Avengers: Endgame Review

*Caution: though this review only contains minor spoilers in regards to Endgame’s plot, it does consist of major spoilers to the ending of its predecessor, Avengers: Infinity War*

It’s rare that I see a movie that I feel won’t be replicated. But Avengers: Endgame is one such film. After eleven years and twenty-one previous features, Endgame brings the Marvel Cinematic Universe as we know it to a grand, satisfying close.

Yes, there will be plenty more super hero films in the future, and yes, the MCU will very much continue on. But I honestly can’t see another movie series – even the future MCU itself – managing to pull off an overarching storyline that lasts longer than a decade and culminates after this many films. Endgame marks the conclusion to an unprecedented achievement in filmmaking, one that I simply can’t see happening again on this scale.

Endgame begins a few weeks after the events of Infinity War. The evil Thanos (Josh Brolin) has succeeded in his perceived destiny. He collected every Infinity Stone, and with their limitless power, wiped out half of all life in the universe with a snap of his fingers. The Avengers failed, with half of the super heroes being turned to dust along with half of the rest of the universe. The heroes lost, Thanos won.

As you can probably guess, Endgame takes a more somber tone than the past Avengers films for this reason. While in the past, the Avengers movies served as the means to wrap up collective chapters for their heroes, Endgame is instead largely based on how the surviving heroes cope with the fact that their failure lead to such devastation.

The remaining Avengers (and Guardians of the Galaxy) include Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner/the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Rocket Raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper), Nebula (Karen Gillan), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), James Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle), and Okoye (Danial Gurira). Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) also returns to action, after his family is among those turned to dust by Thanos. And Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) shows up whenever she deems it convenient for herself.

I won’t divulge too much of the plot in detail, because Endgame takes so many bonkers twists and turns that going into any specifics beyond the first few minutes would feel like a spoiler. Suffice to say, however, that the Avengers look for a means to undo the catastrophic damage Thanos has done to the universe, and just might find a way once Scott Lang/Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) returns from the Quantum Realm, which he’s been trapped in since the mid-credits sequence of Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Despite having missed out on the events of Infinity War, Scott Lang was only in the Quantum Realm for a brief time by his perspective, leading him to believe the Avengers may be able to find a means to manipulate the Quantum Realm to go back in time to gather the Infinity Stones themselves and save the people Thanos wiped out. Not-so-spoiler alert: The Avengers find a way to time travel using the Quantum Realm.

Before you ask the obvious questions that may come to mind when the good guys build a time machine to stop the bad guy, it should be stressed that Endgame makes a point that its concept of time travel works very differently than what we’re used to seeing in movies. And while its idea of time traveling doesn’t always make sense (why is it only Back to the Future got it right?), it does ultimately work for the story that’s being told here.

Time travel is admittedly a risky move on any franchise, as it has often been used as a cliche that’s employed at the point when filmmakers “jump the shark.” But in the case of Avengers: Endgame, it works wonderfully. As the culmination of a decade-long, twenty-two film story arc, Endgame has earned the right to dive headfirst into whatever insane direction it pleases. And I’m happy to say that Endgame is the most flat-out insane feature in the entire MCU.

“Welcome back, Hawkeye.”

With such a varied cast of characters now having the ability to go back in time, Endgame uses the premise to not only bring out the best comedic aspects of its heroes’ personalities, but also to create a story that simply couldn’t have existed in any other movie. Endgame makes various callbacks and recreations of the past films in the MCU (sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively), and finds ways to remix and recycle elements from the mega-franchise’s history all while telling a story of its own. It’s a beautiful example of a story actually benefitting from fanservice, with every callback to the Marvel films of yesteryear not only providing a nostalgic glee, but also serving as a piece to the overall puzzle that is Endgame’s storytelling.

Like the preceding Avengers films, Endgame is an exceptional action feature, with every set piece and battle sequence delivering on their staggering promise. The final battle specifically – without giving too much away – is the most ludicrous, ridiculous and fanservice-heavy battle scene I’ve ever seen. It’s wonderful.

Endgame can be a really funny movie at times. Just because the film takes place after the doom and gloom finale of Infinity War doesn’t mean Marvel has lost its sense of humor (especially where Tony Stark and Scott Lang are concerned). But Endgame is ultimately (and appropriately) the saddest and most emotional film in the MCU. It’s everything you love about the Avengers, now with the heart of a Pixar movie.

It is only fitting that, as the series has moved forward, it has also matured and become more serious. Yes, there’s still plenty of action, humor and fanservice to be had in Endgame. But it also has a poignancy about it that makes it feel unique among all the MCU films, which only adds to its status as a fitting finale.

How often is it that we can say a movie franchise has a satisfying conclusion, anyway? It seems like most trilogies lose their footing when it comes to the third entry, and the franchises that go further than that still falter around the same point. But here we have a twenty-two film series, and its grand finale is more than likely the best film of the entire lot. It delivers on all the entertaining aspects of its many predecessors (oftentimes outdoing them), while adding a new sense of emotional weight and depth to the series. Endgame proves to be a surprisingly melancholic and reflective story.

While Endgame may feel like a perfect conclusion to the MCU (so far), it isn’t quite a perfect movie, with at least two elements that feel…off.

The first is that Thanos’s role has been largely reduced. It’s not a total loss considering Josh Brolin had his chance to shine as the character in Infinity War, which was the ‘Thanos movie.’ Much like how the first Avengers film reused Thor‘s Loki to fill the antagonist role as to keep its focus on the heroes coming together, Endgame pulls off something similar by reducing Thanos’s screen time now that we’ve gotten to understand the character. But without spoiling anything specific, I can’t help but feel the means in which Endgame removes Thanos from much of the plot, and how he finds himself back into the proceedings in the third act might feel a bit cheap to some audiences.

Again, that’s forgivable. And depending on who you ask, they may not mind that Thanos has taken a bit of a backseat. Less forgivable, however, is the character of Captain Marvel. One could say she’s this Avengers film’s token “short end of the stick” character (similar to Hawkeye in the original, or Vision in Infinity War), given that she does very little in the movie despite Infinity War’s post-credits scene hyping her up. But unlike the less fortunate characters of past Avengers movies, I’m actually glad Captain Marvel has such a limited presence in the film, because she’s far and away the most unlikable character in the entire MCU.

Between her obnoxious arrogance and her eye-rolling ability to basically do anything, the film gives audiences absolute zero reason to care about the character. The filmmakers of the MCU have – in a shoehorned attempt to capitalize on social movements – backed Captain Marvel into a corner. Either her presence undermines every threat the Avengers face since she can just overpower anyone, or her absence makes her seem like the single most selfish person in the universe, given that she’s supposed to be helping the Avengers save the universe. Essentially, in going overboard and forcing Captain Marvel to be a strong female hero (something the MCU already accomplished – and infinitely more organically – with the likes of Black Widow and Scarlett Witch), they’ve instead turned Captain Marvel into an entirely unrelatable deus ex machina. But again, at least she’s barely in the movie.

Aside from Thanos’s questionable means of entering and exiting the story when necessary, and the utter unlikability of Captain Marvel, pretty much everything else about Avengers: Endgame is top notch. It brings out the best of so many aspects of the MCU, and ties it all together with a stronger emotional weight than ever before.

Yes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe will continue. But I honestly can’t imagine it recreating what has been done here in Avengers: Endgame. The fact that Marvel managed to successfully string together twenty-two movies over eleven years, and bring it all to such a satisfying conclusion is nothing short of a miracle in movie making. There will surely be more Thanos-level baddies whose story arcs will branch across the MCU. But I can’t imagine Marvel (or anyone else) replicating things to this scale again.

For those who have watched the MCU since its humble beginnings with Iron Man in 2008, you’d be hard-pressed to ask for more from a grand finale than what you get here. And for those who yearn for the more innocent early years of the MCU like Iron Man, I imagine that’s what we’ll be going back to for a while as the series rebuilds itself after this most fitting end.

The MCU has grown up alongside its fans, and seeing it reach its apex is a bittersweet rollercoaster. Avengers: Endgame is not only the ending we all hoped it could be, given its unprecedented build-up, but it should also rank as one of the best blockbusters of all time.

 

9

Advertisements

Something About Mario RPGs

Earlier this year, I picked up the 3DS remake of Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story. But before I play through it, I remembered I (strangely) never beat the 2017 3DS remake of Superstar Saga. So I recently started a new file on that game (and have since beat it, and will review it once I play more of the remake’s exclusive “Minion Quest” mode). Not only did returning to Superstar Saga end up being an utter joy, but it also really, really made me miss what the Mario RPGs used to be.

It’s been ten years since the original release of Bowser’s Inside Story on the DS, and not counting the aforementioned 3DS remakes, that was the last time the Mario RPGs were truly great (I did enjoy Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle a great deal, but seeing as that was both a crossover and a strategy RPG, I guess it’s not quite what I’m talking about). And I really, really miss the days when the Mario RPGs were among the best things Nintendo had going for them.

Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars remains my favorite RPG of all time, and arguably my favorite game period. It perfectly combined the accessibility and fun of Mario with the depth and turn-based gameplay of RPGs, without sacrificing the quality of either of its halves. Although it tragically never received a proper sequel, the Square developed title did receive two spiritual successors created by Nintendo’s own internal studios.

Paper Mario simplified the formula a bit, but still made for a hefty adventure that boasted a unique art style, and saw Mario team up with party members based on the series’ iconic enemies. Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga was more focused on fast-paced action, and featured genuinely hilarious writing. Both of these Super Mario RPG spiritual successors would wind up becoming their own sub-series.

Paper Mario was followed-up by the critically-acclaimed Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door on the GameCube, while two Mario & Luigi sequels were released on the Nintendo DS: 2005’s Partners in Time, and 2009’s Bowser’s Inside Story. Of the lot, Partners in Time is the only one that fell short of the rest, though even it was still a good game in its own right (though I’m not complaining that the 3DS remakes went directly for the best M&L entries).

While it’s usually the Mario platformers and The Legend of Zelda that are held in the highest regard in Nintendo’s canon, the Mario RPGs were, more quietly, delivering experiences that were often just as good. And with their Nintendo mentality of “fun at all costs,” the Mario RPGs provided some of the most timeless games in the genre (Final Fantasy hasn’t aged so gracefully).

But then, in a creative move that truly defies all logic and reason, Nintendo decided to begin stripping away many of the elements that made the Mario RPGs so memorable. The third Paper Mario title, 2007’s Super Paper Mario, was still a fun game, but it removed the series’ turn-based structure in favor of a platformer that featured RPG elements. Not a bad idea in itself, and Super Paper Mario still retained an RPG-like story, but considering the main Mario series are platformers, did Nintendo really have to sacrifice Paper Mario to test out this idea?

Hey, at least Super Paper Mario was still a good game. And it was followed up by the aforementioned Bowser’s Inside Story. Little did we know that Bowser’s Inside Story would be a one-time return to form. A “last hoorah” if you will. Because after that we got the 3DS’s Paper Mario: Sticker Star, the first Mario RPG that could be considered a flat-out bad game.

Not that you could truly call Sticker Star an RPG. Sure, turn-based battles were back, but they were dictated entirely by consumable ‘sticker’ items. Every action you used in battle required these consumable items. And for victory, you didn’t get experience points and level up.

For winning battles, you were rewarded with either A) more stickers, or B) coins…to buy more stickers. It was a self-defeating concept. Why should I bother fighting and spending my stickers if the only reward is more stickers? And if you think you’re supposed to save up stickers for boss fights, that’s not it either. Bosses required specific stickers to be defeated, so it’s not like conserving and strategizing the stickers you’ve saved up even meant anything.

You know what’s even worse? Sticker Star not only had virtually no story to speak of, and no party members, but it removed the humorous writing the Mario RPGs were known for (Bowser, of all characters, never even spoke). Sticker Star also marked the beginning of the bizarre trend of Nintendo not allowing the Mario RPGs to feature original enemies, with only established baddies from the platformers showing up. Perhaps strangest of all, this was also when Nintendo started making every last Toad in the Mario RPGs just look like the generic “blue vest, red spots” Toads. When the previous RPGs gave us Toads of all shapes, sizes and crazy geddups, why take that away and effectively remove so much personality from the games?

And yet, this was the direction Nintendo decided to stick with. Sure, the next RPG in the Mario pipeline, Mario & Luigi: Dream Team (released on 3DS in 2013) was a step up in many ways (for one, it actually felt like an RPG again). But it also was, by a considerable margin, the most creatively bland M&L game up to that point. It did have some original enemies again, but the “Generic Toad” epidemic was still in full effect.

Then, in early 2016, the 3DS also saw the release of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. In concept, Paper Jam sounds like it should have been the shot in the arm the Mario RPGs needed, being a crossover between the two continuing Mario RPG series.

Sadly, the concept is the best part of the game, as Paper Jam was really just a watered down Mario & Luigi sequel that doubled down on Dream Team’s faults (Toads with zero distinction and personality, no more original enemies whatsoever). It just so happened to feature Paper Mario as a third party member. Considering how great the Mario & Luigi games once were, it was sad to see the series fall this far from grace.

To sum it up simply, Superstar Saga remains one of the funniest, most quotable games I’ve ever played, but I honestly can’t remember any bit of writing that came out of Paper Jam.

Later in 2016, we’d get the last new Mario RPG so far (again, unless we count Mario + Rabbids), Paper Mario: Color Splash on Wii U. Despite fans wanting Nintendo to return to the turn-based, actually-an-RPG style of the first two Paper Marios for years, Nintendo decided to go all WWE and turn a def ear on fans. They actually made the game a follow-up to Sticker Star’s gameplay.

Yeah, no kidding. I miss unique Toads.

To its credit, at least Color Splash had some humor and personality to it (though the Toads remain generic, and new enemies still weren’t allowed), and some of the gameplay could be fun. But there still weren’t any party members, and the battle system remained largely pointless (though the game’s “cards” were an improvement over their sticker predecessors, seeing as you could power up cards by painting them, and you could gradually increase your maximum paint through battles, so there was some semblance of progression). So Color Splash was essentially a version of Sticker Star that wasn’t completely broken. But that’s not exactly “on par with the Mario platformers and The Legend of Zelda” now, is it?

Again, one could argue that Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle set things in a right direction for Mario RPGs (and it’s certainly a better game than anything involving the Rabbids has any right to be), but you could also argue it should go in a whole other category. Even still, as enjoyable as Mario + Rabbids is, I still wouldn’t put it on the same level as the Mario RPGs of old.

Thankfully, the fact that the 3DS now houses Superstar Saga and Bowser’s Inside Story means we have access to brilliant Mario RPGs on contemporary hardware. But it’s kind of sad that Nintendo had to resort to past success in order to do so. Don’t get me wrong, the remakes are great, but it would be great if we could also get a brand new Mario RPG that could live up to its legacy.

Super Mario RPG, Paper Mario, Superstar Saga, Thousand-Year Door and Bowser’s Inside Story are widely (and wisely) considered the top-tier Mario RPGs. But the sad thing is it seems like Nintendo has no plans on making a Mario RPG like they used to.

What’s particularly sad about that scenario is that the Mario franchise on the whole has really never been better. The release of Super Mario Galaxy in 2007 began a Mario renaissance that continues to this day. Between it, Galaxy 2, 3D World, Mario Kart 8, Super Mario Maker and Odyssey, the Mario franchise hasn’t lost any steam. And while Bowser’s Inside Story was released within this timeframe, that was it for the RPGs.

For whatever reason, Nintendo decided to strip away the things that made Mario RPGs so memorable in the first place. And instead of listening to fans and changing course (as they have in other areas in recent years), they’ve just gone into overdrive in regards to watering down the once great sub-genre. If one were only to have played Color Splash and Paper Jam, they’d never know that Mario RPGs were, at one point, among Nintendo’s finest achievements.

Here’s hoping that the recent remakes of Superstar Saga and Bowser’s Inside Story remind Nintendo of what Mario RPGs once were, and help them figure out how they can recreate that magic.

Whether its a worthwhile Mario & Luigi, a Paper Mario that returns to its roots, doing the impossible and teaming with Square to make a direct sequel to Super Mario RPG, or something new entirely, a new Mario RPG that can live up to the legacy of its best predecessors is something Nintendo sorely needs.

Avengers: Infinity War Review

*Caution: This review contains spoilers regarding the first few minutes of Infinity War, and regarding the ending of previous MCU film Thor Ragnarok*

The Marvel Cinematic Universe proved to be the most successful gamble in movie history. What was at one time (if you can believe it) a risky move to see if the “shared universe” concept of comic books could be translated to cinema, the MCU has since become the biggest franchise in movie history.

When The Avengers was released in 2012, it brought together Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Bruce Banner/the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), the former four having a feature film or two of their own beforehand, and the latter two having ‘guest roles’ in those same features. At the time, this was an unprecedented feat, and marked the point when the MCU came to fruition.

Little did we realize that The Avengers wasn’t the big payoff, but merely the end of the opening act of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. An unseen threat loomed behind the action in The Avengers, with the film’s mid-credits sequence revealing the foe to be Thanos, an intergalactic despot of immense strength and cataclysmic ambitions. That wasn’t a simple tease to the next Avengers film, however, as 2015’s Age of Ultron felt like an odd detour in the proceedings. The Thanos reveal was a glimpse at the full story arc of the entire MCU.

It would take the MCU a full decade from the release of Iron Man – the first film in the mega-franchise – before it reached its crescendo. After eighteen proceeding films from 2008 to 2018, everything came to a head with Avengers: Infinity War, the “first half” of the conclusion of the MCU up to this point.

Yes, after all this time, Thanos (Josh Brolin) decided to finally get off his floating space chair and go on his universal Easter egg hunt for the six Infinity Stones – five of which had been featured as previous plot devices in the MCU – with which he can alter all of reality as he sees fit with the snap of his fingers.

Infinity War begins shortly after the events of Thor Ragnarok. The spaceship housing the last surviving Asgardians after the destruction of their homeworld has been overtaken by Thanos and his cult-like followers, who have already claimed one Infinity Stone. Thanos has killed half of the Asgardians on the ship and subdued Thor, and bests even the Hulk in quick fashion, before finally killing Loki (Tom Hiddleston) to claim the Tesserect, and the second Infinity Stone within it. A dying Heimdall (Idris Elba) uses the last of his power to send Hulk to Earth, to warn its heroes of Thanos’s impending invasion. The Hulk winds up in the Sanctum Sanctorum, where he reverts back to Bruce Banner, and relays the warning to Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch).

This all happens in about the first five or so minutes of the film. It’s certainly a strong opener for Infinity War, filled with a surprising amount of emotion, and effectively showcasing Thanos as the ultimate threat in the MCU. Though on the downside of things, if you were a fan of Thor Ragnarok, that film’s hopeful ending is undone almost instantaneously here.

Without going into too much detail, the plot from then on out involves Thanos’s quest for the remaining Infinity Stones, and how it draws the various Avengers (and Guardians of the Galaxy) from all over the cosmos to try and put a stop to his machinations. In terms of the sheer amount of characters present from so many different movies, and how the story takes them to different corners of the universe, Infinity War presents an unprecedented scope.

On top of the aforementioned heroes, we also have Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen), Vision (Paul Bettany), T’Challa/Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman), Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tom Holland), James Rhodes/War Machine (Don Cheadle), Sam Wilson/Falcon (Anthony Mackie), and Bucky Barnes/Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). In addition, the Guardians of the Galaxy consist of Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista), Mantis (Pom Klementieff), Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), Rocket the raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) and Nebula (Karen Gillan). Strangely, despite being one of the original six Avengers, Hawkeye is suspiciously absent.

Unquestionably, this is the biggest cast of any super hero movie. It would be easy for the film to collapse on itself under the pressure of juggling so many different characters and trying to give them all a place in the story. But Infinity War, against all odds, manages to make it work. Sure, its balancing act isn’t quite as perfectly executed as the original Avengers in 2012, but considering how many more heroes were added to the MCU since then, the fact that Infinity War manages to tell a coherent story at all is in itself a minor miracle.

“The man himself.”

In an interesting twist on super hero norms, it’s the villain of the story, Thanos, who is the closest thing Infinity War has to a main character amidst its robust ensemble. And this was probably the only way it could have gone. The first Avengers reused a villain in Loki, in order to keep its focus on joining its heroes together, and it worked beautifully. Age of Ultron floundered more than a little bit because it rushed its titular villain’s entire story arc into a single film that was also trying to tell so many other stories.

The MCU as a whole had been teasing Thanos’s role as the ultimate big bad of its mythology since the first Avengers film, though he was mostly shrouded in mystery. His goal of obtaining all the Infinity Stones was made clear from the get-go, but that was the extent of audience’s knowledge of the character. Infinity War ends up working by being the payoff to Thanos’s hype. While The Avengers could keep its focus on the heroes by enlisting a fully-established villain like Loki to fill the antagonist role, Infinity War kind of does the opposite. Seeing as this is the third Avengers film, the MCU is used to seeing its heroes teaming up by this point. By shining the spotlight on a villain we only saw hints of in the past, Thanos is able to become a fleshed-out character, and serves as the anchor that holds this massive story in check. And Josh Brolin gives a standout performance that makes the character live up to the hype.

On the subject of Thanos, I guess it’s only fair to address the elephant in the room. The Mad Titan’s motives for wanting the Infinity Stones is finally made clear in Infinity War, and it’s proven a bit divisive.

After Thanos’s home planet became overpopulated, its resources were ravaged at an alarming rate, leading to the planet’s complete collapse. After that, Thanos became obsessed with population control, and initially accomplished this by means of traveling to different planets with his armies, and killing half of their population, thus “saving” those worlds from suffering the same fate as his, in his warped mind. Thanos seeks the all-powerful Infinity Stones because, with all six incrusted in his gauntlet, he can eliminate half of all life in the universe with a single snap.

The point of contention with all this being that, if possessing every Infinity Stone would essentially make Thanos omnipotent, why wouldn’t he use such godlike ability to create more resources in the universe? Even I admit that point popped up in my head the first time I watched Infinity War. However, everyone who cries foul that this is some sort of gaping plot hole is sorely mistaken. It’s certainly not a plot hole (at worst it would be considered inconsistent logic within the character), but repeat viewings have proven this to be entirely consistent with Thanos as he is portrayed in the film.

Thanos is an unflinching sociopath. He is nihilistic when it comes to the lives of others, and has a god complex when it comes to himself (suffice to say, a volatile combination). In his perverted mind, making more resources would mean people would ravage them twice as fast. He’s utterly faithless and hopeless in regards to his fellow man. Not to mention, by controlling the population of the entire universe, Thanos would simultaneously be feeding his god complex.

Some would argue that such details need a better explanation in the film, but do they really? If you take the time to study the character, instead of just jumping at the first opportunity to lambast a movie for its perceived faults, Thanos’s actions explain it all. Besides, it’s a vast improvement over the comic book version, in which Thanos is in love with the personification of death, and wishes to wipe out half of all life to win her affections (Geez! Killing half the universe just to impress a girl? Slow down there, High School!).

What ultimately matters, however, is that Infinity War succeeds in making Thanos the ultimate threat of the Avengers and company. Though some may miss the carefree entertainment of the first Avengers film, it makes sense that the series would grow up and mature for its grand finale. And Infinity War is a fittingly dramatic epic that brings a sense of urgency to the MCU that hadn’t been felt before.

“Everyone is here.”

That’s not to say that the fun has gone away from the series. Our heroes retain their distinctive personalities and sense of humor, so the film still finds time to lighten the mood when it’s appropriate (with Tony Stark and Drax getting the best comedic bits). Just don’t expect the villains to be cracking jokes in the way Loki and Ultron did.

Naturally, there’s still a good deal of action sequences to be had, some of which are among the best in the MCU. There may not be a single battle as memorable as the fight for New York at the end of the first Avengers, but we still get a good fill of action set pieces.

Infinity War isn’t perfect, of course. There are so many characters here that, naturally, some will comparatively get lost in the shuffle. It seems every Avengers film features a character who drew the short end of the stick (Hawkeye in the original, Ultron himself in Age of Ultron). Here, it’s Vision who comes across as little more than dead weight for the team. Sure, not everyone could have a big role in a film that has so much going on, but considering the character entered the picture in Age of Ultron with some promise (he managed to lift Thor’s hammer), the fact that he fizzles out so spectacularly in the big payoff movie makes Vision feel like a disappointment.

As stated, Infinity War just has so much going on, that it doesn’t always have as clear of a focus as the first Avengers (though it certainly has more of it than Age of Ultron). Again, I can’t be too hard on it, because the fact that it works at all – let alone as great as it does – is a true achievement. But I’d be lying if I said there aren’t a few moments of exhaustion from the sheer size of the film.

Avengers: Infinity War may have some rough edges, but it is no doubt an appropriately epic and dramatic first chapter to the conclusion of the MCU (so far). It ups the stakes of previous entries considerably, and even tugs at the heart at times. And even when the film may start to feel overstretched at times, it’s memorable villain who lives up to the hype, in combination with the returning personalities of the heroes, helps keep it afloat. This is a grand finale (at least, the first part of it) that actually feels grand.

 

8

Avengers: Age of Ultron Review

Age of Ultron, the 2015 follow-up to The Avengers, is an interesting movie, but not always for the right reasons. While 2012’s Avengers was a simple, focused showcase of action and fanservice, Age of Ultron seems unsure of what it wants to be. The Avengers movies should be the apex of their respective “phases” of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, culminating the individual story arcs of the heroes of the preceding films, and giving a justifiable reason for them to collectively close those chapters of their stories. Age of Ultron, however, rarely seems like the follow-up to what its predecessors were building towards, and often seems preoccupied with hyping up the movies to come. Combine that with a villain’s story arc that feels rushed into the proceedings, and Age of Ultron is the Avengers film that feels all over the place.

Age of Ultron reunites the Avengers: Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner/the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). They’ve successfully raided the fortress of the Hydra commander Baron Wolfgang von Strucker, who was in possession of Loki’s staff (spear, scepter, whatever) from the first Avengers film. It’s here that the Avengers first encounter Wanda and Pietro Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson), twins who have been given superhuman powers by the experimentations of Strucker (Wanda has telepathic/energy powers, and Pietro can run at super speeds).

Later, Tony Stark and Bruce Banner discover that the gem on Lok’s staff possesses an artificial intelligence, and in secret from the rest of the team, decide to utilize it to finish Tony Stark’s dream of the “Ultron” global defense system.

Things don’t go as planned, however, and Ultron gains a sentience that – after instantaneously developing knowledge of the world via the internet and various databases and archives – determines that humans are in need of extinction. Ultron destroys Stark’s beloved AI, J.A.R.V.I.S. (Paul Bettany), and takes control of many of Stark’s machines, creating an army of robot bodies for himself. Ultron (James Spader) sets out to bring about human extinction, and recruits Wanda and Pietro – who only wish to defeat the Avengers and are unaware of Ultron’s true intentions – to his cause. Naturally, it’s up to the combined efforts of the Avengers to put a stop to Ultron’s evil plot.

The idea that the Avengers needing to save the world from an evil robot may not sound too complex of a plot, but thanks to a few creative missteps, Age of Ultron ends up feeling overstuffed and confused as to where it wants to go. There’s still entertainment to be had with Age of Ultron, but it falls considerably short of its predecessor by not studying what made the first Avengers work so well.

The first of Age of Ultron’s great sins is Ultron himself. Though Spader gives a good performance – adding a touch of humor to the mad machine’s menace – the character often feels lost in the shuffle. The original Avengers worked so well largely because it resurrected an established villain. Loki had his introduction in Thor. His character, motivation and power were all introduced in that film. By bringing Loki back for The Avengers, the film didn’t need to take the time to establish him as a threat, and instead could focus almost entirely on the idea of the heroes teaming up to stop him.

By contrast, Ultron’s introduction in his titular movie feels insanely rushed. At no prior point in the MCU was Stark’s idea for any global defense system (let alone one named ‘Ultron’) ever brought up. Age of Ultron rapidly presents the idea as something Stark and Banner have discussed before, sees them create the AI, and shows Ultron gain sentience and go berserk all in a single scene. The film then scrambles to make Ultron a viable threat that warrants the necessity of the Avengers to reunite.

Ultron would have worked so much better as a villain if he had a proper build. Perhaps if Stark’s idea for Ultron – and his and Banner’s work on the project – were established in a previous film, then Age of Ultron could have simply seen the AI go rogue and become the villainous robot he was destined to be. As it is, Ultron’s very presence feels rushed into the film, and because his entire arc is presented in a film that already had to continue the arcs of each Avenger (in addition to introducing Wanda and Pietro, as well as Vision, an artificial super being with J.A.R.V.I.S.’s conscience), it makes Age of Ultron feel more bloated than epic.

The other big issue with Age of Ultron is that much of it is sidetracked with hyping up the future of the MCU. Every MCU film hints and teases at what’s to come in the mega-franchise, but the Avengers films should serve as some form of closure. Sure, the original Avengers brought us the initial glimpses of the MCU’s big bad in the form of Loki’s cosmic benefactor, but it did so on the side. The Avengers linked to the greater mythology of the MCU through that one element, but it was underplayed, with the film otherwise bringing a sense of closure to “Phase One” of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Age of Ultron, by contrast, features an entire subplot of Thor having visions of the Infinity Stones, and the big bad who wishes to claim them. We even get a few teases of Black Panther with the presence of Ulysses Klaw (Andy Serkis) and several Wakanda name drops.

2012’s Avengers wrapped up everything that preceded it with a nice little bow, while giving a small hint of the future. Age of Ultron, unfortunately, is so preoccupied with hyping future installments that it’s own story – which already didn’t have the luxury of being built up in previous films – flounders because of it.

With all this said, Avengers: Age of Ultron isn’t an all-out bad movie. It still contains some top notch action set pieces that should satisfy any super hero fan (though none of the action scenes here match up to those of the original Avengers). And the returning Avengers still have their distinct personalities, with plenty of fun quips and one-liners still present (one particularly funny running gag involves the technicalities of Thor’s hammer, and how only the “worthy” can lift it).

There’s still fun to be had with Age of Ultron. There are plenty of moments that provide some good, solid entertainment. But when it faces the inevitable comparison to its predecessor, it falls considerably short. The first Avengers could have been a disaster with all the elements it had to juggle, but it miraculously weaved them all together in a way that delivered a satisfying coming-together sequel of all its involved parties. Age of Ultron simply didn’t repeat what made its predecessor such a roaring success.

The Avengers films should be the culmination of what all the preceding MCU features build towards. But Age of Ultron doesn’t continue what any of its predecessors started, and is so busy being a hype machine for future MCU installments, that it simply doesn’t live up to its status as an Avengers film.

 

5

Marvel’s The Avengers Review

In 2008’s Iron Man, its now-trailblazing after-credits sequence featured Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), an agent of the organization S.H.I.E.L.D., confront Iron Man himself, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Fury would utter the line “I’m here to talk to you about the Avengers initiative.” This was the first tease of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a bold concept that sought to link different Marvel movie franchises together as part of one singular mega-franchise.

Having multiple narratives take place in a shared mythology was something that comic books (and to a lesser extent, video games) had been doing for decades. But such a concept seemed too monumental a task to undertake in the movie world. Comics and video games provided easier means for creators to spread out their own works. But movies would require different creators to work on different films (often simultaneously), giving each their own unique vision, while also weaving them into a coherent whole.

Iron Man was followed by The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011) and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), each one featuring teases and hints of a greater franchise shared between them. The Marvel Cinematic Universe came to fruition with the release of The Avengers in 2012.

The Avengers brought together the stars of the five previous films: Iron Man, Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo, mercifully replacing Edward Norton from the 2008 film), in addition to two other heroes featured in the previous films, Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner).

The heroes are all brought together when Loki (Tom Hiddleston) – the villainous brother of Thor – is transported to Earth, and absconds with the Tesserect, an all-powerful energy sourcewhich was being studied by S.H.I.E.L.D. Loki, under instruction from a mysterious cosmic despot, is equipped with a magic weapon that can control the minds of others (the film humorously can’t decide if this weapon is a spear, staff or scepter). Loki takes control of several S.H.I.E.L.D. agents (including Hawkeye) and one Dr. Selvig (Stellen Skarsgard), and makes off with the Tesserect, destroying the S.H.I.E.L.D. base in the process. A desperate Nick Fury decides now is a grave enough situation to finally act of the Avengers Initiative.

It’s a simple enough setup, but that’s part of why the film ends up working so well. It never overthinks what it needs to be, and wisely understands that the literal plot isn’t what needed all the time and attention in this particular instance. The important thing was how to bring all these characters together and how they interact with one another.

Naturally, there is conflict among our heroes, with their differing personalities butting heads with one another, particularly Captain America and Iron Man (the former being the ideal selfless hero, and the latter, while still ultimately good, is an arrogant showman). Thor, being from another world and still having sympathy for his vengeful brother, is often at odds with the earthly heroes. And there’s always the lingering tension that Bruce Banner can, at any minute, become the monstrous Hulk. It’s Nick Fury and Black Widow who have the coolest heads among them, while Hawkeye gets the short end of the stick as a mindless zombie under Loki’s control for most of the film.

There was something truly special about seeing all these heroes come together on the big screen back in 2012. And even though the MCU is omnipresent nowadays, there’s still a lot of charm exuding from this first Marvel hero get-together.

Another reason The Avengers works so well is that it functions as a proper sequel to all parties involved. The Avengers can be enjoyed on its own merits (another big plus), but it made the wise decision to utilize assets established in all five of its preceding films in order to tell its own story. The joining together of the different heroes is obvious, but re-using an established villain in Loki was a brilliant move. As the bitter younger brother of Thor, we already know his personality, his desires, and his goals. He’s an established threat powerful enough to justify the coming-together of all these heroes. And after his defeat at the hands of his brother in Thor’s titular film, Loki is more determined than ever, and wishes to enslave the Earth as a petty means to get back at his brother. Even the plot device Loki wishes to use, the Tesserect,  was first introduced in Captain America: The First Avenger.

None of these aspects simply feel recycled, however, and instead The Avengers uses these established characters and elements to build its own narrative. Some of the characters, including (if not especially) Loki, even became more fleshed out with their appearances here. As stated, there’s not a whole lot to the storyline other than “good guys need to team up to stop the bad guy,” but that’s part of why The Avengers works as well as it does. The previous five installments of the MCU gave us the stories of these characters, and Avengers was to be their big, fanservice-heavy collective sequel. It’s not an origin story like its predecessors, but one big action movie that happens to star the heroes of five previous super hero films.

The action set pieces remain some of the best not only in the MCU, but of the entire movie decade. It’s final battle – which sees Loki summon an army of aliens called Chitauri into New York City – is an extensive battle sequence that ramps up the excitement as it goes on. It should rank as one of the best battle sequences in movie history, and was inarguably the best since The Lord of the Rings trilogy gave us the battles of Helms Deep and Minas Tirith.

But The Avengers is also a very funny movie, which adds to its entertainment value. This is a rare example of a movie which gives each of its distinct characters the opportunity to ease the tension with one-liners and witty quips. Naturally, the sarcastic Tony Stark dishes out the most zingers, but the humor is successfully spread throughout its cast, playing uniquely into each of their distinct personalities. It’s a genuinely funny movie.

The MCU would naturally mature over time, with appropriately more dramatic storytelling. But the first gathering of the Avengers was just all-out entertainment. And there’s something that remains delightful about that. It hints at the largest threat of the MCU (Loki’s mysterious benefactor seems important), but only does so in small doses, and wisely keeps its focus on the individual heroes needing to set aside their differences for a greater good. It’s a rare instance of a big blockbuster in the 2010s knowing exactly what it needs to be, and doing just that.

Yes, the MCU has grown up a lot in the seven years since The Avengers was released. And the heroes have now shown up so frequently in each other’s movies that seeing them all join together here may not seem as mind-blowing as it once did. But The Avengers is still perhaps the ideal go-to entry of the MCU for those simply looking for a consistently good time.

 

8

Shazam! Review

Shazam! is a pleasant surprise. While the DC Extended Universe has been a bit of a mess – trying to play catch up with Marvel’s Cinematic Universe too quickly and filled with movies who think forced brooding and edginess equate to maturity – Shazam! takes a step back, looks at the current state of the super hero genre, and happily takes it back to its more innocent early years. In a time when even Marvel’s films are becoming more and more serious (though they have actually earned their more mature tone after years of growing, and still understand that being ‘serious’ doesn’t have to come at the expense of fun), it’s fun to see a movie like Shazam! embrace the sillier side of comic book super heroes.

Formerly known as Captain Marvel (yeah, it’s a little confusing, so let’s not go down that rabbit hole right now), Shazam is actually one of the oldest comic book super heroes. And yet, he’s remained relatively obscure, never reaching the mainstream heights of Superman, Batman or Marvel’s Spider-Man. Hopefully this movie can change that, and do to Shazam! what 2008’s Iron Man did for its titular super hero, and turn its subject into a mainstream attraction.

It’s a wonder why Shazam has remained in Superman’s shadow. The origin story of this hero is at once simple and earnest, and something of a parody of super hero conventions (which it did long before parodying super hero conventions was a thing). Most super heroes are born with their powers (like Superman or the X-Men), gain them through freak accidents (the Incredible Hulk) or make them through their own skillsets (like Batman and Iron Man), and have duel identities of hero and civilian. Shazam, meanwhile, is a kid who transforms into an adult superhero by the magic gifted to him by a wizard.

It’s a beautifully simplistic origin story, really. And I kind of wish more comic book authors would have looked to it for inspiration over many of the more convoluted super hero origins that became the norm.

The kid in question is Billy Batson (Asher Angel), an orphan who has bounced around from one foster home to the next, often running away on his own volition. Billy eventually finds himself in another foster home, where he becomes foster brothers with Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Grazer), a disabled super hero fan who quickly becomes Billy’s best friend, despite their differing personalities.

Meanwhile, in another dimension, an ancient wizard named Shazam (Djimon Hounsou) has been keeping seven demons (named after the Seven Deadly Sins) imprisoned with his power for centuries. But Shazam’s body is succumbing to age, and his seal on the demons is withering along with his body. Shazam has thus been seeking an heir to inherit his immense magical power, both to keep the demons sealed away, and to protect the mortal world from any other supernatural threats. After his fellow wizards put their faith on a successor that went rogue long ago, Shazam sought to find the perfect heir.

Shazam’s spells had found him many candidates through the years, but all of them failed his tests of character in one way or another. So he continued his duty despite his weakening seal on the demons. One of these failed heirs, however, became obsessed with discovering the way back to Shazam’s dimension. Naturally, this individual became an evil genius, Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). After Sivana discovers a portal to Shazam’s realm some decades later, he takes revenge on the wizard by taking the power of the demons, which he plans on unleashing on the Earth for his own nefarious gains.

With no more time to lose in his misguided quest for a ‘perfect’ candidate, Shazam changes course to find the best possible candidate in the time he has left. And when Billy displays his strength of character by standing up to some bullies who were harassing Freddy, he is summoned to Shazam’s chambers to inherit the wizards unfathomable power, which he can call upon at any time by saying the sorcerer’s name.

In place of merely possessing the wizard’s abilities, Billy is transformed into an adult super hero (Zachary Levi) whenever he utters Shazam’s name (and reverts back to his normal self whenever he says it in his hero form). Not knowing what to do with his newfound power, Billy seeks the aide of Freddie’s extensive knowledge of super heroes to discover the true extent of his abilities.

The premise itself is just so much fun. I make no secret my disdain for Superman, a character who can essentially outdo every other DC hero at their own game, and does so with a holier-than-thou disposition. But here we have a hero who is just as powerful as Superman (more so in some continuities), but has the carefree, irresponsible and sarcastic attitude of a kid. While Superman often seems to look down on “lesser” beings, Shazam is likely to be as surprised and amazed by his own powers as everyone around him. Superman is so often treated as a perfect beacon of heroism, but is actually kind of arrogant and condescending. Shazam, on the other hand, is recognized as having flaws despite his power, and has to learn and grow because of his faults, making him a far more compelling character.

Yeah, I’m going on about the contrasts between Shazam and ol’ Supes. But I find that Shazam as a character is essentially a better and more lighthearted version of the Man of Steel. I’m happy that this movie might make more people recognize the character of Shazam after being left out of the mainstream for so long.

And yes, the film Shazam! fully embraces the silly nature of the character. This is one of the funniest super hero films in recent memory. While the majority of the DCEU has been bogged down by its “edgelord” mentality, and the MCU has grown more serious as it reaches its crescendo, Shazam! is a delightful break from brooding that tells a good story, and has a whole lot of fun with it.

That’s not to say the film lacks seriousness. On the contrary, the character development feels organic, and the emotional moments feel rightly earned. Shazam! is a super hero film that understands you can laugh at the material without making itself a joke. The acting is similarly well done, with Angel, Grazer and Levi all giving memorable performances that add to both the film’s story and its sense of humor.

Unfortunately, Shazam does make a few missteps with its pacing. A number of key story moments come off as rushed, while other, less important moments can linger at times. In one notable example, the first scene we meet the adult Dr. Sivana and learn of his quest to return to Shazam’s dimension…is also the the scene in which Dr. Sivana discovers his way back to Shazam’s dimension. The film’s opening scene (which depicts a young Sivana who fails Shazam’s test) gives us a good understanding of the character’s motivation, but it’s a shame that when we’re re-introduced to the character in his proper villainous state, we kind of get rushed through his ambitions.

Still, whatever pacing issues the film may have ultimately can’t detract from Shazam!’s entertainment value. Shazam! is a film that rewinds the clock back a bit, to a time when super hero films were a bit lighter and more breezy, but still treats its story with respect and dignity. Shazam! is a funny and surprisingly thoughtful movie that delivers on its poignant moments almost as often as it does its comedic ones (the relationship between Billy and Freddy is a refreshingly original dynamic for a super hero film). It’s certainly the best DCEU film so far, and one of 2019’s most charming movies.

And yes, I think Shazam would totally beat Superman in a fight.

 

7

Dumbo (2019) Review

No movie studio has ever had the sheer dominance that Disney has now. Between its own animation division and that of Pixar Animation Studios, Disney’s animated output has never been stronger critically and commercially. Combine that with their adopted branches of Marvel and Star Wars, and Disney nearly has a monopoly on blockbuster filmmaking in the modern age. Outside of these “big four” divisions, Disney has also found a recent trend of creating live-action remakes of their animated back catalogue, which have also proven to be box office successes, though they have a much more mixed reception than the aforementioned Disney franchises.

The Jungle Book (2016) is the most widely embraced of these remakes, though 2017’s Beauty and the Beast was a substantial box office success as well. Still, many audiences still question the necessity of these live-action remakes as a continuing sub-genre for Disney. After all, if Disney’s animated films are already considered timeless classics, they never really needed to be remade to begin with.

But Disney will continue with these live-action remakes (which I personally don’t mind, as I’ve enjoyed some of them, and it’s not like they take anything away from the original films). And now the House of Mouse has gone back to the well that started it all by enlisting Tim Burton – who directed 2010’s Alice in Wonderland, which set this sub-genre in motion – to helm the live-action remake of one of Disney’s most beloved films, Dumbo.

Now, I do have to admit, I’ve had an inescapable fondness for Dumbo ever since I was little. The original Disney film made elephants my favorite animal as a kid, helped me learn about storytelling, and yes, I attribute Dumbo as being the reason I’ve never drunk alcohol. As such, Disney would have had to actively sabotage this remake in order for me to outright dislike it. Don’t get me wrong, 2019’s Dumbo suffers from a number of the same shortcomings of not only the past live-action Disney remakes, but of Tim Burton’s resume as a whole. But I’d be lying if I said my heart didn’t melt every time the film manages to find its footing and tell the simple story of a misfit baby elephant who just wants to see his mom.

Of course, it’s because Burton and company see fit to expand this simple story that this remake isn’t on the same level as the original, but that’s not to say that their efforts are completely in vain. There’s a stronger focus on human characters this time around, and while they can at times overshadow the titular pachyderm we all came to see, they can also add to the proceedings.

Unfortunately, the main human character, Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), is a little on the bland side. Farrell is fine in the role, but the role doesn’t have much of note written for him. Holt is a former circus performer-turned soldier, who returns home with only one arm, a deceased wife, and the circus he called home stuck in a rut. The character’s backstory is decent, but Holt has little else in the realms of personality, nor does his story arc go very far from where we meet him. Holt has two children, Milly (Nico Parker) and Joe (Finely Hobbins), the former with hopes to become a scientist, and the latter… well… he’s a boy (I honestly can’t give more of a description of the character).

On the brighter side of things, the down-on-his-luck ringmaster of Holt’s circus is Max Medici (Danny DeVito). And do I really need to explain why Danny DeVito as a down-on-his-luck circus ringmaster is entertaining? The other strong human character is V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), a rich entrepreneur in the entertainment industry who begins to notice Medici’s small-time circus once word spreads they’ve found themselves a flying elephant. Vandevere of course sees nothing but dollar signs in Medici’s star attraction, and Keaton wonderfully plays the role as a kind of sequel to his performance as Ray Croc in The Founder. Vandevere is often accompanied by the French beauty, Collette (Eva Green), though unfortunately she’s only slightly more interesting than Holt.

Obviously, there are quite a few human characters, which won’t sit well for everyone, considering this is Dumbo. Thankfully, the film is much more consistent when it decides to focus on the titular elephant. As in the 1941 original, Dumbo himself never speaks, nor does he need to. Though sadly, Dumbo doesn’t have a talking mouse to speak for him this time around, which kind of epitomizes the complaints geared towards Disney’s live-action remakes. In their attempts to be more grounded, they rob these stories of some of their most imaginative elements (considering this is a story about a flying elephant, is a talking mouse really so out of place?).

What’s unique about this particular remake is that, contrary to some of its recent predecessors, Dumbo does justify its existence a bit more by actually remixing the story a bit, instead of merely retreading it. The 1941 film ended with Dumbo learning his ability to fly with his oversized ears, but here, the revelation takes place in the first act. The counterargument to this change would be that it mostly exists to create more conflict between the human characters (with Vandevere manipulating Medici to procure the elephant), but it is admirable to see Tim Burton and company try their hand at their own take on the story.

The film makes a few other changes as well, some of which surely won’t sit well with purists. Along with the absence of Timothy the mouse (who only shows up in a seconds-long cameo, unable to speak), the psychedelic ‘Pink Elephants’ number – which warned of the dangers of alcohol in a way only animation could – has been gutted. Some of the Pink Elephants imagery is recreated as ‘bubble art’ in Vandevere’s amusement park, but it lacks the purpose and surrealism of the song that inspired it.

What matters most, of course, is that the film gets the heart of the story right. That is to say, the relationship between Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. Thankfully, as sidetracked as the film might get at times, when it does focus on Dumbo attempting to be reunited with his captive mother, it finds its footing. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t get a little misty-eyed on a few different occasions when the film shifts its focus back to “sad baby elephant wants to see his mama.”

Is Tim Burton’s Dumbo cheating its way to my heart through the use of a story I’ve had an innate love for since I was a child? Maybe. But I’m also not a machine who can turn off their emotions, and “baby elephant wants to see his mom” is a setup that will always make my heart swell. And, well, this remake delivers on just that.

Tim Burton’s interpretation of Dumbo may be far from perfect – as it gets too distracted too often, and a number of the human characters fall flat – but it still manages to find the heart of the story when it matters. Sure, if you’re not a fan of Disney’s live-action remakes, this version of Dumbo won’t win you over. But the film has Burton’s distinct visual style, and manages to blend it with the colorful world of the source material without it ever feeling off-putting. Both Danny DeVito and Michael Keaton’s characters are great, and yes, Dumbo’s simple journey to be reunited with his mom still tugs at the heart strings.

 

6