“Snow White” - Still including all your favorite dwarves.

If you saw a preview of Snow White, you were probably as nervous as I was about seeing it. I saw what the CGI dwarves looked like and my thought was if the filmmakers were willing to make a bizarre choice like using CGI dwarves instead of actual human beings to portray the dwarves, what other bizarre creative choices might they have made?

As it turns out, they made quite a few more creative choices, though they all seemed to work out pretty well. With the exception of purists, who complain when even the tiniest details of things are changed, and who still hate baseball’s designated hitter (DH) with the fire of a thousand suns, people should find the changes to Snow White quite agreeable.

The major storylines are all still the same. After the death of both of her parents, Snow White (Rachel Zegler) lives with her stepmother, the Evil Queen (Gal Gadot). Since one of the changes the writers didn’t make was to give the Evil Queen a proper name - and I don’t want to type Evil Queen a bunch more times - I’m going to call her Barb. Barb is a bitch.

Barb is still obsessed with being the fairest one of all and makes her magic mirror reassure her of this every single day. Barb is also obsessed with shiny things and has hoarded the kingdom’s wealth all for herself, impoverishing the rest of her subjects. Barb has even turned Snow White into a castle servant and hidden her from the kingdom for years. Still, the mirror proclaims Barb to be the fairest of them all because she looks like Gal freaking Gadot.

One day, Barb’s guards catch a man named Jonathan (Andrew Burnap) stealing potatoes from the castle kitchens. Initially, Barb orders Jonathan executed, but Snow White pleads for mercy and that the punishment fit the crime. So, Barb takes Jonathan’s coat and shoes and has him tied to the castle gate to freeze to death. Since this punishment definitely does not fit the crime, Snow White sneaks out and frees Jonathan. Barb witnesses this and immediately asks the mirror who is the fairest of them all. Having just finished its daily Duolingo lesson and learning that the word fair has multiple definitions, the mirror informs Barb that Snow White is now the fairest of them all.

If you are paying attention, you’ll notice the Prince from the original movie has been replaced by Jonathan. Jonathan is not a prince. This small change may anger the DH-haters, but it doesn’t matter to the plot at all if Jonathan is a prince. Aladdin wasn’t a prince and nobody hated him. Well, nobody in the theater audience, at least. Jonathan is just a hungry street rat leading a small group of bandits who occasionally steal food from Barb. The result of Snow White freeing Jonathan is Barb ordering the Huntsman (Ansu Kabia) to take Snow White to the forest, kill Snow White, and bring Snow White’s heart back in a box. See? Story back on track.

And I mean really back on track. The forest animals lead Snow White to the seven dwarves’ cottage, where she falls asleep. Cut to the dwarves singing “Heigh Ho” and working in their mines…yada, yada, yada…they find Snow White in their cottage…yada, yada, yada...”Whistle While you Work”...poison apple...you know how this whole thing goes. The only differences are true love’s kiss and the fight with Barb happen in reverse order and the fight with Barb is completely reimagined, including Barb’s demise. And, of course Barb’s demise still happens. Barb is a bitch.

As you can see, all of the familiar plot points are there and accounted for. The familiar songs, all seven dwarves, the not-prince awakening Snow White with a kiss, the diamond mines, and even the friendly forest animals. In addition, the parts that received updates were almost all updated for the better. Snow White gets a chance to participate in reclaiming her family’s kingdom. The photorealistic animation of the animals is astoundingly excellent. There are some new songs that are quite good, including a new villain song called “All is Fair,” and my personal favorite - “Princess Problems.” You read that right. While Snow White is complaining, Jonathan is mocking her as having Princess Problems. Admit it, purists - you chuckled at least once during that song.

If there is anything to complain about (and some definitely did), it’s the appearance of the dwarves. They definitely inspire an uncanny valley feeling (a nearly-identical resemblance to humans, but just off enough to cause a sense of unease), especially the close-ups of Dopey, Happy, and Grumpy. I’m with the little people actors on this one. Why not just cast little people in the roles? If nothing else, it would have saved a ton of money on the CGI. That’s not to say the dwarves weren’t good characters in general, but who doesn’t love Peter Dinklage and Martin Klebba (Klebba at least got to voice Grumpy)?

All in all, Snow White is arguably the best live-action remake to date of a Disney animated feature. It was much better than I was expecting it to be and I enjoyed myself far more than I thought I would. I know there is a lot of controversy around this movie, but ignore all of that noise. Whether you are a purist or progressive, you’ll come out of the film more happy than grumpy.

Rating: Worth your money, even if you still hate the DH.

“Death on the Nile (2022)” - It is just a river in Egypt. Probably.

We often hear people complain about the lack of creativity or originality in Hollywood. Almost exclusively, that complaint is directed at big budget blockbusters and franchises. We know that complaint is completely insincere when we hear nary a peep from those same people about a movie like Death on the Nile. Not only is the 2022 movie Death on the Nile a remake, it’s an adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel published in 1937. It’s also been adapted as a radio serial in 1997, a computer game in 1997, a graphic novel in 2007, and an episode of the TV series Agatha Christie’s Poirot. And if we’re being completely honest, the story’s protagonist - Hercule Poirot - is practically a superhero. But, since Poirot doesn’t shoot lasers out of his eyes or have a utility belt, the creativity/originality enthusiasts give him (and others) a pass.

Personally, I don’t care if Hollywood wants to keep remaking movies. What I care about is if a remake can improve upon its predecessors. I went into great detail on this about Poirot’s last adventure, Murder on the Orient Express. That (2017) remake had a high bar to clear over the original film. Death on the Nile...not so much. The original Death on the Nile was made in 1978, has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 76%, had just one Oscar nomination for Best Costume design (which it won), had a pretty solid cast including Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, George Kennedy, Angela Lansbury, and Maggie Smith, but grossed just $18 million on an $8 million dollar budget. Based on that, as long as director Kenneth Branagh (also starring as Poirot) didn’t cast any flavors of the moment (he didn’t), there seems like plenty of room for improvement.

(SPOILER ALERT - Nah. With this many adaptations from a ninety-year old book, this one’s on you.)

Having never seen the original myself, I can’t say whether or not the new one is a shot-for-shot remake, but I can say my wife knows the original well, really likes it, and has seen it many times. I also enjoyed Orient Express, so I was looking forward to another murder mystery with Branagh’s Poirot. This time, Poirot finds himself on holiday in Egypt when he spots a dear friend, Bouc (Tom Bateman), flying a kite on the side of a Great Pyramid. Yes, it’s weird. I’d like to say this disrespect of a historical monument is a function of the time period, but I live in a country that still has hundreds of monuments dedicated to traitors.

Bouc invites Poirot to join him and a wedding honeymoon party at a swanky hotel in Aswan. The just-married happy couple are Linnet (Gal Gadot) and Simon (Armie Hammer), celebrating with a bunch of friends, business acquaintances, and ex-fiances named Linus (Russell Brand). Yes, it’s weird and not just because of the ex-fiance. Unfortunately, the party is crashed by Simon’s ex-fiance, Jackie (Emma Mackey), who keeps turning up to harass the couple. You see, she’s still in love with Simon, having lost him just six weeks earlier when she introduced Simon and Linnet at a jazz club, even encouraging the two of them to dance. Yes, it’s weird and not just because Simon and Linnet all but have sex during this flashback of their first dance.

Back in the present, the newlyweds Linnet and Simon charter a riverboat cruise ship called the S.S. Karnak, hoping to escape Jackie’s stalking. The party boards, they set sail down the Nile, and all seems okay, even after Poirot warns the couple to just leave and go home to escape Jackie. Don’t be silly, Hercule. If they did that, the movie would be over.

After drinks and merriment for a night, they stop the next day at Abu Simbel to sightsee at the ancient Egyptian temples. Subplots are revealed, a sandstorm sweeps through, and the guests return to the ship only to find Jackie has been taken aboard. This is odd because Linnet had informed everyone upon initial boarding that she had chartered the ship exclusively for them and them alone. Yet, after discovering Jackie aboard, Simon insists to Linnet that Jackie can’t be kicked off the ship because Jackie had already bought a ticket. So, Jackie bought a ticket before Linnet randomly decided to charter her own ship? This can only be if 1) Jackie is a psychic, 2) this is a plot hole from the original book or in the screenplay, or 3) Simon is up to some shenanigans with Jackie and Linnet is too tired from all the sex with Simon (he brags to Jackie that night on the ship that he and Linnet had sex multiple times that day) to make the connection that maybe, just maybe, the guy she met six weeks ago might be the one tipping off Jackie to their whereabouts. Later that evening, Simon and Jackie get into a fight and Jackie pulls a gun and fires at Simon. The two are separated and looked after by different guests and, the next morning, Linnet is dead.

Kind of sprung that one on you, didn’t I? Well, this is a murder mystery and every summary of this film includes noting Poirot investigates the murder of a young heiress and Linnet is the only young heiress in the film. Now that Poirot has something to do besides have a moustache, we learn that all of the guests have a possible motive and opportunity to have killed Linnet through a series of interviews conducted by Poirot. The problem with this plot is Jackie has the serious crazy eyes, is a confessed stalker of Simon, and is on a ship she couldn’t have known to be on. We, as an audience, have also been trained to expect a twist or two in a movie like this, so we sit there thinking Jackie is the killer, but maybe that’s what someone wants us to think.

If the film has a weakness it’s in the execution of the killer’s plan. Killing someone on a boat with only a small number of potential suspects requires a lot of planning, including planting evidence pointing at someone else, if the killer is trying to get away with it. But, the evidence thing does not happen. Sure, the other people all have secrets, but they are all a bit weak as motivations go. When more guests end up dead, it seems even less like there is a plan and more like it can only be the woman who already shot at one person. This is likely the reason Orient Express was better received by audiences than Death on the Nile back in the seventies. Orient Express doesn’t portray any one passenger as a primary suspect and everyone starts on the train together. Audiences are free to suspect any and all passengers. Nile paints itself into a bit of a corner with Jackie. If she isn’t the killer, it seems a little farfetched. If she is the killer, duh. Either way, she is always in the conversation.

That being said, I still enjoyed the film. Quite a bit in fact. Despite the fact that I thought I knew who the killer was the whole time, I still found myself surprised at some of the revelations in the film. I still enjoyed Poirot’s investigation. And I still enjoyed the characters and the performances from the actors. I even still enjoyed Branagh’s insane moustache (though not the explanation for why he has it, given to us in an unnecessary prologue). Some of that might have been due to me having watched Moonfall the night before Nile, but I’d like to think most of it was Nile itself. Probably.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back. As far as remakes go, I’d say it achieved its goal. Probably.

“Wonder Woman 1984” - Dick move (or, just fast forward to the good part).

Wretched. I tried to think of the most appropriate adjective to describe Wonder Woman 1984 and…wretched. And I was looking forward to this film. Yes, I know - this is a DCEU movie we are talking about; I should know better. Of the eight prior movies, four of them are completely unwatchable and the other four combined are worth one and a half decent movies. I just figured since Birds of Prey was at least an entertaining movie and Wonder Woman’s second act was solid, that Wonder Woman 1984 would be entertaining and kind of solid. Nope. Wretched.

(SPOILER ALERT - You can thank me later.)

Like the first installment, Wonder Woman 1984 starts with a scene on Wonder Woman’s (Gal Gadot) home island when she is a young girl. Except this time, there is no reason to do this, but it does bloat the film’s running time to two and a half hours. Since you are most likely going to stream this movie on HBO Max rather than attend Covid Night at your local theater, you have the power to fast forward through this scene. It shows her learning a lesson about not lying, but we already know she is virtuous because we watched the last movie. There - I just saved you fifteen minutes.

From there, the film jumps to 1984 instead of current times because if one prequel to Justice League is good, two is better. Also, fuck the 1980s. The 80s was a diaper rash of an era filled with awful clothes, bad music, violence, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic, and a recession, all wrapped in cocaine. If you need more proof, listen to Billy Joel’s We Didn’t Start the Fire. The 80’s were so shitty the song just quits because Joel “can’t take it anymore.”

Once in 1984, the first scene we get is a fight scene in a shopping mall. Four guys rob a jewelry store and Wonder Woman shows up to stop them. For Spider-Man reasons, she comes in via her lasso and takes out all the security cameras before dealing with the thieves. Keep in mind she is not wearing a mask and the shopping mall is teeming with people, so destroying the cameras just feels like a dick move. And the four thieves she takes out are the equivalent of rodeo clowns, including the acting. I kept expecting a director to yell cut and find out they were shooting an episode of Hill Street Blues or Magnum P.I. or even the original Wonder Woman television show (which ended in 1979, but could have been billed as a TV movie event or continued on in this alternate timeline). Nope. This scene was literally there to show off Wonder Woman’s fight skills against four inept morons, punctuated by Wonder Woman dropping the four of them as a group on a police car, destroying the car and, presumably, many of the thieves’ bones. Seriously - dick move.

After the mall scene concluded, I looked over at my wife and in-laws and they all had the same look on their face, which said “you wanted to watch this on purpose?” You probably want to fast-forward through this scene, too, since even the special effects are terrible.

If the first two scenes weren’t big enough red flags, the introduction of Kristen Wiig as a supporting character was the equivalent of an air raid siren. I am still angry at the Ghostbusters remake for being one of the worst movies ever made and Wiig is a large reason why. Another reason she is a red flag is because sketch comedy actors do not belong in major roles in superhero movies. Jim Carrey proved that one for us years ago. Wiig plays Barbara, a thrice-degreed scientist recently hired to work at the Smithsonian museum where Wonder Woman works. Barbara is also a klutzy, unpopular dork who becomes infatuated with Wonder Woman (Diana when she is not being Wonder Woman) because Diana helped her pick up some papers she dropped one time. The plot finally starts when the two of them examine a crystal mounted on a base etched with Latin. For what it’s worth, the stone was part of the mall heist, sent to them for examination by the FBI. If you cut out the mall heist part of that sentence, it doesn’t sound nearly as stupid, does it?

The women soon learn stories that say the stone grants the person holding it a single wish, but of course they don’t believe it. Just kidding. Diana doesn’t believe it and jokingly wishes that her dead boyfriend Steve (Chris Pine) were alive. Soon thereafter, Barbara wishes she were like Diana. Around this time, we also meet Max Lord (Pedro Pascal), an oil entrepreneur who is about to go bankrupt. He has been searching for the stone and donates some money to the museum, hoping to steal the stone and become rich. All of the above happens and the movie somehow makes the mall scene seem like the best part of the film.

One of my biggest complaints about DCEU movies is they don’t even try to make sense in their own context. They will set things up, then ignore those things. We learn that the stone grants only one wish per person, but in return takes what a person most desires or cherishes. Halfway through the film, Barbara will verbally point out the obvious - isn’t the thing a person most desires the thing they wish for? It sure is, Barbara. It sure is.

And that one-wish-per-customer-thing is more of a guideline than a rule. Max wishes to be the stone, which, instead of sucking Max into the stone or turning Max into stone, imbues him with its powers (ironically, this is the least nonsensical thing in this film). Max’s plan is to trick people into making wishes so he can steal the thing they most desire. At one point, he decides to grant Barbara a second wish (turning her into some kind of human-cheetah hybrid) because he is “feeling generous.” There is no indication of what he took from her at this point, since the thing taken for her first wish was her being a decent person (huh?), but why does he get to ignore the rule when it was literally enforced at every other point in the film? Are you still fast-forwarding?

Speaking of nonsense, instead of Steve just appearing alive as a result of Diana’s wish, he appears as the possessed body of a random yuppie. We actually get to see what said yuppie looks like, as does Steve when he looks like in a mirror and the script waives this away when Diana says “all I see is you.” In a movie with a magic wishing stone, the choice to try to make Steve’s appearance semi-logical is embarrassingly stupid. And I am fairly sure it was done for the sole purpose of a gag scene where Chris Pine tries on a bunch of 80s clothes in his body’s closet. Because, get it? 80s clothes are ugly. This is exactly the kind of shitty skit that made Saturday Night Live unwatchable when Wiig was a cast member.

When Diana and Barbara find the stone’s base later in the film, Diana recognizes hieroglyphics on the inside of the base’s ring as “the language of the gods.” This particular object was created by a deceitful god named Dolos and I, once again, expected this movie to take that idea somewhere. Since the first movie featured Ares, an actual Greek god, I thought Dolos would eventually reveal himself as the villain, having used Max and the stone to come to life or return from exile or turn into a giant snake and capture Wonder Woman in a giant hourglass. At least it would have been consistent. Nope.

Max really is the villain and rather than take the thing most cherished from people who make wishes, it turns out that he can just take what he wants at that moment. Look, if that is what the movie wanted, why didn’t the ring just say that? And why is Max getting headaches every time someone makes a wish? And also bleeding from the eyes and ears? And why is Diana losing her powers only sometimes and really slowly? And why is everything devolving into chaos? And is the one consistent thing in this movie really that in order to fulfill a wish the person has to be touching Max, so he is going to use a satellite constellation to “touch” everyone because the President said his advisors explained to him that technically the satellite is touching particles that touch people so that counts for Max as touching everyone? And to undo a wish, people must renounce their wish and we are expected to believe that every person on Earth simultaneously renounced their wish? And isn’t it kind of a dick move when a bunch of bullshit gets thrown at you all of a sudden?

In summary, wretched. The plot, the villain, the creative choices, the dialogue, the editing, the special effects, 1984 - everything. All four family members in the room with me were seriously considering rescinding their Christmas presents to me after sitting through this abomination. And I do not blame them. After watching this film, I wanted to put coal in my own stocking. The most amazing thing about this movie is that the creators read the script, filmed it, edited it, watched it again and went “nailed it.” At this point, the only explanation for DC Films and Warner Brothers continuing to churn out shit blockbuster after shit blockbuster in this shit film universe (DCEU) is that they want to be the anti-Marvel. Dick move, Bros. Dick move.

Rating: If you went to a theater to see this, what is wrong with you? If you saw it on HBO Max, ask for nine months of subscription back.