s charm and fun. It has the malleability to be many things to many people and is enticing for that. In addition Idina Menzel’s performance is incredible. Ranging from hesitant ghostly whisper to wall rattling boldness, her portrayal is almost operatic in its execution. Not to mention it’s darned catchy.

BEST DIRECTOR

Has to be Sam Mendes for the sheer determination and vision he brought to bear in pulling 1917 into life. Aside from the experimental Russian Ark (which really WAS shot in ONE – one hour and 39 minute take – SEE REVIEW HERE) and Hitchcock’s faux “one shot” Rope, no other film has quite captured the intensity of the one take film as Mendes has, OR accomplished it with such appropriate purpose. Russian Ark was almost a stunt. Hitchcock used the technique as just another arrow in his quiver of quirky ways to create suspense. But Mendes’ worthy intent was to provide the viewer with a sense of camaraderie with these soldiers – not just to sympathize with them but to EMPATHIZE – To honor the memory of these brave servicemen by recreating the experience, walking with these men, almost as though in accompanying boots. 1917 bears the intensity and immersion of the 27 minute long landing scene in Saving Private Ryan, then carries it for another NINETY-TWO additional minutes, maintaining the appearance of a single shot, all while sustaining an entertainment value that will keep you glued to the screen for two incredible hours.

BEST LEADING ACTOR

This is a toughie. All the men in this category did a superb job. Banderas was as detailed and delicately understated in Pain and Glory as Joaquin Phoenix was wildly exubertant in Joker. Di Caprio was surprisingly delightful and funny as the washed up actor in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Adam Driver, especially to anyone mostly familiar with him as Star Wars’ Kylo Ren baddie, was heartbreakingly empathetical as the shut out husband and father in Marriage Story.

But my vote has to be with the incomparable Jonathan Pryce. Pryce let us in to the mind, heart and soul of Pope Francis, revealing in just a gesture or a double take, a hesitation in his voice or a quick Mona Lisa grin, the deep history of a man who had seen too much with a full heart and an aching to bring the love of Christ to a broken world. Watching Pryce we begin to understand the flawed, sometimes troubled, Cardinal Bergoglio who, by his own admission in this story, made grave, albeit well meaning, mistakes during his time as bishop in Argentina. We, the audience, can actually feel his humility and regret, as well as the hint of over confidence in his own opinions. We also get a glimpse into what compels the Pope who now occupies the Seat of Peter in a personal way rarely seen by outsiders, thanks to Mr. Pryce’s beautiful and respectful yet honest portrayal.

AS A SIDE NOTE – A WRITE-IN

BUT – according to my own parameters I would like to submit a write-in for at least a nomination. Given my rule of getting to know a character through the performance of an actor, I can think of no other cinematic creation we, as the viewing public have gotten to know better than this, my write-in. There has never been, and may never be again in cinematic history, a character quite this well fleshed out by a single actor over the length of time and movies involved here.

We watched the profound arc of an extreme narcissist who, through multiple traumas, sheer determination, strength of character, and support from friends and family, becomes the hero he incorrectly believes himself to initially be. Over the course of many trials and agonizing losses he finds: altruism, responsibility, an ability to genuinely love, and ultimately a willingness to sacrifice everything he has – wealth, brilliance, family, happiness, comfort, security, and ultimately his own life – to secure all those things for, not only his loved ones, but for humanity and generations he will never meet.

This character develops from puerile man-child to a worthy leader of heroes and yet never loses that certain spark of flawed playful arrogance which makes him easily relatable. It’s an incredible balancing act which this actor maintained throughout 11 years over the course of appearances in 10 out of 22 movies.

I am, of course, referring to Robert Downey, Jr.’s Iron Man aka Tony Stark, in the Infinity Saga, which both began and ended with Tony’s declaration: “I am Iron Man.”

Downey’s Stark’s legacy continues through flashbacks and archival footage in both Spiderman: Far From Home and the upcoming Black Widow. We knew this character inside out under every circumstance possible. For better or worse, like him or not, he became a very well known, unmistakable personality.

While the culmination of Stark’s arc was in 2019’s Avengers: Endgame, admittedly the entire journey did not all take place during the course of this one movie. BUT if fictional characters could get life time achievement awards, this would be the one to give it to. Furthermore, Mr. Downey shouldered the majority of this somewhat Herculean task. Not only did he maintain a constant personality for Tony but allowed it to grow and struggle and expand, yet never lost the essential core that made Stark a magnetic fan favorite.

Others have tried this stunt and failed: Schwartzenegger’s Terminator, Depp’s Captain Sparrow. But those died of stagnation, audience fatigue, and lost of enthusiasm. In contrast, Downey managed to make Tony Stark thrive and mature and flourish with each appearance. It was an astonishing feat of creativity and it is a shame that it was not and likely never will be officially acknowledge by his peers. But the fans will remember and I suspect that is more than enough —- that and the gazillion dollars Downy earned playing Stark. As my Dad used to say: “I’m sure he’s crying all the way to the bank.” LOL

BEST LEADING ACTRESS

I admired all the performances I saw in this category. But the most outstanding one was Renee Zellweger’s Judy. Her complete transformation into Judy Garland, in the iconic star’s last, waning, rather pathetic months, both showed the open raw wound she had become, as well as retained a glimmer of the child star with whom we all fell in love while watching Wizard of Oz. In addition, Zellweger’s renditions of the famous songs by Ms. Garland were incredible. She reminded me both of Gary Oldman’s astonishing turn as Churchill in Darkest Hour {SEE REVIEW HERE}and Malek’s heartbreaking Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody {SEE REVIEW HERE}. This masterful accomplishment was all the more amazing given the poor quality of the film, Judy, in general {SEE MY REVIEW HERE}. But Zellweger’s performance was the stand out gem in the otherwise tattered coat that was Judy.

BEST PICTURE

Marriage Story – for all the reasons I chose it for Best Original Screenplay. This is a movie which will stick with you, help inform your decisions if you let it, and be worth sharing with those who desperately need it. It will charm you, break your heart and make you a wiser person for having seen it – IF you take the lessons it has to offer to heart.

SO THAT’S IT FOR NOW!!!!

Good luck to one and all! And may the best actor, actress, director, movie, screenplay, cinematographer, song, and music —- WIN!

EPIPHANY – WHAT REALLY BUGS ME ABOUT CAPTAIN MARVEL

I finally figured out what bugs me about Captain Marvel. Not the movie, the character. The movie, as I pointed out in my post on Captain Marvel, is flawed but good and not really deserving of most of the negative hype it got. My problem is with the CHARACTER of Captain Marvel as it manifests itself, not just in the origin story, but in other movies as well – like Endgame.

It’s not the alleged anti-male bias in her origin story, which I mostly disabused in my post about Captain Marvel, that bothers me. It’s not Captain Marvel’s snarky attitude – I love  Rocket’s acerbic comments in Guardians of the Galaxy, the sarcasm of Tony Stark, the quips from Nick Fury and even the defensive banter from Marvel’s version of M.J.

It’s not the fact she is a woman in a lead action adventure role – even though her origin movie (while rather fun) is no where near as good as Wonder Woman was or Black Widow’s will be (OK I’m just a teensy bit biased but B.W. is SUCH a great character).

I don’t even mind arrogance if it is earned, as it is with Iron Man or Loki, especially when they occasionally allow themselves to be the butt of humor.

And yes, I DO mind that the character of Captain Marvel HAS no sense of humor. That takes a bit of edge off of every scene she is in. BUT that is NOT what really BUGS ME!

It suddenly occurred to me when lines of dialogue popped into my head from Avengers: Endgame which nailed her entire persona and shone a light on the major flaw with this character, which crops up in everything she does, everything she says and all of the relationships, or lack of them, she has with the other characters in this Marvel Universe. Danvers is talking to the group of grieving super hero survivors, and Rhodey, rightly, asks where she has been all this time (the last 5 years) and she replies: “There are a lot of other planets in the Universe. And unfortunately, they didn’t have you guys.”

OK, I can accept that and she’s right. It’s almost complimentary to the Avengers. But it’s what she DIDN’T say that rankles. Danvers is from Earth. She was born in America and used to be American military. So she understands loyalty. But her comment, or lack of it, reflects a (literal and disturbing) “universitality” to her mindset; a comment that speaks volumes in what is unspoken about where her allegiances lie. Sure, she was brainwashed, but she remembered her best friend Maria and Maria’s little girl, so her memories were and are resurfacing.

What she should have said, and did NOT say was: “I’m sorry. I wish I could have been here helping AT HOME, but you must understand that …..” Along with a grounding of Danvers’ place in the galaxy it would have afforded her a more three-dimensional personality, a vulnerability which every other character displays at one time or another – from Drax to Thor. But not ice queen Captain Marvel and without it she is a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out.

What she does reflect is a distance and sort of condescending entitlement attitude, wherein she will not deign to show up on Earth unless she determines we are worth the effort. There is no attachment, no sense of gratitude to the place of her birth, no expression of affiliation to the rest of her species even.

Instead, Earth to her is not the exceptional place of her birth, nor America the exception country of her upbringing, but just another rock in the cosmos with beings that need her help.

Well thanks loads and we’ll grovel later, but I’m sorry – maybe she should consider that without the nurturing she received on Earth, in America, there would not have BEEN a Carol Danvers. She is, after all, SUPPOSED to be human.

Superman, (D.C. but we’re talking creative writing and what works, not affiliation with a particular franchise), has endured (despite some admitted egregious mistakes) and is easy to like, in part because he has shown tremendous gratitude and affection to the species into which he was adopted. He’s not even FROM here and he protects Earth as owning a special place in his heart.

Dr. Who (again irrelevant to franchise or universe but only to the creation of character) has declared dozens of times that Earth is under his special protection – not just because he finds traits in humans that are noteworthy – our capability for great good, our resilience – but because we sheltered him in a time of need during the third doctor’s series.

In Star Trek (TOS) an empath described humans: “Your will to survive, your love of life, your passion to know … Everything that is truest and best in all species of beings has been revealed to you. Those are the qualities that make a civilization worthy to survive.” Lai the Vian, “The Empath”.

But there was NONE of that respect and affection for the human race reflected anywhere in the Captain Marvel movie or in her character in other movies, as it written by four women – Anna Boden, Geneva Robertson-Dworet, Nicole Perlman and Meg LeFauve –  and one man – Ryan Fleck. (Reminds me of the aphorism self-describing the flaws in an unchecked raw “democracy”: that it is four wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Poor Ryan.)

I have a tough time imagining Marvel throwing herself between danger and a small child – rather she’d weigh the importance of the child against what she perceives as her own value and – well, good bye kid.

Apparently it was far more important to these writers to bow to a politically correct: “I am woman, hear me mewl”, than create a fully compelling story and hero. It is her lack of gratitude, absence of humility and vacuum of appreciation for her home planet that makes Captain Marvel the least of the Marvel heroes (or even anti-heroes) despite her amazing “powers”. As a result I find Groot, a talking tree with a rather limited English vocabulary, far more admirable and far more relatable, not to mention lovable, than li’l Miss C. Marvel.

LION KING 2019 TAKES ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE ON THE THRONE

AUDIO PODCAST OPTION OF LION KING 2019 TAKES ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE ON THE THRONE

SHORT TAKE:

Put this in the column of WELL done, and astonishingly realistic, live action remakes of a classic Disney animated movie.

WHO SHOULD GO:

Anyone – though, for a kid movie, the subjects of fratricide, murderous hyenas, and fights to the death might (and did in the showing I went to) upset the younger kids. That’s going to have to be a parental call on a kid by kid basis. There were certainly scenes in this one which were even harder to watch than in the animated movie because of the VERY life-like CGI.

LONG TAKE:

SPOILERS BUT ONLY FOR THOSE 3 OR 4 PEOPLE IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM OVER 10 WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE ORIGINAL ANIMATED VERSION

Chalk another one up for The Mouse. Before I launch into my review, I’ll say it right now, the CGI IS ASTONISHING. It’s actually just a teensy bit frightening how authentically film makers can now manufacture real life. The animals seem very very life-like.

Aside from allowing the animals to speak, the director, Jon Favreau has had the animators keep the facial and body movement as close as possible to the authentic musculature of real animals, including, of course, their limitations. Real animals don’t smile. Real animals can’t manipulate things which require an opposable digit — unless they have an opposable digit. Real animals don’t dance or pull hula skirts out of thin air. Favreau’s team respects these natural and inherent limitations, bringing an added reality to the characters which was different from the animated version. Audiences generally allow an extra layer of suspension of disbelief not usually afforded a live action and Favreau’s team obviously kept that in mind – creatively working within those limits, making the almost athletically energetic vocals of the human actors all that more important to achieve. And achieve those goals they do.

Despite the early reviews which did not have a lot of love for the (then) upcoming 2019 Lion King, this one deserved all the (literal) applause it got during the credits. I’ll admit to some trepidation, as while Aladdin was well done, Dumbo was an overblown flop. And as Lion King is one of their most enduring and intelligently created stories, I had some reservations. But from the opening scenes I was enchanted.

The entire original animated story is there, as this live action tracks about 90% of the original animated version scene for scene and image for image, notable from the opening sequence as the animals gather to welcome the newly born Prince Simba. The only notable differences throughout the 2019 version were that some of the quips were missing and some of the more ridiculous slapstick was excised. For example, and in keeping with the aforementioned recognition of the natural limitations of real animals: Zazu was not left under a pile of rhinoceroses as cubs Simba and Nala escape his watchful eye, and Timon did not don a hula skirt as a distraction for the hyenas just before the climactic battle. (Do I know the original well? With 6 kids, I have probably seen this movie over a dozen times, so yes.)

Only one scene, in my analysis, suffered slightly from lack of (if you’ll excuse the pun) impact in a diversion from the original. When Rafiki counsels Simba to return to his pride, in the original animated version Rafiki whacks Simba on the head with his club to make the point that: Yes, some history is painful, but once endured, it is then in the past and must be overcome in order to move forward. I can think of some stupid PC reasons why they did not include this part of Rafiki’s argument, but maybe they had a legit plot consideration. In any event this scene is not used in Rafiki’s counsel to Simba in the 2019 version.

Along with why this scene and some of the more memorable quotes were not included, another thing the film makers do not explain is their casting choices. Of the main cast: James Earl Jones who majestically voiced Mufasa, Matthew Broderick who played Simba, Madge Sinclair who voiced Sarabi, Robert Guillame who charmingly gave life to Rafiki, Jeremy Irons who chillingly voiced Scar, Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, who stole every scene they were in as the comic duo of Timon and Pumbaa, Cheech Marin and Whoopi Goldberg who lent their comic talents to the hyenas, and Rowen Atkinson whose brilliant dry wit was conveyed into Zazu, Jones was the only actor asked back.

There was some ink spilled in the media effusing about how Jones links the movie back to the traditional version and I, personally, was delighted to have him revisit the voice of Mufasa. He has all the timbre of the majestic leader plus his age adds a wonderful, almost foreboding to his character. But I could find very little info on why they did not call the entire cast back. Aside from the tragic death of Guillame, taken by cancer in 2017, and Madge Sinclair who passed away from leukemia not long after The Lion King came out, all of the performers are not only still alive but still active and have ongoing projects. And, aside from the child actor voices from whom replacement by JD McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph is understandable, as they now will obviously sound too old for those roles, when acting the adult characters, the ages are irrelevant since they are all doing vocal performances.

The only info I could get on the casting issue was in an interview with Jeremy Irons. When asked why he did not reprise his role as Scar in the new version all he could say was: They didn’t ask me. He then, graciously and diplomatically went on to praise the choice of Chiwetel Ejiofor .

There is NOTHING wrong with the performances in the movie, and had they been the first ones I heard doing these roles I could have been quite content. BUT having heard Broderick, Atkinson, Irons, etc in their respective roles, it was a constant distraction to actively miss the original cast, especially when Jones’ terrific performance was a continuous reminder that the others were not there.

But don’t let my complaints dissuade you from the movie. Despite the differences, I thought this a very well done version. I am merely expressing an, admitted, bias for the details about the one our kids grew up with. I understand some of the changes omitting the more obvious cartoonish slapstick but while I do not understand some of the other choices, can accept them as not being in this version’s vision.

Chiwetel Ejiofor (2012, Dr. Strange and Children of Men) takes on Scar. Donald Glover (The Martian, Solo and Spider-Man : Homecoming) takes over for Simba. John Oliver voices Zazu. Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact, Captain America: Civil War) speaks for Sarabi. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner carry Pumbaa and Timon on their respective vocal backs, for which director Favreau wisely arranged for extended improv sessions, much like what was allowed for Lane and Sabella by directors Rogers Allers, and Rob Minkoff for the original, some of which lines were added to the final script.

The Lion King, is heavily influenced by the story of Hamlet. For those not familiar with that theatrical acme, Hamlet is a young prince who must overcome his own insecurities, immaturity and indecisiveness when faced with the prospect of leading his people, after his uncle secretly kills his father, making it appear to be an accident, and marries his mother. (Plug here: BEST Hamlet ever – and ONLY one, to date filmed in its entirety – best of my knowledge – is Branagh’s which you can buy or rent from Amazon – HERE.)

A couple of decisions brings the newer version closer to the 500 year old play. As an example, the original Lion King defined Uncle Scar as grasping only for the crown. This 2019 interpretation hits a bit closer to the Shakespearean home, referring to a past wherein  Scar fought to take Sarabi as his queen and lost to Mufasa. But, unlike Hamlet’s mother, Sarabi has a bit more sense and turns Scar down. This interaction adds more texture to the plot and depth to the character of Scar.

Jon Favreau takes on the daunting task of bringing to life a new version of a beloved classic. Favreau is a very gifted and talented film maker. Favreau is responsible as a director for Iron Man 1 and 2, Jungle Book live action 1 and (the future) 2, an Orville episode, Cowboys and Aliens, Chef, and Zathura: A Space Adventure. He was producer for, among others, Avengers: Endgame and Infinity War. And his long list of acting credits include: creating the adorable sidekick to Iron Man, Happy Hogan, whose character arc has matured with the Avengers movies, as well as playing the titular character in the movie he both wrote and directed in Chef.

As a short digression, and in a lovely taste of poetic symmetry, Favreau, as Happy Hogan, plays his own kind of Rafiki to Tom Holland’s Peter Parker in Spider-Man: Far From Home, counseling the young “Prince” to assume the mantle left for him by his de facto father, Stark, just the way Rafiki counsels Simba in Lion King.

Hans Zimmer returns to refresh the soundtrack he composed for the original Lion King. There are also a couple of additional songs, one of which is performed by Beyonce (who voices Nala) called “Spirit”. While the Shakesperean influence in Lion King, as I have already explained,  is obvious, this 2019 versions also draws from the Biblical story of Moses, who went into exile, crossing the desert to spend years away, only to be called back to bring his people out of bondage. Similarly, Simba crosses the desert that separates his kingdom from the idyllic forest into which he is adopted, until, like Moses, upon his coming to maturity, is called to overcome his own fears and doubts and return – again back across the very Biblically symbolic desert – to free his people from the slavery of Scar and his hyenas. Emphasizing this connection is lyrics from Beyonce’s “Spirit” which includes the line: “So go into that far off land, and be one with the Great I Am, I Am….” The reference to God, the Great I Am, is unmistakably reverent to the Book of Genesis. This was an added depth to the story I hadn’t anticipated but admire about this new version very much.

So go see the new Lion King. But to be fair to this lovely outing, see it with the fresh eyes that Jon Favreau and company have given it.

 

SPOILER-FREE – ENDGAME REVIEW

SHORT TAKE:

Follow up to 2018’s Avengers: Infinity War.

WHO SHOULD GO:

Early teens and up due to some language, brutal fight scenes and somber plot topics.

LONG TAKE:

First off let me repeat – the following review will be spoiler free – unlike the BAZILLION Youtubes, reviews, “explanations,” trailers and headlines I quickly flicked away from, which started appearing about 5 minutes after midnight of its opening. I’m NOT even using pics from Endgame but relying on images from the plethora of previous movies.

If you would NOT like spoilers let me advise you do the same – don’t watch trailers or even scan the titles to Youtubes if you would prefer to be plot-wrecking-free when you go see Endgame.

Endgame, scripted by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, and directed by the brothers Anthony and Joe Russo, is a terrific and worthy bookend to the 22 Marvel films now referred to as the Infinity Saga, starting with Iron Man in 2008. While you certainly could wait until it comes out on DVD, as is a surprise to no one, the cinematic spectacular is best viewed on the big screen.

The visuals are eye shockingly spectacular. I grew up when Forbidden Planet was considered an accomplishment in 1956 and around when Star Wars knocked the socks off astonished cinema goers in 1977. So, to me, the almost infinite (excuse the pun) variety of cinematic visual tricks are amazing, gorgeous, frightening, almost overwhelming and worth the price of admission for even the three or four film attendees in the solar system I have met who are not particularly interested in the Marvel super hero plotlines.

Endgame is also a DARK movie. Not just visually in places, but, as you can imagine with a follow up to the ending of Infinity War, there are: brutal fights, grim topics and emotionally wrenching scenes which may upset smaller children (and did in the screening I was in). This is no light semi-parody Ragnarok with its tongue planted firmly in cheek. While the comeradic banter amongst the players is there, Endgame is obviously a sequel to the gut-wrenching, sucker-punch storyline from the previous movie, and so one must be aware of the somber and anxious overall tone.

In addition, and much to my disapproval, there was more off color language in Endgame than in the majority of the previous Marvel movies. Though no where near the Dead Pool level, I thought it unnecessary for a film with a demographic which should reach most age groups.

And even though there’s ZERO hanky panky, all in all, please take the PG-13 rating seriously.

The characters in the movie continue to wear the skins of their alter egos with the same enthusiasm, affection, and insight as when we first met them.

The soundtrack by Alan Silvestri carries more variety than most Marvel movies and is a pleasure.

SO – that’s about all I can or am willing to say right now. When the time has come that the vast majority of people who want to see it HAVE seen it, I plan on a more in depth review addressing specifics. But until then – GO SEE AVENGERS: ENDGAME – THE UNIQUE CULMINATION OF 11 YEARS IN THE MAKING OF OVER 40 SOLID HOURS OF 21 PREVIOUS MOVIES!!! BRAVO TO ALL OF THE CREATIVE TALENT WHO MADE THIS POSSIBLE AND A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO THE LATE STAN LEE.  GOD BLESS.