Soul (2020) Film Review: A Thought-Provoking Journey That Doesn't Quite Stick The Landing...

 

When Joe Gardner finally gets the chance to show off his talents in jazz and piano-playing alongside a well-known jazz musician, he is suddenly put into a coma after an unexpected accident. His soul is now on the path of going to the Great Beyond, which Joe denies to accept his upcoming death right when his life can turn around into something special. Stalling time by attempting to mentor a troublesome soul who refuses to start living on Earth, the two manage to find a way back to the living but with a catch. Joe is now inside the body of a cat, while the soul, 22, is in his body. As the two try to get Joe prepared for his performance, they start to learn about the true joys of life and fulfillment... kind of. I was wrapped up in the story and Pixar's attempt at making a film centred on the tricky questions of life and purpose. While it does work out in the most part, the ending manages to keep it from reaching a satisfying or deserved conclusion. I will get to the ending later in the review, but it's one of the only problems of the film that keeps it from being one of the best in the studio's filmography. Aside of that, I really like the tone the film is going for. Similar to "Coco", the movie is more focused on the maturity and emotional beats rather than trying to make kids laugh most of the time. That's not to say there's no goofy moments or jokes, but it's more downplayed compared to films like "Inside Out" or "Onward". I prefer the scenes in the living world compared to the Great Before due to the grounded nature, but the Great Before is still engaging on a visual and imaginative level. It's like "Coco" in regards to trying to force humour for the kids due to being a family film. The humour isn't the funniest, but it's acceptable for the ambition of the overall story and themes.

Jamie Foxx as Joe Gardner gives out a fantastic vocal performance as the middle-aged music teacher who is struggling to accept his pending death and how he never accomplished anything in life. Foxx is so good that I forget that it's him at times mainly due to the character design of Joe as well as the more somber personality of the character. Tina Fey plays 22, a soul who refuses to join the living world due to her lack of passion in anything that she can be born to do. Much like Foxx, you get so used to Fey that she's almost unrecognizable even when the film addresses her voice to begin with. While she seems a bit annoying at first in the soul world as she's responsible for the hit and miss comedy, she starts to get more interesting upon entering Joe's body as she realizes that she just wants to experience the little things of life rather than be focused on one goal. Aside from the two leads, there's some decent side characters to boot, albeit in the living world. There's Phylicia Rashad as Libba Gardener, Joe's mother who concerns over his state in life, Donnell Rawlings as Dez, Joe's barber who's just so charming and wholesome in the one scene he's in, and there's Angela Bassett's Dorothea Williams, a jazz musician who is stunned by Joe's skills but starts having second thoughts on collaborating with him upon an embarrassing encounter. As for the characters in the Great Before, there's Graham Norton's Moonwind, a sign twirler who can transcend to the spiritual world, the Jerrys, the unisex soul counselors who help guide new souls before they get sent on Earth, and lastly, there's Terry voiced by Rachel House, an accountant who is after Joe for evading his death. While Terry is more of an obstacle rather than an antagonist, I just don't like the inclusion of the character and feel that they either needed to alter the character to be the embodiment of Death or just remove the character altogether. Terry just feels too silly and out-of-place in the otherwise creative writing. Aside of Terry and the more humorous Jerrys, the characters are quite enjoyable with Foxx and Fey serving as great leads.

The animation is where Pixar allows both a sense of familiarity and freshness into a visually-gorgeous package. Starting with the Great Before, it's charmingly abstract with the environment and new souls being fuzzy and soft while the Jerrys are these Picasso-esque people that look 2D along with their unique movements. The Great Beyond is this haunting yet beautiful landscape where the contrast of white and black along with the escalator to the afterlife is pure art. With the case of the living world, the animation style gets a bit experimental. While the cityscape, objects, clothing and hair of the inhabitants of New York City are so extremely detailed that it can look almost life-like at times, the character designs of the humans is a mix of being realistic and exaggerated in terms of their body size and facial structure. It seems jarring at first, but it starts to feel natural as the film goes on. The music is also pretty good with the heavy emphasis on jazz music considering the character of Joe. Aside from the various jazz sequences, especially when Joe plays on his piano, there's also the more orchestrated music for the Great Beyond, The Great Before, and the revelation sequence when Joe realizes the true pleasures of life... sort of. Yeah, now it's time to address the ending of the film. I'm not going to lie, the ending itself isn't bad in concept as it has an open-ended conclusion where Joe plans to live his life one moment at a time. The issue with this particular ending though is that it feels inconsistent to the story the film was building up. For example, we learn that Joe is in or was in love with a woman named Lisa. While it seems that the ending will have the two meet up or reconcile, we never see Lisa at all in the film. Another example is Joe's position on being a band teacher, especially after praising one of his students for their passion. But, the film never shows Joe accepting the full-time position or not, despite this job paralleling his journey with 22 for the entire film. Lastly, there's the overall idea of what Joe feels about playing with Dorothea Williams. While the film acts like Joe feel out of love with jazz, it clearly shows that he still loves playing music, but is just not sure of being a musician. The film straight up ignores these three resolutions and just acts vague for the sake of being vague. Perhaps it was meant to be open-ended for different viewers, but the ending to the film just feels underwhelming and somewhat rushed. It's not enough to discredit the talent of the animation, music and direction by Pete Doctor and Kemp Powers, but it's just a bit of a sour note to end the otherwise riveting film on.

"Soul" is almost a top contender of Pixar's works. While the film suffers from the character of Terry being an out-of-place obstacle for the story and tone and the ending overall doesn't pay off well, the film is still a great film from the legendary studio. From the engaging story and themes, the more down-to-earth tone and lack of humour, Joe Gardner is one of Pixar's most human protagonists thanks to Foxx's vocal performance, Tina Fey's 22 acts as a great reflection of the film's themes in regards to the pleasures of life, the side characters are charming and enjoyable thanks to the wholesome cast, the animation is extremely creative and detailed in regards to world-building and character designs, and the music incorporates the wonderful sounds of jazz alongside a great original score for the various environments and emotional payoffs. It's a movie that I was glad to watch and hope to own, but it's stained from a few poor story decisions that ruins an otherwise surefire masterpiece.

Verdict: 8/10. Great movie, but could've reached full potential with a rewrite. Check it out on Disney+ for free or in theatres if the streaming service isn't accessible for you. 

Fatman (2020) Film Review: A Modern Holiday Classic?

 

Merry Christmas, everyone! Today, I decided to review a film that was released last month and surrounds itself around Santa Claus and the holiday itself in an odd, realistic yet somewhat lighthearted way in its dark comedy approach. "Fatman" is about Chris Cringle, the aforementioned Santa Claus who lives in Northern Alaska with his wife, Ruth. Chris has became quite miserable lately due to an increasing number of naught children every year and has put himself in financial trouble. Forced to sign a contract where his workshop builds parts for a new fighter jet for the U.S military, he is unaware that one of the bad children he sent coal this year has hired an assassin who holds a grudge on old Saint Nick for similar reasons. From the premise alone, you might expect it to be a raunchy, R-rated comedy with dark humour all spread throughout with countless swearing and over-the-top situations. Well, the film actually keeps itself somewhat rooted into the story it creates for itself with a sense of realism, humbleness and a bit of dark, over-the-top ideas. The tone is surprisingly a bit on the dramatic side as aside from the zany premise and characters, the focus on Chris having to regain his positivity is taken quite seriously and feels rather genuine. The downside is that the film is honestly not that funny. While the characters can be enjoyably over-the-top and there are some scenes that are fun to watch in terms of the scenario and characters involved, it's not really trying to make you laugh out loud. I personally don't mind too much, but I can understand how this can be a problem, especially given the insane premise.

Mel Gibson as Chris Cringle is fantastic and one of his better performances in recent years. What I love about his portrayal of Santa is that he doesn't go over-the-top or extremely mean-spirited with the performance. Gibson plays it as if it is the usually jolly Saint Nick that has been feeling more depressed as of late. There's so many great lines and details in the portrayal that this is the same Santa we have become accustomed to who is being tested with reality and it's really all thanks to Gibson's rather sincere and honest performance. Say what you want about the actor/director, but he's a great actor at the end of the day even when he phones in some performances in recent years. Surprisingly, Gibson isn't the only great performer of the film as Walter Goggins does an amazing job as Jonathan Miller, the assassin who is hunting down Chris as part of his job and a personal grudge with the big man as he got on the naughty list from a broken home. This is perhaps the actor's best role to date as he gives this character so much depth and personality to an otherwise heartless killer. From his hobby of collecting toys made from Santa's workshop, to how he enjoys taking care of his pet hamster, to his wide range of quirks and almost-human traits of interacting with people, Goggins proves to be an extremely capable actor by making you believe that he's this one of a kind assassin who is extremely capable, but has an extreme range of character that's goofy but realistic. Aside from the two lead actors, you also have a good supporting cast to boot. There's Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Ruth Cringle, Chris's African-American wife who supports her husband as an adviser and loving partner, Chance Hurtsfield as Billy Wenan, a spoiled kid who wants to win or get what he wants every time regardless of moral actions, Eric Woolfe as Seven, the elf foremen who runs Santa's workshop, and Deborah Glover as Anne Marie, Billy's grandmother who is unaware of his grandson's heinous actions. While the aforementioned and background characters and actors do a great job in terms of their grounded nature or zaniness, it's Gibson and Goggins who carry the film's enjoyment and quality thanks to their excellent performances.

Eshom and Ian Nelms are two brothers who wrote the script for "Fatman" almost fifteen years ago and having to shop with the project for more than ten years while also marking said film as their directorial debuts. While it's a bit unfortunate that all of these years made the film released in the worst year possible to release a film of any sort for financial gain, the Nelm brothers should be proud that their film came out as great as it did. For a directorial debut, the brothers know how to not only make a film, but pace it perfectly for a first-time viewer. The first act of the film tries to hide the more magical aspects of Santa Claus that it makes you wonder what the direction of the character is going to be, which makes the reveal of the elves and the more magical elements of the character a bit surprising considering the grounded first act. I also love how the lore of the character and elves are either evolved due to the modern reality or kept childishly silly. The film itself was shot around the city of Ottawa, Canada's capital city and the city where I live. Aside from seeing some aspects of my home in a movie, it does lead to a few awkward mistakes such as Miller exiting a made-up convenient store with a Tim Horton's coffee cup or seeing a sign displaying Almonte, Ontario despite the setting being in Alaska. Despite these goof-ups, Johnny Derango's cinematography is really good from the shots inside Miller's car to the wide, landscape shots to even a few long takes. The music by the Mondo Boys however proves extremely forgettable, aside from the decent opening music in the beginning. It's hard to make a memorable, original score for a Christmas movie and this film is no exception. The last thing to take note would be the climax where Miller finally tracks down Chris's address and starts going on a shooting spree. While it's somewhat generic on the surface, I do like the use of blood contrasting the white snow and on Miller's white jacket along with a decent show-down between Chris and Miller. It helps that the actors were committed to work in the freezing temperatures. While the film does falter a bit from occasional amateur mistakes and a forgettable original score, the Nelms did a great job on their passion project and I hope that the film will pan out to be considered a financial success. 

"Fatman" is not your typical R-rated dark comedy and that's where the film shines. While it's lacking in the laughs, the score by the Mondo Boys is unmemorable, and there can be an amateur mistake in regards to shooting location and an odd cut here and there, that's really all the film has to burden. "Fatman" offers a nice story that offers a twisted spin on the Santa mythology, a down-to-earth tone that allows actual drama to flourish alongside a wacky scenario on occasion, Gibson's portrayal as Santa Claus/Chris Cringle shows that he's a great character actor despite controversies in his career, Goggins marks the best performance of his career as Miller, the side cast is fairly strong with characters being the right amount of dramatic or hammy, Derango's cinematography is solid with a variety of shots that manage to be very effective, and the direction of the Nelms brothers showcase their talent in making some neat action moments, allowing the city of Ottawa to be used for filming, and being able to misdirect the viewer with clever set design and handling of pace and passion. While the title of the review seems a bit sarcastic in how I'm asking this question for a film like this, I actually believe that it kind of is. Sure, there's a few issues here and there and it's a hilarious film, but the holiday background and the unique depiction of Santa tied to a fantastic actor and clever script has warrant it for me to watch every Christmas from here on out.

Verdict: 8/10.  A great dark comedy that excels in the drama compared to the laughs. Please check out as soon as you can to support the film and the Nelms brothers after their long voyage in bringing their passion project to life!

Men in Black: International (2019) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Should Have Stayed Behind In New York...

 

The "Men In Black" franchise is an enjoyable sci-fi romp that has tons of charm the more times I watch. The first and third film are the best the property has to offer with the second film being very flawed despite some good moments. While the third film manages to end the series off in a fine conclusion, Sony wanted to do more with the franchise. Although plans for a fourth film with the original leads and a crossover film with "21 Jump Street" were dropped, the studio decided to go with a spin-off film that will continue from the trilogy, but will feature a brand-new duo that would hopefully carry the franchise. This film however manages to not only get some pretty bad reviews, but failed to earn enough money at the box office, leaving the future of the franchise to rather bleak. To be honest, I'm fine as long as any future films were going to be of similar quality like this one.

Positives:

• The directing by F. Gary Gray. While it's somewhat similar to Barry Sonnenfield's work in the previous films, Gray manages to make a polished movie despite production drama. Not only is the film perhaps the most colourful of the franchise in regards to lighting and alien designs, but the use of on-screen locations of London, New York and Marrakesh are inspiring to say the least. Considering that the "Aladdin" remake failed to even shoot a good chunk of the film on-location, it's great that Gray actually manages to get scenes shot in the actual city rather than just having sets in a studio.
• The cinematography by Stuart Dryburgh. Drybrurgh offers some nice sweeping shots and one-takes while also working as the viewer's perspective at times whenever some sense of spectacle is portrayed.
• The visual effects. The spin-off film is the first to abandon any use of practical effects and make-up on the aliens. While it's a double edged sword as I will discuss in the negative portion of the review, the CGI is well-rendered and detailed for the most part. Not every effect is convincing, but the CGI looks really good a lot of the time and perhaps the best-looking in the franchise.
• The action sequences. They manage to be engaging and visually distinct by the scenarios. The shootout in London where the Twins demonstrate their matter-warping abilities is probably the best scene of the film that captures the spirit of the franchise with some familiar and new imagery at the same time. The Marrakesh space bike scene and the close-quarters battle between M/Riza and H/Luca also have some kinetic energy and a few bits of humour that work. Although the filmmaking of the film is really good, that's all that can be said about the positives.

Negatives:

• The story. The film begins with Molly, as a kid, encountering an alien and her parents being the only ones to lose their memory of the encounter by some incompetent agents who don't even bother to grab said alien. 20 years later and Molly has managed to find the MIB headquarters, which she manages to persuade to join the ranks offscreen with no trouble at all. After two weeks of training, she is, for some reason, appointed to go to the London branch of MIB to deal with their problem for no reason. She is partnered up with Agent H, who is said by many to have changed ever since he saved the world despite not really showing his original personality to begin with. The two then stumble upon a powerful weapon that is extremely destructive to the planet and galaxy. This weapon is sought after some arms-dealers, two mysterious alien beings known as The Twins, and a mole in the London branch of MIB. The story is a complete mess in regards for what it wants to focus on. At first, it focuses on what little of Molly's journey is, but as soon as she achieves getting to MIB, it immediately throws her into a mission that she has no connection to whatsoever. There's also the lack of depth given by the villains, which I will touch upon later. On top of all of these issues, the film has plot holes galore and some questionable pacing issues in regards to Molly being far more ahead of the plot in comparison to the viewer.
• The humour. While there are a few laughs here and there, the film has more awkward deliveries and jokes that don't hit. Whether it's a homage to the previous films or the banter between M and H, it's really poor for most of the part. Every other film in the series has strong humour regardless of the overall quality of the film, "MIB: International" has the weakest jokes in the film and it's mainly due to hoping easter eggs and the "chemistry" between M and H will sell the film. Speaking of which...
• The main characters. Molly/M, played by Tessa Thompson, is one of the blandest protagonists in a recent film. The movie pushes so much on how fantastic she is of an agent and person that she barely shows flaws or mistakes as a rookie. Will Smith in the previous films makes goofs and has a very curious outlook on life, but that's what makes him so likeable. It's due to his humanity and everyday joe reacting to this brand new world hidden under his nose. Molly is already obsessed with tracking the organization in the beginning and she never seems impressed or happy whatsoever. For a rookie, she just knows everything that is to be expected and it just makes her boring. Agent H, played by Chris Hemsworth, is a more likeable character due to his goofiness, but the film obsesses about how he has changed since he and his mentor saved the world a few years ago. This would be fine if we knew who H was prior to the film, but aside from one quick opening scene where he's similar in competence as Will Smith's Agent J, that's about it. We are just supposed to accept that his ego and goofiness is not part of his character, which will reveal that he had his memory erased.
• The pairing of Thompson and Hemsworth as the main leads. What made the previous films so entertaining, particularly the first film, is the freshness of seeing Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as an unexpected duo. This blend of new and old talent was ingenious and managed to impress audiences by seeing an out-of-the-box duo. While Thompson and Hemsworth are good actors, we already saw them onscreen as Thor and Valkyrie in the Marvel movies. Not only does the pairing of them yet again lose some freshness and variety, but it comes across as extremely forced by both the poor humour and acting from Thompson specifically. On a side note, why get an Australian to represent the British division of MIB?
• The villains. All of them are a step-down from the previous films due to their lack of exploration and threat to the characters. First, there are the Twins, played by Laurent and Larry Bourgeois. These mysterious beings can shape-shift and have matter-bending abilities and appear to be the main villains for most of the film as they seek the weapon M has. While at first they prove to be effective in regards to their design and powers, they reveal that they are actually trying to kill another worse alien with the weapon before being killed by a sneak-attack from High T. It's a ridiculous twist regarding their morality considering that they literally killed humans and an entire alien species prior to this reveal. Next, there's High T/The Hive, played by Liam Neeson. Being the obvious twist villain, High T is the head of the London division that has secretly been taken control by the Hive, a parasitic alien species that seeks to take over the planet. While Neeson is doing a decent performance, the problem is that the reveal has little time to let you process what really happened with High T. During the climax, H attempts to reach out to T, which does manage to work for a bit before M destroys him. The Hive is barely explored at all in the film in regards to its goals and what it does to its human host, which is a problem considering that all of the other films make it clear what species the villains are and what capabilities and goals they seek. The last villain would be Riza, an alien arms-dealer and H's ex, played by Rebecca Ferguson. While probably the most entertaining and easy-to-understand villain in the film mainly thanks to Ferguson's performance, Riza is still not that big of a threat due to how the film and characters act how dangerous she can be.  But she's literally a human-looking alien that has a third arm. While it makes for a cool action scene, it's just not that creative and feels like the character was made to serve some in-joke.
• The side characters. There's only a few to note, so I will keep it brief. There's Pawny, a tiny alien that worships M as his queen voiced by Kumail Nanjiani. While spouting a few jokes here and there, his schtick gets real old real fast and his combat capabilities feel so random given how tiny he is and how crucial he was to the climax which I will touch upon. There's Agent O, a nosy and high-ranking agent who seems to appear as the mole played by Rafe Spall. Spall tries his best, but the material just pushes him as the generic red-herring. There's Vungus, a sloppy alien who's a member of royalty and a target of The Twins voiced by Kayvan Novak. There's not much to say about Vungus due to the jokes and plot relevance surrounding him being a bit ridiculous. There's Luca, an alien bodyguard for Riza who happens to be the very alien Molly encountered as a kid played by Spencer Wilding. Luca is probably the best original character in the film due to how the script doesn't overuse him and the twist regarding him being the same alien is surprisingly clever for the poor writing. Lastly, there's Agent O, the head of the New York branch of MIB reprised by Emma Thompson. Thompson serves as the only returning character from the franchise and although it's nice seeing her in the few scenes she's in, the fact that she hires Molly after a not-very convincing audition does bump her down a bit. Aside from a cameo by the worm guys and Frank the Pug, that's really about it for the returning cast, which is kind of depressing.
• The editing by Zene Baker and Christain Wagner. While the editing in the film is fairly decent in regards to the action and nice transitions, there's an abundance of weird one-shot transitions that are so awkwardly out of place. A good example would be when M and H lose the weapon to an alien that works for Riza. After the scene ends, we cut to an uncomfortably long shot of the moon. Not only does the moon look poor in quality, but the shot cuts to the agents fixing their hoverbike afterwards. There's not even a smooth pan or anything. Same can be said for the reveal of the weapon's capability at 0.001% of its power. There's a pan revealing the damage it did to the desert, but the film cuts off halfway before we see the entire scale. Did the weapon just create a gigantic creator or a cliffside? I don't know because the film doesn't want me to know.
• The music by Danny Elfman and Chris Bacon. While the two have created the memorable theme of the franchise, they suffer from the same issue that Alan Silvestri had for the "Back to the Future" sequels. This issue being that the composers have trouble in making the music to the sequels more distinct. While the first and third film had good music and soundtracks, the fourth film has a forgettable track of music aside from the main theme. There's not even a nice soundtrack tied to the film as the only licensed song I can recall was cut short by some guy saying "Oi!" from afar. I can't even recall the song to begin with! The underground rave has some modern music that would get dated in a few years, but other than that, the audio department proves disappointing.
• The overuse of CGI. While I did say that the visual effects are pretty good, the problem is that the film departs from the use of practical and make-up effects for the aliens. Now, all of the aliens are made in a computer. Because of the film lacking these effects, it really gives off the impression that the filmmakers were extremely lazy in regards to the production and creativity of the aliens, no matter how nice the CGI looks.
• The climax. It feels so rushed that it's very pathetic. So, after destroying The Twins, M and H get a sudden hunch that High T betrayed the organization completely out of nowhere. After tracking him down to the Eiffel Tower in Paris, High T reveals that he, possessed by the Hive, did indeed erase H's memory about the event where the two went to stop said Hive. M gets thrown into a wormhole that is transporting the Hive in a scene extremely reminiscent of the "Ghostbusters" reboot. She gets saved by Pawny, who despite his tiny size and arsenal, manages to pull both he and her out of the wormhole. After H manages to get in touch of what little of High T is left, M uses the weapon on max setting to destroy High T and the Hive that was coming inside the wormhole. Not only is this climax so quickly resolved with absolutely no stakes, which every other film prior managed to have, but it even breaks its own rules at times. I find it hard to believe that Pawny can save both himself and M while inside a wormhole given how puny he is. Not only that, but we saw how powerful the weapon was at the lowest possible setting. So, you're telling me that the highest possible setting didn't throw the agents far back or even destroy the Eiffel Tower? It's ridiculous how safe and brainless the climatic battle is. It also doesn't help that everyone mourns High T even though they barely explain what was left of him ever since the Hive got him.

"Men in Black: International" is not only the worst film of the franchise, but an extremely underwhelming return to the franchise that might have killed it in its tracks. While Gray's direction is solid with a range of colour and on-screen locations, Dryburgh's cinematography is pretty good with some nice one-shots and tracking shots, the CGI is nice with tons of detail and perhaps the best looking in the franchise, and the action sequences are quite engaging, that's all that the film can manage to do well. The story is a mess with tons of plot-holes and lack of actual focus or direction, the jokes miss for the most part with only a few laughs that are earned, M is an extremely bland protagonist that's not interesting or likeable, H's subplot of him being changed was completely thrown in and pointless to build his character, the pairing of Thompson and Hemsworth is already done before and feels tired and forced in the film, the villains are all over the place in regards to focus or character depth, the side characters are really generic despite the talent attached to them, the editing by Baker and Wagner can be painful at times with some awkward cuts and inserts, the music by Elfman and Bacon is more of the same with barely anything new or memorable alongside a lack of a decent soundtrack, the overuse of CGI and departure from practical effects and make-up feels lazy and sometimes a bit unpleasant, and the climax falls flat on its face with a rushed nature and lack of stakes or continuity. This film is the perfect definition of a polished turd. Yes, the production design, effects, and action look nice and even on par with the franchise, but the interior of the film, which is mainly the script, reeks and rots no matter how good it looks on the outside. It's tolerable to watch once, maybe twice, but it's not worth going back as it would fade from your memory much like if you were neuralysed yourself.

Verdict: 4.5/10. Below-average with a pile of problems next to an anthill of positives and potential. Stick with the trilogy and only watch for some nice action scenes.

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: 2+2 Is Four...Shadow.

"The Fast and the Furious" was perhaps one of the worst first installments to a franchise I have ever seen. While Vin Diesel was entertaining and it did set the groundwork for the future of the blockbuster franchise, I hated how cliched and boring it was along with being a product of its time. On top of that, it was also the debut for Paul Walker's Brian O'Connor, one of the most unlikeable protagonists in cinematic history. Despite not being a fan of the first "Fast & Furious" film at all, I was hoping that the sequels would, at the very least, be able to serve as far better pieces of entertainment. Well, the second film of the franchise did manage to achieve my wish, but not by very much.

Positives:

• Paul Walker as Brian O'Connor. This is probably the only film where I actually liked the character throughout the entire film. How is that possible? Well, it's mainly by how the sequel removes his connections to the Toretto family, which allows the character to not obsesses over Mia and their weak-ass love story. Instead, he spends more time with his old friend, Roman, which allows to have far more believable onscreen chemistry than Brian had with Dominic or Mia from the last movie.
• The debut of Tyrese Gibson as Roman Pierce. This is one of my favourite characters in the franchise and that's due to Gibson's performance as this wise-cracking hoodlum who is mad at Brian for getting put to prison despite their longtime friendship. It's weird seeing Roman only work off with Brian rather than the rest of Dominic's crew in this film, but it actually works. The sequel also marks the debut of Ludacris's Tej Parker, albeit in a small role.
• John Singleton's directing. While there's still an issue in regards to the use of CGI and a specific race scene, (which I will get into later), I enjoy whenever Singleton directs a project. He had this reputation to make films that felt gritty and somewhat low-budget in terms of the aesthetic, trying to match films made in the 1970's. While Singleton does succeed for the most part in this film, there are some problems that make it far from nearing the quality of "Shaft" or "Boyz in the Hood".
• The kickass soundtrack, particularly Joe Budden's "Pump It Up" which plays in the end credits. Far more memorable than whatever was playing in the last film of the series.
• The action/racing sequences improve from the first film with the audition race sequence being the highlight with some nice stunts and mayhem. It's also the film where the action itself gets a bit more over-the-top which adds a critical piece to the franchise identity with thanks to Walker and Gibson's banter. While all of this sounds like it easily surpasses the first film, there's a lot of baggage that burdens the experience. 

Negatives:

• The story. Although some aspects of it work and it does fit Singleton's direction motifs, it's probably one of the most forgettable. The film has Brian captured by the police after relocating to Miami for letting Dominic get away in the last movie. However, he is given the opportunity to have his criminal record erased if he can take down Argentinian drug lord, Carter Verone. Brian agrees though wants to hire his old friend Roman as his partner as well as giving him the opportunity to erase his criminal record as well. I do think that the story works for the case of forwarding Brian's journey as well as bringing Roman into the franchise, but man is the story just so bland. It's the typical cop movie template with the unlikely heroes needing to take down a drug lord in order to get good reputation back. Keep in mind that this was released the same year as "Bad Boys II", which not only featured a similar plot, but offers so much more in terms of action and comedy that it makes this sequel look like a preschool show.
• The tone and humour. While the second film of the "Fast" saga keeps adding more to the identity of the franchise, the tone is still not perfected yet. While it can be silly at times, it's taking itself just a bit too seriously due to the story being the typical cop movie template. It never feels like it's self-aware whatsoever and it never reaches its potential of being fun throughout. The humour is also pretty weak with only Roman's one-liners occasionally getting a chuckle.
• The new cast of characters that never reappear in the franchise. Although Brian, Roman and Tej do return to the future sequels, the other newcomers get left in the dust. First, there's Eva Mendes's  Monica Fuentes, a U.S customs agent who aids Brian as an undercover ally to Carter and acts as his love interest for this film. While I can tolerate the thrown-in romance (considering how generic this story is), Monica just never makes an impact and feels like a copy of Gabrielle Union's Sydney Burnett from "Bad Boys II". There's Suki, played by Devon Aoki, a Japanese street-racer with a crew consisting of women and a close friend to Tej. Suki is just there to add another hot girl to the cast and aside from the racing scene in the beginning and helping out as a diversion in the climax, disappears from the rest of the franchise. And the last character to note is the villain, Carter Verone, played by Cole Hauser. This is perhaps the worst villain of the franchise just due to how bland he is. There's no depth to his character, he never comes across as a threat, and Hauser doesn't ham up the drug lord enough to be entertaining, compared to Jordi Molla's insane performance as Johnny Tapia from the aforementioned "Bad Boys II". There are some FBI agents that grill at Brian along with Carter's enforcers who are left to monitor Brian and Roman, but they are so generic that they blend into the template this movie uses as a story.
• The cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti. Much like the first film, the cinematography is pretty mediocre outside of a few action moments. It's not as bad as Core's work as Singleton does try to make the movie look like a grungy 70's film, but it's not saying much when Leonetti starts making the film look like a music video in some pretty bad scenes along with the fact that it can look pretty cheap at times. 
• David Arnold's original score. It's actually kind of pathetic that BT's score on the first film is actually better. The music in the first film at the very least fits into that dated 2000's music video aesthetic, for better or for worse. Arnold's music is trying to be sound far less dated, but it's not memorable at all with the soundtrack being the saving grace in the audio department.
• The use of flashy CGI. For whatever reason, this film is obsessed with having racing sequences showing the inner mechanisms of the car, especially when someone uses nitrous. While other films in the franchise do show some part of a car being pushed to the limits or affected by nitrous, the CGI at the very least looks good and tangible. The CGI here looks like a screensaver on an early Window XP and although you can debate about it adding to some charm to the film, it really dates the movie and hampers the late Singleton's filmmaking as he rarely did these flashy moments in his films.
• The opening drag-racing sequence at night. Yep, just like the first film, the movie has to open up with a terribly done racing sequence with so much digital effects and wacky editing that it blurs the lines of a bad music video or an arcade game. Honestly, I actually think this race is worse than the one we see in the first film because of all the intercuts with the CGI mechanisms of the car. On top of that, the movie proves to have good driving stunts and action sequences, so it baffles me why shooting a nighttime race is hard for them.

"2 Fast 2 Furious" is a tiny step in the direction, but it's still far from being good. Although Brian is the most tolerable here, Roman's debut is nice to say alongside his banter with Brian, Singleton's directing style, improved action sequences, and an awesome soundtrack, everything else is extremely below par in the standards of the franchise. The story is just your every cop-movie cliche-filled template where two guys need to stop a drug dealer and earn good reputation back except "Bad Boys II" did it far better, the tone isn't self-aware to allow itself to make fun, the comedy is weak with only a few lines from Roman being worth a few chuckles, the new characters are extremely generic and prove forgettable as they never return to the franchise, Carter Verone is both the most forgettable and worst villain of the franchise due to how little substance he carries in his character and performance, Leonetti's camerawork still makes the film look far cheaper than it really is, the original score by Arnold is far more generic that BT's dated hip-hop/electronica music, the use of cheesy CGI whenever nitrous is being used is painfully bad, and the film still has the audacity to open the film with a horribly-edited and performed nighttime racing sequence that makes the film look far worse that it is. So, while it does do a few things better than the first film, it makes a lot of mistakes that it becomes one of the weakest films in the franchise, rival only by the first and fourth film.

Verdict: 4/10. Mediocre follow-up to a bad first impression. Has a few bright spots in an otherwise forgettable movie that's only made memorable by its silly title.

Matilda (1996) Film Review: A Magically Charming Classic.

 

There are two kinds of cult films. There are the films that are beloved by a growing yet limited group after critical and financial ruin, and there are the films that are actually praised on release and today by many with the small hamper of the initial box office run. "Matilda" falls into the second category. Rarely will you hear someone hate on the film, and even then, not with the strongest reasons. But, is the film really that flawless? Based on the Ronald Dahl novel, the story centres on the titular character. Matilda is no ordinary girl as she has a highly advanced brain that allows her at a young age to solve complicated problems and basically reach a sense of maturity in her family of dimwits and hustlers. As Matilda finally attends elementary school after turning six and a half years, she learns about the vile principal, Miss Trunchbull, a women who despises children and would find any moment to torment and torture them. While making friends with kids her name as well as the kind teacher, Miss Honey, Matilda starts to learn that she has psychokinetic abilities that can be useful to not only get back at her mean family, but also to stop Miss Trunchbull's reign of terror. The story is simple and sweet, though is hampered a bit from a short runtime. The story works fine the way it is for a hour and a half, but it could benefit with more scenes of Matilda either making friends with the kids at school or more scenes with Trunchbull harassing the kids. The tone is really the highlight of the film and why it's remembered by fans today. It's a family film that contains a mean-spirited atmosphere while being wholesome at the same time. It's not a dark or edgy movie, but it's probably not geared towards very young children since you have scenes of Matilda's spiteful family who will say some pretty nasty things and Trunchbull as the villain who can scare little kids and start making them paranoid about their own principal. Despite how mean-spirited it can get, there's still fun and charm stuffed within. Even Trunchbull's ways to harm or torture kids are over-the-top and exaggerated that it never comes too dark, but rather silly and something that only a young child can imagine. It keeps in perspective of the intellectual yet six-year old protagonist. As for the comedy, it's a nice balance of childish wonder and buffoonery as well as some adult edge with wordplay and mean-spirited humour that doesn't overwhelm the feature.

Mara Wilson as Matilda Wormwood offers a nice performance as the gifted girl. Although some of the line deliveries can feel a bit stiff at times, Wilson is just so loveable when she acts as a know-it-all with others trying to talk down upon her. Embeth Davidtz as Miss Honey is also a charming performance as the teacher that befriends Matilda due to her gifted mind and similarities. While the relationship between the two is for the most part wholesome, it gets a bit too uncomfortable at times. Not only does Matilda prefer to hang out with Miss Honey far more than the kids of her age, but there's a really odd exchange and direction when Matilda solves a complex math question where it feels a bit creepy when it comes with the two admiring each other. Pam Ferris as Miss Trunchbull is undoubtedly the best performance of the film. She's so hammy and entertaining as the villainous principal with absurd strength and temper. It also helps that she was extremely dedicated to the role, getting herself injured on a few occasions. The last major character to note is Danny DeVito's Harry Wormwood, the father of Matilda who runs a car dealership where he cons customers to buy used cars with fresh parts to make a high fortune. Despite being viewed as a complete jackass in the film, DeVito is just so hilarious that you can't help but love the guy, even if he's a terrible father and criminal. There are some other side characters such as Zinnia Wormwood, the ditzy mother of Matilda who is perhaps the only member of the family to care somewhat for her daughter, Micheal Wormwood, the older brother of Matilda who constantly bullies her, FBI agents Bob and Bill who are trying to get enough evidence on Harry to arrest him, and some of the kids that Matilda befriends such as Lavender, Hortensia, and Bruce. The side characters do give out a chuckle here and there, particularly the FBI agents and Zinnia, but they aren't particularly memorable. Some characters, particularly Micheal and the other kids aside of Lavender, may as well be removed as they don't really do much. Regardless, the acting and character are pretty solid with Wilson giving out her most recognizable performance as Matilda.

Danny DeVito might be famous for his countless acting roles and memes, but he also used to be a director as well during the height of his career. Although most of his films are mixed to say the least, "Matilda" proves to be one of the few highlights in his directing duties. The film has a range of mood and colour, which is reliant on Matilda's own mood. The wealthy suburban home the Wormwoods live in is either muted or taken over by an extreme colour such as yellow or orange when the family watches TV. Trunchbull's school and estate is gothic and rundown during his occupancy, but the latter is cleaned up once Miss Honey reclaims her long-lost home. Whenever Matilda is positive, there's a sense of colour and life that takes over, even in scenes located in her home and the school. The cinematography by Stefan Czapsky is obsessive with lots of facial close-ups and slanted angles, but it fits with the exaggerated tone of the film. Most shots feel tight or standard rather than a wide sense of cinematic scope, which keeps it rooted to the child-like perspective. The music by David Newman blends into the typical family film with an emphasis on soft, whimsical music. The licensed tracks though burns into your memory with the two songs being "Send Me on My Way" and "Little Bitty Pretty One". The special effects are quite modest and never come across as flashy. Majority of the effects are optical with wires, harnesses and occasional green-screen. It's very practical and keeps the film timeless in that sense rather than to overuse the growing craze of CGI. I do think that DeVito is a pretty good director, he just picks some odd projects to direct. "Matilda" is odd for sure, but both unique and standard to make it a memorable kids film.

"Matilda" earns its devoted praise and fans for plenty of good reasons. The story sticks close to Dahl's novel in its simple and engaging hook, the tone is perfectly innocent and mean-spirited, the humour is fun for both kids and older viewers, Wilson's performance as Matilda is overwhelmingly charming, Ferris's performance as Trunchbell makes for one of the most memorable family film villains of the 90's, the side characters has their moments and nice actors attached to them, Czapsky's cinematography is bizarre and filled with character, the two licensed songs are engraved into both the film and your mind, the effects stay practical and effective in its simplicity, and DeVito's direction allows a personality of mood and colours to match the titular character's perspective and remains as the best film in the directing chair. Despite all of these positives, I will admit that the film does have issues that are hard to overlook. The film could have been longer to maximize on the potential of the story, there can be some awkward line deliveries on occasion, the relationship between Miss Honey and Matilda can be a bit uncomfortable at times, some side characters don't need to be in the film at all, and the original music by Newman is pretty generic. With some tweaks, it can be one of the best family films around, but the people who love it for what is, perhaps it doesn't need any changes at all.

Verdict: 8/10. A great film all-around. Watch with any family member of any age and they will sure to enjoy this cult hit.

The Bourne Identity (2002) Film Review: A Unique Identity For The Action/Spy Genre.

When a man is rescued by an Italian fishing crew stranded out in sea, he recovers to learn that he can't remember anything about himself, not even his name. All he knows is that he found with two bullets in his back and a laser projector that details a deposit box in Switzerland. Accessing the deposit box, he finds a gun, money, and several passports, with him utilizing the American passport for his name, Jason Bourne. Bourne suddenly learns that he is a wanted man by both local authorities and the CIA who are trying to kill him due to a mistake he made in the past. Now accompanying himself with a women named Marie, the two are on the run as Bourne has to piece together who he is and why are assassins trying to kill him. Based on the acclaimed novel by the late Robert Ludlum, the first entry in the "Jason Bourne" franchise is widely regarded as the best film of the respective series, and for good reason. While all of the films have twists and turns and conspiracies involved, the first film has the best mystery and journey in terms of the characters and viewer. We want to know who Bourne is and how he got himself stranded at sea and why, but the film makes sure that we learn information piece by piece. Even when the story focuses on the characters in the CIA headquarters, they talk in a way that's both realistic and also makes sure that the audience gets any information that they can use. The story is always a few steps ahead of the viewer, making sure that they will learn just as Bourne himself learns the truth. Not only does the film have a great mystery and hook attached, but the pacing is pitch perfect. The movie is only under two hours, but it makes sure that there's no filler involved and there's a balance for the film pushing scenes of dialogue and action or suspense when the viewer may start losing attention. This isn't an action-filled spectacle compared to most films of its genre, but it's more of a thriller with action involved with a spy-themed backdrop.

Matt Damon marks his defining role as Jason Bourne, a performance that was initially backlashed due to the actor's lack of action roles and the novel portraying the character as much older than the thirty-year old Damon. However, Damon's experience in dramatic roles and his dedication to the stunts and action made him one of the most best modern action heroes as Bourne. Not only does Bourne knows how to take control of a situation with his combat skills, but Damon pushes some depth into the character that makes him more relatable or human. Damon made sure that Bourne is both a badass protagonist, but also a lost soul trying to know who he is or was. Franka Potente plays Marie Kreutz, a German-American women who is paid $20,000 to drive Bourne to Paris, only for the two to be both running on the lam as well as falling in love with one another. While Marie is basically the love interest for the story, the chemistry between her and Bourne is so good, which is mainly thanks in part by Potente's performance. It's kind of sweet seeing these two drafters who have nothing entitled to their lives in various ways getting attached to each other due to them only being able to talk to one another as the world seems to suddenly chase after them. The side characters, while not particularly memorable, are given fantastic actors to play them. There's Chris Coopers's Alexander Conklin, the man behind the Treadstone program and wants Bourne dead or alive to keep the operation afloat, Brian Cox's Ward Abbott, the Deputy Director of the CIA who is planning to shut down Treadstone due to its unreliability regarding Bourne's actions, Julia Stiles's Nicky Parsons, a CIA technician who monitors the Paris police force to try and track Bourne for the agency, Tim Dutton's Eamon, a father and friend of Marie who grants her and Bourne a place to stay unaware of the people after them, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje's Wombosi, an exiled dictator from Africa who plans to expose the CIA after a failed assassination attempt on his life. While these characters, along with a few assassins, are not particularly deep personality-wise, are just acted really well to keep them almost on the same level as the two leads. It helps that they take the role seriously much like the film itself. However, Bourne is clearly the best character of the film performed by the exceptional Damon.

While director Paul Greenglass is mainly known for his contributions in the franchise, it's easily mistakable that he had no part in this first film. Instead, Doug Liman is responsible for directing the first installment to the successful franchise, which offers said installment a different perspective compared to the sequels. Liman has a methodical, calculated approach to the film not only from the pacing allowing the characters to breathe, but the settings of the film to pop out. When a city is shown onscreen, it was shot on location, despite the studio demanding to shot in far cheaper cities as substitutes. Paris, Zurich, Mykonos, Rome and Imperia all look nice alongside the European countryside as a backdrop during the road-trips in-between. Even the set that serves as the CIA headquarters looks very realistic and grounded, going for a more chaotic office layout with workers scrambling to track Bourne rather than a slick, ultra-modern facility. The cinematography by Oliver Wood is good as usual, considering that I have been acquainted to his work in previous reviews. They fit the intensity and mystery of the film as multiple shots are compiled as the situation gets more unstable. His work becomes notable when he establishes the setting or environment, especially during the action sequences. The editing by Saar Klein is notable for quick and sporadic cuts in the film that will become a staple in the rest of the franchise. While I can see some people being turned off by the editing, I actually think that it works perfectly for the film as Bourne as a character is scattered-minded when it comes to piecing back the person he once was and it makes the viewer feel as disorganized or confused as him. John Powell becomes the composer associated with this franchise as he take part in all of the films, aside from "The Bourne Legacy". While his work gets better in the later films, his contributions for the first film are not a great first impression. The more dramatic and suspenseful music works whenever it's tied to a revelation of Bourne's character, but the action cues reek of early 2000's style and norm. At the very least, the film introduces the iconic theme song for the franchise, "Extreme Ways" by Moby. The action scenes are spread out, but they are great to watch. The fight between Castel and Bourne in his Paris apartment is fantastic and offers one of the most grossest things associated with a pen. The car chase as Bourne outdrives the French police force is riveting with the stunts and in-camera, on-location action. The showdown between Bourne and the Professor is a clever cat-and-mouse game as the former must find a way to move close enough to take out the latter. The final sequence where Bourne is in a shootout Conklin's guards is epic in its own right, offering a heck of a conclusion that pays off the film's steady pace and story. I have always wondered what could have been if Liman were involved with the sequels compared to Greenglass, as the first film is perhaps the most well-made of the franchise.

"The Bourne Identity" remains as one of the best modern action films to date. Outside of the original music by Powell being typical of the early 2000's, the film has a timeless feel to it. From the amazing story, tight pace, serious tone that matches the mystery and journey of the character, Damon's star performance as Bourne, Potente being a nice love interest as Marie, the side characters given great actors to make up for lack of personality, Wood's wonderful cinematography, Klein's editing that keeps in perspective of Bourne's mindset, the use of "Extreme Ways" being the main theme song for the franchise, really solid action scenes, and Liman's directing that allows a cross-continent adventure with real locations, stunts and grittiness that does Ludlam's work justice. Whether or not it's the best film of the franchise is up to you, but it's responsible for making the character of Bourne an icon of the genre and Damon an all-star actor.

Verdict: 9.5/10. Practically perfect if the music was better. Experience or re-enter the journey of "The Bourne Identity."

Deadpool (2016) Film Review: A Vulgar Yet Game-Changing Film...

 

The superhero genre has been dominating the box office for the last decade or so and it's probably going to do so for a long while. What all of these comic-book films have in common is that they tend to be PG-13 in the hopes to reach maximum profit for all audiences. While there have been R-rated films based on comic books or graphic novels in the past, they don't tend to be box-office hits. They may either be modest successes that have a cult following or failures that fans would rather forget than revisit. Then, "Deadpool" came out and changed the landscape of superhero films. From the R-rating, to the modest budget, to a lead actor that's been becoming unpopular from poor movie choices, the merc with a mouth shattered records and became one of the highest grossing films with a R-rating during its initial release. Almost 5 years later, it's time to revisit and see if the film still holds up. The story follows Wade Wilson, a mercenary who is diagnosed with terminal cancer. He seeks help from a mysterious organization that promises a cure for his cancer while awakening his mutant abilities via torture. While he gains the powers to heal at an extreme rate, Wade is physically disfigured and nearly unrecognizable. Escaping from the facility, he seeks revenge against the man who caused his disfigurement, Ajax, in the hopes that he can get back to normal before his girlfriend, Vanessa, sees him the way he is. That's basically the sum-up of the story and it seems like the generic origin story that the genre is known for. True, the origin story itself isn't the most interesting thing in the world, but it's the pacing and structure that makes it far more engaging than it needs to be. The film goes back and forth as we cut to the present where Wade is in pursuit of Ajax while he fills the viewer in on backstory from time to time. And that's only in the first half of the film. The second half picks up the pace in terms of the comedy and action, so it does manage to hold the attention for viewers. The tone is unapologetically "Deadpool". You got the inappropriate jokes (sexual or ethical), various swear words, fourth-wall breaks, and violent action while being really lighthearted as a result. It's a movie that really wants to have fun with itself, but it can also be a touch dramatic or heartwarming when it comes to Wade's alienation and his dilemma with reuniting with his girlfriend. It's a R-rated raunchy comedy at its core though.

Ryan Reynolds kills it as Wade/Deadpool. From the cocky nature and the ability to break the fourth wall and talk to the audience, to the obliviousness, goofy, somewhat immature mind, it's a miracle that such a douchebag can be so loveable at the same time. It's hard to believe that he was the same actor who played an inferior portrayal in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". While the portrayal of the character isn't as dark or layered as in the comics, the performance by Reynolds not only managed to resurrect his career, but launch the character into worldwide stardom. Morena Baccarin plays Vanessa, the girlfriend of Wade who is later a hostage for Ajax. A lot of people really love the relationship between Wade and Vanessa, and it's not hard to see why. Despite the short time we see them together, you get a sexually contrived yet somewhat cute romance the two have for each other. It also helps that Baccarin is a good actress to make the character anything but one-note. Ed Skerin plays Ajax/Francis, the villain who made Wade the way he is and has the power to not feel any pain at all. While I love Skerin as an actor and he does have his moments to be entertaining in the film, Ajax is just not a very engaging villain. Not only is he just a really vain guy who mainly hates Deadpool for being annoying, but his abilities really don't make him that formidable considering how overpowered Deadpool is with his healing ability. He works as an introductory villain and as an element for the origin story, but I just can't take him seriously as the main villain in terms of being considered a threat. Aside from the main cast, there is a plethora of side characters that all stand out for their unique personalities and playing off of Wade. There's TJ Miller's Weasel, the best friend of Wade who runs a bar for mercenaries, Stefan Kapicic's Colossus, the metal-coated member of the X-Men who is good-natured and attempts to get Deadpool into the famous group, Brianna Hildebrand's Negasonic Teenage Warhead, a teenage trainee for the X-Men who is mainly mean and silent, Gina Carano's Angel Dust, the inhumanly strong enforcer for Ajax, Leslie Uggams as Blind Al, an elderly woman who lives with Deadpool and is bitter enough to tolerate the hero's personality, and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the taxi driver who gets Deadpool to a desired location as he explains his love troubles while getting crisp high-fives. Throw in the best Stan Lee cameo and you got a fantastic cast that plays off one another with Reynolds making everyone laugh with his star-defining role.

Tim Miller makes his directorial debut after years of experience working for his co-founded company, Blur Studios. Although it's odd that a guy who's main work consists of small animated projects, title cards, and games has his first film be a live-action superhero film, Miller does a stand-up job in his first directing job. What's really impressive about the film is the production design and the limitations of the $58 million dollar budget, which is extremely low for the average superhero blockbuster. The look of the film is very muted and unpolished as a result when exterior scenes are on screen. While the heavy amounts of grey in these scenes seem like a problem, it actually helps in keeping part to the film's gritty and small-scale nature. The interior locales look good with thanks to some nice set design and offer some atmosphere to them, whether it's the mercenary bar, Wade and Vanessa's apartment, Blind Al's duplex, or the secret facility. The cinematography by Ken Seng is really good with lots of slow-motion, close-ups, wide shots, and a sense of enclosement during the scenes of Wade in the decompression tank or in Blind Al's apartment. The music by Junkie XL is decent, albeit lacking a sense of identity. The action music tends to use synthesizers, giving it an 80's-esque sound to the score, but the more it goes on, it becomes pretty generic. The soundtrack however is fantastic with songs such as "Calender Girl", "Angel of the Morning", "Shoop", "X Gon Give it to Ya", and of course, "Careless Whisper". The visual effects look nice for a modest budget with Colossus, Deadpool's facial movements, the scarred make-up Reynolds wears, and the climax being visually impressive, all thanks to Miller's experience and connections to animation houses. Not all of the effects look convincing per se, but it's done well that it doesn't bother me, especially considering the budget they were working with. The action is kinetic to say the least. Deadpool's use of pistols and katanas along with his healing factor makes for a fresh sense of energy. The violence is also done in a way where it's not super flashy or grotesque. Katana slices and headshots feel satisfying rather than exploitative and there's just so much style and flair involved. The set-pieces are also cool giving off a sense of scale in an otherwise small-scale movie. You got the SUV fight, highway shootout, the fights between Wade and Ajax, and the climatic battle with Deadpool fighting the goons with Colossus and NGT fighting Angel Dust. Overall, Miller did a great job and I hope that his third film will be on the same level as this and "Terminator: Dark Fate".

"Deadpool" deserves the acclaim that it got and still gets today. While the villain of Ajax isn't that compelling or threatening and the original score by Junkie XL is a bit on the generic side, that's basically the only issues that the film has. From a simple yet engaging narrative, unapologetic tone and humour that is faithful to the source material, Reynold's redemption performance as Deadpool, the entire cast as a whole being so entertaining and great working off one another, Seng's well-done cinematography, an amazing soundtrack, good CGI and make-up, fun action scenes that feel large in scale despite being small in concept while being gory in the right amounts, and Miller's directing being a great first impression with his skills and look of the film with a muted aesthetic and distinct set and colour designs. It's a film that's not only fantastic in its own right, but it paved the way so that mainstream, R-rated comic-book films can occur more often , such as "Logan" and "Joker" being some of the most acclaimed films of the genre, joining the ranks that this film manage to start.

Verdict: 9/10. Almost perfect, despite a weak villain and original score. One of the most unique comic-book films to come out during that time and one of the funniest to boot!

Jaws (1975) Film Review: A Misguided, Yet Undeniable Classic.

 

The film that skyrocketed a legendary filmmaker's career and being the first blockbuster in film history despite a notorious production, "Jaws" is still seen as one of the greatest films of all time. As a kid, I had only watched a third of the film and never cared to rewatch it throughly due to the extreme amounts of exposure. However, I have decided to watch the film from the beginning to the end after getting the 4K version. The question I have in my head is whether or not the film has aged well, especially with the change of perspective of sharks and the film landscape. The story is pretty straightforward. A rogue shark is roaming the waters of Amity Island, killing a young woman and even a child. The new police chief, Martin Brody, urges citizens to avoid the beaches as they try to hunt down the shark. The mayor and the majority of the seaside town refuse to cooperate due to financial reasons and trying to hold the reputation of the summer season. As more people are killed and solutions become more problematic, Brody decides to hunt the creature itself, alongside with an oceanographer and a seasoned fisherman who wants to take credit for killing the shark. Based on the best-selling novel, the film has gained the reputation of the fear and mass overfishing of sharks, which I, along with many others, feel bothered from. I won't be too harsh on the content, especially as the author and filmmakers admit that they wouldn't have made the story if they knew about the endangerment of sharks, but it's a bit hard to watch when the people are really barbaric about wanting to kill the animal, even the oceanographer for some reason. With that said, it's mainly an homage to classic stories and horror, but with a modern and grounded context. The tone of the film is what makes the film so memorable. There's both suspense and comedy intertwined and it mainly just relates to the characters and realism of the story. I will talk about it more in the characters segment, but I love how the characters are just people scrambling to deal with the situation rather than stereotypical cliches. There are some tropes involved that makes the film feel a bit over-the-top, but it does stick close to the grounded reality.

Roy Scheider as Chief Brody is a solid protagonist. Despite only moving into the costal town months ago, he's very committed into keeping the people safe, despite the mayor's interference. The best scenes are with him and his family as Scheider is just a charming actor when he plays the husband/father role, especially in the scene where his kid is imitating his every movement at the dinner table. Robert Shaw plays Quint, a crazy shark hunter who constantly drinks and demands a high ransom for killing the shark. Although the character is inspired by Moby Dick, Shaw makes the character of Quint his own and makes him perhaps the most enjoyable character of the film despite his questionable personality. Richard Dreyfuss plays Matt Hooper, an oceanographer who studies sharks and is able to point out what type of specimen they are dealing with. Dreyfuss is enjoyable as Hooper for being the straight-man that has to deal with both Quint and the mayor and confiding in Brody to deal with the issue. Although it's odd that he's not even considering the option of capturing the shark despite his career and passion, the character works for this particular story and cast. The last major character would be Mayor Vaughn, played by Murray Hamilton. While seemingly corrupt and unlikeable due to how he's forcing the beaches to be open despite the killer shark residing in the waters, the viewer understands that it's just due to the town relaying on tourists during the summer to have business owners stay afloat. What's bizarre is that he's honestly even more relatable as we live in a pandemic where politicians try to balance keeping businesses open versus the potential fatalities. Outside of these main characters, there are a few side characters to note. There's Ellen Brody, the wife of Martin, Deputy Hendricks, Brody's bumbling partner, and Mrs. Kintner, the mother who mourns the death of her child and blames Brody for not letting the town know of the killer shark. The kids of Brody and Kintner can be mentioned, but they really don't have much personality to note other than being juvenile boys. The cast is generally pretty good and they actually commit to their roles. There's not one bad performance or unlikeable character. The viewer either gets attached to certain characters or they relate to the more morally-complicated ones.

Steven Spielberg's first theatrical film manages to show that, even in his early years, the famous filmmaker knows how to direct a movie. Despite being recognized as a horror/thriller film, the movie has a slow pace and almost resembles a slice-of-life film at times. The location of Amity Island creates a lively atmosphere and setting with the sunny exterior shots making the viewer feel warm by the artificial sunlight. The interior of Brody's home feels very comfortable that you'd want to stay over. The windows show the beautiful yet deadly beach that gives the viewer a false sense of security, much like the civilians in the film. All of this is primarily thanks to Bill Butler's cinematography, which is simply excellent by the extensive use of long shots. There are so many key examples of Butler's unedited shots and sequences that it's questionable why he hasn't got nominated for his work in the Oscars the following year. Perhaps it's because it was just tied to Verna Field's award-winning editing for the uninterrupted shots and perfectly-timed cuts? The iconic score by John Williams doesn't need any real introduction. Aside from the popular theme where the shark stalks and attacks its victims, there's a bunch of adventure-sounding tracks and even thrilling music as the main trio hunts the shark when they depart to sea. It's a bit odd to hear this music, especially when the scene is more suspenseful as the characters struggle to take down the shark, but it's still great music nonetheless. The last thing to really note is the effects relating to the shark itself. We all heard of the horror stories that the filmmakers had to deal with the animatronic shark that constantly malfunctioned, but the shark itself looks decent for the time and is commendable for their efforts. Aside from a trained sequence where a great white is tossing a shark-proof cage around, the film mostly had either Butler's camerawork that portrays the shark's point-of-view or the mechanical shark that scared audiences back in 1975. Personally, I didn't find the shark to be fake-looking or ridiculous. It's clear that the scenes of suspense where we don't see the shark much is far more effective, but the climax involving the mechanical shark named Bruce is still great to watch and proves to be a spectacle when you realize that the film was not only using practical effects and props, but it was the first major film to be shot on the ocean.

"Jaws" is undeniably a cinematic classic and even a masterpiece by many. From the balanced tone, sense of realism in the story and characters, the likeable personalities and performances by the main trio, the mayor being a surprisingly well-aged character despite the seemingly shallow motives, the actors as a whole never phoning it in, the interior and exterior settings being so comfortable and homey, Butler's fantastic cinematography, Field's editing that keeps shots uninterrupted and working around with the limited production, William's famous score, the effects of the mechanical shark being remarkable and somewhat inspiring for the production and filmmaking in regards to today where CGI dominates special effects, and Spielberg's direction of making a horror film have so much to offer in terms with atmosphere, characters, and filmmaking. The only issue with the film itself is mainly in regards to the dated nature of shark-hunting. Aside from that, it's an issue that's water under the bridge as Spielberg and the novel's author, Peter Benchley, admit that they wouldn't have made the film if they knew of the overfishing of the aquatic creatures. Despite their comments, I will admit that if they never made this film, the world will never experience a magnificent film. 

Verdict: 9.5/10. Almost perfect if you can stomach the meat-headed nature of trying to kill a shark. Otherwise, it's an extremely rewatchable film, even 45 years later!

Hacksaw Ridge (2016) Film Review: My Favourite War Film Of All Time...

 

War movies always tend to be gravitate audiences and fans, no matter the familiarity or quality. Whether it's Oscar darlings such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "1917" or below-average money grabs such as "Pearl Harbour" and "Midway", war movies are one of the most safest films that a studio can make in regards to financial gain and praise. For me, my favourite war movie also happens to be my favourite film made by Mel Gibson. The WWII biopic follows Desmond Doss, a combat medic who refused to wield a firearm due to his religious upbringing. Although he was targeted by his superiors and was nearly thrown out of the army due to his conditions, he persists to finally be deported to the Battle of Okinawa, where his beliefs and medical training is put to the test as he experiences the bloody battle firsthand. What I love about the story is not that it's about a single person based on reality, compared to war films that follow original characters in the non-fictional backdrops, but the film doesn't jump into the war until the second half of the film. While that sounds like the first half can be boring, it instead focuses on the character of Desmond, the romance between him and Dorothy, the relationship between him and his father, and the combat training where he seems alienated due to his religious beliefs. The first half is extremely effective at making the viewer feel attached to the character, compared to just having a group of random soldiers with no personalities that the viewer is forced to like due to it being WWII. The tone of the film also changes between the first and second halves of the film. The first half is more on the lighthearted romance and drama with some satisfying character moments and comedy. The second half is the complete opposite as it becomes the war film that people expect, as you got suspense, grisly imagery, and an almost horror-esque nature to the battle. It still however carries a sense of hope and accomplishment as Desmond continues to save life after life.

Andrew Garfield is just fantastic as Desmond. I wasn't the biggest fan of Garfield due to his performance as Spider-Man in the "Amazing Spider-Man" films, but his performance as the awkward yet good-hearted combat medic really shows that he's an exceptional actor when he can fit into the role. What's weird is that Garfield's performance as Desmond manages to be a much better version of Peter Parker compared to what we got in those garbage movies. I feel that he was snubbed that year for the Oscar for Best Actor, despite getting a nomination. Garfield is joined by a large supporting cast, which I will only name a few prominent characters. There's Sam Worthington's Captain Glover, Desmond's superior who learns to respect his underling's bravery and heroism, Hugo Weaving as Tom, Desmond's alcoholic father who served in the first World War, and Teresa Palmer as Dorothy, Desmond's girlfriend who works as a nurse and tries to make Desmond quit his ludicrous mission out of his own safety. Aside from these characters, you do have the typical roles you'd expect from these movies. These include the arrogant higher-ups, the squad members with their own quirks and personalities, and the Japanese being just the enemy force that appear to have no humanity in combat aside from Desmond's nature to help injured soldiers from both sides. Sure, they are somewhat generic, but the archetypes are enjoyable in these particular movies and somewhat expected. The last thing to note is of course the historical accuracy of the story and characters. While it's not as made-up compared to "Braveheart", there are still some fictional elements such as Tom being a WWI veteran and some events added or removed from Desmond's life. Despite these inaccuracies, the film still stays true to the story of the heroic figure and Garfield portraying said hero is what truly sets the film apart from the usual war flicks.

Gibson makes perhaps the best film of his career after a brief hiatus from directing. I think that he's a far better director than an actor, considering just how grand his vision for a particular project just unfolds onscreen. I love the use of colour as it changes much like the first and second halves. The first half involving the romance and Desmond's army training is mainly coated by this warm sunshine that represents how homey and safe America is during the war. As the film transitions to the Pacific Theatre, the warm colours vanish as greys and darks take over. The ash, mud-filled landscape and dark nighttime scenes reflect the gritty atmosphere and tone that the film represents in that section of the film. The cinematography by Simon Duggan is some great stuff. I feel that it didn't receive a nomination due to the first half of the film having some safe, standard set-ups compared to the second half. Duggan clearly showed more ambition and effort during the war sequences from the long takes, wide landscape shots, extreme close-ups, and holding on to a shot just long enough to see the carnage that doesn't overstay its welcome to appear flashy. The first half of the film has good cinematography for sure, but it's by no means stylistic or unique compared to his work in the later half of the film. The score by Rupert Gregson-Williams is decent, but not going really anything special. It's your typical war movie track with a romantic and homey track here and there. It tends to be on the more emotional side, but it's just kind of generic. To be fair though, the track does fit the film and the subject of Desmond, so there's probably no room for experimentation in this particular soundtrack. Gibson's directing, much like "Braveheart", truly shines during the battle sequences. The Battle of Okinawa is tied with the Omaha Beach landing from "Saving Private Ryan" in terms of being the best WWII battle depicted onscreen. It has the chaos, carnage, gore,  victories, losses, and even touches of black comedy that is all edited together to be this memorizing, entertaining piece of cinema.

"Hacksaw Ridge" is, for me, the best WWII film to date with its biopic structure on Desmond Doss, the handling of the tone and pace for both the first and second halves of the film, Garfield's endearing performance as Desmond, a strong supporting cast of likeable, albeit, cliched roles, Duggan's camerawork being almost on John Toll's level, the Battle of Okinawa both entertains gore fanatics and film-lovers for its craftsmanship, and Gibson's directing shows that, despite his use of inaccuracies along with controversies, he's still a fantastic director no matter the project and subject matter. The only thing that's truly holding back the film from being a masterpiece is the score by Gregson-Williams and the occasional inaccuracies. Aside from those tiny issues, this is such a great movie and one that appears to be quite underrated. Despite its nominations and wins in the editing department, it seems that audiences have overlooked it in favour of films such as "Dunkirk" and "1917". While it might not have taken the world by storm, it come in and offered something unorthodox yet special with its approach and depiction of the heroic actions of Desmond Doss.

Verdict: 9.5/10. If the score was more memorable, it would have been practically perfect. Still a fantastic film regardless and a must watch for war film lovers, Andrew Garfield supporters, and gory battle fanatics.

The Fast and the Furious (2001) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Should Be Called Slow and Tame Snore-fest...

 

The "Fast & Furious" franchise is one of the most popular franchises that is still going strong today, with the last two films in the main series earning over a billion in the box office. This is mainly due to the over-the-top action and various stars that show up in the films along with a sense of awareness to the identity of the franchise. Can you think of a franchise that went from some racing melodrama that evolved into a spy-action blockbuster with explosions and A-list actors? Well, that should mean that the first film must be considered a classic in its own right, correct? After all, it did inspire a highly successful franchise, much like "Iron Man" or "Mission: Impossible"? Well... let's just say that if it were up to me, this franchise would've been dead in the water going by the first film alone. 

Positives:

• Vin Diesel as Dominic Toretto. While Dominic isn't the deepest of characters, which is not something that can be found in this franchise, this is clearly the role that Diesel is both born to play and will be famous for. A notorious street race and leader of his crew, Dominic is both charming in his brute nature while being dangerous both in and outside of a car. I also like that he's portrayed as a morally-grey character who has his demons, but is only doing illegal business to provide for himself and the people he loves. Outside of Diesel, I will give credit that the cast are good actors, but their characters are just another story in general.
• The stunts provided in the few action sequences in the film. Considering how over-the-top and CGI-heavy the later films get, it's refreshing to see practicality in the first film. Sure, the action isn't as entertaining and is pretty small-scale in comparison, but franchises do have to start somewhere.
• The tropes that originated from this film. From the endorsement of "Corona" beers, the street races with shots of sexy girls, the meat-headed attitude of the street racing community, and Dominic stating that he cares for his "family" is all started here. Regardless of your take on this film, this is the building block that would eventually carry this franchise to unexpected heights. With that said, it's just pathetic that this film could have been much better as an actual film.

Negatives:

• Let's start with the story. Brian O'Connor is an undercover LAPD officer sent to locate and infiltrate Dominic Toretto's crew due to the FBI's suspecting that they are the one responsible for stealing DVD's and other electronics from cargo trucks. As Brian spends more time with the crew though, he starts denying that they are the one stealing the cargo and points to a rival of Dominic, Johnny Tran. On top of that, he starts to rethink his allegiance as he and Dominic start to "bond" along with Brian and Dominic's sister, Mia Toretto, start falling in love. The problem with the story starts when you clearly realized that this is in fact a rip-off of "Point Break". Even if one takes away that resemblance, the story itself is just so cliched and boring that it's almost painful to watch because the viewer is always ahead of the characters which doesn't help due to the pacing feeling slow at times. The worst offending aspect of the story is that it recycles the plot-line of a blooming romance between the lead and the rival faction in order to cloud his judgement. We have seen this in "Avatar", "Princess Mononoke", "Ferngully", and countless other movies. It doesn't feel that Brian abandons his job because of moral duty, but rather because he's finally got a piece of ass in his life. It's a ridiculous story-thread and although the film attempts to claim that Brian and Dominic's friendship is what truly tested his position as the undercover cop is completely laughable. The characters do interact, but it's not like they really bonded that much or Dom's viewpoint has completely evolved Brian, it just feels that Brian is caring for Dom just so he can have permission to bang his sister. On top of that, the whole subplot of Tran being the suspect behind the heists is completely pointless and just makes Brian feel so much of an unlikeable idiot.
• Paul Walker as Brian O'Connor. This is a very unpopular opinion, but I hate Brian O'Connor in all of the times he shows up in the franchise. It's sad that Walker died from a car accident and he's generally a good actor that is mainly famous from this franchise, but man, does his character suck in practically every appearance. The biggest problem with Brian in this first installment is just how terrible of a character he is. For one, you got the terrible romance that I already mentioned. Second, he's a horrible cop for screwing up the operation for the FBI. Thirdly, Walker just has no charisma in this film that makes you want to root for him. I actually wished that Eminem took the job of playing the character as intended, since at the very least, he would have been much more charismatic to work off on Diesel's performance. When I see Walker as Brian in this film, I just see some pretty-faced white boy that's pretending to be far more pathetic than he really is and only evolves to be an unlikeable douchebag that doesn't make up his own mind with shallow logic.
• The rest of the cast and characters. Although some of these characters do return and become much more fleshed out and enjoyable, their first appearance leaves a lot to be desired. First, there's Michelle Rodriguez as Letty, Dom's tough-as-nails girlfriend. While Letty becomes far more dynamic in the later films, she doesn't really do anything at all in the first film aside from just being a crew member that Dom just so happens to be dating. Next, there's Jordana Brewster as Mia, Dom's sister who is in love with Brian. I also think that she's a pretty terrible character in the overall franchise as she's just made to be the cute girl that serves as Brian's love interest. Mia never gets to be useful at all in the franchise, other than to tell Brian where her brother is. She never partakes in the action, racing, hacking or anything, and is the most useless character in the crew. Speaking of the crew, there are some faces who fans will never see again with one exception. There's Vince, Dom's friend who picks fights with Brian due to his crush on Mia, Jesse, the brains of the crew who's diagnosed with ADD and gets killed before he left an impact on the franchise, and there's Leon, the most forgettable character of the crew because he literally disappears from the franchise and never shows up again after Jesse's death. Vince is the only member of the original crew to reappear in the franchise and not for that long, mind you. The last character to mention would be Johnny Tran, the Vietnamese leader of a rival gang that Dom is competing against and Brian is trying to pin the former's crimes on. Rick Yune tries his best, but the character is just one-note, which is the best way to describe the majority of the characters in the movie. Aside from Dom, everyone else has either not matured yet to being fleshed-out, generic as all hell, or just Brian O'Connor.
• The directing by Rob Cohen. Considering his filmography, I don't think he has ever made a good movie aside from the Bruce Lee biopic. This film looks like it was made by a first-time director accustomed to music videos or high school plays. The staging of the actors is just all over the place. Everyone looks like if they are about to bust a rhyme or get into a musical number, and considering the cheesiness of the films, I wouldn't be that surprised. Considering the more grounded, if stupid, storyline, you'd think that the first film would be the most realistic, but it's kind of sad when you consider the later spy-action sequels feel more natural than the bare-bones original.
• The cinematography by Ericson Core. I don't want to bash Core too much, since he made the excellent "Togo", but his work on the first "Fast & Furious" film is not the best demonstration of his work. This is mainly due to Cohen's directing and making the film look unnatural, cheap, and lazy. The action scenes at the very last do have some visual style going on with the shaky camera and the rawness of the stunts and stakes.
• The music by BT. Who's BT? He's a DJ who has worked with many stars during his career and is generally more noteworthy in the music industry due to his limited experience on film scores. The music presented here is very much on the hip-hop/electronic, but it just blurs into the lack of identity the film has. BT's work just suits Cohen's vision of having the film appear like some early 2000's music video and it makes whatever music he has actually made just forgettable. As for the licensed songs, there are plenty of them for sure, but man are they forgettable. It's odd, considering the later films will have some iconic songs attached, but the first film has like nothing to take note.
• The drag-racing sequence. Oh god, the drag-racing sequence at night. There are a few racing/car chase sequences presented in the film and they tend to be pretty underwhelming, especially compared to later sequels. The problem is that Cohen's lack of style or ambition really makes the racing kind of bland and the use of tons of close-ups of the driver tends to let the viewer glance over any racing or "stunts" during these scenes. The truck heists tend to be the only scenes where the stunts and showcasing of the cars and entertainment work. But then, there's the street race at night where Dom and Brian race for the first time. You'd think with the whole framework of the franchise that the first racing sequence would be one of the best highlights, right? Wrong! You will bear witness to terrible green-screen and flashy editing that makes you feel that you're in a crappy Universal Studios ride. It's really embarrassing to have one of your racing sequences in a franchise all about racing and cars to not even have anyone actually drive in this sequences. I understand if it's a chase or action sequence like in the newer films, but this is literally a street race at night, something that other directors manage to accomplish in the sequels. This scene alone practically speaks of the film's overall quality.

"The Fast and the Furious" has got to be one of the weakest first films in any franchise. Although Diesel as Dom is great, the stunts during the truck heists are pretty good, and the film does indeed laid the foundation for the tropes of the series and as a building block of what's to come, it can't be denied how bad this film gets. From the story being a template of "Point Break", Brian O'Connor being a terrible protagonist, the cliched romance between Brian and Mia being really unrelatable, the rest of the characters being either underdeveloped, shallow, or generic, the music by BT being one of the most forgettable soundtracks in the franchise, a terrible drag-racing sequence that just screams lazy and poorly-aged, and Cohen's directing makes the film look like a outdated music video from the era with bad staging and undermining Core's cinematography. It's surprising that this film managed to spawn a billion-dollar franchise, because going by the quality alone, a sequel shouldn't have been made. With that said, I can't even say that this is the worst film in the franchise. It's just a first installment that proves to be extremely underwhelming compared to the franchise. The only reason why anyone should watch this is mainly just for the cheese factor and the staples of the franchise being introduced without knowing how far it will depart in the decades to come.

Verdict: 3/10. Just a bad movie all-around that happens to be significant for the franchise it spawns. It's not worth watching, unless you like cliched, hammy stories and characters that don't fit in with the later half of the franchise.