Shaft (2019) Film Review: Flawed? Generic? Hilarious? All Of The Above!

Warner Bros has had a pretty rough year so far in 2019. Although films like "Shazam", "Detective Pikachu", and "It Chapter 2" did well enough, they weren't as big as the studio expected them to be. A lot of their films this year were box office failures with the likes of "Lego Movie 2", "The Kitchen", "Godzilla King of the Monsters", and so on. One of their films that failed to make a dent in the box office was a long awaited entry in the dormant "Shaft" franchise. People expected this to fail from the get-go, due to the franchise being irrelevant and Netflix distributing for international markets. Despite this, does this film have anything worth while? Well, the story is not one to write home about, that's for sure. John Shaft Jr. is an FBI agent who is investigating the death of his best friend. However, his personality gets him nowhere in the streets of Harlem, due to his awkwardness and politically correct attitude. So, he turns to his estranged father to aid him, a private eye that realizes that helping his son could finally bring down a drug lord that he has been hunting for the past 30 years. They would bond as father and son, despite them being complete polar opposites of their views and character. The problem with the story is that the case the characters are trying to solve is your generic template, where the crime is connected to a huge, convoluted operation that is just unnecessary. I feel that they should have just done a simple murder mystery, not taking down a drug cartel. However, comedies don't necessary need to have great stories to work. They help out a lot, but as long as the comedy and characters shine through, many can look past the flaws of the story. The comedy is really good, but it is raunchy and politically incorrect, since the funniest moments is whatever John Shaft says on his mind, which includes comments of homosexuality, misogyny, racism, etc. These aren't the most offensive jokes in the world compared to more adult content, but if you are offended easily, the film will trigger you. But, I will say that the film is guarantee to make you laugh more than once out loud.

Samuel L. Jackson always does a fantastic job in his performances and he plays John Shaft almost as if he was himself. When I watch the movie, I forget that Jackson is even the star actor as he gets so into the role that he becomes the womanizing, foul-mouthed detective. Jackson also brings out all of the comedy in the film to the point that he overshadows the rest of the cast. Jesse T. Usher plays John Shaft Jr. well, but he does feel pretty awkward in his delivery. I'm not sure if his performance is intentionally off-putting or not, but the character at least works off with the father-son dynamic the film goes for. Alexandra Shipp plays the love interest Sasha, and while I enjoy her in other films, she acts even more awkward in her line delivery than Usher is. Regina Hall plays Maya, the ex-wife of John Shaft. She's not in the movie too much, but she brings out a great performance with her emotional outbursts towards Shaft. Lastly, Richard Roundtree arrives in the third act as John Shaft Sr, the original Shaft from the films in the 70's. His presence and badass personality is just fun to watch and makes the third act from being dull to fine. As for the antagonists, I won't bother mentioning them at all, since they are really generic and no notable stars are attached to them. Other characters also have the awkward delivery that Usher and Shipp have, which really makes certain scenes a bit cringy to watch due to the poor line delivery. Overall, the characters are enjoyable in their own way and do work-off each other, but Usher and Shipp feel like the weakest links in the main cast, feeling like the unfunny side characters that appear in the film.

Tim Story did a solid job directing the film that shows off his talent in most areas, but is lacking in one crucial element. When it comes to the comedic scenes, they are well delivered and directed. Whether it's a joke based on dialogue or one that has Shaft spitting out the coconut water he just tried out, the comedic beats work nice if it involves Shaft and his son together. There is some very nice editing throughout the film, a notable example is the montage in the beginning of the film that shows time passing by with pop culture of the years presented along with seeing Shaft and Jr. growing up without each other. The songs used in the film are great hip-hop and R&B tracks that fit in with the setting of the film and the scenes as well. Story clearly has a vision for the film when it come to those departments, but the action scenes are really underwhelming. Although the music that plays with the action works, the action itself feels bland, barely violent, lame set pieces, and lacking of a particular style. The climax helps with Roundtree thrown in, but the action is still pretty disappointing. Story has plenty of potential as a director, but he really needed to improve in the action department, which is weird seeing that he previously directed the "Fantastic Four" films, which had some cool set pieces. At least by the end of the day, Story did a good enough job.

The "Shaft" franchise is weird to say the last. What started as three blaxploitation films in the 70's later got a soft reboot in the 2000's with Samuel L Jackson, to finally another soft reboot that turns to a more comedic route, ditching out the serious nature of the 2000 predecessor. Perhaps this is why no one went to see the new film due to the franchise being out of touch for audiences, but I'm a bit sad that it didn't get enough attention for what is a pretty entertaining film. Is this the best comedy of 2019? No, but it's far from being the worst. Sure, the story is bad, some actors are awkward, and the action is lame, but Jackson's charisma, comedy, editing, and soundtrack keep it engaging in my opinion. It's a film one has to see at least once before making a judgement against it. I will say that this film will make you laugh, that's for damn sure.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Decent film overall. I recommend a rent at least to see if this film is one you might enjoy or not.

Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001) Film Review: A Canadian Masterpiece

Canadian cinema is rarely acknowledged in a global scale. While there are notable films from Canada such as "Bon Cop, Bad Cop" or "Videodrome", they don't get the critical or financial success that an international film will need to gain global attention. However, one film managed to get everyone's attention. Although it wasn't a huge hit at the box office or even selected to be an Oscar contender, the critical praise it got from notable critics and winning awards at the Cannes film festival made sure that this film will be regarded as the proudest achievement in Canadian film. Atarnarjuat is about the titular character who lives in the community of Igloolik, Nunavut, whose greatest skill is his remarkable speed and stamina. When his marriage with two wives starts to get rocky, the son of the chieftain, Oki, decides to ambush him and kill his brother in an attempt to take one of his wives to himself, leading to Atarnarjuat to survive and figure out what must be done in order to end the conflict and tension amongst the people. While this film mostly takes the concept in a grounded nature, the filmmakers also added some Inuit mythology in order to bend reality a bit with the inclusion of an evil shaman who acts as an inner demon amongst some of the characters. It sounds odd, but the film actually benefits from the mythical element, since the film still makes the story flow naturally. The film however doesn't really focus too much on the story too much though. The runtime clocks in at almost three hours, but the story moves at a snail's pace and instead focuses on the culture of the Inuit people, which I admire. I love seeing how these people had to live and survive back hundreds of years ago in the barren tundra. It's simply fascinating.

I'm not going to focus too much on the actors and characters, since all of the actors do a fantastic job by performing as their people. The actors were all Inuit and speak Inuktitut throughout the film. Hearing this language being spoken is very refreshing as it's not very present in the overall Canadian culture outside of the territories. Even if you choose not to put any subtitles at all, you can still figure out the characters in the film with great detail due to the physical performances of these actors. From Atarnarjuat's devotion to his loved one, Oki's bitter rage towards Atarnarjuat, Puja's brattiness for her desires, Panikpak's wise old elder figure, and the list goes on. Overall, the characters are brought to life, thanks to the actors that chose to be a part of the film.

Zacharias Kunuk masterfully directs the film with all of his effort paying off. He captures the vision he set out with that resonated with the viewer. He manages to capture the empty, but beautiful landscape of Nunavut with camerawork that brings the audience to this scenery with the shaky handheld movement. The unpolished footage makes the film feel almost documentary-like, despite the events being entirely fictional. The score by Chris Crilly is executed perfectly. The use of throat singing and music that fits in with the Inuit culture is a refreshing and necessary choice for the film that gives off a unique audio experience when watching the film, helped out by the local language. The most notable scene of the film is when Atarnarjuat is running away from his attackers, wearing absolutely nothing. The sweeping cinematography and score makes this a very powerful moment, with the actor giving extreme devotion to his work. Given the troubles the filmmakers had to go through with finances and filming in general, their hard work is celebrated with the finished product being the best it can be.

The Fast Runner is one of those films everyone must see once in their life due to what the product represents. From its fantastic directing, acting, cinematography, musical score, and managing to dive deep in the Inuit culture, it is a film unlike any other. Even though the explicit sexual nature and runtime might scare some away, it shouldn't and is in fact justified due to how human the characters are, as well as the time period the film is set in. It is a very important film for Canadian cinema, those that are in love with movies in general, and representation of Indigenous culture as a whole. It will surely go down as a classic as the years move on.

Verdict: 10/10. A brilliant, one-of-a-kind film that can't be replicated in its field. Watch it if you want to call yourself a film buff.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) Film Review: Most Underappreciated Film of 2019?

When it comes to my favourite superhero franchise, the X-Men takes the crown, mostly due to my nostalgia and how I feel that none of the films are unwatchable. While people point to "Origins", "Last Stand", or "Apocalypse" as terrible, these films still have a lot of great ideas and scenes that stand out, and "Origins" is so bad it's good in my opinion. However, after Apocalypse was released, audiences started to turn hostile and toxic to the franchise, wanting the characters to be thrown into the MCU like Spider-Man. The hate train grew so big that whenever there was any news of "Dark Phoenix", it's looked in a negative viewpoint. All of this hate eventually caused the film to not only bomb terribly, but critics slammed it very harshly, some saying that it's the worst X-Men film in the franchise, which is way too over the line, especially if you compare it to "Origins". The story alone is a huge criticism that people throw out. Based on the comic saga, the film follows the X-Men, who have become global heroes, as Jean Grey gets embodied by a cosmic force that amplifies her abilities, but makes her mentally unstable. This causes a chain reaction where humans fear mutants once more, lines are drawn, and characters choose sides of leadership, all while an alien race, led by Vuk, attempt to use Jean's new power to destroy the world and recreate their dead planet. Obviously, the story is loosely based from the comics, which people complain about. This complaint is very hypocritical though, as many films of the genre are never true adaptations, some taking massive liberties. Same is done here. I don't care about how accurate a film is from the source material, as it never truly matters, and to be fair, the story here works fine as a stand-alone flick, but it does feel different from the rest of the franchise. Originally, the filmmakers wanted to make the film very comic accurately, but the studio refused their proposal, seeing how the adaptation would have to span at least two films. So, the crew decided to go through a different direction, which is where the most polarizing element that I feel hurt the film for many comes in, the overall tone. While the X-Men films have a tone that sticks to being more serious, but allows comedy and fun from time to time, "Dark Phoenix" has a very somber and darker tone with a lack of humour. This in my opinion turned away many audiences away, as it was the complete opposite of the tone that the MCU would have, and it wasn't a lighthearted film for kids that will keep them engaged, since the pace is pretty slow and action sequences are spread apart, until the third act. I for one found the tone of the film effective, mostly whenever the dramatic moments are used.

The X-Men franchise always had great actors attached to characters that make memorable performances, and this film continues that trend. James McAvoy is once again perfect as Charles Xavier. In this film, Charles puts his trust with the others to the test as he reveals questionable actions to the group. Some criticize that Charles acts out of character in this film for his actions such as willing to sacrifice a mutant for a human, or erasing Jean's memory to block out the trauma. However, not only does Charles act like this in the comics, but his reasons can be justified as he believes that it's doing what's best for mutantkind. Michael Fassbender is great as Magneto once again, though he shows up in the second act of the film. Jennifer Lawrence has always been slammed for her performance as Mystique, due to her character's departure from the comics, which is hypocritical when you bring up Nebula in the MCU. I defend the choice of making her a villain turned hero, since the films gave her tons of development to warrant this decision. Nicholas Hoult as Beast is once again really good, but people criticize his actions for wanting to kill Jean Grey, which is a stupid complaint, since it makes perfect sense that he would want to kill her for killing Mystique, who he was in love with. Speaking of Jean Grey, Sophie Turner gets more time to shine in the film compared in Apocalypse. She plays the role well as she does capture a sweet girl turned mentally broken victim in the film.  We have sympathy for her, which is essential for the film that centres around her. Side characters such as Cyclops, Storm, and Nightcrawler are well acted and have their moments of heroism. Then, there's Jessica Chastain as Vuk, who while does a good job acting as the character, doesn't manage to make the villain a memorable one. The aliens themselves work as a threat and show their lack of humanity with the lack of emotion and lines, but do end up feeling like a strange element in the X-Men franchise. The last character to mention is Quicksilver, the fan favourite mutant played by Even Peters, who sadly barely gets any screentime, due to Jean crippling him at the end of the first act. While many would see this as a stupid choice for not including a scene with Quicksilver like "Days of Future Past" or "Apocalypse", there was no way a scene like that could have worked in this film due to it being very conflicting to the overall tone. All of the actors do a solid job as always performing these characters, though the villain was weak and some characters could have had more time on-screen.

Simon Kinberg, the writer and producer of the franchise, begins his directorial debut after many of his peers urged him to direct this film. Although he had been attached to the franchise for 20 years, many showed worry that Kinberg was making his directorial debut a huge summer blockbuster without any experience. Surprisingly though, Kinberg did a damn good job, although there are moments of amateur throughout the film. His directing needed a bit of work when it comes to scenes where it's just two people talking amongst each other. Sometimes, the actors or camerawork by Mauro Fiore will have actions or movements that can help add something to the scenes, like having a handheld camera shakiness quality or the performances of the actors alone. However, there are moments where it's simple back and forth camera operation with little movement from the actors, which makes these scenes rather stale. Most of the film however feels rather professional for a first-time director, proving that Kinberg has some talent behind the camera. The visual effects are also very high quality, thanks to a good mixture of both practical and digital effects. There's a lot of in-camera stunts and effects that help blend with the polished CGI that makes this film look much better than a good amount of effects work in MCU films. They aren't award-winning effects, but they are very well done for this type of film. The score by Hans Zimmer is one of the most memorable and engaging in the genre in a very long time. The X-Men franchise always had very good music and memorable tracks, but Zimmer crafted a soundtrack that fits perfectly for each scene. The score is triumphant, intense, sinister, somber, grand, and overall engaging to the ears and the film. The action sequences are very well-made and creative with memorable details in the scenes. The train sequence, a set piece in the third act that was added from extensive reshoots, is one of the best action moments in not just the year, but in the superhero genre as a whole. From the stunts, visuals, directing, choreography, music, intensity, and very creative writing, this one action piece alone warrants a viewing and spot in the most memorable climaxes in the superhero genre. Kinberg knew his craft and poured his heart out to make the best film he could have under his circumstances.

Looking at the question of the title of this review, is Dark Phoenix a underappreciated film, let alone the most out of 2019 as a whole? I will point out that this film is not perfect, nor even lands in the top three of the franchise. The villain is generic and out-of-place in the franchise, there are scenes of bland directing, some characters could have had more screentime, and the tone will guarantee to either won or lose viewers over in the genre. So, what makes it underappreciated to begin with? Well, there are the major qualities to the film from a great cast of characters and actors, pretty solid directing from Kinberg, high-quality visual effects, Hans Zimmer's excellent score, few engaging story/character details, and of course, the train sequence. No one can judge these elements as terrible or unremarkable, as if they do, they clearly have no taste or idea of what makes great filmmaking. I also feel that this film is not being looked at as the end of a generation of superhero films. The first film helped popularize the superhero genre back in 2000 and launched a series that has some of the best films in the entire genre, all while being restricted to the X-Men characters and stories alone. People should have been realizing that this film is ending something special, but they decided to throw hate and ignorance towards the film for their selfish wants of the characters to be rebooted in the MCU, leaving the final film in the franchise to end with a whimper and not a celebration. That is why I consider this film to be the most underappreciated film of 2019 and wish that more and more people watch it with zero expectations and come up with their own opinion instead of listening to the most toxic of people.

Verdict: 7.5/10. It's a good film. Not the best, but far from the worst of the franchise or genre. Try watching the film for some very memorable elements and moments that I feel outweighs the negatives.

Machete (2010) Film Review: The Perfect Robert Rodriguez Film

Robert Rodriguez is a director known for films that are low-budget and campy in their own way that are designed to be enjoyed for what they are. "Spy Kids" and "The Adventures Of Sharkboy and Lavagirl " are targeted for children that love to see a power fantasy for their demographic, while "Sin City and From Dusk To Dawn" are gory and gratuitous for an older crowd. "Machete" however was first shown as a fake trailer in the film "Grindhouse". Rodriguez decided to follow up on the joke and made the fake trailer a reality, bringing Danny Trejo along with him. Machete Cortez is a ex-federal agent who gets framed for an assassination attempt of Senator John MacLaughlin to secure his reelection, which was the worst mistake that anyone can do to the local myth. The plot is essentially a homage to 80's action films with the leading man being the bodybuilder badass, but also an homage to 70's exploitation films with the explicit gore, nudity, and cheese. All of this is reflected in the poster, which just sets up who Rodriguez is and what type of film you're getting into. The writing in particular is extremely hilarious from the over the top action, visuals, and dialogue, which really helps those that just want to watch a comedy overall.

The character of Machete was made only for Danny Trejo to play. In fact, this role has become synonymous for Trejo, which the character and actor are merged in TV shows and video games. Machete is basically the Mexican equivalent of an Arnold Schwarzenegger action hero trope, except he's obsessed with cutting his enemies down with the tool of the same name. He has the one-liners, memorable kills, and a womanizer, all of the essentials of a generic action hero that brings joy to fans and viewers. This does affect the rest of the cast though, since Machete steals the show, while the side characters are there to serve the plot and archetype, which still brings out fun throughout the film. Femme fatales include Michelle Rodriguez and Jessica Alba as the revolutionary and immigration officer that both assist Machete as well as being eye candy for him and the audience. The villains include John MacLaughlin, played by Robert De Niro, a Trump-like politician that wants to build an electric fence to keep out Mexican immigrants. Other include Steven Seagal as Rogelio, a drug cartel boss working with MacLaughlin, Jeff Fahey as Micheal Booth, the advisor to MacLaughlin who frames Machete, and Don Johnson as Von Jackson, a racist redneck that hunts down illegal immigrants. Standout characters that I also enjoy include Cheech Marin as Machete's brother who is a priest, and Tom Savini as a hitman hired by Booth to kill Machete, yet chickens out once he learns that he isn't messing around anymore. The actors are just enjoying performing onscreen and all have their moments to shine in comedy and entertainment. You have the character that you grow to love or hate, yet they are all just so enjoyable to watch.

Rodriguez directs the film like it came out of the 70's, which shows off the skills the director has when it comes to films of this caliber. Whether it's the filter in the beginning or the practical gore effects, the film shows off the low-budget of the film, yet you still are amazed by the caliber of stars they got or the action set pieces throughout. It's Rodriguez as his best making a cheap film look and act the best it can be with the resources at his disposal. While the editing is good at the most part for the film overall, there is one scene with Alba in her car where there are too many jump cuts in a scene of little action. Not sure about the intention, but I can excuse it since it is only just one scene. Of course the effects can use some cheap CGI blood, explosions, props, and green screen, but this is a low-budget action film not meant to be take seriously, so I don't mind the cheap quality, in fact, it helps the film in the long run. I also like the lighting and colours in the film, which incorporates a lot of yellows and brown for a dirty, unpolished look that fits the grindhouse aesthetic. Rodriguez overall captures the film as a perfect homage to a forgotten genre.

Although there are debates of what can be considered as the best film from Rodriguez's catalogue, I will stand by that this is the perfect film under his belt as well as the best example of a film that defines the filmmaker. With the action, enjoyable characters, on the nose humour, nice directing, and overall camp and cheese that will give anyone a good time. Machete is also a great introduction film for those curious of the filmmaker. I have resisted myself in talking about specific jokes and action moments, just because I want to keep them a surprise to those curious of the film. It's by no means a masterpiece or even the best of its genre, but it sure is a ton of fun for anyone looking for this kind of film.

Verdict: 8/10. If you can't enjoy this film for whatever reason, you have no sense of humour or fun in yourself. Give it a chance.

The Dark Tower (2017) Film Review: Decent Start To A Failed Cinematic Universe

In every decade past the 1970's, there are films based on Stephan King, many are remembered fondly by the masses, while others are quickly forgotten due to mediocrity. In 2017, "It" was released to become a huge blockbuster hit that spawned a sequel, making studios scrambling to find adaptations that can be franchises in the future. However, in the same year, but just released one month prior to "It", "The Dark Tower" was released and quickly forgotten. What was intended to be a new franchise for Sony that would spawn sequels and TV show became a flop that audiences refuse to look upon. The film centres around Jake Chambers, a boy who gets involved with a battle between good and evil. Evil forces led by the Man In Black want Jake, since his mind is powerful enough to destroy the Dark Tower, a structure that balances all realities. Only one man chooses to fight this force, The Gunslinger, a broken man who makes Jake an apprentice under his wing. The film is based off the books of the same name. Unlike most Stephan King stories, the books go into a huge narrative that even links all of the author's works into one universe. This is why the film has so many references to Stephan King's creations and even the plot device of the Shine, which is a psychic power introduced in "The Shining", but it is evidently a power that was used in his other works including "Carrie", hence the connectedness of the universe. To be fair, all of the easter eggs were cool to see in the film, but the story is teared apart in several ways. First, the runtime is extremely short, clocking in at an hour and a half, which doesn't do justice to tell a huge narrative at all. There is also the issue of how the film tries to be a sequel and an adaptation of the franchise, which extremely confused fans of the source material. For me, someone who hasn't read any of the books, the story seems to work fine, but the runtime heavily affects the narrative such as lack of screen-time for side characters and world-building, which is not good for those unaware of the source material.

Surprisingly enough, the main characters are well acted and written as they are. Idris Elba as The Gunslinger delivers a badass performance which also shows the tired and aging side of a man who is the only person fighting for all of mankind. The kid who plays Jake Chambers is also very good, since he does have scenes that bring out the emotion from the actor, whether they are scenes of enjoyment and awe-inspiring to sadness and anger. I was shocked at how I wasn't annoyed by Jake and how he never came across as a boring character, since he's mostly side by side with the Gunslinger. Matthew McConaughey is the Man In Black and he delivers a delightfully evil performance. While some claim that he comes off as comical and over-the-top, I find it very intentional since the character is a powerful magic user that can just kill people with his mind, hence why his attitude of getting or doing whatever he wants. Yes, him cooking a chicken in someone's kitchen is silly, but he is a huge threat to everyone that he likes to toy with people. While the main characters stand out a lot with great performances from talented actors, same can't be said for the side characters. The runtime hurts the time onscreen for these characters that they come across as entirely unnecessary or pointless to the story and film overall. Side characters such as Jake's mother, the asshole stepfather, Jake's best friend, the girl from Midworld that keeps gazing at Jake, and the side villains working as lackeys show up and leave faster than you realize. Perhaps they were supposed to be more noteworthy in the novels or the cancelled sequels/show, but they might as well should not have been in the film whatsoever. Still, that doesn't undermine the three central characters at all.

While the directing from Nikolaj Arcel shows a lot of competence and how the filmmaker has a visual eye for the film, but it doesn't help that directors such as J.J Abrams and Ron Howard were attached to the film could have made it a much better product overall. The movie has a very grey, dull look to the film, which while reflects the grim situation, is unappealing for those that want eye candy. The cinematography is done really well though with a lot of wide scenic shots throughout, so it's not the most unpleasant film to look at. Junkie XL composed the score and it's really good, though the amazing trailer score is not used in the film whatsoever. The pacing is fast, due to the runtime, but helps the film out since there's not a lot of moments that drag on and on. The action sequences are very nicely directed and get more and more awesome to watch as the film goes on, with the climax being the strongest part of the film by entertainment alone. Outside of the climax, I really enjoyed the part of the story where The Gunslinger enters our world and both he and the world react to the foreign elements of each other such as his hospital visit and his appetite of Coca-Cola and hot dogs. Sadly, the fish out of water element is underused due to the fast pacing. I also give credit for killing off Jake's mother, who I thought would be used as a cliche where the villain kidnaps the mother in order for the hero to give himself up or try to save her. I was surprised by the choice of killing the mother and felt that the scene with Jake's realization was one of the rare powerful moments in the film. I will say that the final scene at least doesn't have a cliffhanger. It does have a lame sequel-bait nature to it, but at least the main story arc is completed to make the film fine as a stand-alone feature since the proposed cinematic universe failed to come out. So, Arcel did a basic result directing, but it's mostly thanks to the strong moments in the screenplay, composer, and cinematographer.

"The Dark Tower" is a film that has great elements, but horrible issues wrapped up in something that resembles an okay film if you were not a fan or aware of the novels. The main characters are well done thanks to the great actors attached, the action scenes are good along with some stand-out scenes of comedy and drama, the score is great, and the cinematography helps the film visually to a degree. The problems came with the basic story that is a nightmare in the canon of the novels for fans of the source material, the side characters being completely pointless to the film to begin with, and the painfully short runtime that harms the film very drastically that makes the little world-building/story/side character inclusion even worse. For me, the runtime is the biggest issue with the film and the director should have fought with Sony to keep it as long as it needed it to be. As it is, it's a decent action-adventure film that has memorable aspects, but the flaws make it for many a forgettable film. It's a shame that the sequels or show won't happen with the same cast attached, but the film is a neat one for me to watch on occasion to experience the good, but question the bad as well.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Harmless film to watch and know about. Watch if you love action, Elba, or Stephan King in general. Fans of the novels should avoid it like the plague though to avoid a headache and endless questions. 

It Chapter 2 (2019) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Better Or Worse Than The First Chapter?

27 years have gone by and Pennywise returns to strike fear and consume the town of Derry, Maine. Mike, the only member of the Loser's Club that stayed behind in Derry, reunites his old friends to finish what they started and find a way to kill It once and for all. While the plot sounds simple enough, the runtime clocks in around almost three hours. While the movie is very long, I do have to say that despite the pace being slow, I never felt bored watching the film mostly because there are many scenes of development or fun chills. The tone is more balanced compared to the first film. The first "It" had an issue of bouncing from dark horror to campy, goofy fun out of nowhere. Chapter Two remedies this issue as the film takes itself much more seriously and the comedy is mostly delivered by the characters, although there are odd moments of goofiness from the creature designs that aren't scary but weird, to Eddie's odd situation when It tries to give him fear. I will say that these odd tonal elements aren't as distracting compared to the first film though.

The Loser Club returns and are extremely well-casted by adult actors that manage to reflect the children performances. In the first film, the kids were loveable for their character and unique traits. The adults borrow these, but in a more subdued matter due to their age, but are given arcs and personal obstacles for their development. Bill, played by James McAvoy, is still mourning his brother's death, Richie, played by Bill Hader, is afraid of opening up about his sexuality, and Eddie, played by James Ransone, is still afraid of It, even as an adult. The other characters like Beverly, Ben, and Mike, also have their own arcs, but are more spoiler-heavy. The Loser Club is still very likeable, children or adult. I still think Bill, Mike, and Richie are my favourite of the group. As for Pennywise, once again played by Bill Skarsgard, they decided to make him much more over the top, both as the clown or using the creatures to scare the adults. To be fair, they did choose Pennywise to be more of a funny entity, rather than half serious half silly like in the first film, so I'm okay with the change. Henry Bowers, the bully from the first film, is barely in the film and just acts as a short obstacle rather than a threat, but that was also the same in the novel, so I can't blame the writers in that department. Overall, I feel that the characters were just as good like before, with Pennywise even being more consistent in his performance.

Andy Muschietti once again does a great job directing. While the first film cleverly used aesthetics and lighting for specific scenes whenever the kids are brought together or by themselves, this film opts for a more greyer, muted look to match the characters being adults and how their lives aren't so great. Colours and lighting do change whenever the adults are being frightened or reality has changed around them. The cinematography by Checco Varese and the score by Benjamin Wallfisch is good as well, but the visual effects are pretty bad. The horror genre isn't kind to CGI effects due to the limited budget, but the creatures in this film look much worse and look like they stepped out from a cartoon half of the time, mostly due to the silly designs.  I will praise the de-aging effects in the flashback scenes though. I should also touch on the horror directing in general. The first film is more horrifying since the kids are always in peril. Outside of a few kids in this film, the adults are being targeted which doesn't exactly bring fear since adults usually can survive more efficiently than children for example. Even though I wasn't scared (which I barely am due to the saturation of the horror genre), I find it unique for a horror film to focus on middle-aged adults trying to overcome an evil entity rather than children or stupid young adults like in most horror films. Muschietti does another great job with the film, but still can improve in certain areas.

It Chapter Two can be debated on whether it's a good follow-up or one that does a poor job in living up to the hype. Things like the runtime, slower pace, poor effects, and lack of true horror can ruin this film for some. Outside of the effects and scares though, I personally think that this film is just as good or slightly better than the first thanks to strong characters and their respectable actors, great directing from Muschietti, pacing that got me hooked and intrigued for the long runtime, and the film delivering on the conclusion that I felt did a better job than the novel and miniseries. Some or most of you might not agree with me, but I got a bit more out of this film than the first. I recommend for people to watch if you just want to watch a horror film with likeable characters, if you loved the first film, or if you just want to have some fun watching a silly, but well-made film about grown-ups taking down a killer clown.

Verdict: 7.8/10. I personally felt this movie was better than the first by fixing up the tone, yet it's not a great movie though, but both films are good on their own or together as a two-parter, despite the issues that are present.

It (2017) Film Review: Is It Overrated?

In recent years, the horror genre has started to become a bit unpopular. Not saying that horror films were failing in any way, but rather that nothing really revolutionized or brought new life into the genre since "Paranormal Activity". People started to see the horror genre becoming rather bland as the only horror franchise worth seeing is the "Conjuring" universe, whose films aren't the most critically beloved. But then, "It" was released. A film that the studio believed will be a modest hit at most. After all, outside of the source material by Stephan King, the director and actors were very unknown and the dark themes of the film could turn audiences away. Except it didn't. The film will become the highest-grossing horror film of all time and was a critical darling to all, spawning a sequel that I will also be reviewing. The plot revolves around the Loser's Club, a group of kids who are outcasted for various reasons, and their encounters against an ancient evil force known as Pennywise the Dancing Clown, leading to a plan to somehow defeat the monster so no kid can be harmed again in the town of Derry. The movie mostly follows the story from the book, but does divert some aspects that are reasonable to leave out. While I'm fine with the story in general, what I'm not fine with is the overall tone of the film. The film bounces around from a serious horror to a goofy comedy in a bunch of different ways. While I'm fine with the realistic dialogue and certain moments that reflect on the youthful energy of the cast, scenes like the rock fight, cleaning up the bathroom of blood or the constant referencing of The New Kids On The Block removed out-of-context from the film look like they belong in a completely different movie. This also affects Pennywise as an antagonist, but I will discuss him later. The tone however can be really distracting as it feels like the filmmakers had no real direction at all.

When it comes to the characters, the kids that take up the Loser's Club are extremely well-written and acted by child actors that bring the film the energy and charm that is needed for the movie to work. From Bill, Richie, Ben, Beverly, Stanley, Mike, and Eddie, all of the children characters are likeable and you root for them to survive and take down Pennywise. In terms of who's my favourite kid characters, it's Bill, Richie, and Mike, but every kid character is likeable and anyone can have their favourites. The secondary antagonist, Henry, is also a nice obstacle for the Loser's Club as it's a threat more grounded in reality, which is a bully who is being manipulated by Pennywise to becoming more psychopathic. I won't touch upon the parent characters, since they barely appear and while having quirks and traits of their own, don't matter much in the film, outside of Beverly's abusive father. But then, you have Pennywise, played by Bill Skarsgard. He's the other half of the cast that needs to prevail as the most iconic character in Stephen King's library. Pennywise is sadly affected by the film's uneven tone and his performance shows. Although his design and scenes of horror prove that he is a scary force, Skarsgard portrays Pennywise unintentionally goofy at these scenes, especially his weird dancing at the end of the film. It doesn't help that his design in general is too unnatural. Tim Curry's portrayal had a much more grounded design that gives off charisma to unsuspecting kids. Skarsgard is too creepy and obvious that he is sinister and it makes the scene with Georgie unrealistic. With that said, Pennywise is enjoyable to watch, but I don't find him scary at all and actually find him funny then horrifying.

The directing by Andy Muschietti is really solid, if you choose to ignore the tone. He captures the town of Derry as your typical town, but with something in the atmosphere giving you an off-putting vibe. Whenever the Loser's Club is onscreen together, the colours are more brighter and warmer to show the innocence of adolescents. However, whenever the kids aren't together, most of these scenes have a more darker or toned-down aesthetic, showing either the insecurities of the kids or the tension-building mood. The visual effects can be a mixed bag though as while some creature effects work out due to their movement and design, the effects used on Pennywise is unnatural and brings up the question of why they couldn't use practical effects with Pennywise, who is a physical actor. The cinematography by Chung-hoon Chung also helps bring Muschietti's directing view in the film with a lot of open shots that capture the surroundings of the characters and gives off a dirty yet polished feel with the camerawork. The score by Benjamin Wallfisch is good, but can overstay its welcome in certain scenes. I will also praise that Muschietti doesn't cram in so much 80's nostalgia outside of the New Kids On The Block references. I actually love the attention to detail in some scenes, especially when a character is playing the first Street Fighter arcade cabinet, not the famous Street Fighter II, which the movie, Captain Marvel, made the mistake of showing during a flashback scene in 1989, when the 2nd entry wasn't made until 1991. Overall, Muschietti, Chung, and Wallfisch all did a great job with the film and will perhaps get more recognized work in the future.

Reading the title of this review, I will answer the question of whether "It" is overrated with a big yes. For me, the tone is a huge issue, along with some mediocre visual effects that both affect Pennywise as a character and device of horror, providing me with mixed messages about whether moments were intentionally made from the director. However, I must say that I still think the movie is quite solid with a great cast, solid directing and cinematography, good composing, and the feeling of dread and a sinister nature whenever the film manages to handle its tone. For me, it's not the most unique or revolutionary horror film with a problem in its identity, hence why I find it rather overrated. I feel that movies like Split or Get Out coming out of the same year makes me consider those movies more flavourful when it comes to the product. "It" however is a solid Stephan King adaptation and although it's not the greatest horror film in recent years, it has reminded people that horror films can still be well-made and fun to watch.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good, but not going down as a great horror film of the decade in my opinion. Could the sequel be just as good though?

Okko's Inn (2018) Film Review: A Loveable, Heartwarming Coming Of Age Tale

Okko is a young girl who has her life flipped upside down after her family gets into a car accident, leaving her as the sole survivor. Taken in by her grandmother who owns an inn, she suddenly has the ability to see and communicate with a spirit named Uribo who resides in the inn. Uribo convinces Okko to inherit the inn when she grows up, which starts her journey as a junior innkeeper. From then on, a coming of age story ensues as Okko later encounters particular guests of the inn and two more spirits, those being a demon named Suzuki that brings in said guests and Miyo, the sister of Okko's rival named Matsuki. There isn't much of a story as it's just Okko living her life as she trains to becoming an innkeeper. There are tons of moments that are just delightful to watch, whether it's Okko interacting with the hotel guests or the ghosts or her being scared of any little creature. While the movie is mostly very lighthearted, the ending gets quite emotional. I won't spoil the ending here, but it is effective since the audience gets attached to the protagonist.

Speaking of the protagonist, Okko is essentially the gem of the entire film. She is just insanely adorable and loveable whatever she does. Her youthful energy and desire to help out others is precious. Her fear of insects and lizards is funny but very cute. When she's happy, the audience feels happy for her. When she's distraught or upset, they feel bad for her and hope she finds a way to get better. She almost takes away the spotlight as the rest of the characters are essentially supporting figures, both to the protagonist and the story. Uribo is the second most loveable character for his goofy design and actions, but with a good heart. Miyo and Suzuki aren't in the film as long, but are enjoyable with Miyo's love of pranks and Suzuki's appetite. Matsuki starts off as a typical bully character that acts very unlikeable, but later shows that she has a sympathetic side and actually wants to help Okko and the inn despite them being business rivals. Other characters such as the grandmother, Okko's parents, the chef of the inn, and others barely get involved in the film, but are still likeable. If there is one character I'm not a huge fan of, it's the character of Glory. Glory is one of the guests that arrive in the inn who works as a fortune teller. A fortune teller that somehow affords a Ferrari and shopping for hundreds of clothes. Other than the questionable amounts of money she has, she also bonds with Okko in a day or two and takes her out shopping, which I sort of find weird, since I doubt any grandmother would let their granddaughter go spend a day with a stranger, guest or not. Outside of those issues, her personality is charming and I really enjoyed the mall sequence, mostly for Okko's bundle of energy. Even with the minor complaints, the characters are really likeable to say the least.

The animation is beautiful, just like many modern hand-drawn films from Japan. Anime has different art designs and style when it comes to characters and the world. In this case, they went for much more brighter, warmer colours to match the overall tone of the film. The character designs are also perfect for the characters and their personalities, with the spirts taking the most unique designs. I love Uribo's big buck teeth, Miyo's pale aesthetic and Suzuki's facial features being bizarre. The score is also very good, though it's not very used much in the film. The pacing is also well-done, which is a big key in making a coming of age story. The pacing and flow of these genre films must be perfected, as slow pacing can bore an audience or fast pacing can't allow the audience to breath from time to time during their viewing experience. The filmmakers overall knew how to construct the film the best way possible for this narrative.

I wasn't expecting to cover this film at all since I had no knowledge of the film to begin with. I was simply walking past a local theatre and saw the poster to this film and decided that I should give it a watch. I'm not a huge anime guy as some think. I never watched any series, mostly because of the lack of time I have to commit to these series, but mostly my distain to poorly constructed romances, overly-complicated narratives and world-building, and the sexual nature to many anime series. I however do enjoy watching anime films such as those from Studio Ghibli. One of my favourite films is "Your Name", which I might review in the future. Okko's Inn is highly ranked in my list of the anime films I've watched, which isn't many, but it shows how much I managed to adore this little surprise. With great animation, loveable characters with the protagonist taking the spotlight all to herself, heartwarming moments of laughter, sadness, and harmony, tied off as a nice story about acceptance and the ability to move on. Outside of the character of Glory needing a bit of a rewrite, the film is sort of a perfect anime film. If you love anime or coming of age stories that has lots of cute moments, watch this as soon as you can in any theatre that is currently screening this gem!

Verdict: 9.5/10. Almost perfect in my opinion, but maybe it is if you give it a shot just like I did!