Angels in the Outfield (1994)

 

There was a period in time when the mighty Disney churned out lots of small-fry family sports movies because they were having much success with them. 'The Mighty Ducks', Air Bud', 'Cool Runnings' 'Little Big League' etc...This spell of sports flicks would continue into the 00's but with more grown-up features based on actual events and people.

This sports flick is a remake of a 1951 movie of the same name but with some changes, the most notable being the baseball team in question is now the LA Angels (which didn't exist back in 51 but I'm sure they would have been used had they existed) instead of the Pittsburgh Pirates. Plus the Pirates coach is a foul-mouthed bully who abuses his players. In this Disney version the movie centres around a young foster boy and his best friend who (after his deadbeat father tells him his family will next be back together when the Angels win the pennant) ask angels to help their favourite team win. As if by magic angels actually turn up and start to help the team. This in turn leads to the short-tempered Angels coach (Danny Glover) to somewhat take advantage of the kids thinking them to be lucky mascots.

As you might expect this movie has a pretty predictable game plan which you could literally tick boxes to as it plays. Coach Knox is having a hard time as his team flounders every week and slide down the division. The two main kids in question turn up, Roger (played by a very young Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and J.P., and Roger starts seeing angels helping the team here and there which leads to Knox wanting to keep him around despite his scepticism. Eventually Knox gets on board with the angels theory (no one can see them but Roger) and gradually starts to believe, as does the rest of the team. The team start to really pick up with a stream of wins leading them to the top of their division. The finale is of course the big championship game but this time the angels cannot help and the team must do it themselves. Do they have the self-belief? (of course they do!).

The angels themselves are of course all CGI but with real actors faces stuck on. As you can imagine these early 90's effects are pretty ropey these days, heck they were ropey back in the 90's. The design for the Godly helpers of course being rather whimsical, cliche, and overall very predictable (what do you expect?). They all wear long white gowns, glow all over in a soothing heavenly white and gold colour scheme, have big feathery wings, and a golden crown of light surrounds their heads to represent halos. Christopher Lloyd as the main (or head) angel is the perfect choice here as I think everyone likes this guy and his quirky fun mannerisms.

The Angels team are again you're predictable bunch, a motley crew of weirdos and wannabes (makes you wonder how they made it to the professional level). Think 'Major League' but for kids. You got the big fat guy who eats all the time. The odd guy who just behaves oddly (played by Neal McDonough). The skinny quiet guy (played by Adrien Brody). The mouthy Latino guy. The good-looking blonde guy (played by Matthew McConaughey). And you have the older has-been guy plagued with injury (played by Tony Danza). This is rounded out with Taylor Negron as the team assistant and Jay O. Sanders as the Angels sportscaster and easily the best part of the movie. Again think of Harry Doyle (played by Bob Ucker) in 'Major League' but a more grumpy version. But how about that cast folks! You don't get lineups like that anymore no Sir.

Despite the entire feature being one massive predictable cliche I can't deny it still works on many levels (seeing as some players had their own tiny subplots). The story of the two young foster boys is well-worked and does hit you in the feels from time to time. The potential of Roger and J.P. getting split up towards the end is definitely a brief sad moment, brief being the key word because you know damn well they won't get split up. Coach Knox slowly going from grumpy violent guy to children-loving father is a nice story arc. Easily the saddest little subplot was the moment we find out has-been player Mel Clarke (Danza) is going to die due to a lifetime of heavy smoking. This actually made me teary-eyed because it was unexpected and quite impactful. It was also really nice to see Knox give him the chance to play one last time and contribute to the team's victory (even though it was down to a tip from Roger seeing angels).

The team winning was obvious from the start yet had me divided simply because they essentially cheated to win, they got divine help from above! How can anyone compete with that? Yeah I know they still had to win the final game on their own but they shouldn't have been there in the first place really. What about the other teams that fought hard and got no help? This Angels team took the spot from another team that actually deserved to be there (I'm looking into this too much I know). And personally I think Ranch Wilder (the sportscaster) got a raw deal because he didn't actually do anything wrong.

Anyways this is Disney all over, but back in the days when Disney was actually still quite enjoyable and not just a franchise consuming political messaging machine. It's definitely a feel good movie you can sit down with at any time with anyone and just engage, relax, and smile. You don't even have to like sports or baseball to like this (although it probably helps a bit). The real location shooting makes everything look authentic and adds to the Americana experience. You do find yourself looking forward to seeing what the angels do in the games. And there is a nice sprinkle of emotion. The conclusion is inevitable and formulaic for sure but you just can't help but just like this. 

7/10

Haunted Mansion (2023)

 

The burning question I'm sure you're all asking, is this 2023 version of 'Haunted Mansion' better than the old 2003 Eddie Murphy vehicle 'The Haunted Mansion'? Well the original 2003 version was reasonable but something of a disappointment only being a loose adaptation of the iconic rides story (not concrete in itself), and of course merely a comedic vehicle for Murphy. 

This new reboot actually goes the whole hog this time and follows the, admittedly loose, Disney story for the ride. Obviously if you've never been to any Disney theme park and never gone inside any of the Haunted Mansion attractions then it won't really matter to you. Plus you won't pick up on many of the little easter eggs and visual touches dotted throughout the movie that hark back to the ride. A shame but what can you do.

As for the plot, well it's a very simple affair mostly because it dates back to the 60's when Walt and co came up with it. Just outside New Orleans sits Gracey Manor which has just been purchased by widow Gabbie (Rosario Dawson) and her son. She intends to turn it into a B&B but has discovered a ghost problem. Said ghost problem prevents them from leaving the mansion because the ghosts relentlessly haunt anyone who leaves until they return. Recent widower Ben (Lakeith Stanfield), an astrophysicist, is hired by Father Kent (Owen Wilson) to go to the mansion due to his invention of a camera that can essentially see ghosts (not overly important in the long run). 

Over time Bruce the historian and professor (Danny DeVito) and Harriet the psychic join the fray also trapped in the house due to the same 'curse'. With the help of a ghostly psychic trapped in a crystal ball (Jamie Lee Curtis), they must all unravel the spooky mystery of why they are trapped inside the mansion. Why are all the ghosts also trapped in the mansion, including an eerie malevolent ghost, and what is this malevolent ghost up to.

Character wise this new version offers more but falls down on the final product. The characters we get are all fine with adequate casting, although some more mature eccentric stars could have been used. The characters themselves are too conflicted and we the audience don't know where they are coming from, or they're just too corny. Widower Ben is generally solemn half the time because of his loss, which is understandable and drives his story but overall it's very cliche. Harriet the psychic appears to be a grifter at first, then she's the real deal but just no good, then outta nowhere she's actually really good. Father Kent is actually a solid character right from the start until we discover he's a fake and pretending, which was pretty disappointing really. Bruce the professor comes across as an obstruction to the cause at first, then sorta helping, but eventually being pretty useless and not needed. Gabbie is a widow...but that never seems to bother her, okay then I guess.

Visuals this version wins wins and wins again. The mansion is exactly as it should be, a lovely antebellum-style mansion with a French quarter New Orleans-style exterior complete with sprawling spooky tree-lined grounds and cemetery. The interiors are also exactly as you would expect with thick wood decorating everywhere, rows of ancient cobweb covered books, dimly lit long hallways, creepy busts, huge portraits etc...Everything is pretty much like the attraction with all the various famous ghosts present and correct. 

The movie actually holds the line between a soft ghostly tale for kids and something with a bit more bite for adults. This isn't a scary movie but its definitely quite creepy in places with lots of nice sinister and phantasmal scenery and sequences. All the CGI supernatural ghost effects look decent which was surprising. In fact, it all kinda got me thinking about how much it looked like a Ghostbusters movie in places and how this plot and movie would have made a pretty solid little Ghostbusters sequel (instead of that farm-based bore fest). The comedy was weak and pathetic so no comparisons there. Just try to ignore the horrendous amount of product placements scattered throughout. 

So in a shocking development that I didn't even see coming, yes I did actually enjoy this movie and yes it is actually better than the 2003 version. Obviously that's not a high bar to clear but nevertheless. Overall this movie is perfectly satisfying if you're into light ghost tales that won't give you a heart attack. I found myself engaged and enjoying the hijinks. At times it's quite dark, at times it's a bit Scooby-Doo-ish, at times it's corny, but overall it works fine.

6.5/10

Shazam! Fury of the Gods (2023)

 

So the original Shazam movie was quite a reasonable stand-alone flick, only one problem, I saw it ages ago and can't really remember that much about it. And here lies the first problem for this sequel, you kinda need to remember stuff from the first movie and you definitely need to have seen it (to a degree).

So straight away I had a problem. The wizard character (played by Djimon Hounsou) seemingly died in the original movie, well he's back now. Secondly, these two female characters (played Helen Mirren and Lucy Liu) appear outta nowhere and appear to be the new baddies for this picture. No idea who they were supposed to be, where they come from, what they want, why they kill innocent folks, why they want the staff thingy from the first movie etc...They're just there and they're based on characters from Greek Mythology (or at least named after them), because we haven't seen that before (ugh!).

 Firstly these new villains look, act, and sound boring. Both are massively unexciting and hugely derivative. Two girl boss villains? Oh gee! I mean seriously, this trope is getting way way outta hand. The only original aspect of these two is that they are mature women. I just felt completely lost for the first half of the movie! This was supposed to be a direct sequel but apart from the Shazam gang (Shazamily? Really?) none of it was familiar at all and the villains had no explanation other than...being Greek Gods or something? Also it is eventually explained that their realm (the Greek realm? Pfft!) was apparently destroyed by Humans? And now they want revenge, highly original concept I know. No real idea why this happened or whatever, I dunno maybe I missed it.

Yeah so the movie flicks back and forth between moments with the Shazam gang which are admittedly relatively amusing, to moments with these extremely boring Greek God villains who merely talk about their plans all the time. The Shazam gang literally have to research the villains cos they dunno who they are, much like me on Wiki whilst watching the movie. There's also a cliched love story between one of the Shazam gang and this young girl (Rachel Zegler) who, shock horror! Turns out to be the third evil girl boss villain simply stringing him along all the time because...actually I don't think there was any real reason for this deceit.

There are loads of fantasy elements to this movie that all involve classic Greek mythology because for some reason that's a thing in this Shazam sequel (and every other teenage fantasy flick). You've got the golden apple that seeds the Tree of Life. When said tree is planted in the Earth realm it spawns lots of monsters from Greek mythology for some reason, and they're all evil. There's a magical Harry Potter-esque sentient pen (don't ask me why), unicorns, dragons etc...The unicorns in question are originally evil but get tamed by a pack of Skittles, yes Skittles, those chewy hard shelled sweets.

Naturally this being a superhero comicbook flick there's lots of CGI. Yep, lots and lots and lots of really obvious and fake-looking CGI action (zzzzzzz). All the characters are literally indestructible so they spent all their time throwing themselves all over the place causing lots of massive damage. Yep, I just love watching invincible superhero characters punching, kicking, and hurling each other all over the gaff with zero repercussions, zero stakes, and all in glorious fake-looking CGI. How much do cinema tickets cost these days?

But the really funny part at the end is when Wonder Woman turns up outta the blue to virtually save the day when the others kinda failed. Jesus Christ! I mean, this begs the question, where was Wonder Woman this entire time?? She could have turned up earlier and stopped all the trouble quite easily, apparently. And this is where comicbook flicks fall down. Eventually, at some point, you have the problem of all these characters and their stories merging, so eventually they should all be in every story together. Because where else would they be when there is a massive threat? The fact Wonder Woman pops up in this cheesy-ass cameo totally ruins this already crap movie.

DC had a little gem on their hands with the first movie which was reasonably original, well made, well thought out, decent cast, and a reasonable villain. This sequel is totally the opposite of that, it feels like the powers that be had no idea how to move forward with it. Everyone is just repeating what they did the first time which works a bit but generally feels tired. Shazam is a teen in an adult's body, okay we got that, can you expand on that a bit without the same childish gags? There is more Shazam family here but again it all felt very repetitive with familiar beats, lowkey comedy, and the usual outcomes (no stakes!). As said the CGI is just plain poor and I don't know why. And I really hated the whole Greek mythology angle because it's been done SO many times. This felt more like a 'Percy Jackson' concept than anything else. The whole feature is the definition of a generic cookie-cutter release that we've all seen time and time again.

3/10

Pinocchio (1940)

 

So I think it's safe to say everyone has seen and heard of this classic Disney animation from way back in 1940. One of the original Disney animated movies that put Disney on the map and has since gained an iconic legendary status that will never ever go away, and rightly so.

However, what I didn't know much about was the original Italian fairytale that this Disney classic was based upon. The original story was created by Carlo Collodi in 1881 as a serial that was published in a very early children's magazine in Italy. The story was then first published as a book in 1883 and has since gone on to be one of the most popular children's books selling potentially around 35 million copies (actual figure unknown). But the most surprising aspect of this story I didn't know about was how cruel and relatively violent this original tale actually is. In traditional fairytale fashion Collodi's story is filled with quite shocking moments of...horror, for lack of a better word. Nothing horrendous of course (obviously not an issue for adults) but bearing in mind this was aimed at children and it certainly open your eyes a bit.

The story itself is a strange beast to be sure. Obviously being a fairytale I can't really pick too much but let's be honest, this story is a jumble of ideas. From the start you're thinking this is going to be set in a typical Disney-esque world so to speak, and it is for the most part. The location is supposed to be Italy yet it all looked a bit Austrian to me. Geppetto appears to be a lonely old man with no kids of his own. His only companions are a small adorable cat and a goldfish, both of which can somewhat communicate with Geppetto in typical Disney fashion. Again his workshop and all the things he makes came across more Germanic to me. One item he has made is a wooden puppet in the form of a young boy (named Pinocchio) and out of loneliness (I guess) he wishes for it to be real. 

Luckily a fairy turns up late at night and does just that, makes the puppet real. She then basically gives Pinocchio a lesson about being a real boy and instructs him to follow some basic rules. If Pinocchio manages to follow said rules then she'll turn him into a real Human child! Talk about pressure! This piece of wood just got brought to life and he's already getting stern instructions on how to behave! It's amazing this piece of wood can even talk let alone follow instructions about Human societal behaviour. Luckily this piece of wood will have the assistance of a tiny tiny talking cricket in tux, problem solved.

What I found odd is the very next day Geppetto happily sends Pinocchio off to school with real kids. No worries about the inevitable issues that might cause. No worries about Pinocchio getting lost of abused or even killed (he is made out of wood).  Nope, he just sends him off to school with an apple, what could go wrong. Naturally little Pinocchio does end up getting in trouble when he is essentially influenced and groomed by an anthropomorphic fox and cat. Wait what? Yep that's right, in this upside-down world anthropomorphic animals apparently live alongside humans.

Long story short Pinocchio ends up getting kidnapped and has to be rescued by the fairy. Somehow Pinocchio ends up in trouble over this so he lies which ends up getting him even deeper in trouble. Thing is I'm not sure why he lies because as far as I'm concerned he didn't actually do anything wrong (talk about victim blaming). The same thing happens again later with the same anthropomorphic fox and cat brainwashing Pinocchio into going to some seedy place called 'Pleasure Island' (excuse me?). This place is where delinquent boys get tricked into going with the lure of being able to do anything they want. Again kinda seemed like mass kidnapping and grooming of children to me. The weird thing is this place is made out to be something of a secret away from the law, yet the place is HUGE! It's literally a huge funfair. How does that get past the law?

So everything else aside so far, the really bizarre part of this fairytale is the fact that Pleasure Island seems to harbour some kind of dark magic. All these apparent naughty boys that go there (no girls?) end up turning into donkeys simply because they're delinquent? No explanations or anything, they just go there, act up, and at some point turn into donkeys. They are then essentially sold into slave labour and shipped off to some faraway salt mines. This appears to be a pretty big operation and no one has ever suspected or seen anything? Why doesn't the fairy help? Surely this is wrong?

Anywho, the most famous part of this classic eerie tale must be the consumption of Geppetto and Pinocchio by an evil whale which I'm guessing may have been inspired by 'Moby Dick'? It's not as creepy and harrowing as the mass incarceration and slave labour of young boys but it would definitely frighten little kids. The style of animation used for the whale has a much harsher and colder feel about it, clearly different to the soft warm colours used throughout the rest of the picture. Not a good impression for whales on kids though.

Right, yes I have moaned a lot about the plot here, and that's because it is quite frankly wacko. Obviously this is a morality tale, a cautionary tale for the young, much like other fairytales, and being a fairytale does give the story a pass. But you still can't get away from chunks of the story not having any explanations or making any sense. Unfortunately I cannot compare it to the original source material as I have not read it fully, but I know it's just as weird. That aside this animation is a landmark in film history for various reasons. The voice acting is absolutely perfect on every level because the people Disney hired actually had talent and weren't just some trendy political pop star. The film includes the now fabled, prestigious, beyond epic song 'When You Wish Upon A Star' beautifully sung by Cliff Edwards. And of course the animation is silky smooth and sublime.

Going by the story and its source, I wouldn't rate this that highly. A classic morality tale it may be, but the original fairytale is admittedly quite nasty in places and it's all over the place. If this were the plot of a new modern movie, animated or not, I don't think it would survive. On a technical level this film is of course sheer brilliance. Disney's early animated films were the apex of animation. I don't really like the story but I respect it, I think Disney bettered the original story to some degree; but it's impossible to not get drawn in and swept away with this picture.

9/10