New Trailer for CATS

Universal Pictures has released a new Cats trailer and, well, I'm sure based on the reaction to the first trailer you can guess how things went down with this one. What's crazy to me is, that despite remembering very vividly having a VHS tape of the stage production and very vividly recalling watching certain pieces of it, I have no idea what the Broadway musical is about much less whatever Oscar-winning director Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) and his collaboration with Lee Hall (Billy Elliot) on the screenplay might amount to. Whatever it might be, bad or good come the end of the day, an ambitious take on the long-running production seems to be what we're in for at the very least; and if there's genuine emotion and clear desire to make something real out of what is clearly a silly premise-I can get down with that. The ultimate thing is, despite the online backlash over the look of the titular characters (instead of using makeup to make the actors look like cats, Hooper and co. utilized new performance-capture technology to create entirely CG felines), I don't personally find it that distracting. I mean, c'mon-the now highest grossing movie of all time features a talking raccoon and a giant purple hero eater as its antagonist. Like that film, Hooper's Cats boasts a star-studded ensemble led by Jennifer Hudson, James Corden, and Taylor Swift and it is with musically inclined names such as these combined with the fact Hooper has more than a little experience in the musical genre (he also directed the Hugh Jackman/Russell Crowe Les Miserables) that one is led to believe there might be some genuinely cool ideas and effortlessly strong executions within this puzzle of a premise. And say what you will, but the production design here is kind of jaw-dropping while the clips of the musical performances we see look to be really well done, so why all the fuss? Is it simply because it's CGI cats doing these things? Sure, I get it, but if that's the only case against it yet the Broadway musical has somehow managed to be a long-running hit I have to imagine there is an audience out there who isn't as bothered by as much as the community on the internet who is ready to damn this thing to hell before it even arrives seems to be. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily excited to see Cats, but I'm certainly intrigued and not going to not see it based purely on the fact the character designs make me feel uncomfortable. I tend to appreciate Hooper's aesthetics and "on-the-ground" mentality meshed with the larger than life prowess of his visuals and I can only think that will be ratcheted up to eleven on this one. Cats also stars Judi Dench, Jason Derulo, Idris Elba, Ian McKellen, Rebel Wilson, Francesca Hayward and opens in theaters on December 20th, 2019.

THE GIVER Review

I somehow managed to make it through all of middle school, jr. high and high school without ever cracking open a copy of Lois Lowry's The Giver. This wasn't due to the fact I was trying to avoid the work; I can remember seeing other kids reading it all around me in my seventh grade year and the cover with the old man and his wiry beard is an image that will always strike me as intriguing, but for one reason or another I was never made to sit down and read it and by the time I was in high school it was a distant memory. Why a feature film adaptation hasn't been made before now is quite curious, but with the recent wave of young adult adaptations it is also pretty clear why we are getting a version of this story now. Unfortunately, despite the fact Lowry tapped into exploring the themes and ideas present here in a way that younger audiences might understand first this doesn't automatically mean the film version will be as appealing or revelatory. Today, we live in a world of Harry Potter and Twilight where books that teens actually read are turned into massive franchises ultimately marginalizing the literature. In this world every quasi-popular series has been taken, given the Hollywood treatment in an attempt to launch a franchise and if they fail they're never heard from again. It is a vicious game won only if you have a large enough, pre-determined fanbase. There have been some unfortunate casualties (Beautiful Creatures) and some that were dead on arrival and deserved to be (The Mortal Instruments). Still, as the pack exists right now it is The Hunger Games and everything else. There is an air of earnestness about this version of The Giver though from the construction of its aesthetic to the performances given by actors that would widely be considered above this material that it doesn't have to be the big kid on the block. Sure, it is another cautionary tale set in a dystopian future (though the Chief Elder would have you believe it's a utopia) where one young person who has grown accustomed to a certain, strict way of life is declared different and breaks the societal rules that eventually lead him/her to discovering what the adults couldn't, but there is something sincere trying to be said here. There is an honesty to the production and a conviction in its story and ideas that is hard to shake while completely satisfying as a movie-going experience.

First Trailer for THE GIVER

The Giver was the 1994 novel that I never made it around to reading despite the fact everyone around me was talking about it in my seventh grade reading class. I don't know how it slipped by me and feel really bad about having never caught up with it, but I guess the fact there is now a movie adaptation heading our way is as good a motivation as any to finally dive in. As I said yesterday when posting the first trailer for The Maze Runner, the race to find the next big Young Adult franchise spun from the pages of hit novels is in full speed, but while this initial teaser trailer wants you to believe The Giver is some kind of companion piece to Divergent (which opens this Friday and where you'll likely see this playing prior), the nature of the novel itself feels very different than the dystopian trilogies that have saturated the market as of late. This is a single novel that only recently received a sequel, but still, not in the common sense of the word and one that studios might find both difficult and rather pleasing to adapt into a straightforward film series. As for this first look at the footage though, I'm impressed with what scope the film seems to take on, but as we've seen so many versions of the "perfect futuristic society" lately they are all beginning to blend together and this trailer does nothing to say that The Giver has anything new to offer. I want to believe the narrative and the characters alone will be enough to set this apart and that the rumors about major changes being made when adapting the book for the screen are false as the original novel was a slim work and one I am definintely keen on diving into before August. The Giver stars Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skarsgard, Katie Holmes, Cameron Monaghan, Taylor Swift and opens August 15th.

THE LORAX Review

I am not as up on my Suessian knowledge as I probably should be. I haven't re-visited the books since elementary school and as for the film adaptations of Dr. Suess's works I haven't really been impressed by them except for the Ron Howard directed "Grinch Who Stole Christmas" which a good majority of people didn't favor. I didn't even bother with "The Cat in the Hat" though and have only seen "Horton Hears a Who" in passing on TV. There was something about "The Lorax" though, from the beginning that had me a little excited about seeing this version. I don't know if it was because it was coming from the guys who brought us the uniquely imaginative "Despicable Me" or that I can fondly remember watching the cartoon when I was little and therefore remember the story a little better than some of the other books. The final product though is somewhat of a glass half full kind of thing. It has some bright moments: the animation is gorgeous and literally pops off the screen, the voice cast is superb, and the unexpected musical numbers are catchy and make you want to look up the soundtrack. I can't even pinpoint the negative aspects of the film. It is generally hard for me to dislike animated films purely by the fact they are always so well-meaning. There is no difference here, but when the first five or so minutes indicated something refreshingly fun and carefree it seemed hard to consistently capture that tone and magic. "The Lorax" is an acceptable entry in the animation canon but it doesn't reach the levels of excellence I for some reason held out for it.

The Lorax (Danny DeVito) warns the Once-ler (Ed Helms)
of the consequences his actions will produce.

The main problem all the features made from Dr. Suess films have had is stretching his short story into feature length form. In order to do that here we have been given a bigger scope of the story that doesn't even include the title character. While this is somewhat jarring as most moviegoers are accustomed to sticking with one particular protagonist, we are instead here, given two. In the present time we have Ted (voice of Zac Efron) a young boy in love with the neighbor girl Audrey (voice of Taylor Swift). Audrey is a lover o nature in a world made completely of plastic. Thneedville is dominated by fake trees and concrete grass and is being controlled by a stubby little man named Mr. O'Hare (voiced by the wonderfully hilarious Rob Riggle) who sells air to make his millions. When Audrey mentions her desire for a real tree it sets our hero Ted on a quest to find his prize that will seal his relationship with his dream girl. With a little help from his Grammy Norma (a fun Betty White) who points him in the direction of the Once-ler who lives outside the safe haven of Thneedville. It is when Ted reaches the crabby ole Once-ler (the scene stealer that is Ed Helms) that we are served what are extended flashbacks disguised as the meat of the movie. Whn the Once-ler was young he left home with big aspirations of making his invention (the "Thneed") a huge success. When he wonders upon a beautiful valley of trees topped with what looks like different colored cotton candy he finds the perfect material to create his masterpiece. The only problem is that the little orange Lorax who is the voice of the trees steps in and stops him from destroying the home of all the creatures that inhabit the valley.

Mr. O'Hare (Rob Riggle) has no interest in trees as he
makes his money from selling clean air.

While the Lorax is our title character and is voiced by what is the most natural fit ever seen in animation, Mr. Danny DeVito, he is hardly at the center of the film, they even take away the fact he provides the heart of the story. That instead seems to be placed on the younger characters of Ted and Audrey to push on and change what has become a world that keeps covering up the problems that it is creating. The Lorax is a symbol that exists simply as a conscience for the Once-ler. I can only remember the book having a bit more of an ominous tone. That it was almost an epic of what used to be and what evil greed had brought to such a pure place. This theme is still exhibited in this film and it has no problem not being subtle about the eco-friendly message it is trying to get across, but it just doesn't come off as genuine as I remember it being. Maybe this is just a product of my more cynical mind now and choose to see this as a movie that preaches the bad ides of selfish, greedy people while in itself being one big advertisement for the merchandise that will be associated with the film. I hate to look at it that way, I would much rather be ignorant and feel like we are all fighting for a good cause with the Lorax and his cuddly friends in the colorful forests. Like I said, we get this kind of camaraderie in splashes of sing song and well executed action pieces that will certainly keep the kiddies entertained and singing along, but the disjointed narrative and lack of depth to this lead character made me slightly disappointed in what I held out hopes for.

Ted (Zac Efron) and Audrey (Taylor Swift) marvel at the last
truffula tree seed.

In the end though, it only really matters a little that this didn't live up to my expectations for it because by the box office return alone it will go down as a success story and it has received more than a handful of positive reactions from families that are simply thankful any time there is a feature there kids can enjoy as well as them. I have no problem admitting I went to see this without the excuse of children and or younger siblings, nieces or nephews. I was generally intrigued by what the ad campaign offered, even if it was a little overbearing. The previews made the humor look cute while hiring an actor an older generation knew to trust with bringing the hilarious. Instead what we have here is a script that lacks the whimsical quality of Suess's original works and instead opts for being a modern, hip tale that will appeal to the masses. There is a repetitive quality about it that allows you to know where it is going and have that sense we have all seen this at some point before. While I have always stood by the fact that Ron Howard at least attempted to capture that unique style of a Suess drawing on film, director Chris Renaud plays it safe here and despite those flavorful breaks from reality that are the musical numbers we are in the end left with a feeling that what we've seen is nothing really special, but instead quite generic. Generic is a word that should hardly be used to describe a piece of Dr. Suess work.

THE LORAX Review

I am not as up on my Suessian knowledge as I probably should be. I haven't re-visited the books since elementary school and as for the film adaptations of Dr. Suess's works I haven't really been impressed by them except for the Ron Howard directed "Grinch Who Stole Christmas" which a good majority of people didn't favor. I didn't even bother with "The Cat in the Hat" though and have only seen "Horton Hears a Who" in passing on TV. There was something about "The Lorax" though, from the beginning that had me a little excited about seeing this version. I don't know if it was because it was coming from the guys who brought us the uniquely imaginative "Despicable Me" or that I can fondly remember watching the cartoon when I was little and therefore remember the story a little better than some of the other books. The final product though is somewhat of a glass half full kind of thing. It has some bright moments: the animation is gorgeous and literally pops off the screen, the voice cast is superb, and the unexpected musical numbers are catchy and make you want to look up the soundtrack. I can't even pinpoint the negative aspects of the film. It is generally hard for me to dislike animated films purely by the fact they are always so well-meaning. There is no difference here, but when the first five or so minutes indicated something refreshingly fun and carefree it seemed hard to consistently capture that tone and magic. "The Lorax" is an acceptable entry in the animation canon but it doesn't reach the levels of excellence I for some reason held out for it.