The Call of the Wild (2020)

Having not read the book and only seeing the Charlton Heston 70s movie version when I was in middle school (as well as cheating a bit by scanning the Wikipedia page), I only had a vague idea of the story of "The Call of the Wild" going into this new version, starring Harrison Ford. What I ended up getting was a new appreciation for and interest in checking out the original novel, and a good, fun old-fashioned adventure.

The story is about Buck, a St. Bernard/Scotch Collie who lives a contented life in 1890s Santa Clara, despite being a bit of a headache for his masters due to his destructive size and large appetite. When he is kidnapped and taken to the Yukon, however, he goes through an epic journey involving several masters, that brings him closer and closer to his wolfish ancestors.

Directed by Chris Sanders of "Lilo and Stitch", "How To Train Your Dragon" and "The Croods" fame, its been widely noted how most if not all of the animal animation, including Buck, is CGI, and many have considered that a detriment to the overall film. I, however, didn't mind it for several reasons. 

First, Buck and the others are made so likable, interesting, or engaging through their facial expressions and actions, as well as the performances the human actors gave opposite them (which I'll get to in a second), that I was immediately taken and able to buy them as characters, following them along through the story. Second, considering Sanders' animation background, the complicated and dangerous stunts some of the animal characters had to do, and the recent controversies involving animal actors that have happened, it made a lot of sense as to why they went in this direction (although I couldn't help but wonder at times what a fully animated "Call of the Wild" would look like, but this was more of an observation and pondering than a complaint). Third, and I think this is the biggest reason, is that it captured the heart and spirit of the original story, reminding me of the similar and cherished "dog and wilderness" adventure films that I grew up with like "Balto", "Iron Will", the "White Fang" movies, and this year's highly underrated "Togo", as well as certain other animal films like "Black Beauty", "The Black Stallion", and "Hidalgo".

The film's at its absolute best in the first half with Buck interacting with the other dogs and his first few masters, with wonderful performances by Bradley Whitford as the exasperated judge who is also Buck's first owner and Omar Sy and Cara Gee as Perrault and Francoise, mail carriers and Buck's second owners, and of course, Harrison Ford as John Thornton, Buck's fourth owner. Ironically, when Buck comes into Thorton's possession and they set off on their adventures, I felt a little less engaged, due in part because the pacing and editing of some of those scenes felt a little too quick and jumpy, Thornton's character started to take the story away from Buck a little bit, and it was foreshadowing an event that I could see coming (which I found distracting and maybe which led to the other two issues).

However, when that event occurred, I found myself in tears, and I realized it was because of Ford. Ford's performance here is so subtle and understated that it could be overlooked, but along with his relationship with Buck, is 100 percent effective and engaging. Its easy to just think of Ford as the legendary action guy we grew up with due to his legendary roles of Indiana Jones and Han Solo, and  in movies like Air Force One and the Jack Ryan films, but he's shown himself to be a great actor all around in underrated works that should be seen like "42", "Working Girl", and "Witness". 

Funnily enough, besides this, "Cowboys and Aliens" and "The Frisco Kid" from the 70s, I'm surprised Ford hasn't done more Westerns, as he plays the rough, grizzled cowboy type very well (considering James Mangold is now the new director of Indiana Jones 5, he produced this film and grizzled cowboy type movies are his specialty, maybe that's the direction he'll take that film. We'll have to wait and see).

Really, other than that and a corny line here or there, the only other issue I had was that Karen Gillan is listed fairly high up in the credits, but she had barely three to five minutes in the film overall and even less presence as the companion of who would become the major villain, so it was a bit odd as to why she was there in the first place (she possibly had a bigger role and it was cut in editing and or she was most likely shooting Jumanji: The Next Level at the same time though, so it kind of makes sense).

Lastly, while the adaptation does soften some of the edges of the original material, it still provides the full emotional power of the characters and story. It's a shame that this hasn't done so well so far, because overall, "The Call of the Wild" is a solid film; a good old-fashioned adventure for the entire family and a great way to introduce the book to kids, a great way to become reacquainted if you read it as a kid, and a great way for someone who has never read it to be introduced to it. If you're not bothered by the CGI (or even if you are, I still think you'll get something out of it), I definitely say see it!

Rating: 3.6 stars out of 4

My thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy

 

When I originally heard that a Sequel Trilogy was being made, I was excited to see what was going to be done because it felt like the possibilities were endless and it'd be great to see the old cast back. But then when I heard George Lucas had sold Lucasfilm to Disney, I wasn't sure how to feel. While most of his later films weren't the strongest in terms of quality (I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, don't @ me), I didn't mind because that tends to happen with any filmmaker. But I just didn't understand at all the vitriol hatred Lucas was getting. Star Wars and Indiana Jones wouldn't exist without him. What would they be like now without him? What was Disney going to do? All I could do was wait and see.

Now having watched all three films in the Sequel Trilogy, I'll be able to give my overall thoughts.

First, I do agree with the major criticism that J.J. Abrams, Lucasfilm, Kathleen Kennedy, or whoever was in charge needed a plan to charter where things were going to go with the story and characters. A road map if you will because, without it, the three films go in different directions, taking random exits, and even a few U-Turns. As a result, some plot elements and characters are introduced and forgotten or randomly introduced and not given much to do, lacking consistency. Having consistency would have also have made sure that all the future sequel filmmakers would have been on the same page and saved them from having to scramble in case their predecessor made any drastic changes.

Individually, here are my thoughts on the three films:

Episode 7: The Force Awakens: On the first watch, I had good fun with it. I liked the introduction of the three new characters Rey, Finn, and Poe, as well as the introduction of Maz Kanata. Also enjoyed how they brought back the mysticism and magic of the Force and the Jedi as well. Found the callbacks to A New Hope a little bit on the nose (like a planet-sized Death Star) but it was understandable. Did not care for Kylo Ren at all then, thinking he made Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker look like Alec Guinness's Obi-Wan Kenobi in comparison, and was interested in Snoke a whole lot more. Also, didn't really care for the fate of Han Solo because it was telegraphed pretty obviously.

On second viewing, liked it even better, catching details that I missed beforehand that cleared up some of the earlier problems: The First Order was born from the ashes of the Empire so the Starkiller Base made sense, and also got a better sense of Kylo Ren and found him to be a fairly interesting character. Just not a very threatening one. I think my favorite film of the Sequel Trilogy.

Episode 8: The Last Jedi: On first viewing, I was left pretty disappointed. A lot of character elements didn't make sense or felt forced, sudden twists or story turns felt underwhelming and like they were winking at the audience, some really bad pacing in one section of the film, and I just didn't have very much fun with it. Had some good ideas and themes, but didn't like how they were executed.

On second viewing, however, I actually liked it a bit better. Rey and Finn's arcs made a lot more sense and tied in pretty well to their arcs in The Force Awakens, and I got a better sense of Kylo and Luke's as well. Also liked how it expanded the Star Wars universe a bit further and added a little more complexity and the section of the film that I felt had bad pacing originally, went by a lot quicker and smoother this time for me because of Finn's character arc (although one or two elements still felt a bit forced). Also got a better sense of the Rose character as well. BUT, and this is a big but, I still feel like Poe's whole arc was problematic (if Poe hadn't blown up the Dreadnaught, it could still have followed the Resistance and blown it to smithereens with its big cannons, if Holdo had told him from the get-go about the plan, I have a feeling he would have understood and accepted it pretty quickly because he did so pretty quickly when Leia and the others told him. If Finn was able to get that close to the cannon, why couldn't Poe? Blowing up said cannon would have hindered the First Order for enough time for them to escape. Plus Poe realizing that Luke had come as a distraction for them to escape felt like a better ending to his arc than backing away from the cannon. Still my least favorite of the Sequel Trilogy, but like it more than I originally did.

Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker: Has some genuinely strong and effectively emotional moments, fun action, new planets and creatures that appealed to the space opera fan and kid in me. Despite some of the plot twists and revelations being a little underwhelming, confusing, or stupid, I ultimately was able to buy most of them and just have fun. One twist was explored quite well though and left me pretty emotionally satisfied by the end of the film. I will admit though, a lot of character arcs were left dangling/not much was done with them like Finn and Poe's or some characters were introduced mainly just to mislead the audience of where certain character arcs would end up. Did like some of the cameos like Lando's and Wedge's despite not too much being done with them. Also thought Leia's sendoff was nicely done.

I mentioned in my review of Rise of Skywalker that fans of the other two films might be disappointed, but if you view it casually as just a big random space opera adventure like I did, you might have a good time. I say that ultimately because I didn't really go into the film with any kind of expectations, other than to see what would be answered. A horrible thing to say, I know. As an avid filmgoer and wanting to make films of my own, I should go into every movie, expecting and hoping they're of at least decent quality, right? Well, to be frank, the Sequel Trilogy kind of burned me out a bit.

Not so much the films themselves, although the evidence/effects are apparent in their viewings, but because of the factors outside the films: Lucasfilm and the "fandom". One thing I didn't mention in the ROS review is how Abrams seems to take pains in ignoring/rewriting some elements that The Last Jedi created or changed/disregarded from Abrams' own The Force Awakens, even though he was a producer of TLJ and he said he liked what Rian Johnson did. It's well known that The Last Jedi left audiences very divided about its quality, even to a toxic level: bashing others who disagreed with them,  having the attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong, my way or the highway!" and "people who like/dislike this aren't "true fans!", and worst of all, attacking and sending death threats to the director and the poor actors on social media.

My immediate answer to that, of course, is there are no such things as "true fans". They're movies, plain and simple. They're not going to appeal to everybody and people are allowed to have different opinions about something. That's part of the fun of it too: spending hours hearing those opinions and how others view certain things and just discussing those films and topics. Not only might you have your own opinion changed as a result, but they could lead to really fun debates (as an example, I highly recommend watching Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper's review of Attack of the Clones. Their debate over Yoda gets absolutely hilarious!).

Being toxic and forcing one's opinion onto someone else, however, will only serve to sap this fun out of the conversations, and most people don't really want that.

Unfortunately, this toxic division has been the most vocal and attention-grabbing to Lucasfilm and despite their initial brushing off of it, they seem to have listened and gone along with it to please that group, hinting at it both while promoting the film and in the film itself.

Not to get on a soapbox or anything, but while I totally get that filmmaking is a business (you need money to keep making more projects after all) and Lucasfilm is part of a corporation, filmmaking is also an art form that allows artists to not only shine a light on what's going on in the world but also to express themselves as individuals and to make films that they personally would like to see, sometimes inspired by media that they grew up with.

While the Sequel Trilogy is made by people who grew up with the other Star Wars movies, this time around it, unfortunately, felt like they were just following company orders with the same mindset that Lucas himself derided the studios for in the 60s: "Our market research says this, so you make that" (and I absolutely hate saying that because I like a lot of the people that are involved, especially Daisy Ridley and John Boyega who make an excellent Rey and Finn!).

On the other hand, maybe after this whole experience, Lucasfilm has learned from its mistakes and having stepped back to take a couple years break, will eventually put what they learned into practice if they haven't already (Saw all of The Mandalorian. It is quite awesome and I'll try to review it if I have time). We'll have to wait and see.

For the time being though, whenever the Star Wars films are mentioned in conversation, the only ones I'll be thinking of (my head-canon if you will) is the Original Trilogy from 1977 to 1983, not just because those were the ones that I grew up with and their being some of the core films that inspired me to become a filmmaker, but also because of what they started out as: a film fan reminiscing about the media he digested as a kid and wanting to bring it back because "they don't make 'em like they used to". In George Lucas's case, it was the action/adventure and science-fiction serials of his youth, the Golden Age of the Western, samurai films by Akira Kurosawa, swashbucklers like Captain Blood and The Adventures of Robin Hood, old daring World War 2 films, and the classic storytelling of myths, legends, and fairy tales like King Arthur, Beowulf, and The Brothers Grimm, among others. As a result, Lucas was able to create something new and unique that was inspired by old and classically familiar sources combined together and had the help of a skillfully talented cast and crew to get his vision to where it needed to be. This is the kind of film that I hope to make, and the kind of film that a lot of others have made as well (even better, it's inspired me to check out some of those inspirations as well like the Flash Gordon serials, The Hidden Fortress, and hopefully some of the World War 2 films like The Dam Busters).

While Lucas did eventually become the head of a corporation, Star Wars became a franchise, and mistakes were made with both, he still seems to have never lost that creative spirit: staying true to his vision, maintaining a consistency in his work, making the kinds of films that he would like to see, and mentoring other filmmakers.

Star Wars still remains one of my favorite movies to this day, not just for the adventurous thrills, action-packed cliffhangers, sci-fi escapism, and mythical characters, but because of its story that anyone can relate to: finding one's potential, escaping our limitations, and doing good in the outside world. Embarking on our own heroic journeys.

Star Wars Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker

I have seen Star Wars Episode 9: The Rise of Skywalker and in addition to covering the film, I'll give my thoughts on the Sequel Trilogy as a whole in a separate post, so things don't get too long. (I recommend reading both just so you're able to get a full sense of where I'm coming from.)

First, Episode 9: In the following weeks since its release, I'd been hearing a wide variety of opinions about the film: some liked it, some hated it, and some were indifferent. so I knew it was going to be an interesting experience either way.

What did I think?: I actually...kind of liked it and had fun, leaving the theater with a big dumb grin on my face. HOWEVER, I do acknowledge that there are also a lot of problems with it.

Does the Emperor feel needlessly wedged in? Yep.

Are cameos from the Original Trilogy here just for the sake of nostalgia and catering to fans? Yep.

Are characters and plot elements introduced just to muddy the waters of how things turn out in the end and in some cases, just left hanging? Pretty much.

Was it inconsistent in certain cases with the other films? Definitely yes.

 J.J. Abrams is usually known for his "mystery box" method of storytelling, sometimes not even giving answers to things he's set up, so I went into the screening curious to see what he was going answer, if anything,  how he was going to answer them, and if they were going to be any good. Indeed, when two twists were revealed back to back, I instantly feared the movie was going off the rails. But, as I thought about it, I realized that they made sense and did tie in pretty well to the previous two films, with certain hints being given. One of which even added more depth and tension to a main character's arc, which I found satisfying (I will admit though that I found the execution of that other twist still pretty stupid). On that level, I was able to accept most of the twists and revelations in the story and just go along with it, but I can see how others may not care for it.

Some other positives: The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous and it is awesome to see a number of new species and planets introduced, especially with puppets. A lot of the action scenes are pretty fun, it was nice to see some of the cameos from the Original Trilogy like Lando and Wedge, it was neat to see Luke as a wise and more upbeat master, and in particular, Carrie Fisher's Leia Organa received a touching and emotionally satisfying send-off.

Overall, The Rise of Skywalker has a number of solid positives that should be seen, but it also has a number of problems as well. Ultimately, I'd consider it a middle of the road Star Wars film.

Will I ever watch The Rise of Skywalker again? Maybe, if it's on TV again or a friend wants to watch it. Will my opinion change if I watch it again? Most likely.

As a big Star Wars fan, why am I giving this a pass and yet was so conflicted about The Last Jedi, you may ask? I'll get into more detail about it in the Sequel Trilogy post, but will hint that it involves the words "fandom" and "corporation". Also, another thing J.J. Abrams is known for is making simple escapist entertainment and, as I was having a bit of a bad day mixed with the issues hinted at above, viewing it just as a random big action-packed space opera adventure and not as a Star Wars film was just what I need to feel better, so I may be a bit bias in that regard. (If that reasoning is a bit confusing, don't worry, it'll make sense in the next post).

A lot of people maybe/probably are heavily disappointed by the film, but if you watch it with a more casual mindset, its a pretty fun time.

Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Knives Out

Growing up, I've always been a big mystery fan: Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie, Murder, She Wrote, The Maltese Falcon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Clue, The Purloined Letter, Encyclopedia Brown, The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, etc. so it's a real treat to see an old fashioned style Whodunit (with a new modern twist)  like Knives Out in theaters again after so long.

Synopsis: When famed mystery and crime writer Harlan Thrombey is found dead with his throat slit, it's assumed his death is a suicide and nothing more, but when private investigator Benoit Blanc is anonymously hired to investigate, he soon suspects foul play and must navigate a complicated web involving Thrombey's slimy and self-absorbed family members to figure out what is going on.

Getting straight to the point (no pun intended), Knives Out is very well done. The cinematography is wonderfully atmospheric, reminding me of the classic Whodunits from the 70s and 80s. The performances and dialogue are all top-notch, especially Daniel Craig as the eccentric and expressive Blanc (using his Southern accent to excellent effect, both here and in the underrated Logan Lucky), Chris Evans with relished sliminess as the smug playboy Ransom, and in particular the lovely Ana De Armas (who was wonderful as the hologram A.I. Joi in Blade Runner 2049) as Harlan's nurse, Marta, with the solid and reliable Jamie Lee Curtis, Toni Collete, Michael Shannon, Don Johnson, Christopher Plummer, and others to back them up.

Rian Johnson definitely knows his way around mysteries, crafting a complex story that lovingly pays tribute to the films and books that inspired him, while also subverting certain tropes of the genre to give his own unique take to it. He doesn't get lost in the complexity either, as everything is meticulously thought out and executed in such a detailed way, everything made logical sense and I was personally able to buy it (Makes me want to check out Johnson's first film, Brick, a homage to film noirs even more now).

That being said, I did have two issues that prevented me from fully embracing it: the political commentary and the murderer's motives.

With the former, I have to note that I am not against political commentary being in films in general. A lot of, if not most of my favorite films have some sort of political commentary in them (The Lion King, Casablanca, Star Wars, The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Wizard of Oz), but just at a certain level necessary for the story's needs. Indeed, for the most part, Knives Out handles its political commentary quite well nicely blending it with the mystery plot by focusing on a certain character, their background/backstory, and their relationship with the other characters, effectively building tension and expressing the themes Johnson is going for.

However, Johnson also goes a bit overboard in places as well, expressing the commentary directly on the nose through dialogue in a scene that not only slowed things to a crawl until the mystery elements came back, but also, I think, immediately dates the movie a little bit. There is also a "topical" family character who serves little to no purpose other than to be a one-note joke and didn't really need to be there. As a result of those factors, it felt like Johnson was beating the commentary over the audience's heads, which took me out of the film a few times. Luckily he only does this once or twice, wisely choosing to focus on the characters and mystery investigation the majority of the time.

With the latter issue of the murderer's motives, because their plan was so detailed and well thought out, I was a bit underwhelmed when it was revealed why they did it as it felt too similar to the other suspects' motives (although this issue may be due to personal preference and having experienced a lot of mysteries where the killer's motives were different or unique to other suspects' motives). If the killer had had another motive like they were hiding something terrible that Harlan found out about and killed him before he revealed it, on top of the shared motive, then I would have been a bit more satisfied.

Overall though, the rest of Knives Out is so strong and effective that it outweighs those issues and I definitely recommend it if you haven't seen it yet (curious to see what I think after a second viewing). I also look forward to seeing Craig solving another mystery as Blanc (which Johnson has hinted he has an idea for).

First viewing rating: 3.5 stars out of 4.

Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance Season 1 (2019)

As promised, I've watched all ten episodes of Season One of Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance, and boy was it a ride! Some spoilers may be forthcoming but I'll let you know when I'll be talking about said spoilers (and may try to do it at the end as well).

Plot synopsis: A prequel to The Dark Crystal (1982), it has been 1000 years since the appearance of the Skeksis, who have kept watch over The Crystal of Truth, since its keeper, Mother Aughra, has gone off to explore other worlds. But when three Gelfing, Rian, a castle guard/warrior from the Stonewood Clan, Brea, a princess from the Vapra Clan, and Deet, an animal caregiver from the Grottan Clan, discover the Skeksis' horrifying secret, they must band together to convince the Clans to come together, light the fires of rebellion, and fight back before its too late.

With the first five episodes of Age of Resistance, the series starts off very strong, building on and expanding on the lore of the movie, worldbuilding and developing rich cultures and histories for the Gelflings, splitting them up into seven clans that are very distinct from each other. The characters are very rich and complex (including Aughra!). The majority of them are given such heart and likability in their personalities, voice acting, and backstories and are put through so much, that I was instantly hooked and wanted to see more, even if some of the story elements were ones I had seen before. My favorite of the group is Deet, so upbeat, good-natured, and kind-hearted that I wish I could hang out with her, and she's the kind of friend I wish I could have hung out with growing up as well. Deet Forever!

Like the film, the visuals are absolutely gorgeous, giving the characters distinct looks and the locations such an epic, magical feel, that I just wanted to keep exploring this world.

The first five episodes in a nutshell instantly made me feel like a kid again, reminding me of the fantasy adventures that I had grown up with like Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia, and the first few Harry Potter books and movies. The series may also feel like "Game of Thrones for kids" to some, and while I can definitely see that and agree, especially in its topical themes and subject matter (right down to some disturbing imagery and moments. Not for the younger kiddies. Just a warning), I'd take AOR over GOT any day as the former has the fantasy, magic, and whimsy that the latter was sorely missing (and the topical stuff was more engrained in the plot and better executed than have been in GOT and other film and TV shows lately).

After episode five, is when the season started to stumble for me a bit, however, due to some dragging plotlines. In particular because of a plotline involving Aughra and a side character that was executed rather predictably and in such a forced manner for several episodes, that I could only cringe as this part of the story went on and on to only a semi-satisfying conclusion. Another storyline that seemed to drag a little bit involved the surprising appearance of characters played by Andy Samberg and Bill Hader funnily enough, whose schtick get literally a little too long in the tooth in the first half of their first episode, but who are able to calm down and balance out their humor and more serious moments in their appearances afterwards.

My biggest issue, however, is with the ending, and this may be more personal taste mixed with having shot myself in the foot by watching the movie first. Because I watched the movie first, I could see where things were going by the final shot of the final episode and that made where the Gelfling characters end up at the end of the season feel a bit hollow. Because of that, I'm not really sure I want to see a second season of the show, and I'm not sure if I want to watch the original movie again, at least for a while, which does a great disservice to the first half of the season (more about this in the spoilers, although I technically did kind of spoil it already in my review of the original film).

Overall,  if you're a fantasy adventure fan and especially if you're a fan of the original movie, I definitely say see it, particularly the first half of the season. There's so much on offer here that can't afford to be missed: gorgeous visuals, heartfelt characters, exciting action, rich expansive worldbuilding, and endless amounts of imagination. If, however, you're a newcomer to the series, like myself, and or have a particular taste in your fantasy storytelling, then you might find the latter half of the season rather troublesome and unsatisfying).

Final rating: 4 stars out of 5

SPOILERS BELOW!! IF YOU HAVE NOT YET WATCHED ALL OF SEASON 1 OF AGE OF RESISTANCE AND DO NOT WANT IT SPOILED, STOP HERE AND COME BACK AFTER YOU'VE WATCHED IT!

Going into more detail with my issues about the first season of AOR, particularly the dragging storylines, my first major issue was with the storyline of Aughra and Brea's sister, Seladon, in episodes six through ten. While Seladon has a good build-up at first as the more stuck up of Brea's sisters, trying to win her mother, the Maudra or leader of the Vapra clan and the All-Maudra of all the Gelfling clans' approval, things start to go off the rails when she first meets Aughra. At this point in the story, all the major characters, Rian, Brea, and Deet, as well as several other Geffling soldiers Rian has befriended along the way, the All-Maudra, and Brea happen to Dreamfast or share their memories with each other all at the same time, while Aughra is trying to connect with the spirit of Thra, and all end up in a realm that Aughra called Dreamspace, where she explains what's going on and what they need to do to stop it, having them Dreamfast again so they all see what each of them has experienced. However, before this, Seladon angrily accuses Aughra of being a treasonous witch and showing blind devotion to the Skeksis for sake of tradition.

 Two issues with this. One: since Aughra is in the lore and history of Thra and thus part of "tradition", wouldn't Seladon have understood this and stopped to take it under consideration? Two, and the much bigger one: When Seladon does show her devotion to the Skeksis, instead of trying to convince her with Dreamfasting and have the All-Maudra talk to her, Aughra just sends her away, saying "her path is different from ours. Can't convince her." However, because of this, Seladon reports this to nearby Skeksis, resulting in her mother, the All-Maudra, being killed, causing strife among the Gelfling clans, and inadvertently getting one of the Gelfling Maudras, Rian's Stonewood Clan's no less, captured and later killed when the latter saves Seladon in battle, and Audhra becomes shocked and saddened when she sees her doing some of these actions, going "No no! Please don't do that! Poor lost child!" even though just moments before Seladon first accused her, Aughra was celebrating that she was connected with Thra again and could see many paths, despite not being able to see how they ended. If she could see the path Seladon was going to take, why didn't she try to stop this from happening, especially if it would have resulted in the All-Maudra possibly staying alive and instantly uniting all the clans against the Skeksis and having a better strategy so their chances were much better?

Even worse for the Seladon character, when she does cause strife among the other Gelfling Maudras, being challenged by one for the All-Maudra crown, she goes completely cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs by dressing in a black costume and purple lipstick that makes her look like Maleficent or Mia Sara's character in the climax of Ridley Scott's Legend (with one of the Maudras even saying she looks like a Skeksi) and devolves into a stereotypical Mad Queen performance (the character was voice acted by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, a wonderful actress, but she came off very cringey and groan-worthy here that made me feel bad for her). This whole nonsense continues until Episode 9 when she visits the Skeksis' castle in an attempt to return things to normal, only to find that the Skeksis are now openly capturing and draining Gelflings, and is proceeded to be assaulted by them. But after all that, she is still devoted to the Skeksis and blames Brea for everything, only finally coming to her senses when she sees her and Brea's other sister, Tavra, mind-controlled by temporary Skeksi ally, the Arathim, and fatally injured by the Chamberlain Skeksi during the escape, which sort of makes sense, but isn't executed very well. Lastly, after all the strife and injury Seladon has caused the Stonewood Maudra, she doesn't really directly apologize to her when the Maudra is fatally wounded saving her, and mostly disappears after the final battle, not really have much of a redemption part to her arc at all and putting her as well as Aughra, in a bit of a worse light.

If Aughra had done all she could to prevent Seladon from committing the actions she did, including Dreamfasting and having the All-Maudra talk to her, but it still didn't work, and Seladon apologized to the dying Maudra at the end/redeemed herself in some way, then that would have her arc much more satisfying and convincing.

With the ending, because I saw the movie first, I knew that by the time the original film takes place, Jen and Kira are the only two Gelfling left. That means Rian, Deet, and Brea, and all the others are dead, making the victory of killing several of the Skeksi, chasing the remaining ones off, and finding the missing Crystal shard at the end of the season rather hollow instead of uplifting, and the twist of the Scientist having created a new soldier for the Emperor's army, The Garthim, rather melancholy and depressing instead of suspenseful.

This is further backed up by when Deet absorbs the dying Sanctuary Tree's power to stop The Darkening and sees visions of future events, including Jen returning the Crystal shard and a female Gelfling, who looks a lot like Deet, running away through the woods, trying to deliver either a baby Jen or baby Kira to safety.

While I don't mind a bittersweet or depressing ending to a story especially if it's well done like the Harry Potter series or Lord of the Rings, I'm a bit old-fashioned and tend to lean toward stories with happy endings, which I haven't seen in a fantasy film/TV show in a while. While the original Dark Crystal movie has a happy ending of sorts and while I do enjoy the movie quite a bit, like I mentioned in my review of that film, there isn't much to Jen or Kira as characters, so except for a few brief moments,  I couldn't emotionally connect with them. Rian, Deet, and Brea, on the other hand, I connected with so much that they feel like good friends, experiencing their highest highs of victories and becoming friends, and the lowest lows of defeats and heartbreak as they lose loved ones.

After all these characters have gone through, I want to see them succeed and live on. I want to see them get their Happy Ever Afters. But the fact that they most likely won't and they're most likely going to be massacred in the next season or two, just feels draining and offputting to me. While a character does mention that when a Gelfling dies, they return to Thra and are always with their loved ones, I know that most likely that will be more talked about than seen. Indeed, if the show did end with an epilogue of sorts to the movie where Rian, Deet, and Brea were revealed to be alive but in hiding or Jen and Kira got to interact with their spirits via the Crystal, then I'd feel a bit better. But as that's most likely not going to happen, not only do I not really want to see a Season 2 of Age of Resistance, but it might be a while before I want to watch The Dark Crystal movie again.

But maybe that's just me. What did you guys think? Respond in the comments below.

Retro Review: Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal (1982)

In preparation for the newly released "The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance" series on Netflix (may review that as well), I decided to watch the original film "Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal" for the first time.

Plot synopsis: In the fantasy world of Thra, the source of all life is The Crystal of Truth, but one day, it is suddenly cracked, losing one of its shards, and turns into the titular Dark Crystal. At the same time, two races appear: the monstrous Skeksis and the wise Mystics, with the Skeksis taking control of the Crystal and using it to drain the life force from Thra's other creatures to maintain their youth.

A thousand years later, a young Gelfling named Jen, supposedly the last of his kind, must find and return the shard before Thra's three suns align, or else the Skeksis will gain immortality and rule forever.

As someone who mainly grew up on Sesame Street and The Muppets, seeing a lesser known entry in Jim Henson's filmography was going to be both an intriguing experience and a confusing one: Henson is an undeniable staple in many people's childhoods, and he always seemed to have a lot to offer in terms of creativity and imagination. How could he go wrong?

Indeed, when I started watching the film, his magical touch was prominantly on display: Absolutely gorgeous visuals with a wide array of unique looking creatures ranging from enchanting and alien-like to appropriately ugly and vile. There is a great sense of atmosphere and mythology here; a lived in world that you want to explore more of.

Where it shines in visuals though, it unfortunately lacks in story and character. Story-wise, much of it is told in narration or exposition by the characters, sometimes with the same piece of information over and over again. Character-wise, while the main ones have a trait or unique ability that makes them stand out, there isn't really much to them in terms of personality. The saving grace there, however, is in Henson and his team's expert puppetry work, bringing some genuine emotion and character reactions that I did find moving at times. While doing some research on the film, I discovered one of the inspirations was Grimm's Fairy Tales, which can definitely felt in Jen's journey. The caveat there though is that while fairy tales, myths, and legends can work well with simplistic characters on the page, they need more complexity on the screen.

Another smaller issue I had with the film, was with some of its pacing. In a number of scenes meant to be suspsenseful and action-packed, the pacing drags as the characters seem to be waiting for the bad guys to come attack, even though its a race against time. The pacing also drags a bit in quieter scenes as well, such as when it shows the Skeksis disguistingly and selfishly eating a big feast for several minutes, hammering in how unlikable the Skeksis are meant to be.

All that being said, however, I can see where both sides are coming from. I can see why a number of adults who grew up in the 80s love and cherish it (and were terrified by its darker material), but I can also see why it is more of a cult classic and not as well remembered. Ultimately I'm glad I saw it and I envy those who got to experience it as kids. Its also a good film for fantasy enthusiasts and artists to watch to get inspired for their own work. Overall, The Dark Crystal is a fun film for older kids and adults, but if you're one that prefers some deeper material, then the Muppet movies, Fraggle Rock, or The Storyteller might be more your bag.

Final Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Onto The Age of Resistance!

Comment your thoughts on the film below.

Treintañera (Short Film)

As young adults trying to make our way through the world, two major factors gain focus in our lives: our careers and our romantic relationships. Some become really lucky and are able to fulfill one or both right away, but many have to wait.

As we grow older, however, we may start to question these factors: Am I truly happy where I am? Did I make the right decision? Which one is more important right now?

This last question is one that the protagonist of the comedic character based short Treintañera, struggles with as we follow her through one awkward situation after another.

Valentina, a Latina photographer, laments her unsuccessful love life. Fearing that her granddaughter is cursed for not having a Quinceañera party on her 15th birthday, Valentina's abuela decides to surprise her with one for her 30th, so she can find a man. On the same day, however, Valentina receives her dream job offer of working for National Geographic. Afraid to let her abuela down, she decides to keep quiet, only for things to quickly get messy.

Written, co-produced and starring Tamara Bunker, Treintañera is a very upbeat and charming film, having the unique combination of feeling like a romantic comedy, but also a little like a slice-of-life story as well. Valentina does get into some quirky silly over the top situations like in a romantic comedy, but at the same time, her personal struggles are real and relatable, with some insight about her Latin American culture and heritage, which is really refreshing.

The cast is easily the best part of the film with Bunker leading the way as Valentina, having great comedic energy and wonderful chemistry with Tina D'Marco, who plays Valentina's abuela, producing some hilarious one-liners, as well as having a cute relationship with Nick Cimiluca as Valentina's prospective love interest, Tom.

Like the film's tone, Bunker's performance naturally swings between the over the top exasperation at the embarrassing situations she's pulled into and the worn down but warm and slightly sarcastic demeanor in the more serious moments, resulting in a character very much of the real world pulled into unusual but not unrealistic circumstances. This balance is heightened into her chemistry with  Tina D'Marco's Abuela character, feeling like an old comedy duo in the more humorous situations but also having a very real and warm familial support in the more serious scenes, showing the kind of relationship they've had over many years. Her chemistry is also heightened with Nick Cimiluca's Tom as his character also has the same sort of everyday likability, taking Valentina's warmth and dry sarcastic wit and returning it to her for some nice banter.

Miss Bunker recently expressed her desire to turn Treintañera into a feature, a decision I am wholly looking forward to. I am curious to see how she will explore this material and these characters further, and how things will play out.

As a character driven short, Treintañera really really works with strong characters and acting work, great chemistry a warm heart, and hilarious comedy. Bunker and the rest of the cast and crew's talent and skill definitely shines through and shows them as filmmakers to keep an eye out for. I definitely will and look forward to their future work.

Definitely see it if you can!