Friday, March 29, 2019

Dumbo's fun peculiarities overshadowed by poor storytelling

Dumbo in his film, Dumbo. Image courtesy Disney.
It's been awhile since Tim Burton has made an interesting movie. His recent slate of films have been either incomplete efforts – inklings of his old aspirations that never quite land – or yeoman work for Disney. Dumbo, Burton's interpretation of classic (and wicked racist) Disney film, fits more in the former category than the latter. It has a few moments of zaniness befitting Beetlejuice or Pee-wee's Big Adventure, but the result is often frustrating and ultimately slight.

Dumbo stars Colin Farrell as Holt Farrier, a cowboy returning home to circus life following his service in World War I. His transition back to being a performer is rocky at best; his wife died of influenza, leaving him alone with daughter Milly (Nico Parker) and son Joe (Finley Hobbins). Ringmaster Max Medici (Danny DeVito) has demoted him to elephant handler, and his chances of getting his old job back are stymied by the arm he lost in the war. But things start to turn with the addition of Jumbo the elephant, who soon gives birth to the eponymous large-eared creature. Once Dumbo starts to fly, he draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who runs the wondrous Dreamland in the big city. Vandevere wants to pair Dumbo with the high-flying Colette (Eva Green) to create the most magnetic act in town, but the Farriers soon learn Dreamland is little more than a facade.
 
The funny thing about Dumbo is the movie isn't about its titular character, but about the struggles of the Farrier family. It's a pragmatic script choice, as it's difficult to center the movie around a CGI elephant that doesn't speak, but it causes the film to lose a lot of its luster. The Farrier family troubles are far less interesting than the issues Dumbo and Jumbo face, or, rather, the film does a poor job selling the emotional complexities between Holt, Milly, and Joe. It's surprising considering how many hurdles screenwriter Ehren Kruger threw at the Farriers – a barely employed father returning from war without an arm to two children who recently lost their mother is kind of a cheat. Somehow, the film doesn't take advantage of the cheat it gave itself; the relationships are never given the time needed to grow from that problematic baseline. Things are awkward until they're not, and few bumps or troubles are depicted.

Even though the story is about the Farriers, the movie's heart belongs to Dumbo and Jumbo. Their connection is what should own the story, at least given the amount of heft Burton and Kruger put into the silent tale of mourning elephants. Yet the story balance is completely off; by dividing the narrative between the Farriers and the elephants, the film never gives enough time to either family unit to grow. . Making the movie live action effectively necessitates the addition of human characters to drive the story, but the human family is the worst part of this movie.

There's a lot to be frustrated with about Dumbo. The story is wonky and littered with holes – the flying elephant is the most realistic aspect of the movie. The dialog is uninspired, leaving the actors with little buffer to fail. The performances, aside from Keaton and Green, are spotty to weak. The filmmakers effectively doubled the run time of the original to add more story and didn't have much of a story to tell.

Except for the existence of Dreamland and Vandevere. This is about as close as viewers get to the old Burton, an oddly fascinating place that doesn't try too hard to be quirky. Dreamland contains a lot of potential as a setting, given the electric wonders and how poorly the lights hide the park's dark soul. It's a place where dreams come true, but the price is unfathomable, not too far removed from Pinocchio's Pleasure Island. Dreamland though is underutilized as a location; there's far more to the place than the film allows viewers to see because the first act is spent in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps Burton would have been better served setting the entire film in Dreamland, allowing the place's inherent creepiness to sell the inevitable feel-good ending. Dreamland is about as close as it gets to old-school Burton, making it so cruel how close Dumbo is to being the fantastically strange film its meant to be.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG
Run time: 112 minutes
Genre: Fantasy

tl;dr

What Worked: Michael Keaton, Eva Green, Dumbo and Jumbo

What Fell Short: CGI, Inconsistent Acting, Script Issues

What To Watch Instead: Dumbo

Thursday, March 21, 2019

Us finds horror in implications and atmosphere

Lupita Nyong'o in Us. Image courtesy Universal Pictures.
There is something bothersome about Us, a slow dawning sense of terror that just lingers for a spell once the curtain closes and the lights go up. The film otherwise lacks a true moment of shock or terror – the jump scares are minimal, and the humor is ample enough to mitigate some of the traditionally scary moments – but goodness are the implications of Jordan Peele's film absolutely awful to dream about. Even as Us is hampered by ambitions it can't quite reach, it excels brilliantly at planting some dreadful thoughts and allowing them to grow.
 
Us stars, and is often carried by, the enigmatic Lupita Nyong'o. She plays Adelaide Wilson, a normal mom on vacation in Santa Cruz with her husband Gabe (Winston Duke), daughter Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph), and son Jason (Evan Alex). It's a typical beach vacation – sun, sand, copious amounts of booze with friends Kitty (a great Elisabeth Moss) and Josh (Tim Heidecker) – except for a dark cloud that hangs over Adelaide. She has a bad childhood memory of running into another version of herself, and she can't escape the feeling she hasn't escaped her other self. Her fears come to fruition when their home is invaded by the Wilson's doppelgangers, who have murderous intentions for Adelaide and her family.

As shown in Us and Get Out, Peele has an excellent grasp of the fundamentals of horror. He's an expert at evoking discomfort even amid what are otherwise friendly and bright locations – a busy boardwalk filled with games and rides is just as terrifying as the spookiest of houses in Peele's hands. Something sinister lurks behind every corner, which works conceptually with Us, a movie whose universe contains a shallow mirror just below a vibrant surface. The Wilson family can't trust the upper-middle class shell they've created for themselves because right below the surface are the forgotten wishing for a taste of what they have.

And, well, there's a lot that can be read into that idea. Us could very well serve as a political statement, centering on the subjugation of a class of people who aren't even worth considering. The film could be a comment about the illusions of wealth, or about the strength of family. It can be about the emptiness of life in a technological age, about the ferociousness of motherhood, about fatalism, about the complexities of the soul. Peele's films are read as much as they are watched – he's just as skilled at planting clues as he is setting atmosphere – yet the message for Us is a little muddled. Peele has a lot to say about a lot of subjects with Us, and he can't deliver on everything he wants to say. The enormous ambition he has with this film is admirable and worth an attempt to emulate, but his drive toward divine profundity comes at the expense of a thematic direction and a modicum of sanity.

Us suffers a little from a tonal funk. The film relies a lot on its sense of humor – it's often as funny as it is scary – but the jokes undercut some of the vital gravitas of the horror. Moments designed for silent awe are infiltrated with uproarious laughter from the audience because they aren't quite sure which direction the film is leading them toward. The divide between humor and fear is often quite thin – a point Peele is very well aware of – but the film can't shed its jokiness enough for some of the horror to truly hit.

Well, at least in the moment. The brilliance of Us lies in the after scare, the residual fear that boomerangs back with more force than it was thrown. The final twist creates a rabbit hole of horrible thoughts and possibilities about the very nature of humanity and the lack of clarity between good and evil. It's a disturbing note to end a film on, the kind that results in a few chills and a restless night miles away from the theater. The point of Us is to leave its audience perturbed by these ideas. It wants to exploit the dark thoughts that reside in the depths of the mind and bring them to the surface, haunting the viewer like the best horror films should.

Review: Four and a half of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R
Run time: 116 minutes
Genre: Horror

tl;dr

What Worked: Lupita Nyong'o, Elisabeth Moss, Atmosphere, Implications

What Fell Short: Imbalanced tone, uncontrolled ambition

What To Watch As Well: Get Out, C.H.U.D.