Cats (2019) Film Review: Curiosity Didn't Killed The Cat, But It Sure Gave It A Beating!

If there is a film that has been torn apart this year by everyone, it is this film adaptation of the 1981 Broadway musical. Ever since the first trailer has been revealed, many either shrieked in terror or turn it into a mocking stock, resulting in the film becoming yet another box office bomb before the end of 2019. With all of the scathing reviews that have been said, could the outrage be just a huge over-exaggeration? Well, one thing that people are not exaggerating of is the story, or should I say, the lack of one. To sum it all up, it's about a cat named Victoria who stumbles upon a cast of one-note archetypes as she experiences the "Jellicle Ball", a ceremony where one lucky cat can be reincarnated (killed) for a better life. The story is not technically bad, but it's the musical formula that blends up the story into a far background element. Musicals can be done extremely well on film as well as on stage, but the issue is how this film is constructed with the genre. Unlike the majority of musicals, where there is a few scenes of dialogue between a song, around 95% of the film is composed of musical numbers. It doesn't give the audience to breath, relax or take in a quiet moment whatsoever. It doesn't help that the tone of the film is kind of bizarre. It's not dark or explicit, but the cats all act like they're uncomfortably horny and the ending makes the ceremony feel cult-like and the result being rather depressing.

Well, if the story is poorly constructed, then the characters are most likely to share the same result, which they do to some degree. I'm not even going to list the characters off, since they are just an archetype of something. You got the fat cats who eat a lot, the ones who like to get in trouble, the flirtatious one, the old wise one, the one who wants to believe in his magic, the depressed one rejected by the masses due to past mistakes, etc. If there was one character that is worth mentioning, it's Idris Elba's Macavity, mostly because Elba is having so much fun and charisma in the role. The actors are either acting like themselves (but as a cat) or try to play the character with so much awkwardness you don't know whether to laugh or cringe. I will at least give credit that the actors can sing well though. The last thing to mention are the design of the cats, which is of course very puzzling. I always kept saying that animation was more fitted for the musical, but the filmmakers wanted to use motion-capture on the actors to make them look cat-like. The issue is that not only do their faces and hands not match the animal, but it just doesn't look great. When the camera is afar, it almost looks as if they are in costume, but up close clearly reveals the baffling CGI design. The other issue is that while some actors look fine with their transformation, others just look very weird. Many of the cats don't wear clothes, but if they aren't, the fur doesn't match the skin of the actors. When Elba comes in during his musical number, it just looks like Elba going commando due to Macavity having the same fur colour as Elba's skin, resulting in an uncomfortable look. So, the actors are either having a ball or trying to put out a performance while doing a great job singing, yet the CGI around them is only hurting them and the audience.

Tom Hopper is known for his acclaimed work on "The King's Speech" and "Les Miserables", which proves that he is a pretty good director. Hopper clearly had some passion for this project and there are elements that can be considered good on its own merits. The set design for one is pretty creative, such as the town hub and the oversized props to match the perspective of the cats. At times, the sets make the characters much smaller than they are, but I would say that it's still well-crafted. The visuals (if you ignore the cats and awkwardness of the effects) are actually nice as it mixes a lot of warm and cold colour, shadows, and lighting to make the world of the film pleasant to look at. The musical numbers are also for the most part well-done with the choreography and singers being great at their jobs as well as having the background and foreground elements working to its advantage. Despite all of this praise, there is still so much that Hooper did wrong. While majority of the musical numbers are well-done, the songs sung by the lead, Ian McKellen, Judi Dench, and Jennifer Hudson are so goddamn boring. Not because the songs themselves are bad, but it's the lack of direction and flatness of the number. These numbers, Hudson's scenes in general, mainly compose of the actor just staying still and singing their heart out. In a stage production, this is impressive, since one person has to memorize and masterfully sing the song in front of a live audience for a few straight minutes. The issue with these numbers though is that there is editing to show reaction shots while the singing is still occurring, which gives the impression that the number is not one-take at all. Speaking of which, the editing at times feels choppy and amateur. Not only can there be plenty of unnecessary reaction shots, but there are quick cuts thrown in as well as scenes or moments that just end out of nowhere with no context or lead-up. The cinematography is also like this, where is some scenes you have some pretty good camerawork, others feel very flat or wants to make the audience squirm with the close-ups of the character's face. So, I can't just say that Hopper is a bad filmmaker as there is some evidence in this film that confirms otherwise, but he does give off the impression that he slept halfway through production, much like I did when watching the same play as a kid.

"Cats" at times can reflect the abomination the public makes it out to be, with the story lacking structure, the musical formula being so aggressive to the point of the lack of scenes with pure dialogue, the questionable tone, the characters being one-note, the designs of the cats being bizarre, the few musical numbers that are just boring with no visual language to appease you senses, and the rather inconsistent quality of the editing and camerawork. However, I did manage find a few positives out of the film. Some actors are enjoyable to watch onscreen, the musical numbers are well-crafted in general, the set design is unique and creative, and at the very least, Hooper's flawed direction at least has a character and personality to it, which is something more than a film like "The Kitchen" or "Captain Marvel". So, does this mean I recommend for you to watch it? I think not. It's not a so bad it's good film, since there are quite a few good elements as well as only a few WTF moments than one would expect. It's not a good film in general though, since there are plenty of anger-inducing issues that many have talked about. All I would say is that it's surprisingly not the worst film I've seen this year, since I can get some things out of it, both good and bad, but unless you have a free movie ticket like I did, don't pay to see this litter.

Verdict: 4.5/10 Not the worst of the year or of all time in my opinion, but it's simply a poorly-put together film that had some potential.

Home Alone 3 (1997) Film Review: Truly Terrible or Needs Love During The Holidays?

It has been quite apparent that "Home Alone" and it's follow-up has reached the status of holiday classics. Even though "Lost In New York" has flaws, many choose to look past them and praise it as it's still a charming film with the loveable characters that audiences recognize back in 1990. While these films are beloved, the rest of the sequels have been slammed, with the 3rd film being one of the most hated, perhaps due to it being the last film in the franchise released in theatres and written by John Hughes right before his death. Does it really deserve the hate though? Well, the story takes a hit as we are introduced to a brand-new family and protagonist, unrelated to Kevin McCallister. Alex Pruitt is a young boy who is forced to stay home due to the chicken pox. Watching over his neighbourhood, he notices four thieves breaking into nearby houses, to which they leave before the police can catch them. Alex is unaware that these thieves are in fact working for a North Korean terrorist organization looking for a computer chip that Alex himself has in possession of. And, you know the rest. Family is not around to help him out and only Alex can defend his home from the criminals using homemade traps. I never hated the film due to how the McCallister family is written out of the film or the criminals working for North Korea, since it helps be a tad creative. However, the issue is that the story formula is once again the exact same. While the second film did repeat the same formula, the New York setting did at least add some freshness to the story as it feel integrated to the plot. Returning back to Chicago in a random neighbourhood feels boring, outside of the lines of the city being very cold. The formula though wouldn't be so bad if the tone of the film wasn't so childish. Even though the first two films were aimed for families, it still had some mature humour and themes. Not only are the themes not present, since the family has the right to not believe Alex, but the film feels very pandering to kids, with animal sidekicks and all. I won't lie, when I was a kid, I did love watching the film because of these elements, but as I'm older, I find majority of the jokes annoying, though there are a handful of moments that do get a chuckle out of me, mainly during the climax.

Alex Pruitt replaces Kevin McCallister as the protagonist and it's quite clear that he is a downgrade. While the kid playing Alex does a good job, it's just the personality being very flat. Alex is very monotone and not as expressive compared to Macauley Culkin. He also doesn't act much as a child as he doesn't make mistakes or misbehaves, compared to Kevin, who is a troublemaker and learns how to love and accept his family. The other family members are also generic, with the brother and sister being very neutral compared to the mocking older siblings Kevin deals with. The father is barely in the film, due to having to work, and the mother is actually pretty good. She's not as colourful as Catherine O'Hara, but she does care for Alex and loves him, despite she doesn't believe in the criminal activity. Speaking of the criminals, we got four instead of two, who sadly can't match Joe Pesci or Daniel Stern's Harv and Marv. One again, the actors do a fine job and try to get some charisma out of the forgettable group. You got the serious leader, the overly-confident female, and two goofballs that would rather eat junk food and crack jokes. The issue is that because there are four bad guys, we don't have any time to get a lot of personality out of them, which can cause them to act and behave almost as one person compared to the dynamic duo that is Harv and Marv. Mrs. Hess is just a grumpy old woman who is generally pointless as the scary-looking elder, since Alex actually interacted with her prior to the events of the film. I guess I can talk about the mouse and parrot as they are other forms of comic relief. I still find the mouse cute due to the humour that has to be done without any dialogue, but the parrot just doesn't shut up and says bad jokes with a high-pitched, annoying voice, to the point you want to strangle the damn bird! It doesn't help that there are no big name actors that are attached to this film to make people engaged, outside of a very young Scarlett Johansson playing the sister. The characters aren't unlikeable or even terrible, but they can't match the cast in the first two films.

This is the directorial debut of Raja Gosnell, who is infamous for directing mediocre and awful family films such as "Show Dogs" or "The Smurfs". I enjoy his work on the "Scooby-Doo" movies, but I can agree that he has poor taste in projects. The issue with his directing in this particular film though is that it doesn't have a cinematic feel. Despite this film having the largest budget of the sequels, Gosnell makes it feel like the cheapest. Perhaps it's due to the restriction of the neighbourhood and the house being much smaller compared to the McCallister estate, but it feels very contained and low-budget. The lack of colour in the film also makes it a bit unappealing to watch, since it's a lot of greys and interior dullness. To be fair though, the beginning of the film with the criminals does feel professionally made and the climax is handled extremely well, but it's mainly the extended period of Alex stuck in the house spying on the criminals that gives out a lazy, flat directing style. This also applies to the cinematography, which is not terrible, but feels uninspired. John Williams left the franchise, which means that his score would also be absent outside of the main title theme. Despite this, the score is pretty decent with the holiday tunes and spy-thriller beats mixed together. I also like the song that is played when Alex in the night prepares some of his traps, though I hate the song that plays after during the daytime when Alex prepares the more elaborate traps, which also plays in the end credits. Speaking of the traps, they as well as the climax are generally the best part of the film as they are very creative and mostly feel different from the traps made by McCallister in the first two films. True, there are some odd moments of slapstick applied to a trap that would generally kill someone, but that was also seen in "Lost In New York" and no one complains about it now. I like the use of both harmful/disabling traps, as well as traps that are used to distract the criminals to a part of the house. I can stretch my disbelief about Alex setting up these traps or how the criminals are surviving them, because the climax is just too fun to hate in my opinion. It's on par with the previous films on this regard, as it almost feels that the filmmakers and the actors finally get the chance to have fun and put their best efforts into the film, considering the film was leading up entirely to this payoff. It's just a shame that they didn't apply the same energy to the rest of the film. Overall, Gosnell's directing and Hugh's screenplay matches the viewer's thoughts on the film. While it's all fun and games by the climax and traps, it's pretty tedious for all parties for the majority of the film.

So, is the 3rd "Home Alone" really as bad as people say it is? In many ways, it is. The childish tone, the dull setting, a very mixed bag containing good and bad jokes, forgettable cast of characters, and generally flat directing by Raja Gosnell as well as a disappointing script by John Hughes. However, I must bring out the few good elements that can match the quality of the previous films. The score is pretty decent without Williams, there are a few good laughs that are very spread-out in the film, and the climax is generally the best part of the film that puts out as much traps, effort and heart as the first two films. So, it's not really bad, but it is quite mediocre. If you want to watch with kids or just want to see some fun traps being used, it's harmless enough and can get some entertainment out of it. But, if you want something on the same level as the previous two films or even a holiday classic, this is not that film with Christmas even being much more downplayed than usual. It's worth one viewing to make your own opinion.

Verdict: 5/10. Pretty average and bland, though the final act is genuinely pretty good for a Home Alone film.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) Film Review: Overrated Fluff Or Truly An Action Masterpiece?

The "Mad Max" franchise was a creation of George Miller and the launch for Mel Gibson's career back in the 80's, with the second film often regarded as the best of the series. A fourth film was always in developmental hell and as time went on, Miller made decisions in order to make the fourth film a soft reboot, ditching Gibson in order to potentially relaunch a new trilogy. In the post-apocalypse, Max Rockatansky is captured by Immortan Joe and his army known as the War Boys, being used as a blood donor for a War Boy named Nux. A lieutenant of Joe, Imperator Furiosa, betrays the tyrannic leader in order to save the five wives of Joe, hoping to take them to her hometown to find sanctuary. Joe unleashes his army against Furiosa, while Max manages to ally with her as well as Nux, in an attempt to survive a never-ending cat-and-mouse chase. The story is clearly not the strong suit of this film, as it's not only minimal, but rather lacking in details. Since this is a soft reboot, we don't know exactly why this world became this way, who Max was prior to the apocalypse, how society works, why people are the way they are, etc. While this is a problem, the way many view this story is an excuse for the setting and events to occur in order to make a breathtaking action flick. The tone is essentially over-the-top chaos at its finest. It's not a comedy, but it's just insane with the characters and the things that happen onscreen. However, the film is clever in how one can view its content. One can see the story carrying themes of feminism, redemption, survival, and others tied into a typical action blockbuster. Another can just take the film as a fun, entertaining piece of fluff. The themes are also balanced in a way that aren't too in your face, but not extremely subtle, since the setting and story are written to use these themes perfectly in the narrative. Maybe some can argue it's too heavy on the feminist agenda, but for me, I personally don't think that it was obsessive over that theme to the point of hijacking the narrative and film.

If there is one issue that many will agree with, it's that Max is not an interesting character in this particular installment. Max in the first three films is a very engaging character as he is a man who lost his humanity and morality after the death of his family. In the sequels, he gets pieces of his humanity little-by-little, which is a reward in this much hostile world. In "Fury Road", Max barely does anything in the story. While Tom Hardy is doing a good job, this portrayal of the character is much more of a blank slate. At first, he is hostile towards Furiosa as he only wants to look after himself, only to truly fight for her cause by the end. Not only have we seen this before, but the development isn't really shown in a dramatic way. However, many can also defend that the titular character was specifically designed to simply be a passenger or lens of the audience as the real protagonist is Furiosa. Not only does the plot heavily revolve around her and her goal, but Charlize Theron plays her with such passion. She is stern and aggressive, though she cares for the people and is not doing things out of her own regard, but because it is the moral thing to do. Essentially, she is the female counterpart of Max, and it's perhaps why Max in general is very underused. Having two people that are practically the same character is not a very interesting dynamic. Furiosa is a very good character, but the film shouldn't have been called "Mad Max" to begin with if she is truly the film's protagonist. Other characters include Nux, a crazy War Boy who becomes more human when he starts to care for the well-being of the wives, and Immortan Joe, the ruthless leader of the Wasteland who's appearance is more expressive than the character himself. There are other characters such as the wives and othe minor antagonists, but not are there too many to list, but their characters aren't extremely noteworthy and the actors are all extremely good in creating individuals who act like they have lived in the wasteland all their lives in different ways. When it comes to well-developed characters, Furiosa and Nux are mainly the highlights as they have a clear character arc while also being enjoyable onscreen for their personalities. Max, Joe, and the others aren't really bad characters, but they are necessary for this particular story and do remain memorable due to their distinct looks and features, not because of their complex or engaging depth.

George Miller is a seasoned filmmaker who tries in his power to make sure his films can be perfected as much as they can filmmaking-wise. Miller masterfully directs "Fury Road" unlike any other blockbuster in recent years. If Theron as Furiosa being the star of the film narrative-wise, Miller is the true star production-wise. The world established in the film is so visually characteristic. From the character designs, modded vehicles, vast landscapes, and the contrasting of bright and dark colours, it is a visual marvel. A lunatic playing a guitar attached to a flamethrower surrounded by speakers on a moving vehicle is so goofy and over-the-top, but it is overflowing with personality. Even though the apocalypse is supposed to be dusty, dirty, and ugly in a way, the way it is filmed looks beautiful and polished in an artistic matter. The cinematography is filled with close-ups, wide shots, panning, and other tricks that help add to the visuals of the film. The editing matches the over-the-top nature with slow-motion, multiple angles on an action moment, increasing the frame rate, basically what is best used for a film of this caliber. However, if scenes need to be much calmer compared to the action, the editing also does its trick to let the film breath. The score by Junkie XL once again matches the chaotic nature of the action beats, but also performs strong in the more dramatic beats. The score also doesn't completely overshadow the action sequences, which as I clearly been focusing on, are the highlight of the film. Since the film is an excuse for the extended action scenes, it's no surprise that the action is extremely thrilling, giving a boost of adrenaline and excitement for any action fan. It's by no means a bloody or gory film, but the action works so well because majority of it was on-camera. While there is a moment or two of CGI, the visual effects are mostly used for colouring or weather effects. The action in general was pulled off by Miller's excellent directing, the hard-working stuntman, and the designers of the vehicles, weaponry, etc. Above all, the filmmaking is as top-quality as you can get for your action blockbuster.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" is by no means my favourite action film on a personal level, but I can't deny that it is not undeserving of the praise it has got. Sure, Max and Hardy were underused and the story itself is not fully developed, but everything else is golden. From the crazy tone, well-acted characters, amazing action sequences, Miller's passionate directing, visually defined world, and the remaining combination of good music, cinematography and editing. It did deserve the attention and love, even though I find it a tad overrated. Whether this or "The Road Warrior" are your favourite of the franchise, "Fury Road" was a much-welcome and needed refreshment to the action genre.

Verdict: 9/10. A grade that is deserving for a film being made passionately and as perfected as it could have been, even if a nitpick or two is unavoidable.

Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) Non-Spoiler Film Review: If It Ain't Broke, Maybe Try Some Polish?

A year after the previous film, Spencer has started to feel insecure and a bit miserable over his stage in life as a university student and hiatus from his girlfriend, Martha. Deciding that becoming Dr. Bravestone once again could help him, he fixes Jumanji and gets sucked in. His friends go in order to save him, while Spencer's grandfather, Eddie, and his friend, Milo, get involved. Not only are the two elders are clueless about the game, but the game has changed completely as a new adventure awaits them. If you watched "Welcome to the Jungle", you know pretty much the structure of the story. I won't get into spoilers, but I will say that the film is pretty predictable. Being predictable though is not entirely a bad thing if you want the same thing again, but it will not please those that want an evolution or continuation, since many would want to be surprised rather than being one step ahead of the film. Regardless, the writing still manages to contain plenty of good jokes. In terms of which film is funnier, I might slightly lean towards the previous film, since the jokes here feel spaced out more compared to the 2017 film that had a much higher energy on jokes, though both films will guarantee some laughs out of you.

The main cast from "Welcome to the Jungle" return while a few new faces join in. I'm not getting into these characters though, since they barely changed much and the dynamic/chemistry between the four once again works off like magic. Danny DeVito plays Eddie, who is cranky and forgetful, that manages to wind up inside the avatar of Bravestone. Danny Glover plays Milo, a friend of Eddie who talks slowly and a bit much, that finds himself in the avatar of Mouse. These two constantly feud over a broken partnership in the past, though bring some laughs and a bit of heart in the process. Awkwafina plays Ming Fleetfoot, a new avatar with the skills of a thief, who is Spencer's new avatar. Lastly, Rory McCann plays Jurgen the Brutal, the new antagonist of Jumanji. While McCann can be an enjoyable actor, Jurgen is still very generic and equally boring as Van Pelt from the last film. I honestly just think that the franchise always has a villain problem, since the villains don't really need to be in the film. Despite this constant issue, the acting from the rest are great. Not only do Johnson, Black, and Hart are extremely good playing their characters, but Awkwafina is also a really fun addition. Gillan is good once again, but considering that Martha is still in control of Ruby Roundhouse, her acting isn't too experimental or interesting as the others who have to act either old, insecure, etc. If you simply ignore the villain problem, the cast of characters and actors are fantastic as an ensemble.

Jake Kasdan one again returns to direct and the results are mainly the same once more. The passion and use of on-location are once again exposed by the filmmaking. As for the colours and lighting, it feels much more unique compared to the previous installment. "Welcome to the Jungle" was mainly set in the jungle, which had a lot of greens and a touch of browns. "The Next Level" goes through different environments such as the desert and mountains, which bring out more diverse colours such as yellows, greys, and whites. The sequel does try to give viewers a different feel by leaving the jungle, despite the formula still being the same. One thing that I didn't mention in my previous review is the score by Henry Jackman, which I feel is pretty standard adventure tunes. They aren't bad, but they are far from being even remotely memorable. The visual effects didn't really improve though. In fact, I feel that they are slightly worse, since the film uses much more CGI than before due to the multitude of action scenes. Speaking of which, the action scenes are a huge step up from the first. Not only are there more, but they are once again very well-made and entertaining. Highlights include the rope bridge sequence and the moment where Eddie beats up about 50 guys. I would also say that the camerawork improved a bit, as it doesn't feel as flat compared to the previous film. So, Kasdan does a good job returning, though he needs to learn that he can stretch his creative side, much as the film needs to stretch that muscle.

"Jumanji: The Next Level" is a fun movie for sure, as the elements that worked so well in the first carry over. From the excellent cast, good amount of jokes, engaging action set-pieces, and a much diverse visual look of colour and on-location sets, the film almost stands up to the predecessor. However, it does have a few issues. The villain is unmemorable once again, the effects are poor, the score is still generic, and it just doesn't feel really fresh due to the predictability of the story. Does this mean that you should avoid seeing it? Of course not! I personally believe the entertainment factor alone is worth the price of admission. I would just say that if you either wanted a much different sequel, this ain't it whatsoever. Simply put, if you liked the same old trick, you would still be pleased indeed.

Verdict: 7/10. Not as good as the first one, but good is still worth a watch in my opinion! Check it out in theatres this weekend!

Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle (2017) Film Review: A Different, But Fun Update

Who knew that a reboot to a 22-year old cult classic starring the late Robin Williams that changes the concept and formula in order to modernize the franchise almost made a billion dollars despite all of the pessimism leading up to its release? That's the magic I tend to find out as I discuss "Welcome to the Jungle" as "The Next Level" will be released this week. Set in modern-day, a group of teens who find themselves in detention find an old video game console that is secretly the board game known as Jumanji, which changed its properties over the years. As the four begin to play, they get sucked inside the game, portraying the characters that they selected. Using their abilities and teamwork, they try to find a way to beat as well as leave the game. It's a refreshing idea to see the players inside Jumanji rather than Jumanji forcing itself into reality for the second time. I like the idea that the game world had to be more modern and change its world due to transitioning into a video game. With that said though, that means that some elements of the original are altered or removed. Some creatures or hazards are not seen such as quicksand or man-eating plants, but I feel that's due to the attempt to avoid cramming nostalgic callbacks into the face of the audience. Another thing that is removed is the amount of drama, as the original had a very dramatic feel whenever we focus on Alan Parrish and his realization about being stuck in the game and thrown into the future. Instead, the reboot focuses on adding a much needed dose of comedy that was not highly present in the original, despite William's involvement. The humour is very effective with plenty of witty dialogue, but also some good physical comedy. It rarely comes across as annoying to my surprise.

A film like this can only succeed if the characters are likeable and enjoyable, which they soar highly on. Dwayne Johnson plays the avatar of Spencer, a nerdy teen who is afraid of a lot of things yet choose a character that is meant to be very brave and strong. Kevin Hart plays the avatar of Fridge, a jock who bickers with Spencer a lot as he's in the body of a rather small and weak character. Jack Black plays the avatar of Bethany, the popular girl who unknowingly picks an intellectual, but fat male. Karen Gillian plays the avatar of Martha, a shy, insecure girl who embodies a female warrior and also happens to be Spencer's crush. Lastly, Nick Jones plays the avatar of Alex, a teen that was stuck inside the game since 1996 and is afraid of losing his last life. All four of the characters are really well-written as they grow as people throughout the film. The acting is extremely well-done as the actors portray the teen characters not only well, but the dialogue always matches to the age and personalities of the characters, which is credit given more to the writers, but the actors also convincingly pull off the lines to make it seem natural. If there is one character that can't match the main cast, it is Van Pelt, played by Bobby Cannavale. He just comes across as a generic villain that the characters need to defeat, which is inferior to the 1995's version who is a crazed hunter trying to kill Alan Parrish. You can argue that he is mainly generic due to the video game nature, but it still doesn't save an extremely forgettable character in a cast of memorable performances.

Jake Kasdan did a decent, though safe, directing duty as he takes us into the world of Jumanji. Though Kasdan is not considered a great director, you can tell that he has passion for the film he's making. A good portion of the film is shot on location in Hawaii, while some sets were made for specific set-pieces. The lighting and colours are also great as the world breathes a lot of luscious greens and the nighttime scenes are shot well for the viewer to make out what's happening onscreen. The camerawork can range from being pretty good to being amateur-level, which is a bit of an issue, since there can be a bit of shakiness during some scenes. The visual effects are not very good though, as it's pretty fake and not rendered very convincingly. The original Jumanji also had some awkwards effects to the point where they are kind of bad at some points, but they at least have some personality behind them. The CGI here is just typical, cheap, bland effects. The action sequences are executed well though, as they not only use plenty of stunts and on-camera effects, but they are also fun to watch to the point that many can overlook the bad effects. Like, how can you not smile by Johnson's overpowered strength and Gillan's drawn-out fighting style? One last issue to point out is that while Kasdan did a good job, it didn't feel very stylistic enough to make his directing truly stand out. Regardless, Kasdan had enough passion in the project to pull off a well-made film.

"Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle" is how you do a reboot and comedy-adventure well with a funny script, enjoyable acting from the main cast, solid directing, and a sense of entertainment joy from the jungle exteriors to the light-hearted tone. True, the villain, effects, camerawork, and lack of style to Kasdan's directing can damper the quality, but the film itself was mainly meant to be a fun time that doesn't take itself too seriously. As for comparing to the original, you shouldn't. The original is beloved due to the imagination of the story, the very dramatic moments, William's charisma, and Joe Johnstan's directorial vision. The reboot is simply too different to directly compare, but rather treat it as a film bearing the name, but delivers a different type of quality. Hopefully, the sequel can be as good, if not, better than before.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good, could have been great if it wasn't from some issues that could easily have been fixed. A blast of enjoyment whenever the time calls for it!

Bambi II (2006) Film Review: The Most Respectful Direct-to-Video Disney Sequel

So, a little context before I start the review and why I'm reviewing this film to begin with. You see, in one of my assignments for university, I chose to talk about "Bambi". Doing so, I rewatched it in order to get that sense of nostalgia while also trying to point out the qualities of the film. Because of the film being fresh in my mind, I started to actually get curious about the direct-to-DVD sequel that I never saw as a child whatsoever. When a friend of mine lended me his Disney+ account, the first thing I watched outside of the first episode to "The Mandalorian" was this sequel. So, I felt I need to talk about this film, since it was the only film I was truly curious of watching for the streaming service, as well as the lack of attention it gets from other DVD Disney sequels, which range from notoriously awful to pretty good. Not many people talk about this film compared to say sequels to "Aladdin", "The Lion King", "Lilo and Stitch" or "Cinderella". A shame, since this is perhaps the film that is the most similar to the spirit to the original, which is important since Walt Disney proclaimed that "Bambi" was his favourite film he has ever made. With all of that out of the way, I can move onto the story, which chronicles the period of Bambi being looked after his father during the late winter and early spring. While this does sound pointless, which it kind of is, the film focuses on the relationship between Bambi and his father as well as transitioning from a child into adolescence. The film mainly features cute and wholesome moments, while sprinkling in some intensity as Man still hunts in the area. Similar to the original, it's a film that might not win everyone over, since some might not be able to sit through a movie that's 90% cute and innocence. I however don't mind a film like this, since the first film was very much like this, yet not done to the point of insulting or numbing the viewer. I will say though the joke of Flower's flatulence was a bit cringe-worthy, though the majority of the film is somewhat charming and fun.

Unlike the original, the character of Bambi did change quite a bit. Not only does he talk much more than before, but he's much less of a blank slate as he plays the role of the shy, immature kid trying to win over his father's love. Although it's a bit uncanny to hear him talk so much, I did get used to it and I bought the character goal that the film gave to Bambi, since it makes sense for a kid wanting to bond with an estranged father, but not knowing how. It also helps that Bambi is once again adorable to watch and certain cute moments do get a chuckle out of me. Bambi's father, voiced by Sir Patrick Stewart, is basically the typical deadbeat dad as he is more focused on his duties and making Bambi mature, rather than being a caring, loving father. I manage to understand why he feels this way though, and Stewart voices the character with boldness but a touch of pity. I however can't stand the cliche where the relationship between the father and son is shaken, because the father made the mistake of giving the image that he doesn't care for his son by sending him away. The film tries making the event work due to the context and lead-up, but it's still so generic and dry that you get angry rather than feel sad for the moment. The side characters don't take away too much time away from Bambi or his father. Thumper is the same, except he now has to look after his sisters. Flower gets much more time onscreen compared to the original, but even that's not saying much. Feline also gets more screentime and still acts as Bambi's crush, though they do interact with each other. Friend Owl is just there to give advice to Bambi's father and help him in finding a doe to take care of Bambi. The only other new character to note is Ronno, a more developed fawn that acts as Bambi's rival and constant bully, who I find to be both annoying but realistic at the same time to interfere with Bambi's life. The characters are generally good and likeable in their own way, with the main focus on Bambi and his father holding the film. I would say though that if you are the people that can't stand an entire movie of cute and innocence, the characters are not going to help you much at all.

The animation is one of the standout elements of the film. As you might know, the direct-to-DVD sequels from Disney either have downgraded animation or cleaned-up animation compared to the predecessor. Not only is "Bambi II" one of the sequels to get the better animation, but the animation itself tries in great detail to capture the feel of the original. Details such as the blurred backgrounds, the natural colours of a season, or the extreme colours and heavy shadows presented in the intense scenes are replicated to make you feel as if the filmmakers were the same ones behind the first film. However, while I appreciate the animators for trying to replicate the magic of the animation, I still prefer the 1942 film, since the elements blended together for a much more artistic feel and shots that can almost be used as a painting. The sequel doesn't match this feel, whether it's the characters being too cleaned-up or the animators not having a picturesque mindset in regards to making the characters and backgrounds blend to be one. Regardless, the animation is still very good given the smaller budget and attempt to capture the original's style. There are songs put in that is sung in the background that are very distracting and poorly done. The first film did have a song or two, but it is to reenforce the season and month. The songs in the sequel are too contemporary and fluffy that it makes me cringe, though thankfully it's only two and they are only used in the beginning and end of the film. The last thing to point out is the pacing of the film. I will give credit for the filmmakers to match the pacing to that of the original, where both films mainly showcase a few days of Bambi's life whether it's just him playing with friends or escaping from Man. It would have been so easy for them to make it more modern and have a big adventure or lots of comedy and thrills, but they knew that they had to respect the original and its film structure, which is why this as well as the efforts for the animation is why I call this film the most respectful of the Disney sequels as it is the most in spirit and aesthetic to the original compared to the other sequels.

Is "Bambi II" a great film? Not really. The songs are bad, the animation isn't as effective as the first film, and it really is meant for people who can withstand a ton of cutesy, wholesome moments for the majority of the film like myself. However, it is indeed a good sequel with the lack of story to fit the coming-of-age narrative, enjoyable characters, very nice animation, and pacing that reflects and respects the first film to the fullest. It is for sure one of the better direct-to-DVD sequels that Disney put during that period and one that should get a bit more recognition for its efforts. Considering I love the 1942 classic, I found myself liking this sequel just fine.

Verdict: 7/10. Simply good and a much-watch if you love the original or enjoy watching cute things do cute things. If not though, you might need to look somewhere else.

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame (1996) Film Review: The Best Of The Disney Renaissance

If you recall my review of "Tarzan", you all would be aware of the Disney Renaissance and the classics that came out during this period. The odd thing about this period is that the quality of the films are all on to par, but it is only certain titles that seem to be very much beloved more than others. Although "Tarzan" is one of my favourites, it's not the best from the period in my opinion. That honour has to go to Disney's adaptation of Victor Hugo's mature novel. The story is about a hunchback named Quasimodo who is sheltered in the bell tower of Notre Dame by his adoptive father, Judge Claude Frollo. Frollo constantly reminds Quasimodo to never leave the tower as the people will shaun him as a monster. Quasimodo disobeys his father, where he befriends a gypsy girl named Esmeralda who Frollo is infatuated with, beginning a manhunt to find her and the gypsy hideout, to which Quasimodo must aid in. Even though I'm making the story sound complicated, it's actually pretty easy to follow regardless of your age when watched. However, this is not a true adaption of Hugo's material, as his book is much more depressing and the characters much less sympathetic. Fans of Hugo will probably despise the film trying to be family-friendly, but the strange thing is that this is perhaps the most adult and darkest of Disney's animated projects. While the book focuses on the corrupt power of the church, the film centres heavily on religion and the regards to faith, sin, lust, damnation, prejudice, genocide, and even materialism. Keep in mind that this was made for general audiences, yet it conveys the themes and dark story material extremely well to that broad demographic. Despite all of the heavy story elements, the film adds a dose of light-hearted fun and comedy, to which people also complain about. For many, the childish moments damper on an adult story, but for me, I don't mind these inclusions. It's unrealistic to me that Disney could make this film without appealing to children and personally, I can look past these implementations that take less than half of the tone compared to the engaging story and themes.

Quasimodo is a very unique and perhaps, the best protagonist from Disney in my opinion. Sure, he's kindhearted, gentle, and shy, but it's his journey and struggles that are very compelling. Unlike 99% of the Disney leads, Quasimodo deals with a lot of things. He wants to fit into society, despite his appearance, he wants to please his father figure, even though Frollo hates him behind his back, and he wants to get together with Esmeralda, even though she falls in love with someone else and only views Quasimodo as a good friend. Quasimodo only achieves one of these goals, which is for society to accept him as a human being, yet throughout the film, he is constantly being treated with no respect outside of the few friends he has and even fails to win Esmeralda's heart, which is very rare in a Disney film for the main character to not find true love. Quasimodo, despite his appearance, is the most human protagonist in my opinion. Esmeralda is also a pretty good female character as she has a snarky, but kind personality, fights for the cause of her people as well as the relationships between the three male characters are well-established given the amount of time and actions they share. Frollo is highly regarded as the best villain Disney has to offer and it shows. This is due to his complexity of his moral mind, where he believes that he is doing evil things for God and that he tries to undo every sin he makes, despite the fact that he is, in his core, unredeemable due to his harsh nature. He blurs the lines of being both a villain that's despicable, but almost likeable due to his human nature. Phoebus is the wise-cracking, but noble captain of the guard who falls in love with Esmeralda. Some feel that his inclusion is pointless and that Quasimodo should have been with Esmeralda, to which I disagree completely. Not only is the chemistry between Phoebus and Esmeralda somewhat established, but it makes sense that Quasimodo doesn't get everything he wishes for, but rather what he needed, which was to fit amongst the people, not being in a romance. The most polarizing characters in the film are the gargoyles, who are the comic relief of the film. Like I said earlier, I don't mind them due to the film needing to be family-friendly. It also helps that the film hints at them being simply in Quasimodo's imagination as they never interact with any of the main characters outside of him whatsoever and it makes plenty of sense due to the isolation he has endured. So, the characters are extremely well-written, developed, and likeable, along with the voices that are attached to them are also so fitting to these personalities.

The animation is one of the best Disney has to offer. The film incorporates CGI in order to make Paris look as grand as possible with great success. The animators choose to not overuse the CGI though, so it doesn't look distracting or take away the appreciation of the hand-drawn format. The colours are a nice balance of soft, dark, and gothic. While there are colourful scenes, they aren't overly-saturated compared to previous Disney films. I also love the character animation and designs, especially the facial expressions as it helps bring the characters more to life. The only thing that can truly rival the fantastic animation is the soundtrack, which not only enhance the musical element, but delivers the best music from Alan Menken. Songs like The Bells Of Notre Dame, Out There, God Help The Outcasts, Heaven's Light, and Hellfire have great lyrics and rhythm that please the ears, which is helped by the almost mythical choir in some songs. The comedy songs such as Topsy Turvy, A Guy Like You, and The Court of Miracles are fine, though I personally don't like comedy songs as a whole since they rarely match the beauty or art-like nature of more serious songs. A Guy Like You is regarded as the worst song by many, due to the gargoyles and how it feels like a slap in the face, since Quasimodo is getting his hopes up about Esmeralda, only to see her in love with Phoebus. It is my least favourite song in the soundtrack for sure, but I don't despise it and it makes sense in its inclusion musical-wise. Even the score and instrumentals in the non-musical scenes are great, the highlight being the score used in the climatic battle between the people and Frollo's guard, purely due to the gothic energy and the booming choir. All of this combined becomes my favourite soundtrack, with "Tarzan" being my second favourite.

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is a low-key masterpiece. With a mature story, thematic depth, great characters, fantastic animation, and wonderful soundtrack, this is what happens when Disney uses all of its potential. I know people will not agree with my standards as they either hate the diversions from the book or the need for comedy relief and lighthearted moments, but it's something that needed to be done in order for a film like this to be made. You might think these thoughts, but you can't deny how amazing a film like this came out from a studio that today either acts lazy or panders to children. There have been great films for sure such as "Tarzan", "The Princess and the Frog" (cough might review this soon cough), "Tangled", and "Zootopia", but compared to this scale, none has surpassed this quality in my eyes 23 years later.

Verdict: 10/10. Underrated is a damnation of an exaggeration. Watch it for the first time or to fuel some nostalgia!

The World's End (2013) Film Review: Weak Installment Or Underappreciated?

Well, since I reviewed "Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels" earlier this week, I guess I should review another film from Great Britain. I decided to pick the last installment from Simon Pegg's Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy, which happens to be the less acknowledged and talked-about. The film centres on Gary King, who reunites his old friends and takes them back to their hometown in order to complete a pub crawl that they never completed in their youth, even though his friends have grown up and changed. When they return to their hometown of Newton Haven, they are shocked to learn that the entire town has been replaced by alien androids who are trying to take over humanity. The gang decides to continue the pub crawl however, in order to avoid being detected by the aliens and to figure out a plan of escape. Comparing the story to "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz", it feels more underdeveloped than these films. "Shaun of the Dead" behaved very much as a zombie film, "Hot Fuzz" behaved very much as a buddy cop film, "The World's End" doesn't feel much like an alien invasion film. The first act takes a while in order for the characters to learn about the aliens, focusing on King and his struggle to grow up. Unlike the films mentioned, the first act not only drags, but the film still brings up King's struggle. While the previous two films essentially ignores the first act after the zombies or murders start to show up, this film actually carries on this plot point, which can cause the film to feel bothersome as people don't want to see characters argue with King as it is not the biggest problem in their situation. It also affects the tone to an extent, since the drama and serious nature of it clashes heavily with the film, unlike the other films from the trilogy. With that said though, the film still delivers the comedy that the trilogy is known for. Whether it's witty dialogue or action sprinkled with laughs, it can hold its own as a comedy by itself or with the more popular films in the trilogy.

Simon Pegg is always great to see, and Gary King is a character only Pegg can play. Despite the story forcing the view that he needs to grow up, he's still an enjoyable character who is not only a goofball, but is also smart in his own way against the aliens. Of course, you can't have Pegg without his friend, Nick Frost, who plays Andy Knightly, the old best friend of King. Unlike his previous characters in the trilogy, he is much more intellectual, angry, and a badass warrior. Other characters include Sam Chamberlain, a fling of King and a woman who joins the gang once she discovers of the aliens, Oliver Chamberlain, the brother of Sam, played by Martin Freeman, Steven Prince, a friend of King who is in love with Sam, and Pierce Brosnan plays Guy Shepherd, an android who attempts to negotiate with the group of friends. The androids themselves are unique with an emphasis on the colour blue, as their blood and glowing lights from the eyes and mouths share the visually-popping colour. The characters are generally acted well and behave realistically to the circumstances. Although they are enjoyable and have a sense of comradery, it's not as strong as the previous films. I think the issue is that not only do they mainly argue with each other most of the time, but you don't get that sense of friendship between the characters. Perhaps they were written like this in mind, but it results in a chemistry that feels underdeveloped in a way. Regardless, the characters themselves are still fun to watch thanks to the talent attached to them.

Edgar Wright once again directs and co-writes the film alongside Pegg. The duo are responsible with the trilogy and Wright still manages to direct comedy and action spectacularly. It still maintains the witty charm, slick style, and fast pace, but the main draw in this film is the action, which I personally think is the best in the trilogy. "Shaun of the Dead" was more comedic in the zombie-slaying, "Hot Fuzz" had the clever gimmick of the protagonists not killing the villains in the shootout, but "The World's End" goes for epic, unarmed combat. Sure, it feels a bit unrealistic that the friends somehow manage to fight like professionals, despite no indication of how they learn to fight, but honestly, the fights are just so entertaining to nitpick on. The cinematography by Bill Pope is also great with some long takes, good use of slow-motion, and handheld movement to give off the tight, chaotic nature of the fights. The soundtrack is also well done as usual, seeing that Wright knows exactly where to place music in his films. The effects in general are also well done with the modest budget as the androids prosthetics and CGI effects are pulled off very well. If there is one thing I felt Wright did poorly, it's that the ending was way too stuffed with the social commentary. I won't try spoiling on how the conflict is resolved, but the themes of technology exposure, slaves to the system, prejudice, and the morals of humanity are suddenly squeezed in a rather obvious way, not to mention that King's character arc is also a thematic journey. The conclusions to the other films were more subtle and at least had one theme to cover, whereas Wright decided to cram in all of these themes in order to make the film look more thought-provoking than it really is. I however won't blame Wright or Pegg for trying to make the final installment to their trilogy to be more grand, since that's the nature of trilogies.

"The World's End" is clearly the weakest film in the Cornetto trilogy, as the film doesn't reach the same fun levels with the forceful use of the serious moments, unnecessary, time-consuming character arc, and an overstuffed ending of themes really affect the product as a whole that makes it an underwhelming conclusion to some. However, I appreciate a lot from this film despite the issues. With great comedy, awesome action, enjoyable characters, creative directing, nice cinematography and a fun soundtrack, the film almost rivals Wright's previous works from these qualities. Despite the use of the themes and drama, I can still see it as a fun sci-fi comedy that is a blast to watch. It may not be the finale to a fan-favourite trilogy people were expecting, but it sure is another home run for Wright and Pegg.

Verdict: 7.5/10. An enjoyable film if you ignore the negatives, but you still can't deny a Wright film no matter the quality!

Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels (1998) Film Review: A British Masterpiece.

When a group of friends-in-crime find themselves in debt of half a million pounds to a crime lord named Harry, they plan to steal from a small gang next door. Unaware to them, Harry is in pursuit of two valuable double-barrelled shotguns. As multiple parties get in involved with the guns, drugs, and cash however, a full-on battle begins to heat up. Crime stories like these usually involve surprises and unexpected turns, so I won't spoil much of the film. What I will say is how the story is cleverly written to involve the multiple characters as they are all tied to Harry in some way, which results in tension, comedy or violent chaos. The story might be a bit confusing at times, but it's not to the point where you need to pay attention to every scene of dialogue in order to understand what's going on. The tone is that classic mix of comedy and seriousness. The comedy isn't hilarious, but it works since the jokes come from the personalities of the characters or instances of grounded oddities. It's quite similar to the tone Quentin Tarantino is known for.

The cast of characters is widely ranged with an ensemble cast leading the film. I will try to talk about the ones worthwhile. Eddie, played by Nick Moran, is the leader of the group who gets the four of them in debt. He is the smartest of the group and plans the heist, while hanging out in his father's pub, who is played by Sting. A young Jason Statham plays Bacon, the cockney member of the group who acts as the hotheaded, tough guy. Vinnie Jones plays Big Chris, Harry's debt collector that has his son tag along as he ensures people to not mess with Harry. Barry, played by the late Lenny McLean, is Harry's enforcer who always seems to run into trouble with Harry's orders. Lastly, Harry, played by P. H. Moriarty, is the antagonistic crime lord that has a bad reputation for his cunningness and power, all while operating at a sex shop. There are way more characters than what I've listed, but trying to cover them all would take way too long. The actors do a fantastic job in their roles and blend into them so well, considering few of the actors were associated with crime prior to the film. The comedic characters are enjoyable, as they don't get on your nerves despite their over-the-top performances. The ruthless characters also feel realistic and showcases a fictional, but realistic depiction of the criminal world of England. One could say that the overwhelming cast of characters could probably lose the viewer at times and could make the story hard to follow, but you can't deny on how well-acted and memorable the cast is.

Guy Ritchie's directorial debut is one that makes me feel annoyed in retrospective. Ritchie for the past few years hasn't made anything good with "Aladdin" and "King Arthur" stinking up his resume. It's a shame, since this film is not only his best, but one that proves that he has creative talent. The direction is a mix of amateur and professional. The grainy footage and small sets give you the indication of an indie production, but the direction of the action and comedy is so perfectly captured that it feels that Ritchie had multiple years of experience prior to making the film, to which he barely did in reality. The cinematography also matches this blend really well, pulling a gritty, but fresh look towards the feature. Ritchie is known for his use of slow-motion in his films, which in films such as "Aladdin",  comes off as irritating, pointless, and makes Zack Snyder more justifiable in his usage of the flashy technique. Although the slow-motion is used in this film, it is barely used and while it is pointless, it's not irritating and it actually proves effective whenever it's used as it's not used for the action sequences of gunplay. The soundtrack is also as well done as it can be, with the most notable songs being used in the iconic ending. Not much to say, other than that Ritchie somehow pulls off a Quentin Tarantino approach to his film that feels distinctly his style and British charm.

What else can I say about "Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels"? With clever writing, charming cast, fantastic directing, nice soundtrack, witty humour, and a cockney approach to the crime genre, what can be added to this phenomenal piece of cinema? I don't care if the story is a bit convoluted, since many crime stories are convoluted in general. In fact, I purposely refused to talk much about the story and standout scenes, since it is such a special treat for those who haven't seen this film. Go check it out as soon as you can!

Verdict: 10/10. The best film from Great Britain and one that outshines one filmmaker's legacy. It must be seen to be believed!

Hitman: Agent 47 (2015) Film Review: Clumsy, Messy, But Acts Professional.

In my previous review, I discussed about the 2007 "Hitman", to which I ripped apart. I also mentioned that this was supposed to be the more beloved film by the fanbase, while the 2015 film is considered inferior and one of the worst video game adaptations. Personally, I don't get what people think of these days. The film starts off as a woman named Katia is being pursued by Agent 47, while being protected by a man named John Smith. Tables are reversed though as 47 was actually trying to protect her from Smith, who is an enhanced soldier. 47 and Katia have to team up to find the creator of the Agent program who happens to be Katia's father, as Katia learns that she herself is an Agent like 47. The story is like an odd blend of Codename 47 and Absolution, where 47 is trying to kill his creator and in the latter, chooses to protect a young girl who was part of the same program. I give credit that the story is easier to follow than the 2007 film, and attempts to use materials from the games. However, that still doesn't change the fact that the story is still generic. In fact, the narrative structure feels like a "Terminator" film at times, with Smith and 47 being almost cybernetic assassins and Katia having to be protected from either of them. Another thing I like is how the film doesn't try to force easter eggs and fan-service down my throat, compared to its predecessor. It focuses on being a film first, even if the film is not great.

Rupert Friend is perfectly casted as 47. He looks much older than Olyphant, has similar facial structure as the character, and gives out a monotone performance that 47 is known for. People complain about how his head is not completely bald, as well as the barcode being part of his shaven hair and not a tattoo, but I personally don't care about these changes as Friend delivers a much better performance that is the closest we can get to seeing 47 brought into live-action. Zachary Quinto is good as the antagonistic John Smith, though can come across as generic at times. Katia is well-acted and is engaging in some scenes, however she is bland in others. The rest of the characters more or less fill a typical role, such as the evil head of an organization or the troubled scientist. They are cast fine and act fine, but they are essentially forgettable. If there is one character that pisses off the fanbase, it is Diana Burnwood. In the 2007 film, she wasn't shown on-screen, let alone participated in the plot. Here, not only do we see her as a completely different ethnicity, but also sends another Agent to kill 47 at the end, which is the opposite of what is essentially 47's only human connection in the franchise. Even though the cast of characters are generic overall, I personally take them over the 2007 film, mainly due to Friend's superior performance as 47.

Just like the first reboot, this film is directed by another obscure European director, Aleksander Bach, who knows how to make a more visually pleasing film for the most part. Compared to the dirty, almost unfiltered look of the 2007 film, the 2015 film goes for a more cleaned-up, sleek look that while looks artificial at times, at least makes the film visually engaging. Even though the film is much lower budget than a typical blockbuster, it looks very crisp. Of course, the CGI would be fake-looking and the film tries to avoid using it as much as it can. The cinematography is actually very good with lots of wide shots and nice composition. The score by Marco Beltrami is shockingly awful, as it is mainly just the generic main theme playing in each of the action sequences. The action sequences is where it can make or break the film for fans. Let's talk about the good stuff first. The set-pieces are great such as the car chase shoot-out, there's some decent violence and the gunplay is mostly awesome to watch. However, we once again reach the issue of 47 killing too many people. To be fair, he avoids killing cops and is killing hired mercenaries instead, compared to the 2007 film. There's also the complaint that the action is too flashy or over-the-top for 47, seeing how the franchise is all about stealth. I don't mind this, since it feels more like Absolution when it comes to its inspiration and 47 is not only a highly trained assassin to withstand the odds, but he at least uses things from the games such as his piano wire, Silverballers, hand-to-hand combat, etc. If there is one real issue with the action, it is that the stunts and editing are pretty bad. Because of the rapid editing during hand-to-hand combat, particularly with the fights between 47 and Smith, you can tell that they did this in order to hide the stunt doubles for the actors. It is inexcusable, though that doesn't destroy the action. The filmmaking is actually very solid, even though there are some issues from the score and action.

"Hitman: Agent 47" is nowhere near the best video game adaptation, let alone a perfect film based on the games. With a mostly generic story, forgettable cast of characters, mediocre CGI, repetitive score, as well as the awful stunts and editing during the action. However, the film offers a pretty good performance from Friend as 47, very competent directing from Bach, great cinematography, and some awesome action sequences and gunplay. That's more I can say and get out of the 2007 film. Both Hitman films aren't very special, and I will always say that the franchise is more suited (no pun intended) to television. However, if you wanted to watch a live-action 47 kicking ass, this film is the best you can get.

Verdict: 5.5/10. At best, a harmless, fun popcorn flick. At worst, another stain in the perfect franchise that is Hitman.

Hitman (2007) Film Review: The Not Very Silent Assassin...

With Hitman 2 turning a year old, it is time I looked at the two films based on the iconic video game franchise. It's surprising to even think two films exist, despite the franchise not being as mainstream as many other franchises. The first film was released in 2007, coming out just after what was regarded as one of the best in the franchise, Hitman: Blood Money. The film follows Agent 47, an assassin working for The Organization. When he was ordered to kill the Russian president, he succeeds, but realized that the contract was set up, as the president apparently survived the assassination attempt. In reality, the body double set up the contract in order to take the presidential position, while also ordering a hit on 47 in order to tie loose ends. 47 escapes along with the mistress of his target in order to exact his revenge. In case you can't tell, the story is overly-complicated and unnecessary, since the franchise is not known for their gripping stories. The film also changes elements from the games, such as 47 not being a clone and The Organization being a company that takes in orphaned boys to work for them as hitmen. Diana is barely in the film and Agent Smith has a completely different role compared to the games. Speaking of which, they even show two girls playing Blood Money during an action scene, which is just plain stupid. The tone does stay serious however, and the filmmakers did at least try making the film pay homage to the games as much as they can , even though they should have focused on making a more coherent story.

Timothy Olyphant feels somewhat miscast as Agent 47. Although he did shave his head bald and can get the brutal nature of 47 right, his face doesn't match the character as he looks relatively young. In the games, 47 has very defined cheekbones and looks like he's in his early 40's. Olyphant looks like a 20 year old in the part. I also don't like the choice to make 47 long for romance or human connection, since that is far from his character in the games. I understand that since he's not a clone who was constructed the way he is, rather an orphan, it still doesn't change how the writers clearly didn't get the character of 47 right, especially in the action scenes, which we will get to later. Belicolf, the antagonist of the film, is pretty generic, though does act like a target that 47 would hunt down. Agent Smith is more serious compared to the games, where he is a complete screw-up, perhaps trying to fit with the tone of the film, which I don't understand why they needed to change the character at all to the point that he is unrecognizable from his role in the games. Lastly, there's Nika, Belicolf's mistress and the sort-of love interest for 47. Although they never get together, let alone form a romantic chemistry, her inclusion actually pisses me off. Not only does she barely add anything to the movie, but the fact that she develops Stockholm Syndrome and attempts to sleep with 47, as well as 47 making a human connection with her, triggers the hell out of me. She is the worst character in the film, mainly due to how the writers were forcing this connection for 47 and how she feels unnecessary to the overall plot. As you can tell, the cast of characters are not really strong. Olyphant might be trying, but none of the characters or actors come across as good.

Xavier Gens does a shockingly poor job directing this film as there are so many mistakes in multiple departments that the director needs to be in charge of. For one, the film doesn't have a unique flair from Gens, it feels pretty generic as an action film. The camerawork can be decent at best, but amateur at worst. The editing is downright horrible. From repeating shots to white flashes in order to jump-cut, it's is completely embarrassing. It is the action sequences however that break the film for me in my opinion. Most of the scenes are gunplay that fits more with an Arnold Schwarzenegger flick than a Hitman film with the constant spray of blood. The sword fight scene is hilarious due to the fake swords and poor stunts, but the worst part is that the action and stealth scenes don't get the character of 47. In this film, 47 kills plenty of special forces and guards, which some could have been completely avoidable if 47 didn't get so excited over killing people. Many fans will tell you that the best way to play Hitman is to become a silent assassin, meaning no casualties and no evidence. With this film, it feels like some newbie playing the game for the first time by killing everyone instead of actually being stealthy and quiet. Gens clearly didn't know what he was doing when he was given this project.

"Hitman" has absolutely nothing going for a general audience. With a nonsensical story, generic characters, terrible filmmaking, mediocre action, and the overall cheapness of the film, there are much better action films to watch or even better video-game adaptations to watch. As for the fans, you will only get off to various easter eggs and Olyphant's miscast role as 47, that is if you just care about silly fan-service rather than a well-made film. Overall, this film feels like a generic action flick that only uses the video game franchise in order to get the fanbase to watch it, which is pathetic.

Verdict: 3/10. Not the worst film I've seen or one that makes me enraged, but there's nothing much to look at compared to the reboot.

The Jungle Book (1994) Film Review: The Best Live-Action Disney Remake...Period!

With Disney+ approaching us in the coming days, it's time for me to bring up a forgotten gem that even the streaming service forgot to include. While many might be aware of the 2016 Jungle Book remake from Jon Favreau, many would forget that the very first live-action remake from Disney was back in 1994, and it also turned out to be the Jungle Book. When a young boy named Mowgli ends up in the jungle, he grows up adapting to the landscape, befriending animals as well as learning to speak the various languages. As an adult, he encounters a grown-up Katherine Brydon, his long-lost friend from his childhood. Her fiancee, Captain Boone, is willing to put Mowgli behind bars, but is convinced by his peers to let him be educated by Katherine, as he might reveal the long lost treasure of Monkey City, which Mowgli has seen firsthand. As you can clearly tell, this is nothing like the source material whatsoever. In fact, it sounds more like a Tarzan story rather than a Jungle Book movie. However, I feel that's part of the film's charm. Besides, the 2016 remake makes some highly questionable story changes, especially in the ending. The film is more of a romantic adventure, that gives off vibes of Indiana Jones, which explains the hard PG rating. Although it is fun and families can watch it, the film has some dark moments with villains getting killed, blood, and how the film for the most part takes itself very seriously. However, that's what makes this film stands out. It's not afraid to divert from kid-friendly romantic-comedy to adult action-adventure.

Jason Scott Lee is really good as Mowgli. Sure, he doesn't look Indian at all, but his charisma and range of acting carries the role. Hell, even the child actor who plays Mowgli is really good. Lena Hedley plays Katherine, which I always find funny in retrospect. Her performance as a bubbly, kind yet intelligent women is opposite to her cruel and complex role as Cersei in "Game of Thrones", but all actors have to start somewhere. Also, there is a scene where he stares out of a window, which I find hilarious as that's probably why she was chosen to play Cersei in the first place. Cary Elwes also plays an against-type role. Instead of playing the witty hero, he plays the despicable Captain Boone, who still has his charisma intact to stand out from being a generic villain. As for the side characters, all of the actors perfectly fit their characters. Sam Neill plays Katherine's concerned father, John Cleese plays the comedic family doctor, and the side villains all have distinct personalities and looks thanks to the diverse performances of the various actors. As for the cast of animals, well they don't speak whatsoever. Despite the lack of dialogue, the well-trained animals manage to behave like the beloved characters. Baloo is goofy and friendly, Bagheera is the careful eye that observes Mowgli, King Louie is over the top and the most expressive actor in the film, and Shere Khan is the cunning predator that hunts those that break the jungle law. The only character that isn't well-executed is Kaa, who is not only made from CGI and puppetry, but also the servant to King Louie rather than Shere Khan, albeit it is a smart change. Outside of that complaint, the entire cast is perfectly cast and acted, both human and animal.

The director of this film is Stephan Sommers, who is best known for his work on the 1999 film "The Mummy", which is a film that has its fans and haters. Due to this, many will think this film is on the same level as that film, which is overly campy and made for big set pieces. Surprisingly, that's not the case with this film. Sure, the film has an adventure feel and there are scenes of actions spread throughout the film, but the film is rather slower-paced than one may think. When the characters need to breath or interact, it takes a natural pace. The 2nd act of the film has little action at all, instead focusing on the chemistry between the three central characters. And although the film has the big chase sequence at the end of the first act, the action is on a much smaller scale. In fact, the set design takes a much grander scale, even compared to his work on "The Mummy". The sets of the jungle, palace, and Monkey City are grand with lots of detail and attention to the sets. The music by Basil Poledouris is perhaps his second best score in his career. While "Conan The Barbarian" will always be his best work and one of the best film scores of all time, his work here is on a smaller scale, but one that works really well. It's more softer, but still has its intensity during the action. I find the main theme very well done with an emphasis on romantic and the jungle-like adventure beats. The cinematography is also well-done with the pacing fitting towards the context of the scene, as well as some nice shots in the film such as Mowgli looking out at the sunset or him leaving the ballroom. As for the visual effects, this is the weaker area of the film. Of course, Kaa is fake CGI, but there are scenes of green-screen whenever a character is looking face to face with an animal like Shere Khan or Bagheera. This is due to the unpredictability of the creatures and it's safe for the actors to use effects to do a stare-down and not attempt it in real life. Though with that said, the stunt-work involved with the animals is fantastic. A kid is actually holding the tail of a panther, goons get attacked by animals, and using a tiger to chase after a human or attacking a defensive human is something that will most likely never be attempted again in cinema. The filmmaking aspect of this film is just so refreshing from today that uses CGI animals or fake environments, which is thanks to Sommers directing.

The question at the end of the day is whether this is a good, let alone, the best live-action Disney remake to date. Many will refuse this film due to it barely reflecting the source material or the 1967 film, being more Tarzan rather than the Jungle Book, dated effects, or having a "unbalanced" tone. However, comparing the remakes today, this is more of a film and one with such a breath of refreshing air to it compared to the CGI-filled, poorly acted, lazily written, messes that Disney has made lately. With a very different, but engaging story, perfectly casted and acted characters, fun adventure vibe with fun action, nice blend of family-geared and adult-nature, great score by Poledouris, great directing by Sommers, and the fact that the filmmakers put in so much effort and heart to the film by bringing out some well-trained animals and stunts. A film with the modest budget of $30 million put out more effort from the cast and crew than the current remakes that have up to $200 million in its budget. The fact that Disney+ ignores this film in its library is insulting as it shows how Disney tries to hide how good the first yet very different live-action remake is compared to majority of their corporate products of crap.

Verdict: 8/10. It's not perfect, but I will defend my opinion that this is the best live-action remake Disney has put out by far.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) Non-Spoiler Film Review: It's Back And Better Than Ever!

The "Terminator" franchise is one that people have became hostile towards in recent years. Although the first two films are considered timeless classics, the other sequels have been tarnished and slammed by everyone. The reputation has been so bad that when news of the latest installment having James Cameron and Linda Hamilton returning, people would find things to hate on, such as the female cast or claiming that Cameron is a bad filmmaker. However, I was always excited for this film and my expectations were highly met. Taking place 25 years after "Judgement Day", a new Terminator model, Rev-9, is sent back to Mexico City to kill Dani Ramos, though an enhanced soldier is sent back to protect her. They are joined by Sarah Connor, as her entire life has been dedicated to killing any Terminators sent throughout time in order to give her life meaning, after realizing that killing Skynet just replaced itself with a new A.I and a new war against machines. Yes, it is a repeated formula from the franchise, but then again, it's pretty ignorant to claim that this is bad and yet the MCU franchise is fine to repeat the same formula beats in the genre. The story though gets creative for its subversions and choices in the lore and mythology. This can cause people to claim that the film "destroys" the franchise, but I see it as a welcome change. The tone is also perfectly handled to feel like the first two films. It has jokes, but it doesn't try to make you laugh. It can be dark, but not to the point of hopelessness. While the screenplay is well done overall, some lines can be a bit cringe and poorly delivered by the actors, though it's not a huge flaw that ruins the movie. The film feels like classic Terminator to say the least.

Linda Hamilton is once again amazing as Sarah Connor, who is clearly the best character in the film. Not only does Hamilton bring the character back to life with her talents, but Sarah is given plenty to do with her new character arc and position in the story. Grace, played by Mackenzie Davis, is surprisingly well-acted and written as a character as her backstory and personality is interesting in the series. Dani, played by Natalia Ramos, is perhaps the weakest actor of the main trio due to some awkward line delivery, but her acting is pretty solid and her progression in the story feels natural. Arnold Schwarzenegger returns to play another T-800, who's personality is once again slightly different per installment. Although I love his performance in the second film as an obedient bodyguard, I think this is his best performance in the franchise as he not only continue to give out a badass nature, but the personality of this model is very unique and bold that can polarize audiences, but for me, is very engaging. Lastly, there's Gabriel Luna as the Rev-9, who I really felt was nicely casted. He looks normal, but can be menacing. He's ruthless, but has the awareness of how to act around people in order to infiltrate. He's no Robert Patrick, but he comes very close. The characters and acting overall are very good and actually made me care for the new cast of characters.

Although James Cameron isn't directing, Tim Miller did the best job possible. Watching the film, you can tell that it's from the same guy who directed "Deadpool", as it has a very unpolished, grounded feel to the film. The camerawork feels both professional and cinematic in its action, but indie-like in the slower moments. The film does lack colour, with the daytime scenes being dirty and gritty, while the nighttime scenes is very dark and foreboding. It might be considered poor choice of colour grading, but I feel that it fits with the film and tone. The setting of Mexico City also helps the palette more understandable. Speaking of the setting, I love the choice for the first half of the film to be set in Mexico, as we see the locals speak their native tongue and it gives off a more different vibe than being set in LA compared to the prior films. The action is very fun to watch, utilizing both stunts and CGI. The action is just very satisfying to watch as the gunplay and close combat is just pleasing to the senses. The visual effects are good for the most part. The best effect by far are the de-aging effects used in the first scene of the film. However, the effects don't try to look realistic, which is impossible since the film has the unpolished, dirty look to it that CGI will be easy to spot. Not every effect is great, particularly the Rev-9 jumping around, but it is adequate. If there is one thing that's disappointing, it's the score by Junkie XL. While I love the renditions of the classical themes of the franchise, the rest of the soundtrack is pretty forgettable. It just makes you long for Brad Fidel to come out of his retirement. But, Miller managed to showcase the best directing in the franchise that can rival Cameron any day.

"Terminator: Dark Fate" is clearly the best sequel since T2, and is worthy for carrying the Terminator name. Despite some rough CGI, lackluster score, and some awkward lines, the new take on the story, characters, action, direction, and closure to the series makes this film one of the best sequels in recent years. Surprisingly, it is my 2nd favourite film of the franchise, beating out the first film, but not surpassing T2. I might get hate for my opinion, but I still enjoy the first film, I just have issues with the overabundance of exposition and the slow pace, which doesn't hold up the more times I watch. The film was never meant to be superior to "Judgement Day", but rather be the redemption for the franchise, similarly to the characters of Sarah Conner and the T-800 in the film.

Verdict: 8/10. Has some issues, but the stuff that's good is really, freaking good. Watch if you love the franchise or if you need to see an action blockbuster.

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Aims To Please And That's All It Needs

10 years after the first film, Tallahassee, Columbus, Wichita, and Little Rock are still together as a family as they survive in the zombie apocalypse. Little Rock however decides to run away and ditch the group as she feels treated like a child, heading to a settlement known as Babylon. The rest embark on a journey to find her as they not only encounter new faces to be added in their group, but also a bigger threat as the zombies evolved to be faster and stronger than ever before. The story is minimal, just like it was in the first film, but that's not why you go to see this film. Many watch to laugh as the film delivers some very good comedy. Whether it's slapstick, verbal, visual, 4th wall breaking, or sexual, the comedy is very spot-on. I feel that the film does take a more emphasis on comedy compared to its predecessor, which isn't a bad thing. However, I completely understand that not everyone is going to love a film that doesn't take itself seriously whatsoever, which this film is unapologetic for.

Despite it being 10 years later, the actors fit perfectly back into the roles that feels natural. Harrelson as the hardened though goofy warrior known as Tallahassee is still my favourite character, though Eisinberg's Columbus is a close second as he is really fun to watch for his geeky and nervous nature. Stone as Wichita is also great as the down to earth survivor, but I felt that Bresin's Little Rock is surprisingly forgettable. Despite being somewhat central to the plot, the film barely focuses on her at all, which kind of makes her the least entertaining character of the film. As for the new characters, Madison is the typical "dumb blonde" stereotype that surprisingly works well in the film. At times, she can get annoying, but the jokes that are used with her, whether it is about his IQ or her relationship with Columbus, are really well delivered. Rosario Dawson as Nevada is well casted as the female counterpart of the Elvis-loving Tallahasse, and the hippie pacifist, Berkeley, does get a chuckle here and there. The best side characters though are Albuquerque and Flagstaff, who are just too similar to Tallahassee and Columbus that it just puts a smile on your face. Overall, the cast brings a fun burst of life into the characters, though I will say that Little Rock was very underused.

Ruben Fleischer of course returned to direct the sequel to his directorial debut hit. After the first film being a hit, Fleischer seems to have a hard time with his films afterwards with "30 Minutes Or Less" and "Gangster Squad" both failing at the box office. However, after directing "Venom", which managed to be a big hit in the box office and moviegoers, Fleischer goes into directing this sequel with a major confidence boost, which is well-deserved. I always felt that Fleischer is a good director, even with the films that aren't well received by critics. I love how the film feels a bit unpolished and greyed-out as it gives off the visual tone of being in the apocalypse, though the interiors to certain set pieces are nicely coloured and designed. The camerawork has very good framing with the characters onscreen. There are directors that can't frame conversations or characters at all in a pleasing way, yet Fleischer knows to make a nice flair to these scenes. The action scenes are also well-made with good selection of songs attached to these adrenaline-paced sequences. The standout set-piece is when both Colombus and Tallahasse are fighting the evolved zombies inside a hotel. Although there are some edits, Fleischer does a good attempt in making the scene to look like a tracking one-shot. My one complaint is that the film overuses CGI in certain scenes and kills. While I'm fine with the CGI for the bigger set-pieces and crowds of zombies in the film, I don't like the lack of practical effects to the blood or gore. The first film had more make-up effects, whereas the sequel doesn't, perhaps due to the film being more comedic than before. Regardless, I'm glad Fleischer is comfortable doing the best job he can directing on his passion project.

"Zombieland: Double Tap" is a good sequel that is almost as good as the first.  Despite some overuse of CGI and the lack of screentime with Breslin's Little Rock, the cast generally is lots of fun to watch with some nice variety of comedic beats throughout, and nice directing from Fleischer in an attempt to make a bigger film that is small-scale in heart. If you're planning to see a film for Halloween or just want to have some nice laughs in the theatre, I recommend to watch it and support this film that was made out of passion first, profit second.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Good all-around. No major flaws, but nothing noteworthy that makes it great. See it for yourself and stay during the credits for the best mid-credit scene of all time!