Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2022)

60. Strange World

In the early 2000s, emboldened by the popularity of anime in the states, three big budget, sci-fi/action animated features would be released in America by major studios. They were "Titan A.E." – a Don Bluth/Fox production – "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" and "Treasure Planet," which were both Disney productions. All three were box office failures, signaling the end of traditional animation as a popular medium in U.S. cinema. It also suggested that mainstream audiences didn't have much interest in science fiction cartoons. (Cult audiences, meanwhile, quickly embraced all three.) It's been twenty-two years and, despite these past failures, Disney seemed ready to try a similar experiment again. "Strange World," a CGI animated film, would see the world's most famous animation studio trying their hand at telling another expansive science fiction story.

Jaeger Clade is the most celebrated explorer in all of Avalonia, a country surrounded by an impenetrable wall of mountains. Jaeger is determined to make it to the other side of the mountains, much to the chagrin of his meek son, Searcher. During the same mountainous expedition Jaeger disappears, Searcher discovers an electricity-producing plant he names Pando. Twenty years later, Pando has made Avalonia a technologically advanced utopia. Yet Searcher notices that the plant is losing its effectiveness. The President of Avalonia soon arrives to tell him that Pando is dying at its root, deep within the earth. Searcher joins an expedition into the planet's heart to reverse the problem before it's too late. His rebellious teenage son, Ethan, stowaways on the vessel as it descends into the bizarre world under the surface. Along the way, Searcher is reunited with his father.

"Strange World" draws inspiration from the pulp science-fiction magazines of the early 20th century. It features a lot of the same themes and ideas present in those old stories. The time period for the story is never specified, with many modern touches existing alongside a vaguely 1920s style aesthetic. Jaeger Clade is exactly the kind of stout-chinned, two-fisted hero that was common place in such stories. The premise of a fantastical world within the earth, that the heroes uncover from inside amazing flying machines, obviously recalls the works of Jules Verne. The same sense of classical adventure and discovery that inspired those works clearly drove the filmmakers behind "Strange World."

Visually, "Strange World" also pulls from the colorful, elaborate paintings that would adorn the covers of those same pulp magazines and novels. The otherworldly creature designs, full of tentacles and strange protuberances that replace eyes and ears, would not look out of place on the covers of "Amazing Stories" or "Weird Science." There are several moments when the film intentionally pauses on an image. Such as during the opening montage that establishes Jaeger and Searcher's relationship or a single shot of Ethan standing on a vehicle and overlooking the inner world. These shots have a depth and color to them that clearly recalls painted illustrations.

What maybe impressed me the most about "Strange World" is the imaginative world building on display. There's so much cool stuff packed into this film. The society that thrives on the planet's surface is really clever. The invention of Pando produces a number of miraculous machines and technologies that take the place of modern conveniences, like airplanes and automobiles. There's flying machines that hover along the skyline, powered by these little glowing Brussels sprouts. While not meeting the definition of "steampunk" or "dieselpunk," it feels drawn from a similar vein. The film imagined a world that is set in the past but pushed forward into the future by technology unavailable in our time.

Once the trip into the planet's interior begins, "Strange World" gleefully lives up to its title. You can tell the designers and animators really had fun cooking up increasingly odd alien life forms. Some of the creatures are clearly inspired by animals that live on our world. The antagonistic "Reapers" resemble pterodactyls made of swirling, red fabric like matter. There are creatures that move around like gazelles but have a mass of twitching tentacles in place of heads. Others are stranger yet, resembling floating nudibranches or ambulatory landscapes. There's lots of polyps and blob-like membranes. I never expected to see a big budget Disney movie so obviously influenced by "Fantastic Planet" and yet here we are.

A film so clearly interested in natural life forms and creating its own biosphere, unsurprisingly, brings with it an environmental message. Without going too far into spoiler territory, it's eventually discovered that the goals the characters have run counter to what is best for their civilization in the long term. The message boils down to all of us being part of a massive, living system. And we all owe a responsibility to that system, to take care of it and ensure that it lives on for future generations. This moral includes an evident anti-fossil fuel statement. It comes close to being too obvious at times – a card game Ethan plays presents the theme of peacefully co-existing with the world outwardly – but I think the point is well organized and timely.

Yet even this is not what "Strange World" is really about, at least not singularly. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of Disney movies over the years have focused on the relationships between parents and their children. The studio's Marvel superhero flicks have especially foregrounded conflicts with fathers. "Strange World" similarly wears its Daddy Issues right on its sleeves. Jaeger and Searcher never really bonded, as the son felt inadequate in his boisterous father's shadow. A boy more interested in science and agriculture didn't find a lot of common ground with this proud adventurer. When his single-minded focus on reaching the other side of the mountain led to him disappearing for two decades, Searcher felt truly abandoned by his dad. It confirmed all his worst fears about his dad. Their reunion inevitably has them putting their differences to rest and learning to appreciate one another.

This subplot is at its most compelling when illustrating the ways that, no matter how divided Searcher feels from his dad, they are similar people. Both have single-minded visions for their own sons, Searcher hoping Ethan grows up to be a farmer like him despite the boy having more in common with his explorer grandfather. This is illustrated in an amusing scene that shows the two men unknowingly mirroring each other's movements. As someone who has sometimes struggled with his own father, and accepting that he's part of me no matter how much he's let me down, I can't help but be a little touched by this. It has a tidy Disney movie resolution but I appreciate "Strange World" even touching on the idea. Maybe we should all be a little more forgiving of our bad dads. 

Something that Ethan doesn't bristle with his father or granddad about is his sexuality. After Disney promoted a number of minor instances of vaguely queer characters in the past as big deals (that could be easily excised from international releases), "Strange World" is the first film from the Mouse Factory that actually features a prominent gay character. Ethan has a crush on a boy he knows. The other boy probably likes him too and they are working through their teenage awkwardness together. The topic is brought up repeatedly and without any judgement. The movie doesn't draw a lot of attention to Ethan's queer status, simply letting a gay teenager exist in its narrative as a normal thing that requires no further trumpeting. It's surprising and unexpected, to see a big budget family movie allow a main character to be gay, outwardly and openly, to exist and live and love the way it would any heterosexual character.

As much as I liked "Strange World," there is one issue facing the film. As soon as I saw the trailer, I noted a number of distracting one-liners and quips. This, unfortunately, was not just the trailer overemphasizing the pithy dialogue. "Strange World" has jokes in and they are mostly pretty lame. It's the kind of lazy, sitcom-level dialogue that feels desperate to get the audience to laugh. This is what you expect from the lesser Dreamworks movies and it makes the film seem insecure about its sci-fi story and family drama. The only moment in the film that really got me to laugh was a sequence where the three-legged dog – one of two adorable animal sidekicks – is called upon to help the heroes escape a situation. 

The voice cast do an admirable job though. Jake Gyllenhaal has a likably nervous quality as Searcher, a man certain about many things but constantly forced out of his comfort zone. He has strong chemistry with Dennis Quaid as Jaeger, who does a suitable job summoning the classic adventurer hero energy, and Gabrielle Union as his resourceful wife. Jakoubie Young-White is also nicely suited to the role of Ethan, definitely bringing the right youthful quality to the part. Lucy Liu plays the President of Avalonia who, in a lesser film, would be the antagonist of the story. Instead, she's simply someone working from her own preconceived notions that are challenged throughout the narrative. 

Much like the sci-fi action/adventure Disney cartoons that proceeded, "Strange World" was doomed to die a lonely death at the box office. I'm not sure we can blame any disinterest America's youth has in sci-fi animation on this though. Instead, "Strange World" flopped because the studio didn't do a very good job of promoting it. I've seen countless complaints from people that they didn't even know the movie existed and Disney barely produced any merchandise for it. Whether this was because of a change in studio leadership, the film being released between bigger Disney productions "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" and "Avatar 2," or a strange modern disinterest from Disney in animation, I don't know. (There have also been conspiracy theories that the studio intentionally buried the movie because of its gay lead, which seem sadly believable.) I think "Strange World" will be rediscovered on streaming though, as it's an imaginative and entertaining motion picture that deserves to be seen. [Grade: B]

CHRISTMAS 2022: The Leech (2022)

Let us consider the career of Jeremy Gardner. As a director, Gardner made low budget zombie fave “The Battery” and quirky creature feature “After Midnight.” As an actor, he's appeared in films from indie horror auteurs like Benson and Moorehead, Mickey Keating, and the aforementioned Joe Begos. (In fact, he even popped up in “Christmas Bloody Christmas.”) He also appeared in “Sadistic Intentions,” a film from director Eric Pennycoff. I haven't seen that one or even heard of it before. Yet I felt compelled to check out “The Leech,” Pennycoff's follow-up, anyway. Perhaps that's because I like Garnder or maybe it's just because it's a Christmas-set horror movie that's not about Santa or the Krampus or anything like that. It's nice to have some variety in the holiday horror genre.

Catholic priest David leads a congregation of exactly one, with his assistant Rigo seemingly being the only person who attends his church at all. On the way home from another practically empty sermon, David meets Terry. Following an argument with his girlfriend, the foul-mouthed Terry is facing homelessness. David decides to take the man in, despite his obnoxious habits and vulgar opinions. It's almost Christmas after all. Soon afterwards, Terry reconciles with Lexi, his girlfriend. She moves into David's house too. As the holiday draws closer, David finds his capacity for forgiveness and charity tested by his increasingly depraved house guests. They'll continue to challenge the priest's resolve, pushing him further to the edge of sanity.

“The Leech” has a clever set-up for a dark comedy that quickly pushes towards horror. David endeavors to live his life like Christ. He wants to help the helpless and is happy to invite Terry, someone who has fallen on hard luck, into his home. Yet this is a house guest that quickly pushes the limits of Christian charity. It’s an easy story to relate to, of wanting to help someone but also wanting to protect your own sanity. Most of us have experiences with guests that have overstayed their welcome and “The Leech” pushes that as far as possible. Terry refuses to respect boundaries, blaring heavy metal throughout the day and night, constantly swearing, and seemingly delighting in exposing the priestly David to drugs, alcohol, and sexual acts. Under these circumstances, we’d all crack eventually. 

This puts us in David’s corner. Clearly, Terry and Lexi are the villains in this scenario, right? Yet “The Leech” has a nice layer of ambiguity to it, by slowly revealing that David is not all he appears to be. There’s a suggestion that his current puritan lifestyle was born out of a past as a partying homosexual. (Which the film nicely doesn’t explore too much, leaving the audience to wonder.) When the topic of Lexi being pregnant comes up, David goes on a disingenuous anti-abortion rant. After the house guests push him too far, David begins to enforce his own morality on them in creepy ways. Yes, he seems to have some hang-ups about his dead mother too. “The Leech” shows all of its central trio slipping into depravity and instability, making this more complex than just a story about uninvited guests driving you nuts. 

David does get driven nuts though. He slips more and more into madness as “The Leech” goes on, the film getting more hallucinatory as the violence and embittered speeches get more intense. Pennycoff’s direction is strong during these moments. He makes good use of Christmas lights for mood coloring and has a good handle on dream logic. (Even if the cinematography is a bit too dark in general.) Yet “The Leech” does loose its footing some the more out there it gets. Luckily, the performances remain compelling. Graham Skipper has a pleasant avuncular quality as David. Watching his kind exterior slowly melt away towards bitterness and madness is rewarding. Jeremy Gardner goes amusingly over-the-top as Terry, clearly relishing a chance to play a character who disregards all tact and good taste. 

"The Leech" does have its fair share of Christmas atmosphere too, even if it's only tangentially about the holiday. The story of someone striving to be Christ-like during the holiest of seasons, and eventually failing spectacularly, touches on the meaning of the day more than most December films do. Coming in at a compact 87 minutes, "The Leech" doesn't overstay its welcome the way its characters do. It's an amusingly nasty dark comedy that satisfied my desire for a twisted spin on the Christmas holiday. [7/10]

CHRISTMAS 2022: Christmas Bloody Christmas (2022)

If you follow the independent horror scene, you've probably heard the name Joe Begos. Begos started to make a name for himself in 2013 with sci-fi slasher flick, “Almost Human.” By 2015's “The Mind's Eye,” his aesthetic started to emerge. Begos makes throwback horror flicks that are heavy on the gore, neon lighting, colorfully and profane dialogue, with soundtracks that alternate between synths and heavy metal. His movies are often frequent homages to Fangoria favorites of the past. “The Mind's Eye” was obviously inspired by “Scanners,” “VFW” clearly drew from “Assault on Precinct 13,” “Bliss” was his riff on “Driller Killer.” Unfortunately, I've yet to see a Begos movie I've actually liked, as I find his style to be self-indulgent and obnoxious. Yet when I read his next film was a seasonal slasher named “Christmas Bloody Christmas,” I knew I would once again take a chance on a Begos joint. 

Should we continue to discuss “Christmas Bloody Christmas,” we must accept the main facet of its premise: That military contractors have created highly advanced, humanoid robots for war-time operations and then, for some reason, re-purposed them as utterly life-like Santa Clauses for toy stores. One such robot is residing in a toy store, near the vinyl/video stores Tori and Robbie work at. On Christmas, they head out for a night of drinking and partying. That's when the Santa robot reverts back to its murderous programming. The machine goes on a killing spree, targeting Tori's friends before following her back to her sister's place. The ax-wielding mechanical Claus chases her to the police station afterwards, turning December 25th into a blood-soaked nightmare.

“Christmas Bloody Christmas” represents Joe Begos' style at its most self-indulgent. Nearly the entire first half-hour is devoted to Riley Dandy and Sam Delich, as Tori and Robbie, trading self-consciously vulgar dialogue. They talk about drinking, sex, music, and horror movies. To make sure the hardcore genre fans in the audience know Begos is One of Us, “Pet Sematary Two” and the Crypt-Keeper Christmas album are among the discussed topic. (Alongside oral sex, analingus, and Lemmy.) “Fuck” is seemingly every other word. Nearly the entire film is lit in neon and blurring metal and synth fill out the soundtrack. And, as in Begos' previous films, this is a blatant homage to a certified genre classic. In this case, it's “The Terminator,” which is obvious when the Robot Santa attacks a police station and then reveals a robotic skeleton under its human-like skin. 

Now, it's a matter of opinion whether you find any of the above charming. Personally, I mostly find it incredibly irritating. Dandy and Delich do not make these broad, loud characters endearing. The non-stop profanity is just another facet of their aggressively in-your-face personalities. Horror movies don't have to have likable characters but, when trying to raise tension or create thrills, it helps. When you don't care about whether these people live or die, it's hard to be too invested in anything that happens. This means “Christmas Bloody Christmas” is mostly one of those slasher flicks that's just about gory special effects. Sadly, those aren't too impressive here either. The robotic Santa mostly executes people with simple axe swings, the dismembered bodies and crushed heads looking very rubbery and fake. 

I can't help but feel like “Christmas Bloody Christmas” is not a film that's meant to be taken seriously. The robotic Santa premise is absurd, after all, and the plot is full of contrivances. The fake looking gore and loud-mouthed characters further suggests this is a horror/comedy of sorts.  Yet if that's the case, the film is never especially funny. Its horror sequence are largely grim and downbeat, including the death of a child. The second half is a relentless chase scene that goes on and on, the robotic Santa pursuing Tori until the final seconds of the movie. In fact, I was left wondering why it's a killer Santa movie at all. The murderous Claus doesn't do anything festive or seasonal, not even speaking a ho-ho-ho. For that matter, why is this a robot movie either when all the murders are done with an axe? A regular person can kill people with an axe! Aside from robotic sound effects, the killer looks and moves like a normal person throughout most of the film. Kind of defeats the purpose of the idea, don't you think?

In other words, “Christmas Bloody Christmas” feels like a half-assed attempt at yuletide mayhem  to me. It doesn't really utilize any of its defining gimmicks in meaningful ways. The story feels directionless and the pacing is meandering. Really, the entire film feels like an exercise in Joe Begos just putting random shit he likes into a movie, wrapped up around the loose theme of a Christmas slasher flick. And that's great, for Begos and the folks that share his enthusiasm for screaming fuck, debating the quality of horror sequels, and floppy fake body parts. I can't count myself among this crowd though. A lot of people seem to enjoy this one so to each their own. [5/10]

CHRISTMAS 2022: Violent Night (2022)

Subversive Christmas cinema continues to evolve. Killer Santa movies are a dime a dozen. Action movies setting their chaos around the holidays has long since been enshrined in the hall of cinematic clichés, thanks to a certain ever-debatable seasonal classic. Raunchy Yuletide comedies were having a moment for a while, though they’ve fallen a little out of favor recently. None of these premises are especially novel on their own… But a combination of all three? Now that’ll get some butts in seats. One imagines this was the thought process that got “Violent Night,” an action flick putting the literal, mythical Santa Claus in place of John McClane, the greenlight. The script would come from the team behind the likable "Sonic the Hedgehog" movies while Tommy Wirkola, an expert in snowbound carnage, was in the director's chair. I want to say that creative team piqued my interest but the truth is the premise of "Die Hard Starring Santa" would've been irresistibly trashy regardless of who made it. 

After a thousand years of delivering gifts, Santa Claus is feeling a little blue. The increasingly materialistic, cynical world has him considering hanging up his jingle bells for good. On what might be his final Christmas, he stops at the mansion of rich industrialist family, the Lightstones. That's when a group of vicious mercenaries, led by a villain calling himself Mr. Scrooge, set their plan to steal three hundred million dollars in intractable bills into action. The gunfire scares off Santa's reindeer, stranding him in the besieged home. That's when Santa gets in contact with Trudy, the youngest Lightstone who only wants her mom and dad to get back together. The two communicate as the not-so-jolly old elf embraces his violent past to save the family from the ruthless robbers. 

“Violent Night” comes to us from 87North Productions, the company founded by David Leitch.to expand the action empire he started with “John Wick.” Of course, Leitch also directed the second “Deadpool” movie. Tonally, this Santa slaughter flick is much closer to the comedic superhero saga than Keanu Reeves shooting a hundred guys in the face. “Violent Night” has a similar tendency to be too impressed with its own outrageousness at times. One of the first things that happens here is Santa Claus puking on someone's face. The extended members of the Lightstones family are all exaggerated terrible people who speak mostly in obnoxiously overwritten, profane dialogue. Some of the characters, such as the Mark Wahlberg-like fiancée or a crazed henchman played by Brendan Fletcher, are utterly cartoonish. Considering the premise here, I guess it was inevitable that “Violent Night” would go over-the-top but the movie is definitely trying too hard to be edgy at times, instead of just letting the ridiculousness of its concept play out on its own.

“Violent Night's” glib violence, colorful vulgarities, and in-your-face characters stand in stark contrast to the relationship at the center of the story. You see, Trudy Lightstone is an adorable little moppet. Her love of Christmas and belief in Santa are utterly sincere. It's her precious earnestness that thaws Santa's cynicism and makes him love Christmas again. “Violent Night” plays this story arc totally straight, with nary a wink. While I suppose the movie could be applauded for committing to its status as a heartwarming Christmas movie and an ultra-violent action movie, the two tones jive badly in my eyes. It's really hard to take any of the movie's sentimental sense seriously at all when the rest of it is so utterly sarcastic. 

Regardless of whatever bumpy tonal issues occur throughout “Violent Night,” the film is at its most entertaining when embracing its intended goals as a gleefully over-the-top action movie. The creative team definitely had the most fun when juxtaposing wholesome Christmas decorations and winter traditions with the most violent executions they could conceived. Tensile, Christmas lights, a tree topper, and a nutcracker are utilized as weapons. “Home Alone” is reprised as a grisly gore-comedy. Once Santa picks up ice skates and activates the snowblower, “Violent Night” truly lives up to its title. While the action theatrics aren't quite up to the heights of 87North productions like “Atomic Blonde” or “Nobody,” they are pretty damn cool. There's some theatrical flips, brutal collisions, and some balletic fisticuffs. Once the snowmobile chases and explosions kick in, Wirkola's handle on the action is especially sturdy. 

For such a particular take on Santa Claus, a very specific type of actor was required. David Harbour strikes the right balance. He's believably holly jolly in some regards, even if this Santa is clearly grouchier and more intoxicated than most. He's also a creditable action lead, a burly looking guy that is physically imposing in a fight. Harbour's comedic chops are fine too and he manages to get a few laughs. As the villainous Mr. Scrooge, John Leguizamo happily hams it up and makes a fitting foil. Leah Brady is adorable as Trudy, precocious but not syrupy. Many of the supporting cast members go way over the top. Beverly D'Angelo as the Lightstone matriarch is especially cartoony, with Cam Gigandet's buffoonish character and much the henchmen being similarly ridiculous. (Though I kind of like the Dolph Lundgren-like Andre Eriksen.) 

By the end, “Violent Night's” mixture of gory action and crude yuletide comedy had won me over. Once the movie focuses on the premise of “Die Hard starring Santa Claus,” it really finds its hyper-violent groove. The movie finds a compelling reason for why this Santa is such a capable fighter, one that hints at a wider mythology. The film has done pretty well at the box office, and 87North has shown an eagerness to turn their surprise hits into franchises, so a “Another Violent Night” doesn't seem totally improbable. Whether we see this hard-boiled Santa again, “Violent Night” is an amusingly ridiculous Christmas gift for action aficionados and fans of off-beat holiday spectacle. [7/10]

Director Report Card: James Gunn (2022)

5.5. The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special

Considering James Gunn has spent his entire career reclaiming disregarded bits of pop culture debris, like D-list superheroes and seventies AM radio hits, it's not surprising that he's a fan of the Christmas special. While the best holiday specials remain seasonal staples that are beloved across generations, most of them fade into obscurity after a few years. So, of course, Gunn likes them. When it was announced that the director would be creating a “Guardians of the Galaxy” holiday special for Disney+, with that very specific titling, it was widely assumed to be a homage to the most notorious of misbegotten seasonal entertainment. While one can only assume Life Day was on Gunn's mind, his “Holiday Special” has less unsubtitled Wookie language than expected. Instead, “The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special” features the same balance of flippant sci-fi antics and sincerity that powered the previous two “Guardians” features.

In the time since “Endgame,” the Guardians of the Galaxy have taken over the Collector's trading post at Knowhere. Still missing Gamora, Star-Lord's friends notice that he is a little glum. After learning that it is around Christmas time on Earth, Mantis and Drax decide to find the perfect gift for their friend. They travel to Earth in search of Quill's childhood hero: The actor Kevin Bacon, who is not enthused to be abducted by aliens. Yet it's all mostly a distraction, as Mantis is more concerned with revealing to Peter that she's also Ego's offspring and, therefore, his half-sister.

More than anything else, the “Guardians” holiday special is a display for Pom Klemintoff and Dave Bautista. The majority of the forty-four minute program revolves around Mantis and Drax having wacky adventures on Earth. The two performers get to really flex their comedic muscles, as they trade comedic dialogue about their Christmas plans and get drunk in what appears to be a Hollywood gay bar. Watching them argue over the holiday decorations they suddenly become attached to produces hearty laughs. Klemintoff's oddball delivery and Bautista's dry and blunt observations have been sharpened to a fine point by now, both clearly being comfortable with these absurd roles.

That the stars get to stretch their comedic muscles so much is fitting, as “Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special” is essentially a fish-out-water comedy. Half of its runtime is devoted to Mantis and Drax responding to Earth culture in humorous ways. Such as an encounter with Hollywood street performers, which seems to confirm that Go-Bots exist in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The truth is Mantis and Drax tend to be out of their element everywhere they go. These are the most socially awkward Guardians and pairing them together makes sense. Seeing the nearly indestructible but literal-minded Drax and the shy, ambiguously neurodivergent Mantis use their powers to get out of scuffled – a fun little action beat involving some cops or Mantis using her empathetic abilities to get a star map – are definite highlights. 

Much like the Christmas variety programs of old, a special guest star was recruited for this holiday special. Kevin Bacon – already a Gunn veteran, having appeared in “Super” – proves to be a good sport, playing a good natured version of himself that is ruthlessly mocked and terrorized throughout the narrative. The sequence where Mantis and Drax discover he's just an actor, before she uses her powers to make him assume various heroic identities, is another very funny sequence. Moreover, the experienced character actor playing himself and getting directly involved with this band of intergalactic misfits continues to show the way Gunn weaves pop culture into his stories, not as references for their own sake but to depict what they mean to his characters. Bacon's movies are another connection Peter Quill has to his long-gone childhood and his reaction here – horror that his friends trafficked a movie star for his Christmas special – shows how he's matured.

Truthfully though, the narrative really only occupies the first half of this short program. The second half provides what most people are probably looking for in a holiday special: Just getting to hang out with these characters. Gunn and his team makes sure to include cute moments for each of the Guardians, with Rocket and Nebula getting nice comedic beats of their own. The musical montage at the end of the special, largely devoted to everyone trading gifts, is surprisingly cozy and adorable. This rounded off with a poignant final scene, that shows that these intergalactic stories really are about family, those we make and those we find along the way. 

Unsurprisingly, this thing is packed with Christmas ambiance. Christmas decorations prove to be a minor plot point in the earthbound segments of the story. The second half features Knowhere totally decked out in colored lights, a reveal which is given the proper amount of awe. Yes, before the end, the irresistible sight of Groot being done up like a Christmas tree is featured. This special also convinced me that James Gunn and I share the same taste in holiday music. “The Fairy Tale of New York,” Low's “Just Like Christmas,” Julian Casablancas' “I Wish It Was Christmas Today,” and Fountains of Wayne's “I Want an Alien for Christmas” are some prominent needle drops here that are also on my personal holiday playlist. There's also two original Christmas songs, contributed by Old '97s in alien make-up, that are pretty catchy. 

Supposedly, the “Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special” acts as something of a bridge between the characters' previous appearance and their likely final bow in “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.” This includes giving Cosmo, the telekinetic Russian space dog, a proper introduction. And a perfectly adorable voice, provided by Maria Bakalova whose deadpan accent pairs hilariously with Cosmo's typically dog-like behavior. I also like the brief flashbacks here, done in rotoscoped animation that reminds me of “Heavy Metal.” (Which is easy to imagine as an inspiration for Gunn's entire career.) While it's ultimately a fluffy trifle, “The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special” is well worth a fun, a funny and sweet little gift for fans of this particular corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Steven Spielberg (1997) - Part One

19. The Lost World: Jurassic Park

“Jurassic Park” was a genuine pop culture phenomenon, a generation-defining hit. The movie was beloved by audiences, well liked by critics, and scooped up countless awards for its ground-breaking special effects. When a film is that beloved, audiences begin to want more of it. There was a problem. Michael Crichton, the original novel’s author, didn’t write sequels. Spurned by popular demand and the insistence of Steven Spielberg himself, Crichton dusted off a sequel novel called “The Lost World.” Immediately, Hollywood went to work on a film adaptation, with Spielberg behind the camera again. Released into theaters in 1997, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” was another huge box office hit. It’s reception among critics and fans was more mixed. To this day, people debate the merits of “The Lost World” and in what ways it stacks up to the original.

Four years after the Jurassic Park incident on Isla Nublar, InGen’s stock is plummeting. John Hammond has been ousted by his own company, his greedy nephew taking over. Hammond retrieves Dr. Ian Malcolm, whose reputation was ruined after going public with the first film events. He reveals to an expedition is underway to Site B, the island where the dinosaurs were raised before being taken to the park. In man’s absence, the dinosaurs have run wild, creating their own ecosystem. Malcolm, still suffering from dinosaur-related PTSD, has no interest in returning. When he’s told that his paleontologist girlfriend is already on the island, he changes his mind. Trying to survive the dinosaur-infested island, Malcolm and friends uncovers a sinister plan by InGen’s new owners.

Making a sequel to a film as beloved as “Jurassic Park” would be a difficult proposition for anyone, even a proven hitmaker like Steven Spielberg. Anything he could have delivered likely would have been criticized, for the simple crime of not being the first movie. Perhaps as a pre-emptive move against such criticism, “The Lost World” functions on a time-tested sequel formula: Give the audience more of what they loved the first time. This tendency is most obvious in the decision to have two Tyrannosauruses in the film. We have a sequel with more dinosaurs, more action, more humor, and more human-on-dinosaur chaos. “The Lost World’s” eagerness to please is actually a problem. The film is so focused on delivering the goods that other parts of the story are underdeveloped. The result is an action-packed film that doesn’t satisfy the way its predecessor did.

In “Jurassic Park,” John Hammond created dinosaurs without thinking about the consequences. As dangerous as his creation became, his motivation was pure. Hammond was driven by a child-like glee to provide the world with the gift of living, breathing dinosaurs. This provided an interesting twist on the time-worn “scientists tampering in God’s domain” cliché. The funder behind “The Lost World’s” expedition have a far more basic motivation: Greed. Hammond’s penny-pinching cousin wants to refund the first park’s financial lost. He plans to capture dinosaurs and bring them to the mainland, where they will be displayed in a massive zoo. Why would anyone think this would be a feasible idea, especially after the first film’s events? Peter Ludlow, played by a sniveling Arliss Howard, is so thin and cartoonish a villain that the audience doesn’t have to question why.

The eagerness of the film’s villains to exploit the dinosaurs for profit speaks to the film’s ecological theme. The hubris of capitalism is targeted. Ludlow and his association are so hellbent on making profits that they don’t care who they endanger. By the time the bad guy actually fulfils his hair-brained scheme to bring a dinosaur to San Francisco, most everyone around him is disillusioned. Moreover, the movie is critical of anyone who exploits the natural world. There’s frequent shout-outs to Greenpeace. Man’s intrusion into Site B is seen as unnatural. By the end, even John Hammond is insisting that the dinosaurs be left alone. It’s a valid point. However, making a statement about mankind’s involvement with the world and tying it in with genetically engineered dinosaurs muddles the moral’s waters. 

Steven Spielberg made “The Lost World” after a four year hiatus, an unexpected break for the usually very busy filmmaker. During production, he expressed some misgivings about the movie. He felt like he was making a special effects film with no human heart. Re-watching “The Lost World” for the first time in years, I began to suspect Spielberg might have been making a toy commercial. A long sequence in the film’s middle section is devoted to the dino hunters InGen has hired. They track down the thunder lizards in their high-tech vehicles. The trucks are Mercedes-Benz, their branding proudly displayed. There are fold-out seats in the truck, allowing the hunters better shots. One of the trucks deploys a grasping winch in order to hold the creatures. Unsurprisingly, the extensive “Lost World” toy line revolved around the dinosaur hunters and all the fun gimmicks they could ensnare dinos with. (This ignored the fact that these characters are the film’s bad guys.) I don’t know which came first, the movie or the toys but, at times, the film feels like its in service of the marketing and not the other way around.

The film’s toyetic approach has one big attribute though: More dinosaurs! The first “Jurassic Park” allowed Spielberg the realize a dream about dinosaurs on-screen. The sequel gives him an even bigger toy box to play in. One of the first dinosaurs we meet here is the stegosaurus, a notable exclusion from the first film. The plated creature travels in packs and swings its thagomizer into a log, nearly skewering Julianne Moore. The hunters are introduced tracking a Parasaurolophus, one of the most visually distinctive dinosaurs. They also captured a Pachycephalosaurus, one of my favorites. And, yes, it does smash a vehicle with its famous dome-head. The beloved triceratops was featured in the first movie. However, it didn’t do anything other then lie on its side, sick. “The Lost World” corrects this by letting the Triceratops rampage through a camp. The tri-horned dinosaur smashes through structures and even tosses a car into a tree. It’s awesome.

The first “Jurassic Park” made the velociraptor, a relatively obscure creature before, into a dinosaur superstar. The sequel attempts another reinvention for a similarly unknown species. Compsognathus, referred to as Compies through the film, are small, relatively cute dinosaurs. They resemble saurian versions of geckos. However, their size betrays their dangerous qualities. The Compies descend on humans in swarms, slowly tearing at their flesh and eating them. A left-out element from Crichton’s first book, the film sequel devotes a lot of time to these critters. They have a fun gimmick, and are beautifully created through a smart mixture of CGI and puppetry. However, I think Spielberg and crew thought the Compsognathus was cooler then the rest of us did. Though they have a cult following, the tiny, deadly dinosaur did not crossover to the mainstream the way raptors did. 

Though “The Lost World” makes room for new dinosaurs – even sneaking in a cameo from a pterodon – it knows who the boss is. The T-Rex is given an even bigger role then before. Since the sequel is so intent on topping the original, it gives us a pair of T-Rexes. Nearly the entire first half of the film is devoted to the T-Rex. The big game hunter is eager to face down the Tyrant Lizard King. The duo, a mating pair, make a dramatic entrance into the film. They corner a research lab on both sides. After thinking they’ve appease the creatures, they continue to attack, pushing the trailer over a cliff. The extended sequence, devoted to the cast dangling inside the inverted vehicle, is one of the most intense scenes in “The Lost World.” Another intense sequence has the heroes cornered inside a cave by the dinosaurs. In addition to the mature T-Rexes, the movie also prominently features an adorable, injured, crying baby T-Rex. People liked the undisputed King of the Dinosaurs in the first movie. The sequel successfully gave us more of them.

In attempting to top the first “Jurassic Park,” Spielberg, Crichton, and their teams also made a darker, more violent film. The sequel is packed full of more explicit dino gore. A man is torn in two by the Rexes, each one grabbing a leg, splitting him like a wish bone. A scientist, based off real world eccentric paleontologist Bob Bakker, is chewed up by the dinos. Later, a pack of Compies chew up one of the villains. In a scene that honestly feels protracted and overly sadistic, he’s chewed up, blood spilling into the water. Later on, we even get a boat littered with severed body parts. In addition to the ramped-up gore, “The Lost World” is also visually darker, mostly taking place at night and in thick forest.

Since they were the breakout stars of the original, the sequel makes plenty of room for the velociraptors. An lengthy sequence in the middle of the film is devoted to the speedy creatures. They run and leap, running through a field of tall grass, pinning victims. The dinos jump through glass and wreck cars. This is cool and all but draws attention to the movie’s use of CGI, which is heavier then the first and not as timeless. The movie also makes the odd decision to weaken the raptors. In a moment of almost unbearable Spielbergian sap, a teenage girl kicks a raptor out a window with her gymnastic skills. Maybe because they were such an unexpected, thrilling presence in the first film, the raptors fill somewhat neutered here.

You know how else you can tell this is a Spielberg movie? It’s about family. Introduced early on is Ian Malcolm’s daughter, Kelly. Kelly is estranged from her mother and Ian frankly has a difficult time dealing with the precocious kid. She stowaways on the boat, travelling to Jurassic Park with her dad. She’s reluctant to accept Sarah, Malcolm’s long-time girlfriend, as a mother figure. By the end, after the ordeal they’ve been through with the dinosaurs, the trio renew their familial bond. This theme is connected with the dinosaurs. The two Tyrannosaurs are motivated by the theft of their off-spring. Once reunited with it, they are at peace. Even early on, a mother Stegosaurus is enraged by a perceived threat to its child. The film seems to suggest that parenthood is the connecting fiber throughout every world, even those of the dinosaurs.

In a movie as effects heavy as “The Lost World,” the human cast is almost unimportant. Sam Neill’s Alan Grant or Laura Dern’s Dr. Stattler do not return for the sequel. Instead, Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm is thrust into the role of protagonist. Goldblum does fine as a leading man. His nervous energy and quiet humor is actually a boon to the sequel, providing the movie with some sort of human heart. Playing his girlfriend is Julianne Moore. Moore has admitted she only took the movie for the paycheck. Despite that, she’s entertaining in the part. She has decent chemistry with Goldblum and seems to be having fun among the dinosaurs. 

The supporting cast is an interesting mix bag. Vince Vaugh, during that weird time when he was still a dramatic actor, plays Nick Van Owen, the team’s photographer. Vaughn’s smarmy attitude is weirdly at odds with the movie’s tone. Smartly, he vanishes before the last act. Playing the big game hunter is veteran character actor Peter Postlethwaite. Postlethwaite at first appears to be a thinly drawn bad guy. As the film goes on, he develops a deeper personality, learning to respect the creatures he’s been hunting. Postlethwaite is certainly preferable over Arliss Howard’s paper-thin Leyland. Peter Stromere has fun as Dieter, the greasy henchman, but the part only gives him so much to do.

I think part of the reason people were disappointed in “The Lost World” is because it’s entire marketing campaign was built around the Tyrannosaurus Rex rampaging through San Francisco. This does not occur until the very end, occupying a small portion of the two hour and nine minutes run time. I know this bugged me as a kid. Sometimes, the wait is worth it though. A homage to the 1925 silent version of “The Lost World,” the T-Rex’s rampage is deeply satisfying. People leap off docks to avoid the creature’s snapping jaws. The dinosaur flips cars, smashing his way through a video store, and chomps on David Koepp. Inevitably, the T-Rex corners the movie’s villain and viciously eats him, giving the bad guy an appropriately ironic end. The movie saves its best special effects for this conclusion. Even now, it’s an impressive display. Would I have preferred an entire movie devoted to dinosaurs attacking cities? Sure. (Though I can’t imagine it was feasible budget-wise.) Yet the movie makes its conclusion count. 

If you’re looking for dinosaur action, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park” might actually satisfy more then the original. It’s a rare moment that doesn’t feature some sort of dino-related mayhem. That’s cool and all. Really, it is. However, the sequel does lack a certain something. The character are less well received and given less to do. The story is sketchy and almost an afterthought. It’s not a horrible film. It’s actually quite entertaining at times. Sadly, it does not match up to the original. Because it is possible to have too much of a good thing, even if that good thing is a T-Rex tearing people in two. [Grade: B-]

RECENT WATCHES: Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022)

There had been superhero movies starring black actors before "Black Panther" but none of them made the impact it did. The Afrofuturism tinged story, with the way it exalted blackness, really spoke to a wide audience. The film made massive money at the box office, was nominated for Best Picture, and turned Chadwick Boseman into an icon overnight. This status was amplified by his unexpected death. Seeing a star in his prime cut down, learning he was struggling with cancer while the world was praising him, was shocking. I'm sure it was shocking to Disney execs too. Because the Marvel franchise machine must roll on and now its newest big series was without its star. "Black Panther: Wakanda Forever" was announced and moved forward with little indication of how exactly this was going to work. As the advertising campaign for the sequel finally ramped up, it became clear that Disney's main strategy for the movie was to lean into the death of its star, the typical superhero shenanigans being overshadowed by the mourning process. How did this work out for them? 

Following the events of "Endgame," King T'Challa dies unexpectedly of an unknown illness. His little sister, Shuri, feels enormous guilt as she was attempting to replicate the heart-shaped herb – which could have saved his life – as he died. Queen Ramonda must lead Wakanda without her son now. The U.S. government discovers an underwater supply of vibranium with a machine designed by college student Riri Williams. The leader of an aquatic civilization, Namor, demands Wakanda brings Riri to him or face all-out war. Shuri races to protect Riri, save her people, and accept her fate as the next Black Panther. 

The death of Chadwick Boseman put "Black Panther 2" in a hard situation. If Marvel simply recast the role, it would make a sequel story a lot easier to write. It might've also been perceived as insensitive towards Boseman's legacy. Kill him off-screen and the sequel is put in the awkward position of writing around its main character in-between movies. Ryan Coogler and his team chose the latter option. "Wakanda Forever" essentially attempts to move the first film's entire supporting cast into the protagonist role. Letitia Wright's Shuri, Angela Basset's Queen, and Danai Guirira's Okoye all appear to be the film's main character at different times. (With heavy supporting roles for M'Baku, Nakia, and Everett Ross.) It's an unwieldy solution, creating an unsteady story that is always shifting focus, centered on an ensemble that is weighed down by grief. 

Eventually, Shuri does emerge as the story's protagonist, with a clearly understood objective and motivation. Up until that point, "Wakanda Forever" is another one of those Marvel sequels that are burdened by having to set-up future adventures. Riri Williams, who will become the superhero Ironheart, is central to the film's beginning. She kicks off the plot and gets plenty of action beats during the climax. Yet she also disappears from the film for long stretches, making you kind of wonder why she's here at all. (Beyond the obvious reason that Disney has big plans for her.) Dominique Thorne is fine in the part but Riri never feels like the heart of the movie, as she should. The film similarly stops for a lengthy sequence devoted to establishing Namor's origins or showing that or showing that Julia Louis-Dreyfus' Contessa de Fontaine is still kicking around. "Black Panther 2" is so choked by grieving Boseman, writing around his death, and establishing characters that'll be important to other, future Marvel projects that the movie doesn't feel like it's actually started until it's halfway over. 

If nothing else, Coogler and his team assemble a strong cast that do their best to act their asses off. Angela Bassett dominates the screen in several of her scenes, imbuing the Queen with the heartbreak and fury she must feel. Letitia Wright has a more complicated arc this time, as Shuri is shouldering a lot more pain and responsibility. Lupita Nyong'a brings a gracefulness to Nakia, a character the sequel similarly uses and discards as it wants. Danai Gurira's Okoye and Winston Duke's M'Baku are the closest things the movie has to comic relief and they do their best. Moreover, all the actors and the movie around them are clearly heartfelt in their desire to pay tribute to Boseman. This is a movie preoccupied with the question of how we move on after our loved ones die and it's clear the creative team were juggling that query themselves. 

Though clearly an uneven affair, "Wakanda Forever" does succeed in doing one thing really well. It gives Namor, one of Marvel's most compellingly complex antiheroes, the introduction he deserves. The character's back story is extensively rewritten, making him and his city of Talokan (not Atlantis) the last remnant of a Mesoamerican civilization. This was probably done to distinguish the character from DC's Aquaman. Yet Namor's grievances with the surface world are still well founded. He's a proud, regal, super strong asshole with extreme measures but he's not wrong either. Newcomer Tenoch Huerta plays him with all the confidence of a seasoned movie star, immediately establishing a compelling screen presence. Namor is a great villain, even if the world he protects never feels fully fleshed-out. Mostly, I'm relieved that "Wakanda Forever" never flees from the ridiculous image of an aquatic Vulcan in a green speedo who flies with little chicken wings on his ankles. Comic book movies should never be afraid of their own silliness. 

Despite its many strengths, I just can't escape the feeling that "Wakanda Forever" is a movie that was rushed through production when more time was needed to finesse it. You see this in the cinematography and action choreography as well. Coogler and D.P. Autumn Durald Arkapaw do occasionally replicate the splendor of the first film. Such as when Namor introduces Shuri to his underwater world. Yet the film's photography is often way too dark, making many sequences hard-to-follow. The action scenes, all throughout, are also needlessly muddy. The camera work is shaky, the editing is too quick, and slow-motion "ramping" is overused. The result is big budget action spectacle that is never satisfying to watch or even easy to follow. 

Despite the praise that greeted it, the first "Black Panther" was a film whose parts were greater than its whole. The same is true of its sequel, which is further conflicted by Marvel double-stuffing it with set-up for future franchise opportunities. Mostly though, its the Chadwick Boseman-shaped hole in the center of the movie's heart that it can't overcome. "Wakanda Forever" is without its hero and every attempt it makes to get around that feels hopelessly awkward, no matter how heartfelt its tribute to the fallen star might be. At least Namor is badass though. That matters. [6/10]