Send Her Victorious

Marvel Studios has been in a bit of a funk, in this reviewer’s eyes, as of late. The films are great (especially if you ignore Eternals), but those Disney+ shows are falling into Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. grades of campy. Unfortunately, the newest film doesn’t save the orphanage shows, but ohh-ho-ho, what a film it is! The impossible task of re-imagining a sequel to Black Panther sans the late, great Chadwick Boseman has been realized, and it’s every bit as worthy as the eponymous mantle and the man who wore it!

Director Ryan Coogler returns to the world he helped realize and brings to it tougher stakes than its predecessor. With the death of King T’Challa comes threats to Wakanda from the outside world, above and below. Against this, Princess Shuri (Letitia Wright, Death on the Nile) is drowning herself in technological innovations to surpress the pain of losing her brother. However, the struggle comes swimming up to her doorstep in the form of Prince Namor (Tenoch Huerta Mejía, The Forever Purge), leader of the underwater kingdom of Talokan, and he brings with him an ultimatum that will decide the fate of all who reside in a nation in mourning.

Let’s not hold back or mince words — this movie was a success on arrival. People at my local cinema were sobbing en masse within the first five minutes, if not less. This is, if nothing more to the layperson, why we go to the cinema; we love a communal sense of emotion. The loss of Chadwick Boseman still stings hard in the heartstrings of America, to say nothing of the entire African-descended population of the world, and his loss is reflected exceptionally well. That being said, his triumph is also reflected as well — this is as much his film as it is anyone else’s, be they filmmaker or filmgoer.

The cast of this film are at the top of their game — many reviewers have said that the film functions, at least in part, as an outlet for the actors’ grief, and they’re quite right, but this is more than just forcing emotion out to the camera. Miss Wright, undoubtedly the MVP of the first film, acts with nuance and grace as Shuri, and is never hamming it up for the camera. She is in this to honor her predecessor and, in doing so, inspire a whole new generation of Kings and Queens, Princes and Princesses. The same can be said of Angela Bassett (Waiting to Exhale), returning as Queen Ramonda, and it is she who is the MVP of this film. She portrays a mother in grief in all the right ways — silent strength, raging anger only when appropriate, and the anchor on which the stars stand, both literally and metaphorically. Relative newcomer Tenoch Huerta Mejía is captivating as Namor, doubtless Marvel’s most complicated villain-cum-antihero. He’s something of a tragic villain, in that his struggle to maintain his kingdom’s sovereignty is felt by the audience, particularly in his given backstory, but the means by which he intends to do it are abhorrent. He is truly complex, and that is something brilliant that Marvel has brought to their superhero films. Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: Episode IX – The Rise of Skywalker), makes a surprising (at least to me) return as Nakia, the intended of the late T’Challa, and she is a welcome support to Sburi at a pivotal time, as is Winston Duke (Us), as the ultra-traditional M’Baku. Lastly, Dominique Thorne (If Beale Street Could Talk) is given her first showing as Riri Williams, soon to be known as Ironheart, and is brilliantly showcased without being insufferable and detracting from the story at hand. The writers of her upcoming Disney+ show should take note of this film.

Coogler and co-writer Joe Robert Cole succeed in this new film, introducing new characters and reestablishing old favorites without feeling clunky or desperate for recognition. Admittedly, the film is at its weakest when it focuses on establishing pre-exisiting, non-Wakandan MCU characters like Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, Sherlock) or future villain-in-chief Valentina (Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep), both of whom have a future outside this film, but if that’s the only thing holding the story back — and it is — it’s not affecting my enjoyment of it.

Speaking bluntly, 2018’s Black Panther, while justly nominated for Best Picture of the Year at the following year’s Academy Awards, was nominated out of pity — remember, that same year, they were going to create a Best Achievement in Popular Film Award, doubtless made to award the film something. Well, this film is also a just and, in my view, better contender to win the coveted, legitimate award, but in the end, it’s not awards that will sell tickets for this movie. Rather, it’s honoring the legacy of a pioneer of film and culture, and seeing what our future can become, if we work toward it together.

Splinter in the Mind’s Eye

Ugh. Meh. This writer is not nearly as happy as he should be on this Disney+ Day — which normally would be in early November, but if the acceleration of the day is any indication, the studio’s live-action remake of Pinocchio needed much more time in the shop, preferably in the formative stage. Long-gestating under a plethora of directors (Sam Mendes, Paul King, et cetera), each with as impressive a pedigree as the chosen director, Robert Zemeckis (the Back to the Future trilogy, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Polar Express), it’s mind-boggling how the final result turned out so slipshod and blasé, especially when I was crying tears of joy from seeing the trailer.

The story is changed in all the wrong ways; we gain nothing from being told new facets of Gepetto (the immortal Tom Hanks, undoubtedly the best part of the film) and his past — the first rule of screenwriting is “show, don’t tell” for an awfully good reason — Honest John (Keegan Michael-Key, Key & Peele) is loquacious to the point of tiresome, and the new characters added give nothing to the story. It also feels wholly derivative of better Disney films — yes, films other than Pinocchio — there’s even a tear-healing scene torn straight from the pages of Tangled (…God, I’m glad that at least the days of verb titles are dead) and an action scene pinched from The Incredibles. Yeesh. The songs written by the otherwise immortal Alan Silvestri (Avengers: Endgame) and his frequent collaborator, Glen Ballard (Beowulf, A Christmas Carol) are half-baked and reek of Camp Broadway. Tack on an ending that feels like it was written last weekend and the end result is beneath sub-par.

As Disney live-action remakes go, this is not awful. I mean, it’s not the creme de la crap that was the high pandemic’s Mulan, nor is it as cloyingly condescending as 2017’s Beauty and the Beast (I know, my review gives a wholly other impression; I was wrong as can be) and certainly not as outright cynical as Tim Burton’s Dumbo. That being said, it doesn’t do anything as brilliantly different as Jon Favreau’s The Jungle Book, nor does it carve (heh heh) its own identity as David Lowery’s Pete’s Dragon did, and it falls well short of being a tribute to the classic it inspired, like Kenneth Branagh’s Cinderella or Charlie Bean’s Lady and the Tramp — it’s just kind of there. Walt Disney is dead in the corporeal sense, true enough, but his soul remains in cryostasis — the studio could melt our hearts with his vision if they’d only find the courage to turn on the heat.

Up The Spout Again

SPOILERS

Ohh, geez… what happened here? What were y’all thinking? I don’t even have the energy to be mad at this one; I barely have the energy to write — this is decidedly not good. If this were Spider-Man fanfiction, I’d say it was the best ever put to paper, but as an official movie from Marvel Studios? Not. Gonna. Cut. It.

A la my bullet point review of Captain America: Civil War, I’mma give this movie the same bewitched, bothered and bewildered treatment.

  • Who approved this script and are they still employed by Sony or Marvel?
  • Did we really need a Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue recreation for a movie of this caliber?
  • Why erase everyone’s memory of Peter Parker at the end if you’re trying to extend Tom Holland’s contract?
  • In fact, Holland patently wants out — why not kill his Spidey? Woke folk are chomping at the bit to see Miles Morales make his live-action debut.
  • How come Peter doesn’t get to go to college after said erasure? A GED for a kid as smart as him? Pah.
  • Doctor Strange, you’re a selfish coward. You should have sacrificed your legacy instead of an eighteen year-old kid’s.
  • Hi, Thomas Haden Church! Bye, Thomas Haden Church!
  • This movie treats the audience almost the way Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End did… or, you know, Spider-Man 3.
  • Hi, Rhys Ifans! Bye, Rhys Ifans!
  • Where’s Kirsten Dunst? I’d like to see some proof to Tobey’s claims!
  • Sony proudly recycles on their film sets, which explains why Norman Osborn is who he is in this movie.

As I said of Edgar Wright’s The World’s End, I have no idea what movie the critics saw, but judging by their gushy reviews, I’m willing to bet LSD was involved.

Answer The Call

Absolutely brilliant! It took over thirty years and an extremely disappointing reboot, but we, the viewers have finally gotten our prodigal scion from the Ghostbusters franchise with the third chapter, Ghostbusters: Afterlife!

Helmed by Jason Reitman (Juno, Young Adult), noted son of original director Ivan, we pick up as time left off. Egon Spengler (the late, great Harold Ramis) has died, and his estranged daughter (Carrie Coon, “Fargo”), down on her luck and evicted from her home, takes her children, Trevor (Finn Wolfhard, “Stranger Things”) and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace, Annabelle Comes Home) to her reluctant inheritance — Egon’s old digs (and mountains of debt) in a backward town in Oklahoma… but there is more. Old haunts begin to resurrect; alliances once worn thin are retied, and the adventure of a lifetime, cliché though it is, will come to life… after death!

Let’s get this out of the way — this is a fantastic movie! Too often a long-awaited sequel is smothered by the familiarity of nostalgia, be it as far apart as Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens or even as short a wait as it took for The Mummy Returns, but in the case of Ghostbusters, we are given beats and references that are familiar, and yet, the paths taken are ever so different that it feels fresh, not stale. Expect the unexpected is the order of the day with this movie, and while that may stir fears of those who saw the reboot and left with a bad taste in their mouth (as I did), fear not — Reitman and his co-writer, Gil Kenan (Monster House) treats this film and franchise with the same reverence and respect that was given to films like Christopher Robin! It’s bizarrely one of the most heartwarming films of the year!

Further, whereas the reboot was drowning in poor acting (comedic and otherwise) and lousy visual effects, we are treated to excellent examples of both cases. I was surprised by the latter, as Reitman has never done a franchise blockbuster, or indeed, a blockbuster at all, but he is under the guiding hands of his father, and one could argue that his directing the (abysmal) visual effects-heavy Men, Women & Children only played in his favor! The ghosts in the film are genuinely scary and never once does this exude Robert Zemeckis-grade fakery. The acting is equally terrific, with excellent turns from Wolfhard and Grace, both breaking the norm of boring to cloying child actors and most endearing without being suffocating. Ms. Coon, previously known to many as Proxima Midnight (daughter to Thanos in Avengers: Infinity War), portrays the despair of single motherhood and parental estrangement with great skill, and when the time comes, brings the kindness and the scary sauce in equal measure. Also appearing is Paul Rudd (Ant-Man and the Wasp) as nerdy summer school teacher Mr. Grooberson, who brings his usual affability and kindly charm to the world of ghosts, but the real scene-stealing MVP is Logan Kim, in his debut movie, as a classmate of Phoebe’s known as Podcast. Unfazed by the events unfolding with some of the best jokes in the film, he’s a welcome addition to the fold!

Again, you have nothing to fear with this film — Ghostbusters: Afterlife is a sweet, loving third chapter in a long-cherished franchise that is every bit as great as the original films — dipping its toes into nostalgia without soaking its entire self in it, while still not betraying the (…heh-heh!) ghosts of its past. Jason Reitman has opened the door to a new chapter in his career as well, and I look forward to what becomes of that, in addition to this film!

“The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams!”

Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), “Ghostbusters” [1984]

We Live in a Self-Preservation Society

Theaters are (hopefully for reals this time I mean it damn it) reopening in spades, and while you have a movie made for the theatrical experience out this weekend as well — A Quiet Place: Part II — it’s well-matched by Disney’s latest live-action “remake,” Cruella. To be clear, this is neither a live-action remake of or live-action prequel to the animated movie or the 1996 live-action remake of that — consider it a soft reworking, much like Maleficent was.

The story, as portrayed by the film’s trailers, barely showcases a fifth of the movie, and I will not divulge it here, but what you get is a deliciously twisted, twisty story — not duplicitous, a problem that plagued tentpole movies like Atomic Blonde and Solo: A Star Wars Story, but twisty — you know not what to expect from this, trust me. Director Craig Gillespie (I, Tonya) brings to life a sharp, biting screenplay with word after word bringing to mind The Devil Wears Prada meets David Mamet, and his actors bring performances to match! Under less inspired hands, this would have starred Margot Robbie (ugh) and Meryl Streep (UGH), but Emma Stone (La-La Land), also serving as an Executive Producer on the film, goes from innocent-looking pickpocket to psychotic nutcase with brilliance — I’ve never seen her play an out-and-out villain before, and she may not have played one until now, but what a way to break into the crew! It should be mentioned here and now that despite the Disney tag, the character of Cruella is not nearly as humanized as Maleficent was (you can put down the Molotovs, PETA), but one can definitely tell there was once a lost child in the character.

The dueling Emma, Ms. Thompson (Sense & Sensibility), commands the screen as much as Cruella does — the auditorium fell silent when she delivered her first monologue; you could have heard a pin drop — she pours on the creepy sauce and doesn’t stop; truly one of the best ladies of the English cinema and stage! Joel Fry (Yesterday) and Paul Walter Hauser (Richard Jewell) play as Jasper and Horace, Cruella’s erstwhile partners-in-crime, and while Hauser is funny as the idiotic one, it’s surprisingly Fry who gives humanity to the henchman, serving as the conscience on the lady’s shoulder… make of that what you will!

As much as I don’t want to say the movie is an audio-visual feast, it’s an audio-visual feast! Filmed in digital with a color scheme and grain structure suggesting the original The Italian Job and peppered with songs of the era (the 1970’s) and then some, the film plays a sort of carnal, lustful look at the worlds of fashion and theft — how the other half lived and how beauty corrupts everyone… absolutely everyone.

Lush and sharp as an acid-soaked whip, Cruella is a terrific live-action reworking that gloriously removes the stain of Mulan (2020), and though it’s available as a $30 extra on Disney+, you owe it to the theaters of America (to say nothing of your senses) to see it on the biggest screen nearest you! Again, if you think you know what to expect from this movie, rest assured – you do not! As the DeVil herself says, there’s much more bad things coming!

Your Worst Nightmare

I wasted $30 on this. I wanted it to be great; to spite the Disney haters, but this is not the movie that will save Disney’s profitability — this isn’t even the movie that, if released theatrically, would save theatergoing! Two simple words best describe the live-action remake of Mulan — hot and mess.

You know the story; it’s basically the same, but unlike last year’s take on Lady and the Tramp, there is no weight to this adaptation, and what is remembered from the original is done so haphazardly — stoic performances all around (even from the venerable Donnie Yen and Rosalind Chao), a garbage-tier script with additions and subtractions that make little to no sense (Mushu was incredible, but a shapeshifting witch wasn’t?!) and when references to the vastly superior animated original are made, they’re done as cringe-worthy lines from the songs (but spoken — remember, musicals are out of the question!) or as instrumental phrases from the songs. FAIL.

Director Niki Caro (Whale Rider) is the sole MVP of this mess, making a lush visual feast out of a trashcan playbook, but that’s no reason to watch this, much less pony up $30. Hey, Disney, you can’t coast on the glories of the past forever — you put that line in your next live-action remake, I sue.

Quantum of Solace

First, a public service announcement — the pandemic sucks, but don’t be scared. It’s safe to go the the movies.

There’s been many demands for the eminent Christopher Nolan to be allowed a chance at directing a James Bond film, but for better or worse, he’s never been given the chance, so he’s done what every self-respecting spy movie-loving auteur should do — make one himself!

Taking time in his hands — literally — Nolan crafts a tale that is equal parts Casino Royale, The Terminator and, of course, his first masterpiece, Memento; that much I will say about the plot at hand — you’ll have to see it for yourself.

The performers are in as fine a form as they have ever been — John David Washington (BlackKklansman) is great as the story’s man with no name, equal parts Daniel Craig’s 007 and his father’s performance in The Magnificent Seven. Robert Pattinson (The Batman) has truly overcome his pseudo-stardom brought about by the Twilight franchise and as The Protagonist’s ally, Neil, is suave and tough while not appearing campy. Sir Kenneth Branagh (Death on the Nile), as the film’s nihilistic antagonist Andrei Sator, is genuinely horrifying — moreso than his performance in Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. Sator is a villain that will cut off your head and piss down your neck. The real lynchpin in this equation is the vastly underrated Elizabeth Debicki (Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2) as the lonely Katherine — fair skinned and flaxen-haired and trapped in a painful situation that others would sooner commit suicide to get out of.

Beautifully photographed, as always, on 70MM stock, this is a visual five-course dinner from DP Hoyte Van Hoytema (Spectre), just below Interstellar in scope but above Dunkirk in the realm of amazement. Oscar-winning composer Ludwig Göransson (The Mandalorian) takes up where Nolan regular Hans Zimmer left off with a rollicking score that brings to mind the work of Tom Tykwer, Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek on Cloud Atlas, not once feeling like an imitation of Zimmer.

While it won’t quite scratch the itch of those looking for a Christopher Nolan-directed 007 film, Tenet is still a damn fine movie that may well save the cinemagoing experience as we know it — it begs to be seen in the biggest screen available to you. As the marketing reminds us, time runs out — don’t wait for the Blu-ray.

Make ‘Em Laugh

mv5bngnkytjinwutmzzlni00ymzlltg3ztctzty2mwvkntq5mtqyxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymjm4ntm5ndy40._v1_

Awards season in Hollywood usually leaves many great films unrecognized by the legion of golden naked men — classics from David Lean’s Great Expectations through Bharat Nalluri’s The Man Who Invented Christmas are usually left with no nominations, at best one or two paltry bottom-tier recognitions. Though this year’s Academy Awards have proven to have outlived their usefulness, it’s a crying shame that for a ceremony that celebrates filmmaking, they didn’t recognize a loving tribute to their industry released two years ago — Stan & Ollie.

Centering on the sunset years of immortal comedy duo Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy — cast note-perfectly with Steve Coogan (Philomena) and John C. Reilly (Chicago), respectively — the comics find themselves in a changing landscape of filmmaking and next to no way to find financing for their next feature film. In something of a last-ditch effort for both their careers and to gain said monies, they arrange a performance tour throughout England and Ireland, where their longevity as comedians and friends will be tested by way of opinion, both public and private.

Laurel & Hardy are an integral part of the American comedic zeitgeist — above Buster Keaton, neck-and-neck with Charlie Chaplin and just below the Marx Brothers, in my opinion — and to emulate them is not the same as knowing them. Fortunately, Coogan & Reilly sink effortlessly into their respective roles (to say nothing of makeup playing a great hand in the latter’s resemblance), giving life to the legends of laughter — in addition to their humor, you see Coogan showing the tragic side of Laurel, as he tries to raise money for the film and the spirits of the audience and his working relationship; the man can do it all. Reilly also shows sides unseen of Hardy — his past as a gambler, his reluctance to leave the duo’s work with Hal Roach (Danny Huston, Hitchcock), and an almost childlike demeanor, of which Laurel serves as his guiding conscience, a la Jimmy Cricket. On that note, it was also really quite surprising to see that, despite their films portraying Hardy as the boss of the equation, the opposite was true in real life, with Laurel writing the scripts and calling quite a few of the shots.

Two other major standouts in the picture are in the form of actresses Shirley Henderson (Miss Pettigrew Lives For A Day) and Nina Arianda (Midnight in Paris), playing Lucy Hardy and Ida Laurel. Almost antagonists to each other (and each other’s spouses), they prove their mettle in the story when Ollie takes a turn for the worse. Arianda does the stern Russian expatriate that Ida is shown to be to a T, cherishing her and her husband’s past and not caring much for the future, while Henderson is the quiet, but extremely tough, American who simply wants the best for her marriage. I haven’t seen enough of Arianda’s work to comment on this in relation to her career, but Henderson is one of the most underrated actresses in English cinema today; she’s far more than “that lady who played Moaning Myrtle in Harry Potter,” and this movie proves it.

Director Jon S. Baird keeps the film moving at a clipping pace, which may irk viewers expecting more of a retrospective of the duo’s career, but even so, I never felt anything was glossed over or over-expounded in the film. Further, while a period piece, this isn’t a film that focuses more on the events of the time than the subject(s) at hand; this is their chronicle, and it doesn’t get lost in the set pieces, costumes or various other recreations.

Stan & Ollie was truly more deserving of awards contention on its release, but for whatever reason, come the season, it was shunned save for a sole Golden Globe nomination, and more’s the pity; to honor an industry’s past is to know it. In spite of this, like so many other great films about the art of filmmaking — see also: Hugo, Saving Mr. Banks, Singin In The Rain — it will still exist among a trove of other greats, always there for any aspiring filmmaker to see — I highly recommend it to anyone with such an open mind.

Just Around The Riverbend

There comes a time in every man’s and woman’s life that they wonder what the hell they’re doing and if people even care about them. I myself wonder that all the time; I don’t know a soul who doesn’t, and we all have ways of dealing with that. I take sanctuary in the nearest movie theater, and this week’s new release, an adaptation of Jack London’s The Call of the Wild, proved refreshing and cathartic — just the right thing at the right time.

The film chronicles the story of Buck, a large St. Bernard belonging to a California judge at his wit’s end of how to deal with him — until Buck is stolen, shipped off and sold as a work dog in Skagway, Alaska. There, a series of events that take place shape his life, and after a chance encounter with lonely traveler John Thornton (Harrison Ford, The Age of Adaline), they plot a trail to finish a long-forgotten journey.

Having not read the classic novel on which it is based, I had to judge Call on what I saw, and to me, it brings to mind the best of the Disney Renaissance, and that is in great part due to its director, Chris Sanders — noted animator and story collaborator on Disney films beginning with Beauty and the Beast [1991], he takes to this film his love for human-animal relationships that he experimented with in Lilo & Stitch and expanded in DreamWorks’ How To Train Your Dragon and now perfects with his live-action debut under the newly-reminted 20th Century Studios. Plus, his animation background doubtless helped in the creation of Buck as a digital character, which, while it seems a big pill to swallow based on the film’s trailers, he quickly grew on me as a living creature, while still maintaining an animated nature, but in the best sense — think not Robert Zemeckis, but Don Bluth.

As for the film’s actors, in particular Harrison Ford, this is unlike any film I’ve seen him be a part of — it must have been very close to his heart, as he’s truly in his element, among the vast landscapes, mountains and trees of British Columbia (standing in for Alaska and the Yukon Territory). He’s in as fine a form as I’ve seen him, bringing to mind the best of Robert Redford in Jeremiah Johnson — plus, his portrayal of Thornton, a man broken by loss who finds joy in man’s best friend, brings to the film a charming and a welcome change of pace from the almost guaranteed schlock that releases in the first quarter of the year. Supporting cast members include Omar Sy (Jurassic World) as the kindly mail carrier Perrault, who provides Buck with friendship of his kind and of humans at the first. Surprising me with his entrance was Dan Stevens (Beauty and the Beast [2017]), going full creepy as the film’s villain, and it’s a welcome, continued change of pace for himself and us viewers.

I was feeling jaded and rather uncaring when I went to the theater, fully prepared to despise The Call of the Wild, expecting a discount Togo (I had even planned to title this review “Nogo” in that event), but it’s a long time since I’ve been proven wrong at the cinema, and for that, I’m so very glad. It’s more than the usual man-and-his-dog movie; it’s a heartwarmer that comes at the right time of year, and from my point of view, it’s just what I needed at this moment, and you might, too — a life-affirming tale of finding your place in the world.

You’ll Find Enchantment Here

mv5bm2u3zdbkywutndy3ny00otliltgxntaty2qwztqxmmewotq1xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtkxnjuynq4040._v1_

The much-awaited Disney+ launched yesterday, and with it, a slew of exclusive films and shows – tucked among them is a live-action remake of 1955’s Lady and the Tramp — I know what you’re thinking; the inundation of live-action Disney remakes continues, but lest we forget, the original was a personal favorite of Walt Disney himself, and even among the herd of the unnecessary remakes (don’t see also: Guy Ritchie’s Aladdin, Jon Favreau’s The Lion King), this one’s a keeper, but not for the reasons you may expect.

Here is where I’d regurgitate the story in capsule form, but why bother when this is familiar territory? The fact of the matter is that there is very little new in this take on Lady and the Tramp, and the truth is, that’s wonderful. Too many of the Disney remakes have made pathetic attempts to overemphasize “modern qualities” in their characters (don’t see also: Emma Watson and/or Josh Gad in Beauty and the Beast), whereas in two of their best, The Jungle Book and Cinderella, it’s as much about honoring the past as it is looking to the future — rather like Walt’s vision, no?

Director Charlie Bean (The LEGO Ninjago Movie) makes his live-action debut with this film, playing it as straight as Sir Kenneth Branagh did with Cinderella, not once making fun of the film’s innocence and delight, and rather expounding on the emotion it brings the audience. His knowledge of CG animation also helps in the digital additions to the real animals portraying such characters — this isn’t like Tim Burton’s Dumbo (I know, I reviewed it well. I was wrong.); the animals in question look adorably natural to the viewer. Performances reflect that, too — Tessa Thompson (Avengers: Endgame) plays Lady warmly and to her own strengths, rather than either impersonating prior actress Barbara Luddy or trying to fix what isn’t broken. Justin Theroux (Wanderlust) does the same; he’s charming as Tramp, but also gives him a longing soul in his characterization. Additional canine cast members feature the note-perfectly cast Sam Elliot (A Star Is Born) as bumbling bloodhound Trusty and Janelle Monáe (Hidden Figures) taking up where Peggy Lee left off as Peg — she of the song He’s A Tramp. Rewritten as a girl is Scottish terrier Jock (now short for Jacqueline), aptly played by Scottish comedienne Ashley Jensen (After Life), and while it’s a needless change, it still works, and quite well. An additional animal character is Bull, played by Benedict Wong (Doctor Strange), finally getting to use his natural English accent — appropriately, as an English bulldog!

Human characters are in fine form, too — blind casting doesn’t work well, in my eyes, for period pieces, so it comes off a little bit Once Upon A Time for me to see it here, but the actors behind them are putting their hearts full of love into this, and that sells their performance, so such an argument is basically invalid. Lady’s owners, Jim Dear (Thomas Mann, The Highwaymen) and Darling (Kiersey Clemons, Hearts Beat Loud) are adorable as a couple who never stop falling in love with each other, while minor villain Aunt Sarah (Yvette Nicole Brown, Community) does the atypical crazy cat lady/dog hater to a T. The real lynchpin of the equation, though, comes from Oscar-winner F. Murray Abraham (Amadeus), not as a villain, but as Tony, the serenading owner of the iconic Italian restaurant where the classic “Bella Notte” scene takes place. It brought a genuine tear to my eye, as it will for anyone else viewing it!

As said previously, while the movie doesn’t deviate from the core storyline or the 1890’s setting, what changes are made are largely welcome in my eyes — among them (without spoiling), giving Tramp a backstory, just enough not to overstay its welcome and still explain, adding a definite villain (of sorts) and giving a lovely twist at the end of the second act that only fuels the lead-in to the conclusion. One change is a little perplexing to me; the reworking of Aunt Sarah’s villainous cats — how is it less offensive for them to be voiced by and performed as African American rather than Asian? It’s just mind-boggling to me; who stands to gain by such a change?

Still, with all being said, this version of Lady and the Tramp is wonderful fun and a loving reminder of simpler times. I know, it’s nothing new, but it’s kindly and charming; just the kind of tonic needed right now, and a lovely way to open up Disney+. I look forward to all the service has to offer now and in the future.

Rating: 4/5