Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Review #2323: Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Cast: 

Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik / Professor Gerald Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Keanu Reeves (Shadow), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Krysten Ritter (Director Rockwell), Adam Pally (Wade), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Shemar Moore (Randall), with Alyla Browne (Maria), and Tom Butler (Commander Walters) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog and #1830 - Sonic the Hedgehog 2)

Review: 

Believe it or not, there aren't that many video game movies that reach "3" that anyone is actually anticipating. Sure, the first film (as released in 2020) was a pretty decent starter in gently getting folks to be invested in a silly blue blur (as originally developed by Sonic Team in 1991) that goes fast but has to learn about friends, stuff, and, well, a villain (Carrey) being the big highlight when it comes to useful bombast. The sequel (released in 2022) expanded on the lore with two more cuddly dudley creatures for an experience that was reasonably satisfying when it wasn't too grounded in the human element (we are not going to talk about the wedding sequence). It has been a while (there apparently was a "TV series" with one of its characters, but I'll be damned if I spend any time on a streaming show), but here we are with a third movie. This one shares the same writers as before in Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington. Evidently, a fourth film is already in development for about three years from now. 

It isn't hard to say that the best parts of the film is when it settles down with familiar characters and lets a moment of spectacle breathe. No, I don't mean a music montage or a litany of references, I mean getting to the point and having fun. It helps to have a committed cast to deliver on building worthwhile stakes and, well, making you happy to see beyond the Earth. The games were designed to play fast and loose with its environment (whether in the dimension of "2D" or otherwise) and an egg-shaped man that loves wreaking havoc in the name of science or something like that. For a movie that runs 110 minutes, it does manage to carry water in solid entertainment that delivers on its expectations in terms of execution in story beats (primarily with Carrey and Reeves). It leaves the viewer (Sonic fanatic or not) with satisfaction and curiosity to see what lurks further in the undiscovered country of further adventures. Admittedly, I was most curious about how Carrey would approach this film because, well, he was "serious about retiring" and would only consider a really good script to come back. Far more than just a money grab or a makeup trap, he manages to do well in generating amusement in the double act (Brendan Murphy played the double for scenes requiring, well, two Carreys) of eccentric geniuses that show distinct layers in terms of being shaped in the disappointment in humanity, whether that means megalomania or something worse. In other words, it isn't just Carrey playing it silly with a big suit with phoning in, he is clearly having enough fun in bombast to sell it all the way down. You might be familiar with the character of Shadow (yet another hedgehog), as first featured in the game Sonic Adventure 2 in 2001 (as created by Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa with design by Kazuyuki Hoshino for what was meant to be just one game but ended up inspiring its own spinoff game). It helps to have committed voicework from Reeves in making a capable antihero that presents useful pathos and a capable threat to match against Schwartz in beings shaped by the people ripped from them that lives in memory (whether that means throwing a wrench in the usual playful energy or coarse gun-toting coolness). Sure, there are a few worthy quips from the friendly trio (Schwartz-O'Shaughnessey-Elba), but it does find enough time to make the flashback sequences have meaningful structure that doesn't bog itself down in too much self-importance or self-awareness (okay, one duo joke to go with a "garden" is worth it), complete with semblance of having Marsden and Sumpter (fine presences but hey, we are now in the presence of further quick creatures). The action is relatively charming for those who like their sequences with relatively bright lighting and actual time spent in space before having one little rug pull to set for the future (film wise anyway, don't try and sell me on streaming, gaming is my other pastime). In general, it is a neat sequel, establishing further beats to the mythology of speed creatures that happen to reside on Earth for fun that brings charming excitement and danger for the best installment (so far) of the film series.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, it is nice to celebrate fourteen years on the familiar grounds of the Internet for movies. A historic October to go with worthwhile theme-months in New Directors (January)/another "A" in August/the November starters/finishers will surely mean bigger and better heights for Season XV in the year ahead. Now let's close out Season 14 with a few more bangers...

Wonder Woman 1984.

Review #2191: Wonder Woman 1984.

Cast: 

Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Chris Pine (Steve Trevor), Kristen Wiig (Barbara Minerva / Cheetah), Pedro Pascal (Maxwell "Max Lord" Lorenzano), Robin Wright (Antiope), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), Amr Waked (Emir Said Bin Abydos), Natasha Rothwell (Carol), Ravi Patel (Babajide), and Oliver Cotton (Simon Stagg) Directed by Patty Jenkins (#942 - Wonder Woman)

Review: 

Admittedly, there were quite a few films that fell by the wayside in 2020. This was released on Christmas Day in a mix of theaters and streaming because, well, certain studios really suck at releasing movies (as done by Warner Bros, The Suicide Squad had the same thing happen to it the following year). But I guess I was just not up for this particular film or maybe I am just very picky, because how many of you would even guess that there have been eight movies based on DC characters in this decade? This is the sequel to Wonder Woman (2017), which as one asserts, was a character originally created by writer William Moulton Marston and illustrator H. G. Peter. Patty Jenkins returned to direct this sequel along with writing the story with Geoff Johns to go with their screenplay that was written alongside Dave Callaham (each were different from the last film, which had Zack Snyder, Allan Heinberg, and Jason Fuchs). Any chance for a third film were dead and buried in 2023 with the impending idea to explode the DC film glob (as one might call it) into a new and different form. Or something.  You know, the first film was pretty decent from the one time I saw it...nearly eight years ago. It was a period piece movie, but it generally made for a useful movie when it came to actually showing what could be done with a character like Wonder Woman for a solo movie beyond just being in team-up movies.

Confusingly, Wonder Woman 1984, makes me see a collision of mush. One only has a litany of questions to ask: 

• Why the hell is this movie 151 minutes? 
• What was the need for a character who already wished to have the power (and sex appeal) of Diana Prince to then want to become an apex predator? 
• How does one wish to "become the stone" and not have it immediately end with them being a rock? What exactly are the consequences for a guy who uses a satellite system to try and suck people's lifeforce from wishes only to see it undone? 
• Was their really a need to bring back Steve Trevor but have it be so everybody other than Diana just sees him as some random guy? 
• How exactly does Diana work at the Smithsonian Museum - does she just fake wear a wig every few years so people don't get suspicious about how she never ages? (as opposed to the show, which amusingly has her wear glasses when working in the office)
• Would the entire world be so nice as to receive a wish only to renounce it because someone told them about how it might be bad? 
• Okay, sure, one only manage to turn a coffee cup and a jet invisible (in like, the span of years), but one conversation with Steve can have her learn to fly with that lasso too?

The answers to these questions are: oh hell, some movies really don't know when to start and end (well, and that doing a Quantum Leap swap without (beloved) Dean Stockwell and Scott Bakula seems like a bad idea). My brain felt dumber watching this movie, which seems like it wants to be entertainment on the level of an 80s movie with an adversary influenced by real-life conmen like Bernie Madoff to go with movie kinds of conmen in '78 Lex Luthor. Somehow, it just doesn't gel well. Jenkins apparently wanted to make a film set in 1984 because of its mark as "the height of Western civilization and society", but I really don't think the film did anything with its setting or goal beyond unintentionally honoring 1980s comics sequels Superman III and Superman IV. Hell, for a movie about people who go around wishing for things that could be harmful (wishing a lady wanting the Irish to get deported to have a heart attack to, well, any other probable wish made around a certain geographic area in 1984), it sure seems tame on not actually showing anyone suffer the possibility of consequences. Pascal's character basically absconds away with his son having totally learned the futility of focusing his time on wishes broadcasting on TV instead of his son (totally - wait, if you renounce your wish to be the stone, where did it go?). 

The strange thing about the movie is that it feels so empty in characters: imagine a superhero movie where you can count the ones to focus all attention on (people who deliver exposition or serve only for a flashback [Wright and Nielsen] don't count) on one hand. Bringing Pine around to basically cheapen what was already kind of an odd decision to kill him off in the first film (your milage may vary) ends up just seeming hollow in the long run, because it pretty much just results in the same kind of ending as before in making that fateful choice that isn't as striking. The problem is that without him, Gadot seems to lack that edge in making a true interesting hero beyond "fish out of water", particularly when it comes to (no, really) that little lecture across satellite at the end. It isn't so much bad acting as it is just one that seems off-key. Besides, it is Wiig (first choice Emma Stone declined) who ends up with less to work with, unless you count the attempt at showing a diminishing sense of humanity in the nerd-turned-meathead as anything other than just passive. Comedians can make interesting villains, but this is certainly not one of those times, particularly with a climax that mishandles both her and Gadot. Pascal ends up as the highlight of the film because, well, one really can just play an interesting conman if they set their mind to it, but it only makes you wish there was a better way to get things going than to have the clash of a wishmaster and someone having to remember not the folly of lies but instead to remember why one has sacrifices in the first place among humans. In the long run, it is a muddled mess of a movie, one placed in the exact moment one would feel tired in not needing to see these kinds of movies every single year without the utmost need for being there in the first place. The first film was interesting if not muddled in an okay climax and a dubious idea for being set in the far-away past, this one stumbles out of the gate and never rises to the occasion, which is a real shame.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Review #1830: Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Cast: 

James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade), Shemar Moore (Randall), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), Melody Nosipho Niemann (Jojo), Tom Butler (Commander Walters), Brad Kalilimoku (Drench), Krista Alvarez (Faucet), and Donna Jay Fulks (Longclaw) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog)

Review: 

You remember the Sonic the Hedgehog games, I am sure. I know I do, because I am quite a fan of these games (as created by Yuji Naka, Naoto Ohshima, and Hirokazu Yasuhara), which have been published by Sega since June 23, 1991 that generally involves quick gameplay alongside springs and loops; not every game has been great, but it has a special place among video games (to the point where June 23 is a special day among folks like me). Of course, I'm also sure you remember the first Sonic film, if only because it was just two years ago (released on Valentine's Day right before you-know-what in 2020) that one got to see a reasonable adaptation of a video game series that I am a reasonable fan of, even if had a weird road to adaptation, such as a loud response to the original design of the title character. It was fine, although I would maintain that all the hubbub about a design would have been for naught if it had been an animated film rather than live action when it comes to capturing some sort of imagination. I decided to re-watch the original film before seeing this one, and honestly the quality of the film was basically the same as I remembered it, which was average, one that played it a bit safe with some of its actions that tried to cultivate a down-to-earth feel to the character that probably benefitted most from Carrey and Marsden being around. The writers for the original film in Pat Casey and Josh Miller return, with each writing the screenplay and story while John Whittington co-wrote the screenplay. 

Look, it does okay as a sequel. It manages to include a few more references to the video games that it admires well while also doing a useful job in satisfying the family-friendly crowds. The bar for video game movies is still pretty low to begin with, but I think one can say this film is slightly above the previous film despite the fact that it only just manages to scratch the surface of where one could go with actually making a film of this material that doesn't seem like a smaller adventure of the games. I find it quite odd that a film series focused on the message of family and working together works best when it actually allows itself to breathe with its video game characters rather than straining in references. The two films are quite similar in their styles, for better or worse: they have decent action pieces, a decent cast, and yet each have a weird imbalance of trying to do humor. Besides, now we have a movie of 122 minutes (twenty-three minutes longer than the first one), which only proves that some movies do need trimming - if one needs a dance contest in their movie, send a strongly worded letter to me, since I rolled my eyes.

At any rate, Schwartz maintains the engaging appeal that comes with this title character is playful in a manner that keeps the spirit of the games around without too many childish annoyances. O'Shaughnessey & Elba make an interesting pair of voices to join along the small furry video game creature crowd, since the former has voiced the character for a number of years and the latter is a fairly recognizable name actor. In that sense, they fit fairly well for the roles in general charm, one that doesn't have to force the lines through for humor (such as with Elba, who seems to have fun with it). Marsden & Sumpter may not have as much to do, but at least they fill their time in the family angle with reasonable conviction that doesn't make one waver when it comes to trying to make one believe that movies about fast blue hedgehogs need families. Carrey has continued to hone-in the heightened egomaniac that he was going for in the first film, which results in a satisfying performance, absurd enough in bombast that continues to make a proper foil (now, the part at the end with him turning into a special effect in a green-lined suit, that is debatable). Rothwell is part of the most puzzling sequence of the film, which involves a wedding played as fake that "sort of" moves the plot along (which is where Moore and Butler come in), but it only reminds me to make sure I don't check my watch often (this is also true for Pally). I should mention that even with all these little quibbles, there is at least a semblance of adventure and promise that is filled, one that yearns to keep its audience engaged without insulting them. If one expects a movie around the same quality as the Sonic film before it, they should be reasonably satisfied, and I suppose that is more than enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sonic the Hedgehog.

Review #1353: Sonic the Hedgehog.

Cast: 
Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Stone), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade Whipple), and Neal McDonough (Major Bennington) Directed by Jeff Fowler.

Review: 
Honestly, I had meant to do this film earlier last month, but getting Tribute to the Decades to be completed in time felt more important at the time, and this applies to another 2020 film review in the future. 

As the cliché goes, looks can be deceiving. This is a film that was delayed from its original intended release of November 2019, with trailers being released in April (coincidentally two months before another film with a video game fur creature would come out with Pokémon: Detective Pikachu). However, negative reaction to the design of the main character (which had more humanoid features, particularly with the small eyes) led to a five-month redesign and a February release. It is interesting to think about comparisons about this film with its effects to the aforementioned Pikachu film, since both are based off video game properties with fur characters with varying success over three decades, with one film being set in a murky city and the other being a rural town (with some of the climax being in San Francisco). The Sonic series was developed by Sega through Sonic Team, with two main creators in programmer Yuji Naka and artist Naoto Ohshima. I have been a fan of the series for a few years, mindful of the critique and occasional ridicule that the games have had over the past two decades but appreciative of the charm brought by its main character that makes it just as interesting as say the Mario franchise, which had its own oddball movie adaptation. Video game films haven't had the greatest track record, perhaps because they can't quite hold up adapting the source material into something worth seeing as a movie. There is one easy thing to say about both films: they are incredible in mediocrity (with Sonic perhaps being slightly better), being silly charming films that are in need of more ambition for such PG material. The action proves as okay as watching an actual Sonic game. You know most of where it is going to go because you have been through most of these beats before, unless one really is a kid watching these films fresh of mind. If one enjoys the ride, then they'll be fine with where it dashes to. The most interesting thing about the film is not so much the title character itself but with Carrey. He exudes a manic energy that chews scenery like it is candy, which is important for a super-genius tech villain with only a few basic characteristics that desires camp from someone like Carrey to really generate interest. Sure, Schwartz does a fine main voice, one that makes a few charming quips and makes for a useful presence that evolves with the film for its 99 minute pace without too many hobbles. Marsden, as the straight man to a nut and a blue blur, proves fine. While the film seems more interesting in its brief moments not on Earth than in it, Marsden and the others hold water enough. The film may think it is clever to have bits about loneliness with its title character, but one just wants to see a snappy adventure (beyond quasi-road movie tactics, at least). If the film had been released with the original design, it would've been an average film to ridicule a bit at. Now it is just an average film, successful at entertainment that will hopefully inspire a follow-up more rewarding.

Next Review: The Bank Dick.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.