MARK REVIEWS THE MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE: SHANG-CHI AND THE LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS

 

• I liked it a lot!
• Especially in the first half of the movie, the focus on practical effects, physical stunts and sweet martial arts fights gave me the kind of action I like the best in a Marvel movie. The bus fight, in particular, was a very early highlight. The confined environment of this fight scene also reminded me of the elevator fight in The Winter Soldier, one of the best scenes in the whole franchise
• Even the fight scenes which were CGI-enhanced still looked great. There was still a ton of athleticism and physicality, and the effects used for the titular ten rings were pretty cool
• Midway through things got a lot more fantastical, a lot more CGI-heavy, but I didn't mind. They were showing us something we hadn't seen before, and the movie had already built up a lot of goodwill for me
• Loved the connection to Iron Man 3, one of my favourites
• I haven't seen Kim's Convenience, so this is the first time I've seen Simu Liu in anything. It's very cool to have a Canadian playing a Marvel hero, and I admired how many of his own stunts he did. Aside from that, his character didn't really pop for me like other Marvel heroes have, but I look forward to seeing more from him
• And Awkwafina had a few good lines as Katy, but her "in over my head" schtick got a little old. Had a couple of nice moments during the climax, though
• Tony Leung made for a complex, multi-faceted villain. I liked how he played a power-hungry tyrant, but they still gave him sympathetic motivation
• I decided to go to the theatre to see this by myself, and I had a grand old time! I really don't understand why it's not more common to go to the movies by oneself. If you're a decent person, you're not talking to people during the movie anyway! I think I'm going to make this a more regular thing now that the theatres are open

#85: DRACULA (1931)

 

THRILL SCALE 1-10

7

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

No, first time

BEST SEQUENCE

The first official meeting between Dracula and Renfield, on the steps in his castle

BEST LINE

Dracula: "This is very old wine. I hope you will like it."
Renfield: "Aren't you drinking?"
Dracula: "I never drink...wine."

- You can practically hear Dracula's urge to nudge and wink at Renfield in this line.

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

94%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Bela Lugosi's timeless portrayal of Dracula in this creepy and atmospheric 1931 film has set the standard for major vampiric roles since."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"Transylvanian vampire Count Dracula bends a naive real estate agent to his will, then takes up residence at a London estate where he sleeps in his coffin by day and searches for potential victims by night."

THOUGHTS

• This movie is, of course, iconic. Bela Lugosi's performance as Dracula is so famous, so influential, that I felt like I had a pretty good idea of what to expect despite this being my first viewing. He was great to watch, with his creepy stare and his commanding voice and presence
• I also thought Dwight Frye as Renfield was a lot of fun, at least after he went insane and started chewing the scenery like his life depended on it. In the beginning, before he was turned by Dracula, he was kind of annoying
• I also really liked the face-to-face confrontations between Dracula and Van Helsing
• My favourite part of the movie was probably the first 20 minutes. The sets and the scenery around Dracula's castle were amazing, and his introduction was great. The movie had some really drawn-out action, a more modern movie probably wouldn't be as patient to just show things like Dracula descending a flight of stairs, but at least in the Transylvania scenes, the visuals were interesting enough that I never felt bored
• Side note, my whole life I thought Transylvania was a fictional, made-up country, but I was wrong! It's actually a very real region in central Romania
• Once we got to England, though, I found myself a little bit less entertained. Dracula was still creepy, and Renfield was crazy, and I liked Van Helsing, but the multiple scenes which took place in proper English drawing rooms were just less interesting than the ones set in a vampire's castle
• A seminal movie like this gets bonus points just for paving the way for everything that would come after it. I said similar things about Night of the Living Dead. I enjoyed watching Dracula, but it is now 90 years old, and it shows. It's a very short movie, at only 74 minutes, and it felt like it ended extremely abruptly. Lugosi did indeed have a hypnotic stare, and there were some effective shots of Dracula staring directly into the camera with just his eyes lit up, but these shots just kept being used again and again, diminishing their effectiveness. The fake bat special effects are pretty silly, but endearingly so. And finally, something that struck me as very jarring, the movie didn't have a score. Philip Glass was commissioned in 1998 to retroactively write one, but at least the version I saw had absolutely no background music except for during the opening credits. This was especially odd to my modern sensibilities when something sudden and surprising happened, like Dracula seeing a crucifix and shielding himself. In scenes like this I could almost hear the dramatic musical sting we'd expect to have in a modern movie
• But all of that being said, Dracula is a classic for a reason, and Lugosi's performance has been the one to beat for 90 years. If you haven't seen it, definitely watch it to see where it all began, and to see the actor who imprinted this character on the public consciousness. Just don't be surprised if it feels just a little old-fashioned

Up next: Poltergeist from 1982

#86: THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (1945)

 

THRILL SCALE 1-10

5.5

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

I haven't seen any filmed versions of this story, but I was quite familiar with the plot.

BEST SEQUENCE

The climactic sequence during the last five minutes of the movie is quite memorable with some striking shots and visuals. Aside from that, anytime we see the painting it's pretty effective.

BEST LINE

"There's only one way to get rid of temptation, and that's to yield to it." - Lord Henry Wotton, the corrupting influence on Dorian Gray

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

93%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

None available, for some reason

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"A corrupt young man somehow keeps his youthful beauty, but a special painting gradually reveals his inner ugliness to all."

THOUGHTS

• So, I feel like this is a pretty well known story, but just in case, spoilers ahead. As a wealthy young man of 22, Dorian Gray has his friend paint a portrait of him. While the painting is being finalized, Dorian makes a wish that he would never age physically, and instead the painting would age for him. Through some sort of ancient Egyptian mystical curse (or perhaps blessing), his wish is granted. Cut forward to 18 years later. Dorian still looks exactly the same, but he's been living a hedonistic, debaucherous lifestyle. So when we see the titular painting again, not only has the passage of time aged the person in the picture, but the lifestyle he's led has also turned it into a cruel, evil-looking old man. I haven't read the book by Oscar Wilde, so I don't know if the details are exactly the same, but that's how the movie plays out.
• And it really is a creepy painting, done in kind of a psychedelic way, which is interesting for a movie from 1945. If there's a chance you might watch this movie, try not to look it up beforehand. I had seen a picture of the painting already, but if I was completely surprised by it, I bet it would have been even more effective. If you don't plan on watching the movie, though, it's worth checking out a picture online. You can find one here, on Wikipedia.
• Adding to the impact, this is a black and white movie, but when we see the painting (both the original and the corrupted one), the shots are suddenly in colour. It's a pretty cool effect, although I wish we had gotten to see more of the painting as it was changing over the years. Then again, perhaps it was more effective to show the huge change which occurred over 18 years instead of a gradual progression.
• However, the movie isn't really very thrilling, and that might be partly due to the fact that they're quite coy about the evil deeds that Dorian has actually performed. This may be a result of the sudden jump to 18 years later, but we're never told what Dorian has been getting up to over those 18 years. Sex? Drugs? Violence? Overdue library fines? We can only assume. We do eventually see him kill a guy, but that happens after the painting has already reached its final form. And for the first act of depravity we see, before the 18 years pass, he kind of callously breaks off an engagement (with Angela Lansbury, who was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar). Like sure, that's not a nice thing to do, and she doesn't take it very well, but it's not necessarily evil.
• And interestingly, at least according to the IMDB trivia, Oscar Wilde's book was similarly written to obscure the bad things that Dorian has done to warp his painting so much. It was written in 1891, so perhaps Wilde was just showing restraint?
• Dorian was played by an actor named Hurd Hatfield, who I don't think I've seen in anything else. While he's supposed to be a man who maintains his youth and good looks while the painting changes, I thought he was pretty creepy looking from the get-go. He had dark, kind of soulless eyes, and his face was a bit cadaverous with high cheekbones. Plus, there are a lot of scenes which have an off-screen narrator describing Dorian's thoughts and feelings while Dorian himself just kind of wanders around or stares off at nothing, adding to the eeriness of his performance.
• Finally, as I mentioned, I never read the book, but we all know that Oscar Wilde was renowned for his wit. So while I don't know how much of it came from Wilde, or how much of it came from the screenwriter, I found this to be quite a witty movie. In particular, the character I quoted above, Lord Henry Wotton, played by George Sanders. He's always tossing out one-liners and cutting remarks, and he was a really fun character to watch

Up next: Another black and white horror classic which I've never seen, Bela Lugosi's Dracula from 1931.

#87-C: THE THING (2011) & THE X-FILES: "ICE" (1993) & WHO GOES THERE? (1938)

 

THE THING (2011)

First time seeing it and last time seeing it. First, the good: While the effects look extremely CGI, the visual appearances of some of the creatures are creative and effectively unnerving; there's some pretty great scenery; and it's vaguely interesting to see the leadup to the events of Carpenter's movie, but honestly, that aspect ended up being way less intriguing in execution than I had hoped. However, there's really no reason to watch this movie unless maybe you have a big crush on Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, and Tormund Giantsbane from Game of Thrones (and hey, I hit the trifecta). This is a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 film (and not a spiritual prequel or anything; the last scene of this movie is the first scene of Carpenter's). However, Carpenter's movie was much more grounded and focused on the suspense and paranoia of the situation. Carpenter's Thing was scary because it was so adept at hiding, and it mostly only attacked when it was cornered or felt safe enough to do so. In the 2011 version, however, while there are some scenes of the Thing hiding in plain sight, it's much more prone to attacking. I didn't do the math, but I do believe the 2011 movie has way more action and attack scenes than Carpenter's. However, that doesn't necessarily make it better or more exciting. Carpenter doled out the attack scenes carefully, sparingly, and somewhat stingily - you never really knew when they would happen, so the surprise effect was very real. In the 2011 version, on the other hand, this Thing is attacking people left and right with very little provocation and we grow numb to it. In fact, the 2011 movie may be more influenced by Alien or Aliens than The Thing, and this may even have been on purpose; the filmmakers have said that they wanted Mary Elizabeth Winstead's character to be a Ripley (Sigourney Weaver's character) type. But just like this movie pales in comparison to Carpenter's The Thing, it also pales in comparison to the Alien films, if that's even what it was going for. It doesn't have the creeping dread of Alien and it doesn't have the action of Aliens. Plus, the whole climax of this movie even takes place on the Thing's spaceship, leaving the claustrophobic confines of the Antarctic outpost. Carpenter's Thing was patient, sly and cunning. This Thing is just a movie monster and there's very little suspense. This may only be of interest to fans of Carpenter's movie, to see the story done slightly differently, but anyone who hasn't seen Carpenter's should watch that instead of this one. And even fans of Carpenter's will probably just wish they were rewatching his instead. I sure did.

THE X-FILES: "ICE" (1993)

I have never seen anything X-Files related. No episodes, no movies. This is the first. And I dug it! It isn't the equal of Carpenter's movie, but it is a reverent homage, and it replicates the tension of the 1982 film better than the 2011 prequel did. With a TV budget the focus isn't on special effects. There's no body horror, no physical transformations, but we do get the paranoia and uncertainty of who's safe and who's infected. While I do love the special effects in Carpenter's film and the movie just wouldn't be the same without the gore and the transformation scenes, watching this X-Files episode right after watching the 2011 version of The Thing may serve as evidence that the 2011 filmmakers got the wrong impression about what made Carpenter's film such an effective movie.

WHO GOES THERE? (1938)

So this short story, by John W. Campbell Jr., inspired everything I've been watching and reviewing for the last few weeks, but mostly The Thing From Another World from 1951 and John Carpenter's The Thing from 1982. To start with, it barely resembles the 1951 movie outside of a cold setting (the North Pole in the movie, Antarctica in the story), an alien and a spaceship found in the ice, the alien getting thawed out, and the alien being not very nice. The only similarity the original movie has that Carpenter's doesn't is the way that the protagonists use a form of electrocution against The Thing. Carpenter's movie, then, is much more clearly inspired by the story. Many of the characters' names are the same, the shapeshifting aspect is preserved, the flamethrower originated in the short story as a blowtorch, and we have quite a few of the same plot points. While I enjoyed the story, though, Carpenter's film packs a visual punch that the story can't match, even with some creatively descriptive passages. Some of the men in the short story (and it's all men, no women, just like in Carpenter's movie) effectively go insane, which would probably have been a reasonable response, but didn't happen in either film. Also, numerous times in the story, the men refer to each other as "birds", which always caught me off guard as a bit of slang I've never heard before, at least not to refer to males. I enjoyed the short story, but Carpenter took the good parts of it and ran with it. As could have been predicted, after these few weeks, Carpenter's version reigns supreme as the ultimate iteration of this tale! But if you want to read it, here you go: Who Goes There?

And finally, one last note: this short story, told from the point of view of Carpenter's Thing, has been recommended by several readers and it is excellent.

Up next: OK! As much as I love The Thing, I've been watching and writing about it in some form or another for weeks! Time for something new. Back to the AFI list, with #86, The Picture of Dorian Gray from 1945.

#87-B: THE THING (1982)

 

THRILL SCALE 1-10

10

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, several times, although my first time was relatively recently, in the mid-2010s

BEST SEQUENCE

Tie between the dog scene and the defibrillator scene, and the blood test scene is a close runner-up

BEST LINE

"Nobody trusts anybody now. And we're all very tired."

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

86%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Grimmer and more terrifying than the 1950s take, John Carpenter's The Thing is a tense sci-fi thriller rife with compelling tension and some remarkable make-up effects."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"A research team in Antarctica is hunted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of its victims."

THOUGHTS

• I love this movie. In my list of favourite movies ever, it's in the top 10, and maybe even top 5. I went into this rewatch trying to be as unbiased as possible, but I was pretty sure it would get a perfect score on the Thrill Scale, and it deserves it. Even though this is maybe my 5th time watching it or so, it's still incredibly effective and terrifying. First movie to get 10/10, baby!
• The Thing has some of my favourite practical special effects ever put on film. During my Marvel reviews I came down hard on the ineffectiveness of CGI, and a movie like this backs up my assertion. We know we're watching a movie, we know it isn't real, but the techniques used, the directorial expertise, the actors' genuine reactions, they all work in tandem to make us completely forget that a creature like this does not really exist.
• And the creature effects are so unique to this movie. I really can't think of any other movie with special effects as bonkers as this one, but if you can think of any movies that can match something like the crab head (you know what I'm talking about if you've seen it), by all means, let me know
• Like I mentioned in my previous review, Carpenter's Thing is a shapeshifter that can look like any creature and, crucially for this movie, it can perfectly emulate any person. The narrative drive of the movie, therefore, is figuring out who's real and who isn't; who's safe and who's been infected. You can definitely have some fun trying to follow the timeline to figure out who's been turned and when. Watching it this time, I kept being reminded of the campfire game Werewolf (or Mafia, if you prefer)
• I personally cannot justify the 1951 version of this story (which we'll call From Another World) appearing on the AFI's list instead of the 1982 version (which we'll call Carpenter's). I had some pleasant surprises with From Another World, it was better than I expected, but in terms of thrills, special effects, storytelling, Carpenter's absolutely blows it out of the water. The most effective version of this story includes the paranoia about who's real and who isn't. From Another World pretty much just boiled down to a standard alien/monster movie. Carpenter's is in a whole other league
• Having said that, John Carpenter is a big fan of the original, and there are some fun connections I noticed, now that I've seen both. In his 1978 film Halloween (#68 on our list), Carpenter showed two characters watching From Another World on TV. The title card filming technique used by Carpenter is exactly emulating the original. Plot points from From Another World are shown as happening immediately before the events of Carpenter's - the way The Thing is transported in a block of ice and the way that The Thing's spaceship is discovered are both depicted in Carpenter's. And finally, my favourite scene of From Another World, in which The Thing is doused with kerosene and set on fire, probably inspired the all-important flamethrower seen in Carpenter's
• Carpenter's The Thing has rightly come to be seen as an essential sci-fi/horror movie. Inexplicably, when it came out, it was not a success and the critics hated it. My only reasoning for this is that critics in 1982 were a bunch of dorks. It has been pointed out, also, that The Thing was competing against E.T., which was a massive hit, came out two weeks earlier, and had a nice alien. It's kind of hilarious to think of the 1982 viewing public seeing E.T. and deciding friendly aliens were the way to go from now on; no more of this mean alien nonsense! And by the way, E.T. will also be appearing later on the list, at #44
• Watching it for this review, I had the pleasure of seeing it with some friends for whom it was their first time. Watching their reactions to the movie was almost as fun as just watching the movie itself. Especially early, when they had no idea what was going to happen and how messed up things would get. Credit to them, though, they knew something was up with that dog! Direct quote: "This dog knows something, man!"
• And finally, we're in the middle of a frigging heatwave here in Toronto. The Thing is the sort of movie that will lower your temperature by a few degrees just through its depiction of the Antarctic. Watch it!

Up next: I wasn't entirely planning on it, but screw it, let's watch, by all accounts, the vastly inferior prequel from 2011. Just a mini review, though, because I want to do a trio of mini reviews next: The Thing from 2011, the short story Who Goes There? from 1938 (which I still haven't read, but which inspired all of these movies) and the X-Files episode "Ice", heavily influenced by Who Goes There? and both versions of The Thing

#87: THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951)

 

THRILL SCALE 1-10

7.5

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Never

BEST SEQUENCE

The scene in which they douse The Thing with kerosene and set it on fire was super impressive, and believed to be the first full body burn stunt ever filmed for a movie

The Thing from Another World Fire Scene

BEST LINE

"Watch the skies. Everywhere. Keep looking. Keep watching the skies." - Final line of the movie, pretty iconic

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

86%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"As flying saucer movies go, The Thing From Another World is better than most, thanks to well-drawn characters and concise, tense plotting."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"Scientists and American Air Force officials fend off a bloodthirsty alien organism while at a remote arctic outpost."

THOUGHTS

• No need to be coy. Carpenter's version from 1982 is better. It's been a few years since I last saw Carpenter's The Thing, and I'm looking forward to the rewatch, but just from my memory of it I know it's going to get a higher rating
• However, taking the 1951 version as its own thing (hehe), I was pleasantly surprised by how effective it was
• The above-mentioned fire scene was viscerally exciting and felt dangerous just watching it, but The Thing from Another World also has the most effective jump scare I've seen so far in this blog. It's an earlier scene in which they're trying to find The Thing, they open a door, and it's RIGHT THERE. It's the first time we've seen The Thing up close, and the suddenness of its appearance really got me. I reacted verbally. If you don't care about spoiling the scene for yourself by watching it outside of the context of the movie, here it is: The Thing from Another World Best scene. The scene's not very long, but if you don't want to watch the whole thing, start at about one minute in
• Aside from the surprisingly effective thrills I got from watching this movie, it did feel a little antiquated at times, especially with some of the old-timey lines of dialogue. My personal favourite: one of the characters, a newspaper reporter, is skeptical about some of the statements being made by another character, a scientist. And the reporter says, "Dr. Carrington, you're a man who won the Nobel Prize. You've received every kind of international kudos a scientist can attain. If you were for sale I could get a million bucks for you from any foreign government. I'm not, therefore, gonna stick my neck out and say that you're stuffed absolutely clean full of wild blueberry muffins, but I promise you my readers are gonna think so."
• There's also a fairly unrealistic emphasis on wisecracking. Even late in the movie, when The Thing is out to get them and the situation is getting seriously dangerous, the script still has the characters making little witty remarks to each other
• I haven't read Who Goes There?, the 1938 sci-fi horror novella which inspired this movie and Carpenter's, but I found it online (Who Goes There?) so I'm planning on reading it before posting my next review, of Carpenter's version. One key feature of both the novella and Carpenter's movie, though, is the fact that The Thing is a shapeshifter who can imitate any living being. And this aspect, which I'd consider pretty crucial to the story, at least considering my reaction to Carpenter's film, is completely absent from the 1951 movie. The Thing in this movie is basically just your standard alien/monster, and he's even made to be kind of Frankenstein-esque. One point that is hammered home, though, is the fact that The Thing in this movie is not an animal, it's more like a vegetable. In fact, it's even referred to as "some form of super carrot" and that feels like an absolutely ridiculous thing to type out
• There's a part of me that thinks I'm being overly generous by giving this movie 7.5/10, as it does show its age in quite a few ways, but that jump scare really did get me! And if a black and white movie from 1951 is able to surprise me in such a visceral way, I think it deserves that score!

Up next: John Carpenter's version of this story, the disgustingly gory The Thing from 1982

#88: 12 ANGRY MEN (1957)

 

THRILL SCALE 1-10

6

HAVE I SEEN IT BEFORE?

Yes, but I can't entirely remember how long ago it was. Maybe in high school (early 2000s)

BEST SEQUENCE

There are lots of big turning points to choose from, lots of moments when Juror #8 manages to persuade another juror to reconsider their assumptions. Any of these moments could qualify as the best sequence. I'm going to choose the scene in which Juror #4, the most logical and least emotional juror, and one of the last holdouts, is convinced that the eyewitness testimony he's been focusing on may not have been as reliable as he thought.

BEST LINE

"He didn't change his vote...I did!" - Juror #9, the first one to realize Juror #8 may be on to something here

ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE

100%

ROTTEN TOMATOES CRITICS CONSENSUS

"Sidney Lumet's feature debut is a superbly written, dramatically effective courtroom thriller that rightfully stands as a modern classic."

IMDB SYNOPSIS

"A jury holdout attempts to prevent a miscarriage of justice by forcing his colleagues to reconsider the evidence."

THOUGHTS

• When I first decided on the criteria to use when reviewing these movies, I wanted to meet the American Film Institute at their level. This is meant to be a list of the most thrilling American movies ever made, so the only real score or grade I'm giving these movies is a 1-10 on the Thrill Scale
• And so far, in approaching these movies assessing their ability to thrill me, I'd say the numbers mostly line up with how much I enjoyed the viewing experience and quality of the movie in general. However, I knew there would be some cases in which a movie's Thrill Score would be low despite a movie being undeniably excellent. This is one of those cases
• 12 Angry Men is a terrific movie. The acting is great, and I really admire the plot structure. A jury of twelve men need to decide whether or not to convict a young man of murder, which would lead to a mandatory death penalty. Eleven of the men start the movie convinced of the defendant's guilt, but only one of them, Juror #8, thinks there's enough reasonable doubt that should be discussed and explored. He methodically and logically convinces his fellow jurors to reassess their conclusions and, in some cases, their prejudices. The whole movie happens in real time, and in one room - a slightly claustrophobic jury room
• Incidentally, in referring to the characters by number, I'm not being deliberately vague - the characters don't actually use their names throughout the movie, and are solely referred to by number. Although it's worth mentioning, Juror #8 is indeed the hero of the movie, played by Henry Fonda
• So if there are any thrills to be found in this movie they're purely intellectual. Voices get raised and tempers flare fairly frequently, but no punches are thrown, and there are no incredibly dramatic reveals accompanied by musical stings. The thrill comes from the process - seeing the evidence get analyzed, making the same conclusions as the characters, and watching the balance of the numbers start to shift. It's thrilling to watch the way the movie concludes just in terms of plot, and it's very satisfying each time the characters hold a vote and we see who has changed their verdict
• And having said all that, I'm still not entirely sure if a 6/10 on the Thrill Scale is correct. Am I goosing the number a little because I think this is such a good movie, despite not being conventionally thrilling, especially compared to some of the other movies on this list? Or do I need to assess this on a different level? Does the tight plotting and structure of the movie deliver more thrills than I'm giving it credit for?
• I'm going to leave it at 6. Just know, if you haven't seen it yet, you should
• Finally, Henry Fonda was an excellent protagonist, but the whole cast is great, including a number of actors I recognized from various movies and TV shows. Probably the most fun one to point out, though, is Juror #2 played by John Fiedler. He's the balding man in glasses in this clip. And you may know him better as the original voice of Piglet from Winnie the Pooh:

Up next: The Thing from Another World, or just The Thing, from 1951, which will then be followed by John Carpenter's version from 1982. I've seen Carpenter's, and it's one of my favourites, but I haven't seen the original so I'm excited to do a direct comparison!