Togo (2019) Film Review: A Chilling Surprise Of Quality For Disney+

Since I got Disney+ from a friend back in November, I haven't really used it much after "The Mandalorian" finished its first season. That's due to the lack of original content that has been released for the service, offering only a few films and shows. As for the films, they are extremely lacklustre with the forgettable "Lady And The Tramp" remake and "Noelle". Then, there's "Togo", which has gotten very little attention from those using the service and being yet another film centred about a bond between a dog and his owner. However, there's much more to what appears to be your generic, dog movie dumped into streaming. Based on a true story, the film follows Leonhard Seppala and his lead dog, Togo, as they run 250 miles in order to get a serum to save the infected children of Nome, along with flashbacks where a young Togo proves his worth and spirit to the bitter Leonhard. You might recognize this event as the one that the dog, Balto, is known in, which reveals that the aforementioned canine in reality didn't put enough work as our main characters, instead being the team to relay back to Nome in the final stretch. The story stays true to the events that take place, though there are a few exceptions. The film offers its cute moments, though it doesn't pander to children as the tone takes itself seriously. It's about as good as any dramatization on true events can get. In fact, the only issue I truly have with the film though is that it does get melodramatic at times, mainly by the ending when Leonhard and Togo get back home and try to give the impression that Togo is going to die, yet we find out that he lived for another two years. Outside of that though, the dramatic moments prior were very effective, since they felt rather natural in the story.

William Dafoe is a fantastic actor and clearly was the right choice to play Leonhard, since he does have a resemblance to the figure. He of course puts out a really good performance that blends his dramatic edge as well as a fun charm during the flashbacks when he has to deal with the antics of Togo as a puppy. However, it can be said that this is nowhere near one of the best performances, since it does feel a bit by the numbers, though Dafoe still shows that he's a talented actor. The dogs however are really well-trained to act so greatly in the film. As many films today try to mainly use CGI canines for films that require a lot of work for the animals, it's refreshing to see that they used highly-trained dogs that manage to act genuine in the film. Togo and the other sled dogs are cute and heartwarming to watch, mainly since Dafoe's Leonhard cares for his team of canines and has a special bond with them, which is more present with Togo. There's not much to say about the side characters, as the mayor or supportive allies just seem to play their parts as they are. The only other character to point out is Leonhard's wife, Constance, played by Julianne Nicholson. While she is mainly stuck to the role as the supportive, caring wife who tries to make Leonhard change his mind about his choices regarding to the sleigh run or Togo's potential, she can be very charming to watch and she never comes across as annoying or needy. These aren't the most complex or compelling cast of characters that we have seen before, but they get the job well enough for this type of film.

Ericson Core is a cinematographer-turned-director who might have just made his first big hit in regards to displaying his talents of the camera and putting this film together the way it is. One thing that seems to be off-putting at first is that the film has this slightly blurry border. At first, I found it pretty distracting, since it feels unnecessary and out of context. But, I completely forgot about it once I finished the film. It's a bit odd, but it's not an issue that hinders the quality of the film. Core manages to capture the cold, barren, yet beautiful Alaska using the landscape of Alberta, while having the typically dull colours such as grey and brown and make them look stunning. Core clearly learned from his previous projects and not only has some really good cinematography, but does a competent job directing his third film. The score by Mark Isham is decent for the typical biopic, but it's not a memorable score outside of its use in the film. The CGI is mainly used for the caribou and the two action set-pieces where Leonhard and his sleigh team have to survive the tough landscape. Although it is fake-looking and a bit unnecessary, I excuse the use of the visual effects since they didn't overstuff the film with it, where they could have had all of the dogs or environments made by a computer. The last thing to mention is the editing, which is well-done for the most part, but there is one glaring scene that could have been taken out for time. The final flashback that is presented is where Leonhard and Togo win their first sled race together. Not only is it shown during the 3rd act, but the flashback is completely pointless in the film, since the previous flashbacks did show the beginning of the bond with a cute Togo and a stubborn Leonhard. I just felt that they could have taken out this final flashback out of the film to shorten the runtime a little bit, which is needed since the film tends to feel longer than it is, due to the melodramatic beats of the ending.

"Togo" joins the ever-growing list of films that are exclusive to streaming that are actually really good. While the ending might go on a bit too long trying to pull at the heartstrings, a scene or two could have been cut to shorten the film, and the majority of the characters are forgettable in the roles they have to stick with, this is clearly the best Disney+ original film. With a solid, dramatic yet real-life story to be tell onscreen, great acting from Dafoe and Nicholson, well-trained dogs that give you cute and heartwarming moments, very good cinematography, decent editing and music, and good directing that establishes Core in his new field in the industry. It's nowhere near the best film exclusive to streaming services or even the best biopic produced by Disney, but it is a really good film given its competition in its service as well as having something new to watch on Disney+ as we wait for "The Falcon and the Winter Soldier".

Verdict: 8/10. Pretty great for what it is. Would have benefitted much more if it was released in theatres in my opinion.

The Book Of Eli (2010) Film Review: A Lazy-Eyed, Yet Well Crafted Piece

Decades after a nuclear war that changed the world forever, a survivor named Eli travels across the desert-like country that once was the United States to reach the West Coast. As he makes a pit stop in a town, the leader named Carnegie becomes suspicious of Eli as he is certain that he carries what is perhaps the last copy of the Bible, which Carnegie can use to his advantage over the uneducated population. Joined by Carnegie's adoptive daughter, Solara, the two run to survive the ruthless survivors and hope to deliver the Bible to a place that will use it for good. Although the plot allows for some fun action sequences, a good portion of the film focuses on the world-building and how society works now in this post-apocalypse. There are quite a few scenes that allow the characters to breath and have a moment, some of which lack dialogue. The tone is more serious and a bit grounded rather than over-the-top, as it wants this dystopia to be more believable than others we have seen in various media. There's very little comedy and tries to keep its gritty nature, which succeeds tremendously. This might be an issue for those that want a more fun, action-packed rollercoaster, which I don't mind at all since I like when these films tend to be mellow in its narrative.

Denzel Washington plays a very Idris-Elba looking Eli, who is an intellectual, calm yet skilled fighter that is one of the last morally good people in this new world. He seems to be the only one that hangs on to his humanity, while dispatching those who are savage in nature. Washington is great as always, though I have noticed how he seems to play these types of roles, which I enjoy since he brings down-to-earth attitude and charisma that makes him so likeable. Gary Oldman plays Carnegie, the leader of a town in pursuit of the Bible as he wants to control the people and have himself be worshipped like a prophet. Not only does he have a great motive as the antagonist, but Oldman plays the character like a mob boss with confidence, power, and intimidation, which makes Carnegie a well-written villain which could have been easily messed up. Mila Kunis plays Solara, Eli's companion who escapes the town to avoid Carnegie's wrath and learns about Eli's belief in faith. Even though I always loved her voice acting in "Family Guy", I can never get used to Kunis as an actress onscreen. She does fine in the role, though I felt that the character felt really unneeded in the story as she never felt truly important, outside of her discovering Eli's Bible and reporting back to Carnegie. Side characters include Claudia, Solara's blind mother, the old cannibal couple that Eli takes shelter with, and Lombardi, a man trying to preserve the lost arts such as literature and music, who is played by Malcom McDowell. The side character are not very memorable or much of a factor to the film, but it's mainly our protagonist and antagonist that carry the film and keeps us engaged in the story.

The directing is thanks to the Hughes Brothers, which happens to be the last collaboration before they parted ways for their own solo careers. It's a shame, since the two clearly work much better together rather than alone and the film shows their efforts. The world presented is almost like the Old West, where it's mainly a dusty, desert landscape with barely any plant-life, while the population mainly sticks together in small towns. The lighting makes this world very grey, bright and somewhat lifeless, which is very fitting for the tone and setting, as well as the survivors have to wear sunglasses due to the sun being able to cause blindness if exposed. It's ugly and unappealing, but that's the direction of it. It's not like "Mad Max", where the colours are oversaturated and the world looks kind of pretty to live in, it's trying to pull off the opposite effects in great success. The cinematography by Don Burgess is great, as it helps capture this world as well as creating some nice looking shots and sequences. The action sequences are the best example of how Burgess does a fantastic job as cinematography, which is helped by the editing that's while mostly pretty good, it can be a tad amateur and messy. The score by the Ross Brothers is fine for what it is, though it won't last in your memory. The pacing however is not the strongest, since the film feels much longer than it really is, despite the events of the story being rather quick to list off and told. This could be due to the scenes that allow characters to breath and relax, though I doesn't personally annoy me. The last thing to mention is the twist where it's revealed that Eli is actually partially blind the whole time. The film does give you clues in the character of Eli and his quirks, but not everyone is going to buy this element. This is due to how Eli seems to kick a lot of ass throughout the film, dispatching men left and right, and yet one is supposed to believe that he was blind the entire time. It also can be seen as a pointless twist by some, since it's only really relevant in the plot to Carnegie losing, since the Bible is written in Braille, which wouldn't matter if Eli was blind or not, given the years he survived and memorized the contents of the Bible to begin with.

"The Book Of Eli" is not for everyone. The tone is perhaps too serious for some to get into, action sequences are spread out throughout the runtime by slow pacing, the side characters are forgettable, Kunis as Solara is not engaging or even necessary in the film, and the twist that Eli was blind might make people laugh or get angry over. However, there is so many good things in this film. The story is well-executed for the most part, Eli and Carnegie are great characters portrayed by amazing actors, the setting is creative and visually interesting, the direction by the Hughes Brothers is really good, and the action sequences are fun to watch thanks to great editing and cinematography. If you just want to see a fun action film with one-liners and excitement, this is probably not going to satisfy you. If however, you are craving a post-apocalyptic setting with engaging characters, story beats, and stylized brutal action, this might be what you're looking for.

Verdict: 8/10. Not perfect, but the great qualities alone make it my second favourite post-apocalyptic sci-fi film after "I Am Legend".

I, Robot (2004) Film Review: Poorly-Aged, Yet Still Holding Up Against Time.

It's the year 2035. Robots are integrated with society as loyal servants to the human population and are programmed to protect and never harm a human being. Detective Spooner is perhaps the only man in Chicago who doesn't trust robots, due to an accident in his past. When the co-funder of U.S. Robotics is found dead and believed to have commit suicide, Spooner believes that a prototype robot named Sonny is involved, due to him programmed with free will, which previous models weren't capable of. What follows though is a much grander conspiracy and philosophy that challenges Spooner's viewpoint as he figures out the truth. Even though the story can be seen as cookie-cutter or formulaic, it manages to be really engaging due to the narrative beats and twists. I will explain more when I go over the characters, since it is their involvement that benefits this story. I also love how the robots are presented, whether it's how they get integrated into society or how the antagonist plans to use them. The movie also contains a heavy amount of dialogue, some of which is character-building, though most is exposition. This is an issue for those who expected a lot more action, which there is, though the film focuses much more on the mystery, themes and characters.

It's impossible for Will Smith to ever do a bad job when he is onscreen, though his role as Detective Spooner is one of his weaker performances. Smith is doing a fine job, but I felt that another actor could have done a better job, similar to his performance in "Gemini Man". Despite this, there is still some charisma and one-liners that only Smith can deliver with style. I also would have liked if Spooner was all into vintage lifestyle in order to show a more physical resistance towards this new world of the future, which is done half and half in the film (Spooner wears Converse, owns a gas-powered bike, and owns an old music player, yet has a futuristic gun and car throughout the runtime). Dr. Susan Calvin, who is played by Bridget Moynahan, is a really forgettable character who while does important things in the story, comes across as stiff and boring like she herself is a robot. Alan Tudyk voices and motion-captures Sonny, the new NS-5 model, who is programmed with free-will emotions by his creator. Although he doesn't appear in the film as much as you'd expect, he manages to steal the show with some great scenes of character moments as well as him created to be a Chirst-esque figure for the robot population. Lastly, there is the twist villain, VIKI, an advanced AI who plans to control the NS-5 models and monitor the human population in order to ensure mankind's survival in the long run using a complicated loophole, while also dispatching older NS models due to being programmed to protect humans. It's a great plan and revelation, though VIKI should have been integrated much more in the film in order for the twist to truly pay off. Side characters include Lawrence Robinson, the shady CEO of U.S. Robotics, Dr. Alfred Lanning, the deceased creator of Sonny and Lt. John Bergin, Spooner's superior that has an awesome action moment during the climax. The cast isn't the strongest, but Spooner, Sonny, as well as VIKI's role in the climax really adds some depth, even if they could have been a tad improved.

Alex Proyas presents both his best and worst qualities as a director with this film being the most evident. In terms of his filmmaking, he generally made a in-depth future and setting. It might not be that accurate in today's standards, but it is a concrete vision from how the robots are used, the cityscape, and the technology, which is also in thanks to the cinematography that captures this living, breathing world. Proyas uses some nice lighting and colour hue in the more futuristic settings and interiors, while being more grounded and natural in the more realistic interiors and cityscape. These qualities align to those of the director's earlier work, "The Crow". Marco Belmati also offers an energizing score that fits well for the sci-fi flick. The main issue that Proyas did though was to overuse CGI. It's weird to say that the effects are that bad, since they were nominated for an Academy Award, but the issue is that if you use too much CGI in a live-action film, it becomes very fake-looking and almost lazy, which resembles the director's latest film, "Gods of Egypt". An example is that all of the robots are CGI. While Sonny requires motion-capture to read Tudyk's facial expression, the older models could have easily been made physically. It also doesn't help when the action sequences feel a bit like a video game with the use of CGI. While there are some cool moments, the actors are clearly in a green screen pretending to fight robots. The scene where Spooner escapes from a mansion being destroyed is so fake due to Smith being artificially thrown or launched around the set. The action sequences also had a lack of potential to them. A good example is when a mob of humans try fighting the army of NS-5's. What could be an awesome scene gets really downplayed in the grand climax, which is really disappointing. So, Proyas did a fine job overall, but he needed to really not overexploit CGI in these type of films, since they tend to age poorly as time goes on, similar to the "Star Wars" prequels.

"I, Robot" is a peculiar film. On the one hand, one can see it as a pretty bad film due to the overuse and quality of the CGI, the story being rather familiar, the action sequences being uninspired, and the majority of the cast being forgettable. On the other hand though, there are some really good things in the film. The story in general brings up some interesting concepts and themes, Spooner is a decent character to which Smith plays well enough, Sonny as a whole is a great inclusion despite his limited screen-time, VIKI's ideology, the world-building, visual flair, cinematography, and soundtrack. It's a film where I can completely understand why one would either love or hate it. For me, I think it's pretty good and worth a watch if you like Smith or futuristic sci-fi!

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but not great. Would like to see this remade with better CGI though.

I Am Legend (2007) Film Review: A Powerful, Emotional, Action Blockbuster.

When the cure of cancer becomes an airborne disease, it kills 90% of the population. The 9.8% mutate into vampiric creatures known as the Darkseekers, and the rest are humans who are immune to the disease and survive in this new world. Years after the epidemic in New York, Robert Neville manages to progress on a potential cure, but the Darkseekers appear to be much smarter and deadlier as Robert knew, which would slowly bring up revelations about the creatures as well as if there is anyone else alive in the world. Based on the novel of the same name, this adaptation is the more recognizable, due to Will Smith's star-power. It's also the most popular film adaptation due to how it changes the events of the book, but amplifies the themes. That is, if you watch the Director's Cut. The film retains a dark, dread-filled atmosphere, but with a touch of hope with Robert's charisma and his goal to find a cure. The film also manages to genre-bend drama, horror, sci-fi, and action all in a rather contemporary setting. There are even a few chuckles one can get out of it, but I should digress that this is not a feel-good film or even one that's filled with adrenaline and action set-pieces. It's much slower-paced and focuses on the mood and drama.

Will Smith is of course great as always. The charm and charisma that he brings onscreen is brought here, though a bit downplayed, due to the setting and tone of the film. Smith still has fun with the character of Neville and has his fun, over-the-top moments, but there is a lot more grounded humanity as well, especially in the slow, dramatic moments. Outside of Neville, there's not much characters. Sam is the cute, loyal, canine companion that is Neville's only friend in this lonely world, who will give dog lovers tear-jerker moments. Anna and Ethan are the duo who Neville comes across at his lowest point in order for him to live and fight for something. They honestly don't do much in the plot other than to keep Neville hopeful of more survivors and to finish the cure, as well as allow Smith to be more humble than usual. Lastly, you have the Darkseekers, who are just pale human-like creatures that are ravenous and are vulnerable to sunlight. Although the CGI on them isn't too great, the ending shows off that they are much more human and intellectual than one may seem. Despite the small cast, the characters are well-crafted for this narrative, namely Smith's performance as Neville.

Francis Lawrence might have directed the best film in his career, as his other projects have been very lackluster. Lawrence creates the post-apocalyptic New York City really well, where overgrowth of fauna has started to break the concrete, a multitude of animals from the zoos thriving in this new environment, and the overwhelming scraps of vehicles covering the streets. Along with a brown and grey colour scheme, it makes this setting more thematic and haunting. The wonderful cinematography by Andrew Lesnie also makes the setting look grand and a bit beautiful to look at, as well as creating some horror sequences that keep you at the edge of the seat, such as Neville entering a dark building with only a flashlight illuminating the interior. James Newton Howard creates a standard, but not awful, score that works well with the film, but proves unmemorable compared to his other works. The visual effects can be a touch overused since the Darkseekers, animals outside of Sam, and the city environment are clearly digital. However, you can tell that CGI was practically the only way for these elements to work together. The last thing to mention about the film is the ending. As you might know, the theatrical release ended with Neville killing the horde of Darkseekers, sacrificing himself to save the cure as well as Anna and Ethan. The Director's Cut however retains the thematic conclusion from the novel, while changing the ending drastically. It's revealed that the leader of the Darkseekers wanted to bring his mate back from Neville's lab, which Neville captured to test the cure on a subject. Neville realizes this and returns her to the Darkseekers, to which they leave out of a truce while Neville learns that he has killed numerous subjects that are the new race of the world. He leaves with the others as well as the cure, although he himself has changed deeply. This ending is not only powerful, but also different from the other adaptations where Neville is killed by savage humans, realizing that the new breed is more human than he gave credit for. It's a shame that this ending was never part of the original release, though it can be watched on home media.

"I Am Legend" is by far the best adaptation of the novel as well as one of the best post-apocalyptic films to date. With great atmosphere and mood, great directing from Lawrence, a well-written contemporary version of the story that keeps the message effective, excellent camerawork, Smith's always charming performance, and a clever genre-blend that can generate interest from those interested in horror, action, dramas, or sci-fi apocalyptic settings. The only issues that it has is the pretty mundane score by James Newton Howard, and the CGI being rough around the edges. Outside of that, this is a fantastic film that is necessary to watch the Director's Cut of. If you can only find the theatrical version, the film is still pretty good, but it will knock a few points by the ending and how it completely removes the novel's themes. This is clearly one of Smith's best films and Lawrence's best film to date.

Verdict: 8.5/10. Could almost be a masterpiece if a few issues were ironed out. A film that has aged quite well thirteen years later.

Venom (2018) Film Review: Clunky, Non-Toxic Fun!

With Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe reigning champion over the box office during the decade, rival studios have been attempting to cash in on the superhero genre. While Warner Bros has DC Comics, Sony has the Spider-Man license to play around with. Even though the character is currently in the MCU, Sony plans to create a universe devoted to the web-slinger, kicking off with the hero's most popular rival, Venom. In this non-Spidey origin story, Eddie Brock is a down on his luck journalist who failed to take down the Life Foundation, a corporation with shady practices, led by Carlton Drake. Drake has been studying on goo-like alien lifeforms, one of which attaches itself onto Brock. As Brock becomes the host of a brain-eating alien, calling themselves Venom, he becomes the target of Drake as well as a rival symbiote known as Riot. Due to the lack of Spider-Man, the story needed to change without his involvement. Personally, I can deal with the changes, though many felt that if it needed to be changed, the film should have been much darker with a R-rating, to which I disagree, since gory scenes wouldn't truly made the film any better or worse structure-wise. The tone of the film is pretty goofy, though in a fun way. It doesn't take itself seriously, much like how some Venom comics were during the 90's. At times, it wants to feel a bit horror-esque, a bit romantic-comedy, a bit buddy-comedy, and occasionally being an action spectacle. This can be a problem to the fans that wanted a more serious take on the character like in recent comics, but for me and many others, there's something engaging with the tonal feel of the film. Whether it's the goofiness or the odd story beats, I can't help but feel enjoyment by it.

Tom Hardy steals the show as Eddie Brock. Not only does he have a nice voice as Venom, but Hardy is just so fun to watch due to his over-the-top personality. He reminds me of Frank West, the protagonist of "Dead Rising", who is essentially a typical guy who makes a wisecrack on occasion and can have a hot-headed attitude. Hardy, for most of the film, acts as the normal guy being taken over by an alien very convincingly, but it's played more for laughs due to his exaggerated speech, dialogue, and rugged appearance. While Brock is much more serious in some comics, he did loosen up and has fun once he becomes the anti-hero. A different take for sure, but Hardy plays Brock with such a wild and extreme performance that makes it hard not to smile on, which manages to fit well with the tone the film is going for. If the film was trying to be serious or MCU-like tone, this character wouldn't exactly work as he just wouldn't fit. Because the tone was meant to be a goofy-type of fun though, it complements Hardy's performance, which itself adds to the film's enjoyment. Venom as a character is also a highlight as being the voice inside Brock's head who either mocks or encourages him over the current situation. The dynamic is the best part of the film, which leads to some good lines and moments. Michelle Williams as Anne is decent as the concerned ex who cares for Eddie after he has been behaving strangely. Reid Scott as Dan, Anne's boyfriend, is also a nice character who is not portrayed to be a jerk or douchebag that Brock needs to deal with. The villain is sadly the worst character of the film, which is Riz Ahmed's Carlton Drake. I understand the type of vibe Ahmed was going for in the character, which is like a maniacal Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, but he just comes across as boring, generic, and very uninteresting. Same issue applies to Riot, who is just a brutish alpha male villain archetype. Despite pretty uninspired villains, Hardy manages to steal the spotlight playing the extreme yet enjoyable dynamic of Brock and Venom.

Ruben Fleischer is a director who can either feel misguided or competent in his films. He has a pretty good vision for these films, though it might not be what audiences have in mind or wanted. That same vision is applied here as it was his decision to make the film not be a serious, but rather lighthearted, goofy romp that is similar to the Marvel films. Regardless of whether you can appreciate or despise this creative decision, you can't argue that Fleischer knows how to direct. The film doesn't have the usual cleaned-up, artificial blockbuster aesthetic, but more like a small-budget rom-com. The film doesn't make our characters look like glossy icons, but rather a sense of normality in order to try to imprint the idea that this is like our reality where not much fantasy usually happens. Yet when the action begins and Venom is onscreen, it does become more artificial. It doesn't help that the fight scenes are mainly in night, since Venom wouldn't look great in the sunlight. The cinematography is rather decent for the most part and the main theme by Ludwig Goransson is actually pretty good compared to most of the recent superhero films that come out in recent years. While the majority of the soundtrack can come off as generic, it's how the main theme is used whenever Eddie or Venom is present, with Brock having a more somber, softer tone, while Venom is more loud and orchestrated. The soundtrack also tends to be more memorable thanks to Eminem's single. The CGI is good in regards to the design and movement of Venom, though he doesn't look entirely convincing, which is an issue that some might not let down.  The lighting is mainly cold, dark, and a bit grey, which is a clever reflection to Eddie's mood, compared to the rather warm and bright lighting in the beginning where Eddie was living happily with Anne. Then, you have the action sequences. While all of them are pretty fun to watch, some are much better-made than others. The apartment brawl that leads right into a motorcycle chase is not only an engaging sequence, but it's pretty impressive since it requires some physical elements such as stunts and choreography. The action sequences with Venom though are rather messy. There are cool elements in them for sure, but the editing and lighting are very unprofessional in order to make a lot of coherence and making the visuals more appealing. Overall, Fleischer repeats his signature directing style of having a overall good vision that needs more attention in some rather important elements.

"Venom" can be one of the most divisive films in the superhero genre as both parties can make solid debates over the film's quality. Sure, on the one hand, the tone can prove to be unappealing for some, the acting can be seen as very over-the-top, the film isn't the most visually-engaging, Carlton Drake being a pretty generic antagonist, and some of the action scenes can pull the viewer out of the film due to the awkward editing and dark lighting. However, the film is also just very fun to watch with Hardy's performance being so energizing, Venom himself being very engaging visually, a fun sense of humour with the characters playing off each other,  pretty decent cinematography, a rather memorable theme and tie-in song, fun action sequences, and Fleischcer's directing that makes the film feel much different from the overly-produced artificiality that is the MCU. This is nowhere near the best of the genre, but far from being the worst of it either. It's simply a film that wants to fun and entertaining for you. I think anyone can watch it once and get some kicks out of it, whether it's due to them thinking the film is great or awful. Here's hoping that the sequel can be much better for the general audience.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Might have plenty of issues, but it's pretty hard to not say that I always get my entertainment value out of it. Only elitist fans and filmgoers can truly hate it, everyone else can have a good time of varying quality.

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (2019) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: ...Why?

So, I was never planning to see this film whatsoever, considering the fact that the last two Star Wars films (The Last Jedi and Solo) were pretty bad in my opinion. My family however convinced me otherwise and once again, I came out more than underwhelmed. Usually, with these reviews, I would have the opening paragraph about the story, tone and humour, followed by paragraphs about the characters, acting, filmmaking, etc. However, with films that make me really distasteful or angry about, I felt that this structure wouldn't gel as well. So, instead, I'm just going to list the positives and negatives of the final chapter of the Skywalker Saga. Spoilers will be extremely involved in this review.

Positives: 

• The visual effects, set design, on-screen locations, generally the look of the film and the environments are pretty nice to look upon.
• The score by John Williams. It's pretty good, though Ludwig Goransson has provided the best soundtrack in the franchise during the Disney era.
• Kylo Ren's story arc. I love Adam Driver's performance and some notable scenes such as him seeing a ghost of Han Solo, but I hate what happens to him in the end.
• I liked C-3PO in this film as well as the little arc and development they gave to him, with him losing his memory.
• And lastly, I did enjoy the intensity of the space battle against the Destroyers.

Negatives:

• Where do I even begin? First off, the direction by Abrams felt very uninspired, perhaps due to the lack of true passion behind the scenes as his vision has been very much destroyed by Rian Johnson.
• The action is pretty underwhelming compared to the rest of the franchise. It's not the worse, but "Return of the Jedi" and "Revenge of the Sith" had great action set-pieces for the end of their trilogies. This chapter has only one noteworthy action set-piece with the space-battle, but that's it.
• The introduction of new characters that do absolutely nothing. From Jannah, Zorii Bliss, D-O, and even characters that were established in previous films such as Lando, Rose, and Maz Kanata are just pointless in the plot. Like, why did we even waste time on them?
• Leia's idiotic decision to give all of her life force to say "Ben" in order to save her son, yet she almost killed him in the process. What a great mother...
• Rey never at once going to the dark side as well as being Palpatine's granddaughter all of a sudden. I wished that she sacrificed herself to kill Palpatine, but Kylo Ren kills himself in order to get a single kiss from her. Also, her taking the Skywalker name is really stupid.
• Finn being sidelined once again. He gets yet another love interest and refuses to tell anyone that he loves Rey.
• Poe is almost useless as well in this film. He also gets a love interest, since Disney refuses to allow main characters in their shows or films to be LGBTQ, outside of random background characters.
• Hux being the spy to the Resistance is pathetic. I hated this character since the start of the trilogy due to his personality and trying to have him redeemable is insulting.
• Finally, we have Palpatine. Every scene with him makes me laugh, just due to the absurdity that they resurrected him in this trilogy for no reason. His plan makes no sense and despite being the criminal mastermind, he's dumb enough to continue using Force Lighting against Jedi, even though he has been injured or killed doing it. Didn't this guy used be a badass lightsaber wielder? Why can't that be the climax rather than him being killed by his own lightning?

So, to sum up my opinions, I hate the story, characters and resolutions. Kylo Ren escapes from this list though as he's the saving grace of these elements, except for his untimely death. And I can't say this is a terrible film either, since the effects, visuals, score, and few noteworthy scenes do bring this film up a few points. Even if you remove the writing and go in to see the spectacle, it's not that fun. There are much more enjoyable and entertaining scenes in the other films that can make these set-pieces look as fun as a traffic jam. Regardless, there is a reason why this didn't make my list of the top five worst films of 2019, and that's because the elements that are done well were really good. It's not so much of the issue of the individuals involved, but rather the greedy, stupid producers and the studio that can't evolve to ensure a well-made product if it meant by delaying the film to make it good.

Verdict: 5/10. The franchise ends in a pathetic mess that makes "Dark Phoenix" more enjoyable as a conclusion to a beloved franchise. Just rewatch "The Mandalorian" instead of this crap.