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

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 When they return to their hometown of Newton Haven, they are shocked to learn that the entire town has been replaced by alien androids who are trying to take over humanity.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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