Movie Reaction: Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2

Formula: Wreck-It Ralph ^ Tron
 

How has no one else cracked the Disney formula? It doesn't look all that hard. Animation + Emotion + Comedy - Laziness. That's it. They animate, because that's an immediate indicator that it's family friendly. They aren't afraid to take a beat and be emotional with the story. They fill in the rest of the movie with jokes. And they don't settle for a base hit when they could get a home run. Granted, they do all these things at a very high level. They have access to resources that other studios only dream of. But, that simple formula is a good starting point. Things that aren't in the formula: A-list stars, quantity > quality, Minions, action. Too many of the other studios get distracted by those things which really shouldn't be the focus.

Well, Disney does it again with Ralph Breaks the Internet. I liked the first Wreck-It Ralph a lot. What impressed me the most about it was all the video game rights they were able to get*. Structurally, it looked like a lot of other Disney/Pixar movies. It's video game Toy Story down to the way they populate the world and mine it for jokes. However, the heart of the movie even more than the jokes was the Ralph (John C. Reilly) and Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) relationship.

*I assume companies agreed to loan them the rights, but I don't understand how copyright law works. Maybe this counts under satire/parody laws.

Ralph Breaks the Internet is one of the better applications of the sequel formula in recent memory. It takes the relationships and sensibilities that work in the original movie and apply them to a larger canvas now that the world has already been established. Or, Sequel = Original - Exposition + More.

Ralph 2 (I'm shortening the title more. Deal with it) begins where the first movie left off. Not timewise. A lot of time has passed. I mean that everything is pretty much the same as when we last checked in. Ralph, Vanellope, and the gang are in a nice rhythm. They work all day and hang out all night. Ralph loves it, but for Vanellope, the rhythm feels more like a rut. Two events happen in short order to take them out of the rut and force them into the main story of the movie. First, the arcade gets wifi, opening a new port for all the video games to enter. Second, Vanellope's game breaks. When it appears that Vanellope's game is going to be tossed rather than repaired, Ralph and Vanellope decide to go into the internet to find a replacement part on Ebay. The internet is where most of the movie happens. Vanellope is much more excited by the internet than Ralph is; especially an online game called Slaughter Race, where they meet an ace driver named Shank (Gal Gadot). Their different reactions to the internet form the central conflict of the movie.

With a good story in place, that leaves the writers and animators a ton of room to pack in jokes and visual gags. Ralph 2 is overflowing with these. The internet is huge, so even if Disney only gets the rights to 1% of the sites, the possibilities are endless. Ebay and, of course, Disney.com get name-dropped heavily. Youtube and Google get thinly disguised. Even when I was watching blatant corporate synergy sequences, I still laughed plenty. Despite much of it being spoiled in the trailers, the scene with Vanellope and the Disney princesses is definitely a highlight*. The Youtube stand-in led by Yes (Taraji P. Henson) gives Ralph 2 the chance to do a play on nearly every kind of viral video. It's no surprise that the same parent studio that gave us Inside Out and Zootopia could deliver such an entertaining and clever interpretation of the internet world.

*It's funny how Disney has made a habit out of making fun of their fairy tale history while still using it to make some of their bigger hits.

I really can't discuss the heart of the movie without showing the movie's hand a little and spoiling some of it so be warned. Ralph 2 should be required viewing for anyone who is about to move or go to college. I can't think of a better handling of two friends moving in different directions in their lives. It's no one's fault. People just have different paths. It's hard when those paths diverge, but that doesn't mean they are the wrong paths. Ralph 2 tackles that beautifully. It's a completely different lesson from the first movie. It might even be a better one. As funny as the movie is, the handling of Ralph and Vanellope's friendship is what will keep me going back to this movie down the road.

It's a sequel, so you should already know about most of the voice cast here. John C. Reilly is the perfect voice for Ralph. He's the embodiment of the phrase "you big lug". Sarah Silverman is equally ideal for Vanellope. Silverman has made a career out of using the sweetness of her voice to belie menace. She's shifted the menace to depth and sincerity in recent years and grown as a performer as a result. It still shocks me that it until 2012 that Disney found a use for her. I imagine animators designed Shank thinking "we need a Gal Gadot type", so Gadot isn't doing anything special with that voice performance. It works because of that. Jack McBrayer and Jane Lynch are back and delightful. Taraji P. Henson gets to animate her voice in a way I haven't heard before. The only other voice I immediately recognized was Bill Hader's although when I look at the cast list, I know virtually everyone. I guess that means they were all well-chosen.

Between Disney Animation and Pixar, Disney has raised the bar so ridiculously high that I can't say Ralph Breaks the Internet rates all that high on my all time list. It's probably second tier Disney, which is still very high compared to everything else. They found a story worthy of being a sequel to the original*. And stay through the entire credits. It's worth it.

*Still only the second Disney Animation sequel ever. That last one was The Rescuers Down Under, 28 years ago. That is, unless you count Fantasia 2000 or Winnie the Pooh (2011) as sequels.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Creed II

Formula: Creed + Rocky IV

Of the Rocky sequels, Rocky IV is the one I respect the most. Making a sequel to Rocky misses the point of the whole thing. The original Rocky is the ultimate underdog, moral victory story. It's a story about a guy who didn't belong finding a way to be good enough, even if it's just for one night. No matter how the sequel got handled, it was going to cheapen that. Rocky II remakes the original movie and changes the ending. Rocky III tries to flip the script and make him an underdog by saying he was deceived all along. Rocky V and Rocky Balboa try to use his age as an excuse. Rocky IV I respect, even though it's a pretty bad movie, because it's transparent in every way. It's Russia vs. the U.S. It's corn-fed American grit vs. super-human 'roided-up Russian intimidation. Nature vs. Science. It's a jingoistic encapsulation of the cold war in a boxing ring. Go big or go home.

Like the original Rocky, Creed had no business being as good as it was. It breathed new life into the Rocky franchise by essentially rebooting it while nodding to the past. It's so good that I barely like calling it a Rocky sequel. It nearly stands on its own. Sequels are almost never as good as the original (not counting sagas that have sequels baked in). That's because a great original movie is close-ended. A sequel requires ripping the story back open and reverse-engineering something to work. Knowing that the sequel to Creed wouldn't be as good, the smart move is to give the people what they want - Creed vs. Drago - and figure out the rest from there.

It's the only decision that makes any sense. People only remember two Rocky "villains". I had to look up Clubber Lang, Tommy Gunn, Mason Dixon, and Ricky Conlan but I know Ivan Drago and Apollo Creed immediately. Since Creed's son is the protagonist now, Drago's son is the antagonist who makes the most sense.

Creed II quickly skips by the Rocky II and III phase of Adonis' (Michael B. Jordan) career. He wins the boxing title early on. He's still with Bianca (Tessa Thompson), and Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) is either in remission or forgot he has cancer. That's exactly when, out of obscurity, Viktor Drago (Florian Munteanu) shows up stateside with his father Ivan (Dolph Lundgren) to challenge Adonis to a match. Ivan's loss to Rocky 30 years before ruined his life. Everyone left him behind, so he's raised his bruising son to get revenge on everyone, and sees Adonis as the perfect target. Let's just say that Viktor is every bit the physical specimen that his father was and Adonis isn't ready for him. Adonis must decide how much avenging his father's death means to him, now that he has people counting on him.

The whole cast is back even though director Ryan Coogler, who built Creed from the ground up, is not. And that sums up how I feel about the movie. I still got all the same thrills as in Creed. Munteanu is built like a tank and Jordan has figured out how to tone every muscle on his body. They make great training montages and look very comfortable in the ring. Tessa Thompson softens Jordan's performance. Adonis is an intense guy and needs someone like Bianca to put him in his place. Stallone and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother) ground the film nicely. Even Dolph Lundgren gets some good moments. Ludgren just has the same problem as latter-day Arnold Schwarzenegger. After being introduced to the world as a villain, he's spent his years being a pretty nice guy, so seeing him turn heel again looks out of place. Director Steven Caple Jr. has some fun with slow motion and knows when to deploy the iconic Rocky theme for maximum effect. Without Coogler though, Creed II doesn't have the same weight as before. The Dragos are cartoonish (although I did get a little emotional over how their story played out). The Rocky cancer arc gave Creed a dramatic story that Creed II couldn't match. Creed II has everything except the heart that Creed had.

What I'm saying is that Creed II isn't quite as good as another really good movie. At the end of the day, the appeal is about the same, although no one will complain when Creed II gets shut out of the Oscars. This is a really good entry in the Rocky franchise.

One Last Thoughts: It's impressive how many ways the Rocky franchise has handled the climax. It's a boxing match, so it's win/lose. Each movie has a result that feels different though. Creed II ends the fight in a way I haven't seen a Rocky movie do before that's also thematically resonant with Rocky IV.

Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Front Runner

Formula: Nashville / Chappaquiddick

How did we get here?

If Jason Reitman's new movie about the failed 1988 presidential campaign of Gary Hart is about any one thing, it's that question. At one point, Hart was the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination, which based on the history of elections following 2-term president, made him the front runner for President of the United States. His campaign was rather infamously taken down by what amounted to be more of a tabloid scandal than a political scandal. His story is a forgotten footnote in history now, especially for those who didn't live through it, which makes this a perfect story to be turned into a film.

I enjoyed the experience of watching The Front Runner. The filmmaking is quite wonderful. Reitman excels at capturing the hectic nature of a political campaign. Every scene has 20 different things going on and it's a matter of what the camera or the mic decides to pick up on. I've heard this movie compared to Robert Altman's work, which makes me want to see Altman's movies even more now. Rather than cutting to a new shot, often the camera just pans to a different part of the room to see what's going on there. If the sound mixing in this movie doesn't at least earn an Oscar nomination, then the category is a fraudulent. Reitman conducts the madness in a way that's busy but not overwhelming. It's a mode that, based on his previous films, I didn't know he had.

Hugh Jackman is a rather perfect choice to play Gary Hart. Jackman, a handsome showman, highlights the inherent problem with Hart as a candidate. Hart , young and good-looking, had the superficial appeal that modern candidates often need to get through the door. Like Jackman, people saw Hart and expected a lovable, camera-friendly guy. Hart isn't like Hugh Jackman though. Hart, in the film at least, didn't care about playing to the camera. He believed that only the ideas should matter, which is what led to his downfall. Jackman uses his own public perception as a wonderful contrast in the film. I don't know that he fully embodies the real Gary Hart, but he works perfectly for the character in the movie.

The cast is honestly too large to cover everyone. Let's just say that Reitman gets great work out of Vera Farmiga, J.K. Simmons, and an impressive group of "TV All-Stars". Farmiga refuses to be a helpless politician's wife. As Hart's campaign manager, Simmons has an interesting world-weary optimism. This is the first I've noticed Molly Ephraim in anything, and she makes a good impression here as one of Hart's aides, given one of the less desirable tasks in the wake of his scandal. I'm being coy about the details of what happens in the movie only because I figure you already know what happens or would like to be surprised by it when you see it play out.

I'd like to get back to the central question of the movie though. How did we get here? The Front Runner has a lot on its mind and it doesn't try to simplify anything. What is the role of the media? Should they curate the truth or should they report everything and let the people decide what matters, even if the public makes the wrong choice? What right to privacy do public figures have? Who should be considered public figures? I really love how The Front Runner explores the complexities of all these questions. By asking the questions in 1988, the movie is also asking the questions in 2018, but not in a pointed, political way. I'm sure some of this could be applied to the Trump era*, but really, it's something to apply to any candidate or any news story. This is perhaps the most thought-provoking movie I've seen this year. Except for a couple places where they hit on their point a little too hard, it's all handled really well.

*My understanding is that the movie was being worked on way before Trump 2016. I wasn't looking forward to this movie, because I figured it would lay the Trump criticism on too think. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it had more on its mind than that.

I guess my problem with the movie is that questions are easier than answers. It's easy to point out all the things that are wrong with the system. Reitman's film asks really great questions and exposes a lot of problems inherent both to the system and to the nature of technology. Cameras and the internet changed the game in ways that I don't think people fully appreciate. The news can't function as it did in the 1950s, even if it wanted to. Intentionally, The Front Runner doesn't try to answer any of its questions. That's great for taking a "both sides" look at things that doesn't turn anyone off, but it does make me wonder what the point of the whole film was. I wish it would've taken a stand somewhere.

I'm not sure what I wanted from The Front Runner. I liked the movie quite a bit. I love the filmmaking and Hugh Jackman's performance. It's a smart movie. It might be too smart, actually. It realizes that the scope of the topic is too large and complex to cover in a single movie. Hart's story ends up secondary to the institutions covering his story. In a way, it's kind of perfect that once again, Gary Hart gets lost in the discussion that he's at the center of.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend