Judy (2019)

(Image Source: IMDb)

For as long as I could remember, one of my favorite films (if not my absolute favorite) has always been 1939's The Wizard of Oz. Consequently, it lead to Judy Garland becoming one of my favorite actresses of all time due to her beautiful rendition of Somewhere Over the Rainbow; a song that has also become one of my favorite musical numbers in a film (next to Proud of Your Boy and Who Am I). When I first saw the trailer for the biopic surrounding her life, I was excited and had such high hopes for the film. Thankfully, it not only lived up to my expectations, but far exceeded them as well! 

It beautifully retold the story of one of my favorite golden age actresses, flashing back and forth between her prime as an actress, along with showing roughly the final year of her life (while she performed in London). The flashbacks served to further develop Garland, and provided a solid context for the issues she faced later on in her life. These small insights into her earlier life were easily my favorite parts of the film, and I wish there were more of them to further develop her. Another insight I found interesting was the look into the darker side of the film industry, especially in regard to child actors. The plot was one that was definitely unforgettable, and that was attributed to Garland's actress, Renee Zellweger. 

Not only did Zellweger perfectly portray Miss Garland in both character and voice, the filmmakers also managed to give her a near identical appearance to the actress/singer. She absolutely nailed the role and put on a performance that makes the viewer forget it is somebody else playing her. If the MPAA is somehow reading this, do me a huge favor and please give this woman an Oscar! She certainly deserves it for her amazing performance! When she sang her rendition of Somewhere Over the Rainbow, it took a lot of effort to hold back some tears for her cover. Matter of fact, I am seriously considering buying the soundtrack for this film as I type this post as a result.

If you are wanting to see this, I would highly recommend it; it is one that will move you to tears and sympathize with the protagonist during her final years. However, if you were looking for a film that showcases Garland's life as a whole, then this might not be the film for you. This movie specifically covers her final year and her last performances in London, with only small flashbacks to her earlier career as an actress.

After seeing this amazing film, I am hoping to look more into Garland's life and see some other films she has appeared in to further understand her career. My knowledge of her is extremely limited due to only knowing her from The Wizard of Oz.
What is your favorite Judy Garland role? (I ask so I can see more of her career) If you have seen this movie, what do you think? Feel free to discuss in the comments below, like this review and subscribe for more Reviews and Retrospectives content! 

Favorite Antagonists (MIld Spoilers)

In most (if not all) stories, the protagonist must be faced with a challenge in order to develop and grow as a character; most often, said challenge will come in the form of an antagonist blocking their path. The antagonist serves as a foil to the main character, and prevent them from achieving their intended goal. Some villains in fiction can be as bland and one-dimensional as a piece of paper, and some are about as compelling as the hero. The five listed below (in my opinion), are prime examples of compelling villains in fiction, and serve as five of my favorite antagonists of all time.

#5, Cell (Dragon Ball):
While many fans of this franchise consider Majin Buu as the Z-Warriors' ultimate enemy in the franchise, I actually find that distinction better suited for his predecessor, Cell. This foe served as a match for Goku, Gohan, and their friends on not only a physical level, but intellectually as well. This antagonist is an intelligent, strategic being (more than likely because he contains the DNA of Gohan and Frieza), with his ability to plan his movements accordingly and create a strategy that keeps the protagonists on their toes. He was also one of the few that managed to strike an absolute blow to the prideful Vegeta, which furthered the aforementioned's development from the coldhearted, selfish prince to the loving father/hero viewers see later on. Cell also managed to do the unthinkable on two occasions; defeating Goku and managing to push Gohan beyond his limits, with the latter unfortunately becoming his undoing. As I have stated in two previous posts, Cell being a match for the Z-Warriors should have made him the final enemy of the story. His defeat completed both the development of Goku and his son, and it was a perfect "passing the torch" moment between the two; with Goku's sacrifice, Gohan would have been entrusted with the title of Earth's hero.

#4, Inspector Javert and Dom Claude Frollo (Les Miserables and The Hunchback of Notre Dame/Notre Dame de Paris):
Since these two characters embody the concept of "obsession driving a person mad", it would be best to give both of these two characters the number four spot. The two characters are so driven by their goals, that it eventually becomes their downfall. Javert's obsession to capture ex-convict (and protagonist) Jean Valjean causes his judgment to become clouded, seeing his enemy as nothing more than a menace to society that needs to be re-incarcerated. Once he sees that Valjean is not a criminal but a good man, it absolutely shatters him on a mental level. Upon seeing the error of his ways, not only does he pardon the former convict, but commits suicide by jumping into the River Seine. Similarly, Dom Claude Frollo's obsessive lust for La Esmeralda drives him down a similar path. At the beginning of the novel, the reader sees Frollo as a pious, caring man; he adopts the abandoned Quasimodo and cares for him as if the latter were his own son. However, as he slowly begins to lust for the gypsy La Esmeralda, his morality and mental state begin to drastically shift, to the point of stalking the lovesick gypsy, using his ward as a scapegoat in a failed kidnapping attempt, framing Esmeralda for Phoebus' attempted murder, and when she refuses Frollo's advances, he personally oversees her attempted executions. His ward, Quasimodo, serves as a foil to Frollo, since the former is also in love with Esmeralda; however, Quasimodo naively wishes to protect her. Matter of fact, the misshapen Hunchback is the main cause of Frollo's demise when Esmeralda is ultimately executed. The corrupt priest believed if he could not have the gypsy, nobody could. However, karma bites him hard, being thrown off the cathedral as he starts laughing maniacally.
The reason these two are such compelling antagonists is that they are not inherently evil, they are simply two men corrupted by an obsessive desire to achieve their goals. Javert is simply a police inspector trying to do his job, and Frollo is a priest torn between his moral compass and his human desire. They also teach the reader a simple lesson, while it is okay to pursue a goal, do not cause the obsession of doing so to drive you mad; it could lead to a tragic downfall.

#3, Scar (The Lion King):
Scar, like Frollo and Javert (moreso the former of the aforementioned two), is obsessively driven toward his goals. However, while he carefully calculates each move in his plan, he does not shy away from tactics such as manipulation and first-degree murder. His desire to become king of the Pridelands drives him to manipulating the lions' mortal enemies (the hyenas) into working with him, and throwing his own brother off a cliff into a herd of stampeding wildebeests. He is one of the few Disney villains that is actually successful in his goals... until he is usurped by his nephew, Simba (whom he also attempted to murder in the same stampede). Scar is an absolute sociopath, caring only for his own desires and achieving them by any means possible, which ultimately becomes his downfall. In order to save himself, he sells out his co-conspirators, which causes them to turn against him in the final battle. Scar is a bit of an outlier on the list, but his descent into madness is handled nicely and he sings one of the best villain songs in a Disney film (Be Prepared). In the 2019 remake, his character is further fleshed out, adding a lust for Mufasa's mate, Sarabi as part of his character motivation (which is a reference to his lust for Nala in earlier drafts of the film and the stage musical).

#2, Jafar (Aladdin):
Similar to Scar, Jafar simply wishes to be the ruler of his own little part of the world. However, instead of wishing to reclaim a birthright, he wishes to be out of the sultan's shadow and be "second no more". As his character descends further into madness, and he achieves his goals of becoming sultan of Agrabah, he begins to desire more in an attempt to being the best overall. First, he desires to become the world's greatest sorcerer, and then "the most powerful being in the universe", which soon causes his downfall. He perfectly represents a quote from Genie in the 2019 Aladdin remake, "the more you have, the more you want", a theme which is emphasized in that version in regard to both Jafar and Aladdin. Matter of fact, Jafar serves as a foil to Aladdin, showing the viewer what could happen if the genie's power managed to corrupt Al (which it almost does). This relationship between the two is further emphasized (once again) in the 2019 version, as Jafar's backstory is expanded to show he was once a street thief like Aladdin, but slowly rose to power. Any villain that can serve to show what the hero could have been is definitely a compelling antagonist.

Honorable Mentions, Ursula (The Little Mermaid), Biff Tannen (Back to the Future), Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter):
These three villains were close to making this list, but did not primarily for one reason; they are one-dimensional with little to no character development. They are evil simply for the sake of being evil, because the hero needs some sort of obstacle to overcome. While Voldemort does have a compelling backstory, he is simply a one-dimensional sociopath bent on the ever-cliched goal of world domination. However, if I had to pick a villain from Harry Potter for this list, I would have gone with either Draco Malfoy or Delores Umbridge; at least those two had more development than Voldemort. (I would like to apologize to two friends of mine for that statement, but I wholeheartedly stand by it). Ursula I kept off the list for the same reason, her main goal is simply domination with little explanation as to why she desires to do so. It is never explained why she wants to usurp King Triton, and why Ariel needs to be involved in her plan. Hopefully the remake fixes this issue, as this is a character that desperately needs to be expanded upon (along with Ariel being so selfish and naive).
Biff... he's simply the stereotypical "bully" character found in every other high school story, and was easily my least favorite part of Back to the Future. He has literally zero development throughout the entirety of the trilogy, which makes him even less of a compelling villain. Simply put, he is a jerk for the sake of being a jerk, and who wants to see a villain like that? The most we learn about him is his family heritage in the past and future, and (surprise surprise), they are all one-dimensional idiots like him.

#1, The Joker (Batman):
Joker serves as not only the ultimate foil to Gotham City's caped crusader, but also serves as a reminder of his biggest mistake (bigger than the death of Jason Todd/Robin/Red Hood). He also serves to show what could happen after one has an "extremely bad day", how one bad moment could change a person's life forever and lead them down a dark path. That aspect of the character allows the reader to somewhat sympathize with him, and prevent themselves from going down a similar path (a living cautionary tale, if you will). The clown serves as the polar opposite to Batman; while the latter wishes to keep the world safe and prevent others from suffering the same fate his parents did, Joker desires to see the world go up in flames. Batman refuses to take another life, while Joker is more than eager to do so, and so on. Additionally, Joker exists because of Batman (depending on which version you are looking at) and vice-versa in some continuities.

Who is your favorite fictional antagonist? Feel free to discuss in the comments below, and also be sure to like and follow for future Reviews and Retrospectives updates.




 

The Positives of The Last Airbender

(Source: IMDB.com)

Growing up in the mid-2000s, no Nickelodeon show caught my attention in a post-Rugrats/Hey Arnold world more than Avatar: The Last Airbender. For those unaware, the latter series centered around Aang (the titular "Avatar") and his friends, as they traveled the world helping Aang master the art of "bending" the elements of water, earth, and fire. Along the way, a country opposing them known as The Fire Nation (lead by their leader, Fire Lord Ozai) is in constant pursuit of the young Avatar. Aang's basic goal throughout his journey is to master bending all remaining elements beside air, and defeat Fire Lord Ozai before the return of Sozin's Comet. Naturally with a series as massive as this, a film adaptation was inevitable; in 2010, such an adaptation was released... and it was absolutely horrendous. The characters were horribly miscast (aside from anti-hero Zuko and his uncle), and due to having to condense the show's first season into around two hours, the film suffered from a myriad of plot problems. Additionally, the work suffered due to unnecessary changes in adaptation, such as cutting iconic characters entirely. Characters such as Aang's previous life, Avatar Roku, Jet, and the Kyoshi Warriors are removed as a result of "streamlining" the overall story. However, despite the film being a massive dumpster fire, there are some positive aspects to it that deserve some recognition.

First and foremost, while the story's adherence to the source material is not the best, the world it plays out in surprisingly manages to remain faithful to its animated counterpart. Throughout the film, there are various references to locations in the world of Airbender, such as the library in the Earth Kingdom, the air temples, and the city of Ba Sing Se. Understandably, this was to start development on the film's world in preparation for the ill-fated sequels (which thankfully never came). Deleted scenes that remained in the novelization and comic adaptations further expanded upon the world; before Shyamalan decided to save it for the sequel, viewers would have been treated to live action versions of the Kyoshi Warriors and Jet. It was also rumored that Avatar Roku was also planned to make an appearance, before being relegated to a cameo in the form of a wooden statue. Speaking of the Avatar, the next positive in this film lies within Aang himself.

Despite casting a Caucasian actor for the role of Avatar Aang, Noah Ringer manages to pull off a fantastic portrayal of the character. He manages to remain faithful to the source material (being a fan of Airbender himself), while also making the role by giving us a portrayal that is more realistic in nature. While this film makes me cringe, I did enjoy this take on the character, as it made me feel like Aang leaped right off an animation cel. The same can be said for Dev Patel's portrayal of anti-hero Prince Zuko, despite lacking the physical resemblance to his animated counterpart. Patel and Ringer both manage to capture the essence of their respective characters, giving us a believable and faithful performance. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for the rest of the cast, as they lack the necessary elements of their characters. Sokka is more serious than comedic, Katara is bland and boring (lacking any sort of expression or emotion as well), and Iroh is just... there. Unfortunately, the animal characters are also given less screentime as well, serving only as background elements.

While the characters and story are not the best (save for Aang and Zuko), the film truly shines in its overall score and (to quote Sokka in The Ember Island Players) "the effects are decent". The score manages to perfectly capture the overall tone of the film, and the effects perfectly portray the elemental bending techniques. Viewers could believe a character was actually controlling the elements, and that there was an actual Sky Bison and Winged Lemur. The CGI is brilliantly integrated into the footage to create a greater visual appeal, with some examples including Aang going into the Avatar State, Appa's model, and the many waterbending sequences.

However, while this film does have a few positives, I would still not recommend watching this if you are wanting to get into Avatar: The Last Airbender. This movie is still an absolute mess, with poor editing, bland characters, a plot with multiple holes, and the omission of many fan-favorites from the source material. If you wish to give this franchise a shot, I would highly suggest you stay away from this; it will give you the wrong impression of the series. However, if you are curious, watch the cartoon first and then watch this only once to see how horrendous it actually is. Hopefully, the upcoming live action Netflix series does not make the same mistakes The Last Airbender did, and gives us the live action adaptation we deserve.

What did you think of both The Last Airbender and its animated source material? What are some bad movies you would like me to find the positives of? Feel free to discuss in the comments below, and also be sure to give a like and a follow for future Reviews and Retrospectives updates!

Dragon Ball Z Retrospective Part 2: Majin Buu Arc (Heavy Spoilers)

(Image Source: DaizenshuuEX)

While I enjoyed watching the story of Dragon Ball Z up to the Cell arc, I did not have as much enjoyment of the Buu portion of the storyline. I feel that Cell's defeat at the hands of Gohan made a perfect ending for the series, with the now deceased Son Goku passing the torch to his son, and the world enjoying a much needed era of peace. The Cell arc completed the development of many members of the main cast; Gohan finally broke out of his pacifistic shell and saved the world like his father, Krillin finally found love in the form of Android 18, and Vegeta learned to stop being so narcissistic and self-centered. The series could have ended perfectly at this point and there would be no problem. However, due to editorial mandate, series creator Akira Toriyama was forced to continue the series even further with the Majin Buu story arc. As a result, the aforementioned arc feels both tacked-on and as if it is an "extended epilogue" to the series. Aside from introducing new characters, reconnecting with old ones seven years after Cell, and resurrecting Goku at the end (matter of fact Goku does little in this storyline, as it opts to focus on his sons, Gohan and Goten), this arc contributes very little to the franchise as a whole.

Matter of fact, Buu is not as interesting of an antagonist as Vegeta, Frieza, or Cell were. While the aforementioned three had dynamic personalities that slowly developed, Majin Buu seemed rushed and one-dimensional (you could tell Toriyama was wanting to be done with the series at this point). The character seems infantile, acting only like a destructive, spoiled child as opposed to the calm and interesting villains that came before him. However, I will give Buu something positive, he is somewhat more sympathetic and adorable (especially his first form).

He is also a more formidable foe to the cast, going so far as to literally destroy Earth itself. Another positive to this arc that I will add is the further development of my favorite character, Son Gohan (even going so far as giving him a romantic interest known as Videl). While during the seven year timeskip between Cell and Buu, his power was weakened drastically, he manages to hold his own during the battles he faces in this storyline. However, he is once again quickly knocked to the ground in favor of his father, since he's the "main character". I feel after this, Gohan is drastically underutilized for the remainder of the franchise, being demoted to a small supporting role rather than the protagonist he was hyped up to be in the first half of the series.

This arc was also the introduction to the most useless (and ugliest) of transformations, Super Saiyan 3. The form serves only to be flashy during action sequences and is utilized poorly in Z, with Goku losing a significant amount of time and power while in that state (it essentially becomes the new "Yamcha"). SS3 feels once again like another instance of Toriyama saying "I need to get this series over with as soon as possible and appease my editor".

The Majin Buu arc of Dragon Ball Z is not a bad way to end the series by any means, but the overall execution is rushed, fan favorite characters are tossed aside, and the titular villain of the storyline is severely lacking in development (being essentially the equivalent of a spoiled man-child, rather than an intimidating entity like his predecessors). Buu was an absolutely unnecessary and tacked-on addition to the series, serving as one final villain in Toriyama's extended epilogue to Dragon Ball.

What did you think of the Buu arc? Feel free to discuss in the comments below, and be sure to follow for future updates on the site! Next time, we will be looking at my favorite installment in the series, by going back and taking a look at Goku's childhood in the original Dragon Ball.

Turtles (1990) vs. Turtles (2014)

(Image Source: Wikipedia.org)

In regard to my list of favorite comic book films, there is none I hold on a higher pedestal than Sam Raimi's original Spider-Man. However, a close second is the first live-action adaptation of Mirage Studios' Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I admire the film for how it stays faithful to the source material (the comics as opposed to the popular 1987 cartoon), and shows a casual audience an approximation of the original turtles' personalities. While it is much more faithful to the original comics, it also sprinkles in some elements from the cartoon, such as the turtles' colored bandanas and April O' Neil being a television reporter. Additionally, it shows some amazing effect work courtesy of the Jim Henson Creature Shop. Matter of fact, this project was one of the last Henson was involved in before he passed away in May of 1990 (the film's home media releases are actually dedicated to him, such as the DVD).

Since this film adheres more to the comics than the cartoon in terms of plot, characters such as Krang, Bebop, and Rocksteady are thankfully omitted. The tone is also more realistic and grounded in reality, similar to the later Christopher Nolan Batman films. Therefore, one should not expect much of the science fiction elements found in its' animated counterpart. However, the traditional origins of the turtles are kept, and Master Splinter's origin reverts to being the pet of Hamato Yoshi, as opposed to being Yoshi himself (the latter of which I was never a fan of in the 1987 and 2012 versions). Casey Jones and April O' Neil also play roles more similar to the comics, such as the former being a more prominent character than in the animated series (and actually being unmasked). The realistic tone that is carried over from the comics allows for a product that is more believable, and allows for a greater sense of immersion. However, since it takes on a more realistic and darker tone, I would advise showing this version of the turtles to small children since it contains more violence and instances of profanity. The stakes for the turtles are much higher, and the antagonist, Oroku Saki/Shredder is much more intimidating than the bumbling idiot in the cartoon.

Shredder, the turtles, and Splinter feel like they are ripped directly from the comics in terms of appearances, personality, origin, and motivations. Matter of fact, the former's outfit is a 1:1 recreation of the character's appearance from the first issue of the series. Speaking of which, many moments in the plot are ripped directly from the source material as well, with the final confrontation being almost a "shot for shot" adaptation of the battle with Shredder from issue one (aside from the battle's end). We would not see another faithful recreation after this for another thirteen years, when the 2003 4Kids adaptation was released (a version arguably more faithful than this film). If you are looking for a "definitive" adaptation that perfectly captures the essence of Ninja Turtles, then I would highly recommend this one. However, if you are looking for a version that captures more of the essence of the cartoon (albeit poorly), then we have something for you as well; the 2014 Michael Bay reboot...

While the aforementioned film was more grounded in reality, and adhered to the gritty tone of the original comics, this version is that version's near polar opposite. Instead of following the original comics, it chooses to follow the original cartoon. While the 1990 film used impressive practical effects that made the turtles feel believable, the 2014 reboot uses awkward CGI that made the heroes in a half-shell look like Shrek clones on steroids (and made Shredder look as edgy and extreme as possible). I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, considering the man behind this is Michael "make everything macho and over the top" Bay of Transformers fame.

This version poorly captures the essence of the franchise, and simply turns it into 2+ hours of explosions, excessive amounts of computer graphics (especially where there did not need to be CGI), and a bland, miscast April O' Neil (portrayed by Bay's "go-to gal", Megan Fox). Viewers can really tell that Fox was doing this for a paycheck and nothing more, she acts with little personality to the point of it being sleep-inducing. Unfortunately, she also overshadows the titular characters and has a significantly higher amount of screen-time than they do.

Additionally, the origins of the turtles and Splinter are drastically changed as well, with any connection to Hamato Yoshi being completely omitted. However, while this film is a poor adaptation of the source material, there is one aspect they did get right; the individual characteristics of the turtles. While they look like bulked-up Shrek clones, they still act like they are supposed to. Their family dynamic also remains faithful to the source material, acting like brothers instead of four soldiers.

Overall, if you want an experience that is closer to the comics (and much more enjoyable), go for the 1990 film. However if you are looking for excessive adrenaline rushes, macho manliness, bland characters, extreme action sequences, and a product that is basically Ninja Turtles in name only, then go for the 2014 film by Michael Bay. The latter was an absolute chore to watch in the three moments I attempted to do so, and I do not see myself viewing it again (thank goodness I only rented it instead of outright purchasing it for this review). I hope these turtles fade into obscurity in favor of a future experience that is more like the original film, with believable effects, dynamic characters, and a world adhering more closely to either the original or rebooted comics. Perhaps they could make it a period piece by setting it in the 1980s, and make it closer in tone to Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird's original vision. I would love to see the turtles having all red bandanas for the first time outside of the comics, and the first live action appearances of the Utroms.

What do you think of these two versions of the turtles? What is your favorite Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles adaptation? Feel free to discuss in the comments below; also feel free to like and follow this page for future updates!