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!

Dawn of the Dead (1978) Film Review: The Best Zombie Film, Period.

I'm going to be watching "Zombieland: Double Tap" at some point next week and felt the need to review some zombie films beforehand. Although I was considering to just review the first film, I decided to review what is highly regarded as one of the best in its genre. The second installment of George Romero's "Dead" series is a stand-alone sequel, focusing on a different cast of characters as the zombie epidemic is sweeping across America. Two SWAT members and two TV station workers hitch a ride on a helicopter in order to find a safe haven. As resources get lower, they are forced to take shelter in a zombie-infested mall, that appears to be the best place they can have. However, not only is it a challenge to get rid of all of the undead that are in the mall, but perhaps their new way of life is just too unbearable. The best zombie films often have simple premises, usually a group of survivors in a specific location. The use of a shopping mall as the central location of the film is a very smart move. Not only is it one that can be used to its advantage for the survivors, but it symbolizes consumerism with the zombies being seen as mindless shoppers due to their desire to be around the mall from a previous primal instinct. Although this isn't really scary, the film does have horrific scenes and concepts. Moments such as the zombie children, Roger slowly dying by his wounds, or complementing suicide in a critical moment are horror in its own way, but the film likes to have fun though. It's not a goofy comedy, but the characters do manage to have fun, make jokes or toy around with the zombies if they can. I feel that the film blends both horror and comedy in a perfect way that it doesn't seem like a comedy, but not too much of a overdramatic thrill show.

The characters make this film as great as it is. A problem with many horror films is how poorly written, cliched, or disposable the cast of characters are, even the main leads get pretty generic. This is a common trap for the genre that many films fail to overcome, even the 2004 remake has a more underwritten cast than the original. Why the characters in this film work so well is that the group is just made up of four people, which makes it easier to learn or grow attached to them. Peter is basically the leader of the group with his skills in combat and planning, Roger is the guy who tries to have the most fun and enjoys killing zombies despite the circumstances, Stephan is the paranoid guy who eventually grows to take initiative when he has to, and Francine is the women who is always contemplating on how staying in the mall is a bad idea, which her complaining gets worse when she gets pregnant. Francine is viewed as the weakest link in the group by many, due to her just moaning about everything and always seems to enjoy getting herself into danger. Although her argument about staying in the mall does bring up an interesting point of view, she is clearly a bad character, though she does manage to help the group and becomes less annoying by the third act. Despite this, these characters work super well off with each other and feel like real human beings and not a typical cliche. I love details like how they enjoy playing around in the mall once they make it their new home and how the storage room they took refuge in has transformed into a nice apartment. Roger is clearly my favourite of the group, mostly due to how Ken Foree plays him so much like a grounded action hero. I can't say much else for side characters, since the four leads are the focus of the story and random background characters such as the bikers or panic-filled newscasters are just there to show the effects of the epidemic to people and society. Although Day of the Dead gets pretty close, this is the best cast of characters in a horror and/or zombie film due to their chemistry amongst each other, likeability, human-like acting, and how capable they are as survivors.

Despite creating the modern zombie, George A. Romero was very much an independent filmmaker as his films were low-budget and feeling as if it was made out of passion and not out for money. You can tell from the quality of the picture and camerawork that it's no professional Hollywood production. Romero however knew exactly how to use the resources he was given to make a great, piece of entertainment. The sequences of the survivors encountering the zombies are pretty tense to this day. It's not super scary, though the action scenes are very well-directed. The make-up by Tom Savini is of course great for their time. While the next installment will have the best effects from the artist, these were some pretty good gore effects for the time. Sure, the zombies look like they have been painted on and the blood is very bright red, but there is something charming watching a film with these effects. It works well, since we mostly just see the blood rather than actual gore, since we only have a few central characters in a tiny group. The music is also nicely tied into the tone of the film. There is plenty of upbeat or comedic music played usually when we only just see zombies onscreen shambling about, bumping into things and such. However, it is the score from the Italian rock band, Goblin, that gives out some very memorable tunes during the scenes of our characters killing zombies or escaping the undead. It's very 70's, and it's refreshing for my ears to hear compared to modern music. I also love the central location of the mall, which was a hassle for the crew to film, but gives the film a very unique identity and personality that is rarely replicated in other films or media due to this film. It's a shame that Romero had passed away, since we would never know what he would have done to add to the genre in recent years, but he has surely made a timeless classic for the genre.

What else can be said of this film? Perhaps it has aged a bit to modern times, specifically the make-up of the zombies and the weak character of Francine, but these barely impact the quality of this film, compared to many from the genre. With great characters, fun, suspense, light commentary, memorable soundtrack, and smart directing from Romero, there is no film like "Dawn of the Dead". It is easily the best of the franchise and Romero's crowning achievement. Although "Night of the Living Dead" introduced the modern zombie, this film cements on how to make any sort of medium featuring zombies both entertaining and compelling at the same time.

Verdict: 9/10. Personally, my favourite horror film of all time, despite it not being very scary. Please check out the original and not the awful remake from 2004!

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019) Film Review: A Nice Add-On Nobody Asked For

"Breaking Bad" is heavily regarded as one of the best TV shows of all time. With excellent writing, characters, acting, story, cinematography, setting, as well as elements of comedy, suspense, and drama all rolled into a masterpiece of a television program. It is my favourite show to this day. It not only launched multiple actors into stardom, but even spawned a spin-off series, "Better Call Saul". Although there were rumours prior to its reveal, the announcement that a film continuation of the series releasing on Netflix took the fanbase by storm, although some were worried of it was even needed to begin with. "El Camino" continues after the series finale, showing us what happened to protagonist, Jessie Pinkmann, after his liberation from Todd and the neo-Nazis. I won't go into depth with the story, mostly because there's not much of a story. Basically, Jessie escapes, needs to grab enough cash to start a new life, which ends up with a short conflict with these thieves. That's it. Half of the film are flashbacks that add some depth to Jessie or a small moment that never was depicted onscreen during the show. So, the story is really lacking, giving the impression that it's lazy or pointless. Despite the simplistic plot though, there are some standout scenes and moments in this 2-hour film, which includes some comedy and tension that the show is known for. The story also matches with the overall tone of the film, which is slow, somber and methodic. It reminds me more of the earlier seasons of the show, where it was more linear and straightforward rather than the insane rollercoaster that the later seasons become. I also think that the film was made to also make newcomers watch without much exposure from the show. Despite feeling misguided, I felt that the film was constructed to be like this to begin with.

Aaron Paul is once again electrifying as Jessie Pinkmann. His performance is both dramatic, yet hilarious. I love how in this film, you sort of see that Walter White has influenced him in some ways with his cunningness and risk-taking that alludes to scenes from the show. The shootout at the end of the film reminds me of how Walter would confront various drug lords and gangs with such confidence and attitude. I also congratulate how the almost 40-year old Paul plays a younger Jessie in certain flashbacks, which shows how much of his energy went towards this character. The rest of the cast are side characters from the show, ranging from Jessie's parents, Badger and Skinny Pete, Joe, Ed, as well as deceased characters in flashbacks such as Mike, Jane, and of course, Walter White. All of the actors return to play these roles and it's magical to see them almost magically fit back into the role despite them looking older than before. I must say though that Todd, played by Jesse Plemons, was the odd one out from the returning cast, since he has gain some weight since the series finale. This is a problem as his scene are part of the flashbacks, which he looks nothing like he does by the end of the show. Despite his new look, Todd is still a manipulative antagonist that makes you question if he has humanity towards Jessie or is just messing with his head. As for the antagonistic thieves, they are pretty forgettable. They are just an obstacle for Jessie to make the film as long as it is. Still, their inclusion makes for some great scenes, though it's mostly due to Paul's performance. The cast is solid as a whole, though that's mostly due to the established brilliance of actors and their characters.

Vince Gilligan returns to write and direct the film based off his original creation. Gilligan is one of the best writer-directors in the industry, which this film shows off to outstanding results. Although it's a bit jarring to see the film shot in widescreen and with a pristine look, it manages to gel well with the fantastic cinematography and lighting. Gilligan's camerawork is so refreshing to see again with the close-ups, scenic shots, and the creative shots such as the one when Jessie searches Todd's apartment.  The city of Albuquerque has a dirty, desert locale that gels with lovely cityscapes and the bright daylight giving off light and life to this iconic location. The music by Dave Porter is somber and powerful, though I long for the excellent opening theme to be utilized in the film, which sadly doesn't occur. Gilligan's handiwork manages to bring out some memorable scenes, dialogue, and moments in this film that can be added to the massive library that is in the show. I love the flashback scene with Walter White, the shootout, the encounter with the thieves, the back and forth with Skinny Pete and Badger, and Ed calling the cops. These scenes are great, though the question is brought up that if these memorable moments needed an entire film to be centred around. You can't deny that Gilligan knocks it out of the park as always, proving that his talents are one-of-a-kind.

"El Camino" is a pretty good film with great writing, acting, directing, cinematography, and editing that captures the excellence of the show, with most of that being tied to the involvement of Paul and Gilligan. However, the story is pretty weak with a simple storyline and one-note villains that feel unnecessary and prove to be forgettable compared to the content of the show. With that said, did this film demanded to exist in the first place? I see this film as a cherry on a milkshake. For me, the cherry is fine, but I feel that it's not needed for me to enjoy my milkshake. However, if the restaurant insists that the cherry completes the milkshake as a whole, that's fine in my book. The film doesn't ruin the show at all. Sure, it feels pointless as the film states the obvious, but it's not like the film is changing the entire narrative of the show to begin with. Take it or leave it is the best I can describe this film to fans as a whole.

Verdict: 8/10. Great on its own merits, though struggles to be on the same level as the show. I recommend for fans or those that are just into the crime-drama genre as a whole.

Gemini Man (2019) Non-Spoiler Film Review: A Double Facepalm of Missed Potential...

When an aging assassin named Henry decides to retire, his agency makes him a target where a younger clone of Henry pursues him relentlessly under his vengeful father's orders. This is a film that has been hovering in development hell since 1997, with multiple A-list action stars attached. The film never got off the ground due to the technology not being able to make de-aging effects believable. Lots of people have been saying this film feels like the script back from 1997 is still used in the final film, not only due to the 90's action movie feel, but also on how weak the screenplay is. This is a dull, bland script that is very generic with no sense of fun or energy. The film also has some plot holes that while most are spoiler-related, some are general questions of confusion. Like, why is Henry hanging around outside a lot during his stay in Budapest? Shouldn't he be staying inside to hide from his clone or surveillance equipment? There is clearly plenty of potential in this premise, which some of it pays off in the action set-pieces, but my issue is the tone. The film should have gone either over-the-top or a really serious thriller. While the final product seems to stick with a more serious tone, it also feels too bland or lighthearted to classify the film as a serious film. I feel that if the tone either captured the likes of "Face-Off" or the "Bourne" films, this movie will have a much more entertaining identity, but as it is, it feels like a 90's action flick that might as well be forgotten.

Will Smith as Henry and his clone, Junior, are acted very well as Smith never has a bad performance. You can tell that despite being the same person, they do have different personalities. The older Henry is more mellow and avoids conflict as much as he can, while the younger clone is stubborn and eager to achieve his goal, though he seems to lack some humanity in him that he must get back. While that's well done, I can't help but feel that Will Smith shouldn't have been casted in the lead role. I love him as an actor, but the issue is that the script keeps making references to his age and how he looks old, which makes no sense since Smith still looks great for his age. Perhaps if they went for an actor that looks old in general, such as Mel Gibson or Harrison Ford (both were considered to star prior to Smith being casted), the character would make more sense with the idea that he's aging, developed a conscience and getting teased by everyone for being old. While Smith is the most notable actor in the film that's good, the rest of the cast aren't on par with the lead. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Danny, an ally and sort of love interest for Henry, which I felt is really unnecessary. Winstead is a good actress and she isn't bad in the film, but her character shouldn't have been in the film as I didn't think that Henry needed a love interest in this film. Benedict Wong as Baron on the other hand is a character I wished had more time onscreen. He is so underused that I makes me bothered that they have this character in the film to begin with. He should have just been on the journey with Henry, removing the Danny character, and have these aging assassins work together on surviving these attacks. Lastly, you have Clive Owen, who is your typical evil director of an organization that should may as well not even attacked Henry in the first place, since it would've caused less trouble to begin with. There is one neat scene with him and Junior and they both act very well and have genuine responses, though it's the only scene where Owen is acting his heart out. So, outside of Smith, the rest of the actors and cast are sadly either not as well acted or utilized in the film.

Ang Lee is one of those directors that I question about their overall vision or signature as a director. While he has made some good films over the years such as "Life of Pi" and "Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger", he has also made some bad ones such as "Hulk" and "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk".  While his latest film shows off some of his best qualities, it also shows off his weaknesses. The best thing about his directing are the action sequences and the cinematography by Dion Beebe. There are some impressive camerawork and tracking shots that are pulled off so well, it makes your jaw drop. The action itself is also pretty good with excellent stunts and effects, the Colombia set-piece being the standout. Speaking of the effects, the de-aging motion capture is really impressive as it's a marvel to look at how they made Junior look so good, with the exception to the final scene where he looks like a PS4 character. Outside of the action sequences, the rest of the camerawork is flat with a lot of scenes with expositional dialogue that have nothing interesting to look at or engage in. One big problem I have with Lee's directing is the choice to make the film 3D and have a high frame rate of 120fps. A regular film is 24fps, so the result makes the film really unnatural to watch. It also harms the action sequences, since there's barely enough time to appreciate the hard work being pulled off with an artificial speed throughout the film. It almost made the film a bit unwatchable for me. As for the 3D, aside from a few neat shots, it was pointless. I would also like to say that the climax felt lacking in some wow factor. While there are some cool shots and choreography, I felt that the film should have gone full house on the ending with Henry standing off against an army of clones, sort of like the last mission in the video game "Hitman: Codename 47", where 47 fights off an army of Agent 48's. It sounds stupid, but it will not only be an interesting set-piece, but it can be pulled off really well, no matter what tone the film chose to take. Overall, Lee's directing is a mixed bag as the majority of the action scenes, cinematography and effects are done really well, but the choice to go 3D, 120 fps, bland directing of dull exposition, and the climatic action set-piece needing to go full-out on the premise of the film.

"Gemini Man" is hard to clarify as an average or bad film. Sure, Will Smith, the action, the effects, the camerawork, and the hard work put onto these elements help make this film from being borderline garbage. However, the script, tone, plot holes, the need for a different actor as Henry, and Lee's poor directing choices such as high frame rates really bog down the film to not reach the level of good. I can only recommend this film for people that want to see some nice action set-pieces that aren't constructed from 100% CGI a la superhero films, but I warn you to not watch this film with the high frame rates as it will only hurt your viewing experience. Outside of the action, there's not much else I can recommend outside of that, since you'll most likely be feeling disappointment when you watch a film that had so many things going for it.

Verdict: 5/10. Not terrible, but can say it is one of the most underwhelming and poorly-made films I've seen this year.

Tarzan (1999) Film Review: Underrated Gem Of The Disney Renaissance.

The Disney Renaissance was a period between 1989 to 1999, where Disney had their animated films be huge hits, both critically and financially, beginning with "The Little Mermaid". Despite this period being responsible for classics that many will talk about to this day, such as "Aladdin", "Beauty and the Beast", and "The Lion King", the last film in this period, "Tarzan", seems to be one that people don't love as much. Today, Disney seems to avoid recognizing the film's existence as the characters are never brought up or lack of any news that a live-action remake can occur, probably due to licensing rights. I feel that this film deserves much more respect from the company and the public, as I feel it's on par with the classics I mentioned above. When a couple get stranded in Africa, they are killed off by a leopard, leaving only their baby boy behind. A female gorilla finds the baby, just after losing her child from the same leopard, choosing to adopt the human baby and naming him Tarzan, despite the distain of Kerchak, her husband. Throughout his life, Tarzan tries proving himself to the gorilla community as well as Kerchak, which by the time he reaches adulthood, has earned a touch of respect from the silverback. However, Tarzan discovers a trio of explorers that are human, including a woman named Jane. Jane and Tarzan bond as she starts educating the ape-man, despite Kerchak's warnings of humans, which will prove right at the end. While the story is good, the issue many people talk about is the "wasted" potential of the film, pointing to how the film could have been more powerful or perfected. A key example is the choice for making the animals have dialogue, which I disagree with, since I loved the voice actors they got for the characters they play. Other examples that get tossed around include the villain and the use of songs by Phil Collins, which I will get around to later. What I love about the movie the most is the tone. The opening sequence is very mature and the film centres on Tarzan's journey of belonging somewhere, which is really touching to see in a Disney film. It's also intense as the action sequences and dark story moments prove, setting off a much more unique identity compared to the tamer films from that time. People will complain though that the tone should have been adult throughout the film, which is a ridiculous complaint. It's a Disney film at the end of the day, and no one complains that "Beauty And The Beast" or "The Lion King" can be childish and silly at times. To be fair, the film has the childish, lighthearted tone when it is either called for, or established with the comedic sidekick, which is a staple in Disney films.

The characters are what makes this film stand out in the Disney catalogue, despite a few weak links. Tarzan is one of the best male leads in the roster, just due to his journey in the film and personality. He is skillful in the jungle and amongst his gorilla peers, yet naive when it comes to human interaction. Pretty stoic and on top of things, but shows that he likes to goof around as well. Has a child-like mind from his curiosity despite his age, but can be a hardened warrior and rage-filled badass. Tarzan is quite an interesting and complex character as you go underneath the surface. Jane is also one of the best love interests that Disney has created, but refuses to acknowledge. She is smart, eccentric, and kindhearted, but is also out of her comfort zone being in an environment that is so different from London, which will of course cause her to freak out sometimes. I think the reason why Disney refuses to add her in the princess lineup is probably due to the fact that she acts like a damsel or screams more than the rest of the roster, which is really ridiculous seeing how that given the time period, any Victorian era women would behave the way Jane does onscreen. Clayton is one of the biggest criticisms towards this film, which I can understand, but I also feel that he was needed in this film. Some actually wanted the leopard that killed Tarzan's parents to be the villain, which is a stupid idea, seeing how the animals are acting as they intend. The leopard isn't evil, it's just a predator, which will not work as a real antagonist. As for Clayton, while he is a generic villain trying to make money, I enjoy his personality and voice acting, which shows that he has some cunningness rather than just being a dumb hunter. Then, you have the side characters, which are just as enjoyable in my opinion and well-written in my eyes. Terk and Tantor are the comic reliefs of the film, who are generally unliked, Terk in general getting a lot of hate. I feel that Rosie O'Donnell as Terk was enjoyable and gave Terk personality, but not everyone is a fan. Not all of the jokes land, but most of them do. Jane's father is my favourite of the comedic relief as it is his bubbly personality, character design, and passion of finding gorillas that makes him enjoyable to watch Kala as Tarzan's adoptive mother is a nice supporting character who gets some of the more emotional driven scenes in the film with Tarzan. Finally, there's Kerchak, who being the only silverback gorilla in the group gives him a very intimidating look and his constant anger adds on to the design, though he's not a bad guy since he just cares for his community, despite the harshness on Tarzan. Overall, the characters are really good and enjoyable to watch onscreen.

The animation is one of the most beautiful in the hand-drawn style. The film also incorporates some CG environments, such as the vines and trunks Tarzan surfs on. It's very polished and is very impressive in the action sequences due to how fast the pacing and characters are in those scenes. It's also a visual marvel with the soft darkness of nightfall and the bright sunlight mixing in with the heavy, jungle foliage. The animators did a fantastic job there. So, then we get to the music. The filmmakers decided to not go for a traditional musical, instead having songs being played over a montage or scene of the film. These songs, as we know, are written and sung by Phil Collins, which I feel is Disney's attempt to recapture the success of Elton John's soundtrack in "The Lion King" and Micheal Bolton's single in "Hercules". While I'm not the biggest fan of his work, Phil Collins made a killer soundtrack for this film, no matter how you argue about how it "ruins" the film. All of his songs co-relate to the scenes they are used in with "Strangers Like Me" being about Tarzan's fascination with humans and so on. The stand-outs are of course "Two Worlds" and "You'll Be In My Heart", which the latter won the Oscar for Best Original Song. I don't care about what the "South Park" fans complain about, but Collins earned that award. What I love about these two songs, other than the songs themselves, is how they are used throughout the film. "Two Worlds" is used in the opening and closing of the film, though it is sung differently and sounds more upbeat in the end compared to the beginning. "You'll Be In My Heart" is briefly sung in one scene and is orchestrated in multiple dramatic moments with Kala and Tarzan. The scene where a dressed-up Tarzan gives his gorilla mother a goodbye hug is powerful with the help of the soft, somber tune of the song. However, the best version of the song is in the end credits. Phil Collins is no Alan Menken, but I prefer his songs in "Tarzan" compared to many of the songs from the Disney Renaissance.

"Tarzan" remains my second favourite film not just from the Disney Renaissance, but also from Disney Animation as a whole, with "Hunchback of Notre Dame" being my favourite in general. With a solid story, great cast of characters and voice actors, neat comedy, intense action, perfect tone of adult and childish, amazing animation, and a great line-up of songs by Phil Collins. Perhaps the villain is a bit weak and the film could have been much more mature, which could have made it my favourite film from the studio, but I don't mind. I wish people give this film another chance and go in with an open mind, while not comparing it to other films from Disney's catalogue. I also hope that Disney doesn't remake the film into live-action, since they would make so many bad decisions if you look at their many attempts in the past years. So, take a blind jump and perhaps this film will swing into your heart.

Verdict: 9/10. A great film that still holds up 20 years later, please give it a shot and put your prejudice of Phil Collins away while you watch.

Joker (2019) Non-Spoiler Film Review: A Crowning Achievement For The Genre!

There has been plenty of comic-book/superhero films released this year that range in quality. There is borderline trash like "Captain Marvel" and "Hellboy" to great pieces of entertainment such as "Shazam!" and "Spider-Man: Far From Home". "Joker" happens to be the last superhero film released this year and it ends the year off early with a bang! Set in the early 1980's, Arthur Fleck is a mentally ill man who dreams of doing stand-up comedy. However, life hasn't been kind to Arthur, who lives with his deteriorating mother, is socially awkward, and gets picked on by a lot of people. As Arthur tries grasping for any sort of happiness or salvation in his life that he seems that can give him a purpose, his mind snaps, which causes Arthur to become more chaotic and violent in his goal to find his place in the world. Although it is based off one of the most famous villains in comics, the film decides to tell a somewhat original story of the character and tries to hide it's comic-book nature, to the point of not showing its relation to DC Comics during the opening credits. The tone of the film is a tragedy/thriller, which showcases the dark and somber tone. With that said, it's not a film that is downright depressing, as we do have scenes where Arthur tries fitting in or enjoying something he does. The third act is not even close to being depressing, as it is both haunting and beautiful at the same time. While there are violent moments in the film, they are very brief and shouldn't even be considered to be a factor in causing gun violence, since there are many films this year that are more violent and have more bullets fired than this film. The film also incorporates a nature of ambiguity, which allows viewers to come up with their interpretation of the story. There is one sub-plot involving Zazie Beetz's character that I won't spoil that is related to ambiguity, which while I liked fine, I felt that the film could have made this sub-plot much more ambiguous overall.

I think it is crystal clear that Joaquin Phoenix help made this film the best it can be with his performance alone. Phoenix becomes Arthur Fleck seamlessly and makes the audience get so much emotion and reaction from his charisma. He makes people feel sympathetic and heartbroken, but also uncomfortable and terrified from Arthur. Not only is his line deliveries on point, but there is a lot of physical acting with the role. From his creepy stares, his laughter that almost sound torturous, his skinny figure, and his scenes of him just dancing conveys so much of the character without dialogue. I won't go into depth towards the rest of the cast as they are limited in their screen-time, but the actors still do a great job. Notable side characters include Robert De Niro as a talk show host , Zazie Beetz as a hopeful figure in Arthur's life, Frances Conroy as Arthur's sick mother, and Brett Cullen as a less sympathetic Thomas Wayne. The cast is great and help move the narrative, but Phoenix steals the spotlight, which he deserves. One question that people bring up is if the film makes you not only sympathetic to the Joker, but also side with him no matter what he does. I say that's not really the case. Yes, the film makes Arthur sympathetic, but the audience isn't rooting for him to kill people or become the way he does. They want him to find his salvation or his big break from his cruel life, but we are aware that things just can't magically get better, despite Arthur's dreams and beliefs. We understand why he turns into the character he becomes and might even celebrate the ending where Arthur finally achieves his goal in his own way, but it's quite clear that audiences just wanted the character to be saved from madness rather than pursuit it. The film is essentially a character study of Arthur, which will cause tons of debates over the character, which is something really special for any character from the film medium.

Todd Phillips does a masterful job directing the film. Regardless of his previous work and viewpoints on woke culture, you can't deny that his effort in making this film pays off with such effect. From the opening scene, you know that you are watching something different from your typical comic-book
film. Lawrence Sher's cinematography is visually beautiful, telling the story visually, which is a very strong detail. The score by Hildur Guonadottir perfectly reflects the tone of the film, haunting and beautiful at the same time. The songs used in the film are used really well, some are mellow and are used for the softer moments, while others are pop songs that are used as when Arthur feel great about himself, despite the things he has done or is about to do. These pop songs have an almost black comedy technique for their implementation. The set design captures the city of Gotham City as an ugly, dirty city that feels rundown and broken. Most locations capture this with Arthur's apartment being shrouded in darkness or Arkham State Hospital being lit up, but has an uncomfortable atmosphere. However, locations such as the vintage theatre and the talk show stage are clean and glossy, which symbolizes the wealthy and poor in a clever way. There are so many memorable and powerful scenes in the film that are constructed for specific reactions, which I refuse to spoil or mention, since I want these scenes to be watched without much detail or context going in. This film will change how Phillips is seen as a director, going from R-rated raunchy comedies to R-rated powerful thrillers.

What else can I say about this film? It has masterfully direction from Phillips, cinematography from Sher, beautiful score from Guonadottir, tight script filled with themes and ambiguity, and of course, Phoenix's breathtaking performance. I did feel that there could have been more ambiguity on one sub-plot and perhaps the character of Arthur could be seen as too sympathetic, but I can't help but adore this film. It's almost flawless in my opinion, but that's something to say as many films of the genre this year have tons of issues. Like The Dark Knight in 2008, as well as Logan in 2017, it will have an impact on the comic-book genre in the future.

Verdict: 9.5/10. My favourite comic-book film of the year and my second favourite film of the year behind "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood". Watch it as soon as you can!

Shazam! (2019) Film Review: The Best DCEU Film To Date?

With "Joker" coming out this week, it's time that I review the other DC film that was released earlier this year. "Shazam!" follows the story of Billy Batson, an orphaned boy who is restless to find his mother. His journey has caused him to push away those that want to treat him like family, such as the new foster home he has been sent to. He is summoned one day by the aging wizard, Shazam, who gives his power to Billy in order to stop Dr. Sivana, who has allied himself with the Seven Deadly Sins. This power allows him to become an adult superhero, though Billy is still a kid that would rather fool around with his foster brother instead of using these powers for good. The story alone sums up the basic tone overall. It is a fun, light-hearted film that emphasizes the youthful energy of the main character. It doesn't shy away from mature elements though, which some say feels out of place in the film. For me, the dark moments such as the opening scene, the office massacre, or the overall resolution with Billy's mother work well as intended. The opening establishes the villain's motive, the office scene is a horror-esque set piece, and the scene with Billy and his mother is heavily grounded in reality, which is necessary for that moment to work. These scenes also give off a unique structure to the film, where it is light-hearted enough for families, but has very mature moments to toughen kids up. The lighter tone also means that humour is more frequent, which is written really well in this case. The jokes come out naturally and the majority of them land, mostly due to the performances of the actors and how the characters are written as a whole.

Zachary Levi steals the entire film as the adult Billy. He pulls off the youthful energy of a kid with such effect that makes him blend perfectly into the role, both delivering physical and dialogue comedy as best as they could. It is enjoyable watching Levi having fun onscreen just as much as you are. However, this undermines Asher Angel's performance as Billy, who while not bad, is much more laid-back in the role and can come across as bland. I feel that it is intentional, since it shows how becoming Shazam makes Billy more positive or fun, compared to his more reserved persona as a kid. Jack Dylan Grazer as Freddy almost steals the spotlight from Levi, due to his fast talking, high charisma, and wittiness,  playing off against Levi and Angel with such effectiveness. Grazer and Levi are the best on-screen duo I've seen in a very long time with their acting talents combined. Mark Strong as Sivana can be viewed as a generic antagonist, but I feel that he works fine in the narrative, mostly due to the film's theme of family and how the main characters are affected and view family as a whole. His motive at least helps make the character to not be extremely forgettable, unlike other villains in the franchise. As for the side characters, the only noteworthy examples are the foster family members. They all have their own quirks with Darla's talkative nature, Eugene's gamer status, Mary's matureness, and Pedro's quietness. They are well acted and likeable, but only come to play in the third act where they get roped in with the adventure with Billy, which is extremely satisfying to say the least. These characters also play into the theme of family as a whole, which makes their role in the film more important. I will get to the Seven Deadly Sins when I talk about visual effects, but the characters are very well written and exceptionally well-acted, with the standouts being Levi and Grazer.

David F. Sandberg steps out of the horror genre and delivers a refreshing take on the superhero genre. Due to the lower budget of the film, Sandberg makes the film look and feel down-to-earth, despite the fantastical elements. The cold Philadelphia setting adds towards a washed-out, grey film that is most represented when Billy is dealing with his personal life. Whether Shazam or Sivana is on screen, the film starts looking more polished and a tad colourful, especially in dark settings, where the emblem on Shazam's suit glows brightly as well as the lightning that the character shoots. The score by Benjamin Wallfisch is decent, with an emphasis on fantasy-like and somber beats throughout the film. It is overshadowed by the amount of pop songs that I feel are completely unnecessary, outside of "Don't Stop Me Now" by Queen. Most of the songs are just used to transition to the next scene, which is fine if these songs are either related to each other or to the film as a whole, but they don't. Visually, the wizard's lair, the foster home and Christmas fair are most pleasing, due to the nice cold/warn colours and aesthetic that clash with the overall look of the film, and represents the light-hearted tone as well. The action is fun to watch, though it's set more in the third act compared to most superhero films that try to make a balance of action sequences. The comedy and characters however keep you distracted from the fact that there's not much action in the film though. The visual effects are decent for when it is needed, though the effects look much better in darker set pieces compared to ones that are bathed in daylight, which I feel the lighting is to blame for having the bright daylight and grey colour scheme making the CGI look poor in these scenes. Then, you have the Seven Deadly Sins. These secondary antagonists look like they belong on a TV show budget, no matter what scene they are in. While I appreciate the unique designs of each Sin and the voice actors, they are the weakest element in the film due to their lack of personality and the inclusion almost feeling out of place in the film. Despite some issues though, Sandberg did a great job making a unique-looking film set within the genre with the choice to have a grounded-looking feel, despite the very over-the-top elements.

Although the competition is not very strong, "Shazam!" proves to be the best film in the DCEU and can be a contender as one of the best in the genre. Although the Seven Deadly Sins, average visual effects, and pointless song choices do keep it from being a perfect film, it is looked over by the light-hearted tone, fun performances, thematic theme of family, nice action scenes, well-written comedy, and Sandberg's directing. It not only feels like nothing from a DC film, but also feels unique from a Marvel Studios production, due to the emphasis on young characters and mature moments thrown in. I I'm hoping that more people get the chance to watch it, since it didn't take over the box office like it's Marvel competition or even the last film from the franchise, "Aquaman".  Perhaps it's due to the lack of awareness of the character as a whole or Levi as a leading man? Regardless, I as well as others are hoping that a sequel is made with more chances to see Levi, Grazer, and Sandberg back to offer a refreshing experience in the theatre.

Verdict: 8.5/10. It might have a bit more issues than I recalled, but that doesn't mean much for this superhero classic.