by Josh Sewell
Chip ’n Dale: Rescue Rangers
(Rated PG for mild action and rude/suggestive humor. Premieres May 20 on Disney+.)
The premise: 30 years after the Disney animated series Chip ’n Dale: Rescue Rangers was canceled, the titular duo is now estranged. Chip (John Mulaney) is an insurance salesman while Dale – a recent recipient of “CGI surgery” – works the fan convention circuit in hopes of generating buzz for a reboot. However, when Monterey Jack (Eric Bana) disappears, the diminutive detectives must reunite and track down their friend.
The verdict: What could’ve been a soulless nostalgia binge for Gen Xers and millennials ends up being one of the year’s funniest movies. Clearly inspired by Who Framed Roger Rabbit, director Akiva Schaffer and writers Dan Gregor and Doug Mand pay homage to the classic without straight-up ripping it off.
They also play to the primary voice actors’ strengths: as Chip, Mulaney’s delivery is dry and razor sharp, while Dale allows Samberg to demonstrate the goofy humor masking a wounded soul that he does so well. J.K. Simmons and Seth Rogen are funny in brief but important roles, both of which delight in pointing out genre tropes and how animation has evolved as an art form. KiKi Layne is good too, but she doesn’t get to have as much fun as a live-action cop: she’s stuck with the straight woman role.
Longtime fans of Disney (and kids’ entertainment in general) will have a blast with Rescue Rangers, not just because of the clever – and surprisingly dark – mystery and smart humor. There are also a ton of outstanding cameos and Easter eggs that actually contribute to the story instead of just getting thrown in for cheap applause.
Rescue Rangers is such a fun surprise. It quickly went from a curiosity I watched out of obligation to one of the best movies of 2022 so far. I know how that sounds and I’m just as shocked as you are – but I’m certainly not complaining.
Grade: A-
Firestarter
(Rated R for violent content. Now playing in theaters and available on Peacock.)
The premise: In a new adaptation of Stephen King’s 1980 novel, the story gets a slight 21st century update. Andy (Zac Efron) and Vicky McGee (Sydney Lemmon), former lab rats in a secret experiment, are desperate to keep their daughter Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) off the ruthless organization’s radar. That’s because she can start fires with her mind, an unpredictable power the government would love to weaponize against their enemies.
The verdict: I’m sad to report that Firestarter is the latest in a long line of awful Stephen King adaptations, once again misunderstanding what makes my all-time favorite author’s books so great. It’s not the plots – although they’re definitely interesting – but the characters that matter most. It’s how ordinary people handle being placed in extraordinary situations.
While there are admittedly some improvements over the 1984 adaptation – the Native American character isn’t played by George C. Scott, for one – the new version feels like a claustrophobic byproduct of shooting during the pandemic. The sets are sparse, there are never more than two or three people in a scene, etc. I don’t know if it was the small budget, safety protocols or a combination of both, but the whole thing feels cheap and rushed.
Much like the original, one of the only bright spots is the father/daughter dynamic between Efron (not a typo – he’s old enough to play dads now) and Armstrong. They’re not quite as memorable as David Keith and Drew Barrymore, but they acquit themselves reasonably well. Efron doesn’t have much to work with, but he does what he can with the material.
Unfortunately, the other performers aren’t as fortunate. Terrific actors like Kurtwood Smith and Michael Greyeyes are squandered, while Gloria Reuben seems like she’s in a completely different, far campier movie.
Thankfully, Firestarter is elevated a tad courtesy of a synth-heavy score from Cody and John Carpenter (yes, that one), along with Daniel A. Davies. It’s by far the best aspect of an otherwise dreadful flick.
Grade: D
The Time Traveler’s Wife
(Rated TV-MA, contains strong language, sexuality, nudity, violence and thematic elements. Airing weekly on HBO and HBO Max.)
The premise: Based on Audrey Niffenegger’s bestselling novel, this adaptation from Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Sherlock) gives the intricate, twisty narrative more time to breathe than the 2009 film starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana. It centers on Clare Abshire (Rose Leslie) and Henry DeTamble (Theo James), a couple whose marriage is complicated by Henry’s rare genetic disorder that causes him to travel through time spontaneously and unpredictably.
The verdict: Although James and Leslie are fine as the time traveler and his wife, respectively, the show around them is more of a mixed bag. Niffenegger’s complex, emotionally distant novel is a tough read for several reasons, but that’s not unusual in the literary realm. Adapting it for a mainstream audience is much trickier.
First (without getting into spoilers), the author lets readers know relatively early how Henry’s journey ends. That’s fine for a self-contained novel, but not when you’re trying to stretch the narrative out over a multi-season television series. Just ask This Is Us fans, who felt jerked around for way too long before finally getting answers about a similar character arc.
It also doesn’t help that Moffat devotes more scenes to establish the parameters of Niffenegger’s convoluted time travel rules than why Henry and Clare are attracted to each other in the first place. It’s hard to root for a couple when the show doesn’t build a strong enough framework for viewers to get invested.
That’s especially true since readers of the novel know there’s a highly problematic element to how the couple meets for the first time, which the series clumsily tries to gloss over with a few bad jokes. The first season ends with a promise of more story to tell, but the show has gotten middling reviews and doesn’t seem to be generating a lot of buzz. I’d be surprised if HBO keeps this one going.
Grade: B-
(Rated PG for mild action and rude/suggestive humor. Premieres May 20 on Disney+.)
The premise: 30 years after the Disney animated series Chip ’n Dale: Rescue Rangers was canceled, the titular duo is now estranged. Chip (John Mulaney) is an insurance salesman while Dale – a recent recipient of “CGI surgery” – works the fan convention circuit in hopes of generating buzz for a reboot. However, when Monterey Jack (Eric Bana) disappears, the diminutive detectives must reunite and track down their friend.
The verdict: What could’ve been a soulless nostalgia binge for Gen Xers and millennials ends up being one of the year’s funniest movies. Clearly inspired by Who Framed Roger Rabbit, director Akiva Schaffer and writers Dan Gregor and Doug Mand pay homage to the classic without straight-up ripping it off.
They also play to the primary voice actors’ strengths: as Chip, Mulaney’s delivery is dry and razor sharp, while Dale allows Samberg to demonstrate the goofy humor masking a wounded soul that he does so well. J.K. Simmons and Seth Rogen are funny in brief but important roles, both of which delight in pointing out genre tropes and how animation has evolved as an art form. KiKi Layne is good too, but she doesn’t get to have as much fun as a live-action cop: she’s stuck with the straight woman role.
Longtime fans of Disney (and kids’ entertainment in general) will have a blast with Rescue Rangers, not just because of the clever – and surprisingly dark – mystery and smart humor. There are also a ton of outstanding cameos and Easter eggs that actually contribute to the story instead of just getting thrown in for cheap applause.
Rescue Rangers is such a fun surprise. It quickly went from a curiosity I watched out of obligation to one of the best movies of 2022 so far. I know how that sounds and I’m just as shocked as you are – but I’m certainly not complaining.
Grade: A-
(Rated R for violent content. Now playing in theaters and available on Peacock.)
The premise: In a new adaptation of Stephen King’s 1980 novel, the story gets a slight 21st century update. Andy (Zac Efron) and Vicky McGee (Sydney Lemmon), former lab rats in a secret experiment, are desperate to keep their daughter Charlie (Ryan Kiera Armstrong) off the ruthless organization’s radar. That’s because she can start fires with her mind, an unpredictable power the government would love to weaponize against their enemies.
The verdict: I’m sad to report that Firestarter is the latest in a long line of awful Stephen King adaptations, once again misunderstanding what makes my all-time favorite author’s books so great. It’s not the plots – although they’re definitely interesting – but the characters that matter most. It’s how ordinary people handle being placed in extraordinary situations.
While there are admittedly some improvements over the 1984 adaptation – the Native American character isn’t played by George C. Scott, for one – the new version feels like a claustrophobic byproduct of shooting during the pandemic. The sets are sparse, there are never more than two or three people in a scene, etc. I don’t know if it was the small budget, safety protocols or a combination of both, but the whole thing feels cheap and rushed.
Much like the original, one of the only bright spots is the father/daughter dynamic between Efron (not a typo – he’s old enough to play dads now) and Armstrong. They’re not quite as memorable as David Keith and Drew Barrymore, but they acquit themselves reasonably well. Efron doesn’t have much to work with, but he does what he can with the material.
Unfortunately, the other performers aren’t as fortunate. Terrific actors like Kurtwood Smith and Michael Greyeyes are squandered, while Gloria Reuben seems like she’s in a completely different, far campier movie.
Thankfully, Firestarter is elevated a tad courtesy of a synth-heavy score from Cody and John Carpenter (yes, that one), along with Daniel A. Davies. It’s by far the best aspect of an otherwise dreadful flick.
Grade: D
(Rated TV-MA, contains strong language, sexuality, nudity, violence and thematic elements. Airing weekly on HBO and HBO Max.)
The premise: Based on Audrey Niffenegger’s bestselling novel, this adaptation from Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Sherlock) gives the intricate, twisty narrative more time to breathe than the 2009 film starring Rachel McAdams and Eric Bana. It centers on Clare Abshire (Rose Leslie) and Henry DeTamble (Theo James), a couple whose marriage is complicated by Henry’s rare genetic disorder that causes him to travel through time spontaneously and unpredictably.
The verdict: Although James and Leslie are fine as the time traveler and his wife, respectively, the show around them is more of a mixed bag. Niffenegger’s complex, emotionally distant novel is a tough read for several reasons, but that’s not unusual in the literary realm. Adapting it for a mainstream audience is much trickier.
First (without getting into spoilers), the author lets readers know relatively early how Henry’s journey ends. That’s fine for a self-contained novel, but not when you’re trying to stretch the narrative out over a multi-season television series. Just ask This Is Us fans, who felt jerked around for way too long before finally getting answers about a similar character arc.
It also doesn’t help that Moffat devotes more scenes to establish the parameters of Niffenegger’s convoluted time travel rules than why Henry and Clare are attracted to each other in the first place. It’s hard to root for a couple when the show doesn’t build a strong enough framework for viewers to get invested.
That’s especially true since readers of the novel know there’s a highly problematic element to how the couple meets for the first time, which the series clumsily tries to gloss over with a few bad jokes. The first season ends with a promise of more story to tell, but the show has gotten middling reviews and doesn’t seem to be generating a lot of buzz. I’d be surprised if HBO keeps this one going.
Grade: B-
Reach out to Josh Sewell on Twitter @IAmJoshSewell
Comments
Post a Comment