Dave Made a Maze (2017)

Director: Bill Watterson
Writer(s): Steven Sears and Watterson
Starring: Meera Rohit Khumbani, Nick Thune, Adam Busch and James Urbaniak

Dave is a thirtysomething man with a hot girlfriend, who feels like he hasn’t accomplished anything with his life. He seems like a man who’s riddled with ADHD: he fills his free time with a variety of crazy ideas, which he quickly abandons the moment he has ideas for his next one (something to which I can sadly relate all too well). 

After his girlfriend, Annie, leaves him alone one weekend, he decides to build a fort out of cardboard boxes. From the outside, it looks like a simple little creation; creative, but more a waste of time than anything else. But when Annie tries to lure him to come out, we learn that it’s not quite as simple as it seems - on the inside, it’s a massive multi-room, booby-trapped hellscape featuring a minotaur who craves human flesh. Worst of all: he can’t find a way out of his own creation.

He tries dissuading his friends from coming in to help rescue him, and risk getting lost (or worse), but eventually, they realize there is no other choice. Against Dave’s wishes, they enter - a merry band of misfits including his nerdy best friend Gordon, Annie, a documentary film crew (?) who want to make a film about the motivations behind his creation, and even a couple of Swedish tourists (??).

If it all sounds dumb, that’s because it is…and that’s the point. It’s clearly not meant to be taken seriously. And that’s part of what makes Dave Made a Maze so special: its freewheeling creativity. The fort's massive interior is filled with origami birds, dangers made out of cardboard (yet that pose a serious life-or-death threat to the protagonists), and blood made out of what appears to be papier-mache (or a similar material). There’s even a scene where the characters turn into hand puppets, an unexpected addition that only adds to its unique charm. The end credits feature animated versions of all the characters of the movie - living or dead - as they wave to the camera; it feels like the cinematic equivalent of a post-performance theatrical bow. It all feels like the quiet daydreams of a young child, the kind where they dream of being the hero, coming to the aide of the damsel (or damoiseau, which I just learned is the male equivalent) in distress, while avoiding monsters and traps. It's like a throwback to the innocence of childhood, long before the dark shadows of adulthood take hold, and threaten to ruin one's natural curiosity. And that nostalgic quality is part of what makes the whole film feel special.

Also lending itself to the experience is the cast - who are uniformly committed to the sometimes bizarre material - and the set design, which is an absolute work of art. The maze itself almost becomes another character, feeling like a living, breathing entity that helps to maintain the film's whimsical attitude. It looks and feels like an A-movie in a B-movie's body, thanks to its attention-to-detail and the obvious care with which it was made.

Now, there are some things working against its fevered frenzy of seemingly endless imagination: It comes mainly in the form of the documentary film crew, and Dave’s dramatic on-camera diatribe about the reasons he made it. The film’s director, Harry, spends the whole film trying to maximize drama and tension, utilizing a boom operator and cameraman (who randomly spits out sunflower seeds almost every time we see him) who follow him wherever he goes. He’s the typical kind of douchey on-screen filmmaker, played for laughs but frequently crossing the line into annoying. Yes, part of that is the point - and by the end he almost becomes likable - but it doesn’t make him feel any less clichéd, and his hapless, bumbling helpers (a boom operator and cameraman) don't help matters any.

The minotaur - who is a buff man with a cardboard head - is also rather pointless, although I guess they needed some kind of immediate threat beyond the constant stream of booby-traps. He shows up at random, pre-planned times to scare the main characters, but feels more like a character in one of those Halloween haunted houses, where part of the effectiveness is lost by performers who aren't allowed to touch the participants. 

There is a small body count, but once again, the papier-mache violence isn’t the point. It’s the banding together of several outcasts, in order to save one of their own, and the often humorous struggles they encounter along the way.

Despite its confusing billing virtually everywhere as a “horror” movie, Dave Made a Maze fits more comfortably in the “fantasy” genre, a throwback to ‘80s adventure films like The Goonies, and Labyrinth. That's because that's what it's meant to be. It’s goofy, it’s funny, it’s silly, and perhaps most importantly, it’s fun. Maybe that misleading connotation is why it unfairly came and went without so much as a peep when it premiered four years ago; this is the type of cult movie that deserves a following. Fans of true horror, or those that like their storylines to be more grounded in reality, won’t find much to like here, but those who seek a film with a laid-back non-pretentious, un-douchey arthouse vibe definitely will. 

RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

Aladdin (2019)

Director: Guy Ritchie
Writer(s): Ritchie, and John August
Starring: Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, Will Smith, and Marwan Kenzari

Oh, how I missed the excitement of a Hollywood blockbuster! Actually, a more appropriate comment would be “Oh how I missed being excited at the idea of a Hollywood blockbuster,” because that phase died down about the moment I hit my teen years. I'm all for movies as a form of artistic expression, and I realize that “expression” is a vague statement that can come in many forms, but I just fail to derive any entertainment from paying $9 a ticket just to watch two hours of computer-generated special effects.

And yet there I was, seated on opening weekend of a big-budgeted Hollywood movie, in an almost-packed house, at 9 p.m. And no, it wasn't because of my two-year-old son, but because of my wife, who was deadset on seeing it at once. Well, who was I to argue?

I knew so little about it, in fact, that it came as a complete shock to me that Guy Ritchie directed it. Thee Guy Ritchie, auteur of such R-rated films as Snatch, and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (and the PG-13 dud Swept Away, starring his then-wife Madonna, which was probably an instant regret for everyone involved); not the type I would have expected to seek out a Disney project that's blatantly Disney, but hey, everyone's got to put food on the table somehow, and this is the type of high-profile project that can lead to career boosts for years to come.

Really, the success of these live-action remakes largely depend on the cast, and that's where I felt Aladdin kind of goes 50/50: Will Smith is a good actor, but as the Genie, he largely seems to be going through the motions to collect a paycheck. He's not terrible in the role, per se, but he lacks the charisma—and insane energy—that Robin Williams brought to his animated role. I suppose that comparison is slightly unfair, because there aren't many who could have matched Williams' performance, but whereas the original Genie was by far the most exciting character in the original, here he's just...another character.

I also did not like Marwan Kenzari's performance as Jafar in the least. I wouldn't put that critique on him—he definitely seems to be putting some effort into the role and does come off as appropriately slimy—but his velvety-smooth, higher pitched voice is a complete moodkill for me, and almost completely ruins the character. I got more used to it as the movie went on, but I nearly laughed out loud the first time I heard him, and that's never really a good sign for someone who's supposed to be evil.

The running time, which I had heard about going in, was also a sore point for me. It's as if studios see the length of a movie as a direct representation of how “epic” it's going to be; thus, they upped it from around 90 minutes to over two hours here. Part of it was probably because I was running on five hours of sleep, and was already tired going in to the late showing, but I felt like this one was way too long for its own good, adding some characters and unnecessary scenes that did nothing to improve upon the story. It did, however, keep a respectably large portion of the original story intact, even down to the familiar song and dance numbers, which is a decision that will definitely help its draw.

The one “notable” addition to the song front that I noticed was “Speechless”, a cringey female-empowerment track that was clearly thrown in because that's what people want these days. I realize I run the risk of sounding sexist, and any explanation I offer is only going to seem like “mansplaining”, but my offense isn't at all with the material, but rather with the context: Disney is one of the major studios that permeated and allowed the domineering male culture that eventually gave way to the #MeToo movement, and so the inclusion of a song like this just feels like a half-hearted attempt at reparations for past transgressions. It comes across as empty, formulaic schtick; an easy way to present a “tough” female character without having to actually develop one through nuanced writing. I'm sure it's a huge crowd-pleasing moment, but I just felt like it was little more than surface-level appeasement, meant to distance Disney from the industry monsters that they helped to create, and it left a bad taste in my mouth.

On the brighter side, both the main stars are good, capably playing their roles (and looking the part without the need for skin-enhancing software), but Naomi Scott as Jasmine is appropriately breathtaking: she's an absolutely gorgeous woman, perfectly befitting of royalty, and encapsulating the spirit of her character well. She has a certain radiance about her that you just can't take your eyes off of, and as someone who does not find the typical idea of “Hollywood pretty” even remotely attractive, I was absolutely enamored with her every time she's on screen. (My wife felt the same way about Mena Massoud as Aladdin, so there's eye candy here for everyone.) 

I have to admit that I am not a huge fan of the original Aladdin, so it should come as no shock that I wasn't entirely enchanted with this live-action update. My wife, on the other hand, loves the original (just as she does almost any Disney movie), and “loved every minute” of this one. That being said, even with the overlong run time and my own complaints with the material, I'm incredibly surprised at all the bad reviews that have been leveled its way, especially from critics who were largely enamored with the 1992 classic: Personally, it was way better than I was expecting (which, to be fair, wasn't much), and close enough to the source material that I honestly can't see anyone who liked that one walking away from this one disappointed.

It doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it doesn't have to: most audiences just want to see a live-action retelling of a familiar story that most of them grew up with, and on those grounds, Aladdin is largely a success.

RATING: 5.5/10

TRAILER