I_Ailurophile

Playing with the fourth wall is dangerous, and having actors speak directly into a camera is even more so. It can be done well - to whatever ends - but if it is not the effect will be kitschy, tiresome, and/or off-putting. The same goes for overt, emphatic stylization, including and not limited to sensibilities ripped from contemporary television sitcoms; unending playfulness in characterizations, scene work, and dialogue, including plans upon plans upon plans and snark upon witticism upon quip; and among still more, directness in developing a story. This isn't to say that a picture can't also bear potential and lasting value alongside such qualities as may grate on us, yet the more pervasive such qualities are, and the more heavily they are prioritized, the more difficult it will be for earnest potential and lasting value to win out.

By all means, whether we look to filmmaker Jules Dassin, screenwriter Monja Danischewsky, or author Eric Ambler, or other contributors involved in front of or behind the camera, there is much to appreciate in this picture. I will never tire of that gloriously rich mid-century Technicolor; cinematographer Henri Alekan turns in fine, sharp work. The filming locations are terrific, not to mention the production design and art direction, and I admire the work of the costume designer, and the hair and makeup artists. And in the now-classic vein of the lighthearted heist flick, the core thoughts on hand are a delight as scheming schemers plan their plans and move pieces into play, and we viewers see those plans unfold (with hiccups). The stunts and practical effects are a joy. So long as 'Topkapi' is conceived and realized with all due mindful care, it stands to be a blast for all of its two hours.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. The stylization and otherwise approach taken in the first several minutes (including post-production flourishes and the choice of having star Melina Mercouri speak into the camera) fostered deep reservations in me. Such touches fade away and the substance takes over as the minutes tick by, and there are times when I find other aspects splendid - yet frankly, too many creative choices of Dassin, Danischewsky (if not also Ambler), editor Roger Dwyre, and even composer Manos Hadjidakis, among others, very much rub me the wrong way. I refer to that unyielding playfulness, to a certain directness in storytelling, to unseemly brusqueness in the editing, to examples of overcharged direction and acting, to pacing that sometimes feels a tad too swift, and still more. I can arguably forgive some indelicacies like imbalanced audio, assuming shortcomings of contemporary techniques and technology, but on the other hand other contemporary titles and some older ones do not have the same problems; Hadjidakis' music is at times particularly overbearing under these circumstances, while other audio like dialogue ranges from hurting one's ears, to being nearly inaudible.

Too little of the feature benefited from the appropriate deliberate craftsmanship, as far as I'm concerned. One of the few fairly reliable exceptions is icon Peter Ustinov in his portrayal of hustler Simpson. Select scenes and moments are altogether brilliant, not least the key sequence in which the heist is carried out - the centerpiece of the film. The opposite end of the spectrum, however, further includes occasional cartoonish side effects and gaudy music cues. There is much to love here, yes. I would love 'Topkapi' more, as a whole, if the whole had the same thoughtfulness and outright ingenuity applied uniformly, with the same moderate hand and a patient mind for solid substance over cheap, novel, flashy notions of entertainment. Please understand: for all my harsh words, I don't dislike this movie. The simple fact of the matter, however, is that my enjoyment of it is significantly diminished by those more careless or less tasteful elements that just represent too much of the viewing experience, those which were unnecessary and that take away from the fun instead of adding to it. At its best, 'Topkapi' reminds of superb, broadly underappreciated crime thriller classics out of France and Italy from the 60s and 70s, with delicious tension and suspense; at its most overdone, it suggests family-friendly, "gosh golly!" fare on American television. I'm glad for those who get more out of this than I do. One watch was enough for me, if not more than enough, and I don't expect I'll be coming back for more.

I'd be plainly lying if I said I weren't deeply skeptical. The first film was a wonderful fantasy adventure with excellent themes and storytelling, and delightful humor and music, not to mention gorgeous animation - all the high quality we expect of Disney at their best. Yet Disney's history with sequels or other additional ventures with established properties is very mixed at best, and it's notable that among the writers and filmmakers who gave us the original of 2016, only Jared Bush returns to contribute to the story and screenplay. This is hardy to discount the value brought to the table here, or to other projects, by other participants, but I think it's only reasonable to be less than fully confident about what this 2024 picture might portend. How would 'Moana 2' stack up to its predecessor, and could it actually be worthwhile on its own merits?

Rest assured that the animation from the artists at Disney is absolutely as reliable as ever. There's stupendous detail in the character designs, and every environment and background, to say nothing of the utmost care seen in water, lighting, and other effects. The voice acting is splendid, and I appreciate the obvious consideration again poured into honoring the peoples and cultures of the South Pacific in the slightest minutiae. As we would suppose, the screenplay also provides a fair variety for us to sink our teeth into, with lighthearted moments and more dramatic beats, adventure, awe, wonder, mystery, and of course the musical sensibilities that come with the territory. And I think the plot boasts firm foundations as our title character is called out to sea on another risky journey, treading the line between savoring the world she knows and building a better future.

I wish, however, that in the details of the screenplay, and in the specifics of the animation and joint direction, there was more substance for this feature to call its own. There are particular shots that come across as cheap, empty spectacle instead of a meaningful inclusion, and others (namely those that zero in on a character's face) that not only seem ready-made for memes on TikTok or Snapchat more than an earnest cinematic production, but which in so doing kind of condescend to the youngest of viewers. Some dialogue is frankly kind of terrible, nevermind instances that lean hard into an ethos of "Hey, remember the first movie, and how much you liked it? Do you?" Even the new original songs, and the scenes (and/or choreography) that accompany them, range from the good, to the ham-fisted, to the forgettable. This is to say nothing of overly swift pacing that inhibits natural narrative flow or development, extra forced characterizations, or among still more, aspects of abject cartoonishness that far exceed any vibes in the antecedent.

One unfortunate impression that results from all this is that 'Moana 2,' ostensibly a tentpole theatrical attraction for a media giant and a carefully crafted follow-up to a revered modern classic, really does feel in no small part to be kith and kin with what viewers anticipate from Disney's "direct to video sequels" that soullessly cash in on audience favorites. It's the recognizable pattern of what happens all too often when Disney releases a smart, mindful, deliberate gem, then revisits those same characters in subsequent pieces that are notably less smart, mindful, or deliberate. Please don't misunderstand - that's not to say that this is a clunker. Far from it! In the broad strokes I love the plot and the scene writing, including some characters like Loto, and some new creations like the clam. Awhimai Fraser totally steals the show with her voice acting as supporting character Matangi, who (a) is also without question the character with the most personality, (b) seems to me to have benefited from some of the best character writing, and (c) has probably the single best song ("Get lost") in these one hundred minutes. (I wish we saw more of Matangi.) There are a lot of creative choices here I don't like, but many others that I do, including some jokes and gags. And while it takes the better part of half the runtime, there does come a point where it comes across that the film is gelling more, and easing up on that pacing, and that the filmmakers had devoted noticeably more attention to what they were molding.

I do, in fact, like this movie. The trouble I have is that 'Moana 2' draws very heavily (too heavily) on ideas and aesthetics from the forebear, and further relies a lot upon more simple-minded notions that cater to youngsters more than they earnestly appeal to all ages in a general audience. We get plenty of fun with plenty of variety, and at its best it's terrific. It's just not at its best as much as one would assume or hope, and mostly not until the back end. The same even applies, I think, to the original score and songs of Mark Mancina and his fellow composers: sometimes the score is vibrant, and sometimes it's tired; sometimes the songs raise a quizzical eyebrow ("We're back"), and sometimes they're a great pleasure ("Can I get a chee hoo?"). Overall this flick is solidly enjoyable, and quite good; the climax through to the ending is outstanding, and arguably among the finest things Disney has done. Would that the same level of praise could be extended to the entirety of the proceedings here. All told 'Moana 2' does stack up quite well to 'Moana,' and it is very much worthwhile on its own merits - with the caveat that one can easily discern how it could have been improved upon. Don't go out of your way for this, all things considered, but if you do have the chance to watch, it's certainly sharp enough to earn a warm recommendation.

It's safe to say that I had mixed expectations as I sat for this. I dearly love the original 'King Kong,' and have since I was very young, and my appreciation for it has only grown over time. I'm also a big fan of filmmaker Ernest B. Schoedsack's 1932 adaptation of 'The most dangerous game.' On the other hand, save for Toho's dalliances with the property in the 60s, not one Kong film in all the decades since has come close to measuring up to the progenitor, and the very notion of this follow-up, let alone its premise, raises a skeptical eyebrow. Coming on the heels of its predecessor mere months later, and marking the return of director Schoedsack, even screenwriter Ruth Rose, and star Robert Armstrong (Carl Denham), among others, could 'Son of Kong' be worthwhile on its own merits?

From the very start the tone here is notably much lighter, and downright frivolous at times. To whatever extent there may be airs of adventure to come (after the better part of half the runtime), they are nothing like those of the antecedent: this is a drama, but a drama like no few others of the 30s (and 40s) in which the sum total struggled to make itself be felt, not least of all for that unhelpful tone. There is fair potential in the plot as we learn that filmmaker Carl Denham is bankrupt and hounded for his part in Kong's destruction throughout New York, and his efforts to dodge accountability will lead him to meeting a curious assortment of characters and take him back to Skull Island. It's a little unfortunate, though, that this flick doesn't take its own plot super seriously - emphasized by the "show" that Denham and Captain Englehorn see including a musical troupe of monkeys (anyone of conscience must be concerned for how the animals were treated by the studio) and a young lady who will more or less be this title's stand-in for Ann Darrow. Other little touches throughout, such as in the music, direction, or acting, will further accentuate the less sober tenor of the proceedings, and further demonstrate how 'Son of Kong' shares at least as much if not more kinship with countless other unnamed 30s pictures than with its elder and superior.

Don't take this to mean that I hate this movie; it's not as if it's altogether bad. However, it must be said that this is a very different beast from its forebear. Brisk pacing and editing, and a runtime of only seventy minutes, work against the best ideas in the narrative and scene writing, and I'm also not convinced that the light dramatic notes of the first half mesh well with the light adventurous airs to come in the latter half (or, arguably, the last third). Then there are the more dubious ideas in the writing, like the pokes at and riffs on popular uprisings and communist actions, the small corner into which the main attraction has been shoved, and the flimsy obligatory romance. Sure, there's much to like in terms of the stunts and practical effects, including stop-motion animation, not to mention gorgeous, detailed sets and painted backgrounds. I question some choices of direction and acting, but mostly the cast are swell, and I honor the contributions of the costume design, hair, and makeup. Returning composer Max Steiner does not give us any themes that come particularly close to matching the grandeur of those of a few months before, and some are notably lesser than others, but in general the man's work is just fine. Still, even if we say that the same level of care was applied in this instance (a point that's very debatable), we can get that quality elsewhere - and the same level of earnestness absolutely was not applied. Granted, this was accordingly Rose's intent from the get-go, yet the regrettable result is that this is less exceptional, more common, and maybe even more bland and/or more disagreeable.

And for all that, I nevertheless can't help but be distracted again and again by the tonal issues here. It's one thing to say that there is stark disparity with 'King Kong,' for the doing was apparently intentional, and perhaps I'm being too harsh and biased towards that prior treasure. Yet there's also a tonal disparity between different aspects of the story Schoedsack and Rose want to tell, with the more substantive and engaging portions being troubled by the hefty presence of those portions which are more lighthearted or even cartoonish. There are times when it seems as if the filmmakers were unsure of how they wanted their characters to come off in terms of either temperament or intelligence, and ultimately the tale doesn't have a lot of proverbial meat to it. Moreover, the titular figure and other creatures have considerably less of a part to play in this film - and many seem less detailed than their older counterparts - and even as they do show up, I again wonder how much this has in common with other contemporary fare versus the one specific piece to which it is irrevocably tied.

It's not altogether bad. It's going too far to say that I dislike it, and even for all the fair criticism and scrutiny that we may assess, in all sincerity 'Son of Kong' is better than some other works that have shared the Kong name in the past ninety years. Some facets are unexpectedly solid, including the rather grim conclusion to the (sadly overly frenetic) climax. All the same, there's no mistaking that this simply doesn't hold a candle to the quintessential monster film that preceded it, and I sit on the razor's edge of both pondering if I'm being too harsh in my assessment, and pondering if I'm being too kind. For Kong devotees and wholehearted cinephiles this is reasonably worthwhile, and it's a decent enough way to spend part of a lazy evening. Just don't go out of your way for it, and keep your expectations tempered, and maybe that's the best way to get the most out of 'Son of Kong.'