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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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