The Invisible Man (2020) Non-Spoiler Review: How To Make A Great Horror Remake Of A Classic

As Cecilia Kass escapes from an abusive relationship from a talented scientist named Adrian Griffen, she learns that her former lover has committed suicide and has left Cecilia with a part of his fortune. However, Cecilia believes that Adrian hasn't really died, rather that he has found a way to become invisible as an unseen force is trying to destroy her life. This remake of the H.G. Wells classic was supposed to be part of the Dark Universe franchise before Universal decided to focus on making stand-alone features rather than those interconnected with one another. What I love about this film are the changes to the narratives in the source material. The original film and novel had a more sci-fi/thriller approach as it mainly focuses on Adrian coming across a way to become invisible and how he slowly becomes a monster. The remake instead becomes a more horror-centric film and follows our protagonist as she gets tormented by the invisible entity. When it came to the story, I enjoyed about 95% of the narrative, twists and turns, despite some odd plot holes and moments. However, I personally didn't like the ending. I won't spoil what it is, but I felt that it not only left some questions up in the air, but it should have been a tad more depressing to make the character of Cecilia more complex or tragic.

Elisabeth Moss is fantastic as Cecilia, a woman who's spirit is broken and wits being put to the test as she confronts her traumas from her abusive boyfriend. Moss makes the audience on her side and makes you question if she is truly sane or not, thanks to some well-directed scenes that play with your mind. It helps that the film is always focused on her, which helps out with her performance in the long run. However, this does affect the antagonist, Adrian, played by Oliver Jackson-Cohen. Not only does he not appear a lot throughout the film, but because the film focuses on Cecilia, we might not have a full understanding of her character. Because the film never shows the abusive relationship of Cecilia, it adds a clever lens that perhaps Cecilia can be wrong about Adrian's nature, especially towards the end of the film. However, it still doesn't give the character much depth compared to the original source material. Despite that, his invisible counterpart doesn't require any dialogue which almost makes the invisible man a type of monster-like character. The side characters include Detective James Lanier and his daughter, supportive friends of Cecilia who help add a bit of humour in an otherwise tense-filled film, Tom Griffin, Adrian's brother who acts as a financial lawyer for Cecilia, and Emily, Cecilia's sister who doesn't believe her sister's ramblings. The characters themselves are acted fine and designed to be likeable, but Moss's performance basically steals the entire film, which is not a bad thing at all.

Leigh Whannell directed this feature for a budget of $7 million, yet it looks very much like a slick, big-budget blockbuster. This is due to Whannell's fantastic directing that demonstrates his skills in the horror genre and as an eye-catching filmmaker as a whole. The most notable thing to mention are the scenes of suspense and horror, as they make the entire film stand out from above a typical horror film. The sequences have barely any music involved during the build-up to the horror, with sudden noises being much louder than normal. The cinematography and editing is great with many uses of wonderful iconography and one-take shots that follow our lead, while the editing either helps add on to the camerawork or help make special scenes work as well as they do. The score by Benjamin Wallfisch is mostly minimalistic, but when there is music involved, it really works on adding onto the haunting suspense. The effects are as great as they can be, considering the concept and low budget. Using strings and green screen are old tricks in the book, but they are so well-executed in this film mainly due to Whannell's directing of the sequences. I also like the use of violence and blood, as the majority of Blumhouse Productions stay PG-13 for the most part. The violence feels very real and grisly. Seeing people getting beat up by an invisible being is portrayed in a surreal, haunting, and realistic matter that it makes hard not to watch it again and again. I'm very much looking forward for future works of Whannell as this film shows the mastery of his art.

"The Invisible Man" is an extremely solid horror/thriller. Despite some odd plot holes, the lack of characterization of the antagonist, and the ending being underwhelming in my eyes, that doesn't change the overwhelming quality of the film. From the smart, modern changes to the source material, Moss's performance, extremely well-crafted sequences of suspense, slick editing and cinematography, effects that look great given the budget, a more violent picture that matches the gloomy tone, and Whannell's spectacular directing. It's a remake that stands on its own from the original and, despite the ending, joins the ranks of "Get Out" and "Us" as modern horror/thrillers that will be remembered in their respective decades.

Verdict: 8/10. Great film, even if horrors aren't your favourite genre. Watch if you either want scares and thrills or simply to witness some fantastic filmmaking and excellently crafted sequences.

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) Film Review: Not As Catastrophic As Hysteria Claims It To Be...

During the ancient times, the first mutant known as Apocalypse was betrayed by the people he ruled over. When he awakens in the 1980's, he is disgusted by how the human race have managed to be in power. Gifting those who follow him with stronger abilities, he becomes a worldwide threat as he persuades Magneto to his side and plans to transfer himself into Charles Xavier in order to control every mind in the planet. A new generation of X-Men is founded as students, friends and acquaintances team up in order to prevent the world's distraction from the most powerful mutant ever discovered. Although the story has stakes and moments that suck in the viewer, the problem people claim is that the film is overly-long and generic. True, the story has been done before with "Avengers: Age of Ultron" being a culprit, but I feel that the story itself is fine and does keep you in your seat. The pacing however is a problem that I can see a lot of people argue about. Apocalypse doesn't become a huge threat until around the second act and that's way more than an hour in a nearly two and a half hour film. While there are some nice character moments with Magneto, some moments of comedy, and fun action scenes waged in, the problem is that there appears to be a lot of padding. I don't have a huge problem with the pacing, since I understand why that the filmmakers put a lot of scenes and dialogue in order to explain what Apocalypse is and his goal, as well as catching up with old faces along with new faces thrown in. I would give them credit for achieving in making a coherent story that elaborates on the details, but I think that there is one part of the story that should have been removed. That is the segment where Stryker captures our heroes and they escape using Wolverine as a distraction. It's purely fan-service that drags the plot to a crawl and Striker barely plays any role in the film whatsoever.

The X-Men films always do a fantastic job with the characters and actors with this film carrying that torch for the most part. I'm going to be brief as possible for most of these characters. James McAvoy as Charles Xavier is great, though I personally feel that he did a much better performance in "Dark Phoenix". Micheal Fassbender as Magneto is fantastic as always and the film gives him some great moments such as his family in Poland and him destroying Alcatraz. Jennifer Lawrence as Raven is not bad, but people mainly complain that she progresses into a hero rather than a villain, which is such a silly argument in my opinion. As for the side characters, Beast, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, Moira, and Quicksilver all do fine jobs , though it's Nightcrawler and Quicksilver that shine more than the others, as the others either don't carry the same energy or barely have a moment to shine. Then, we have Apocalypse, who is played by an unrecognizable Oscar Issac. Everyone complains about the make-up, the height, the range of abilities and the personality of the character, which I don't understand. For one, the film spells out a lot of his motivation and powers, which requires viewers to pay attention to. I don't mind the look of Apocalypse, as if you just had a huge CGI character instead, he would look really silly with the other characters. And while the character isn't very charismatic, he wasn't supposed to be. Apocalypse is a being from ancient times trying to rule the world as a god, not exactly a character with wit and humour to his name. I will say though that it's the Horseman that are the weakest characters of the film. I don't mind Storm, but she doesn't have enough screentime to make her engaging enough for many, coming off as bland. It's Psylocke and Archangel, as well as Striker, who are the worst characters in my opinion. They add nothing to the film and are just boring to watch. While the actors are trying their best, they just don't have enough material to work on with, which was bound to happen given the vast amount of characters and scale of the story. Despite these characters, majority of the cast is well-acted and characterized, even though some characters don't get enough time than others.

Bryan Singer returns to helm the franchise he has created and does a good job in directing in the revised timeline of his creation. Some find Singer's directing to be tired and boring compared to the usual superhero flick, but I believe that's due to the thematic elements of the X-Men as a whole. Yes, there are scenes with tons of action, but there are long stretches of character building and exposition compared to the usual MCU film. I personally don't mind how Singer has the first act to set-up the rest of the film to payoff with great action and spectacle. I feel that it's treated more like a reward for those who dealt with the slow pace, similarly to how "Avengers: Endgame" was paced. The film, unlike Singer's previous works, is bursting with colour and bright daytime scenes, crossed with gothic sequences such as the fight club, the birth of Archangel and the death of Magneto's family. It really works, considering the film's more lighthearted tone, compared to "Days of Future Pasts" with the race against time and interiors. The cinematography and editing is great as the film flows naturally with action presented clearly without issue. The score by John Ottman is fantastic as always with the main theme being iconic, Jean defeating Apocalypse having a memorizing beat, and the use of "Sweet Dreams" during Quicksilver's action moment being highlights of the soundtrack. While the action is fun to watch, one thing that people have complained about is the quality of the CGI. The X-Men films do their best in keeping their action on-camera as much as possible, but Apocalypse is where they utilize a ton of CGI, both in the backgrounds and use of powers. The climax is seen by many as a mess of unconvincing CGI, to which I completely disagree. Sure, the CGI is not the best looking, but it is stylized and done as needed for the set-piece. Also, it's a hypocritical mentality considering many superhero films using tons of CGI in their climatic battles, some of which look much worse than the ones used in Apocalypse. I will say though that I very much preferred the climax in "Dark Phoenix", due to the action being much more tight and on-camera.

I can never understand the hate behind "X-Men: Apocalypse". Yes, there are some negatives such as the pacing, overuse of CGI, and side characters that barely have a moment to shine. However, I believe that these things don't hurt the film as much as it could have. Singer does a good job once again in the directing chair, the story is engaging with huge stakes and plot points, the majority of characters are well-acted and established, a visually glowing feature that matches the more lighthearted tone that blends with the serious moments, the cinematography and editing are really good, Ottman's score is great as always for the franchise veteran, and the action is still fun to watch. If the Striker sub-plot was removed, I honestly believe that many would have enjoyed as they wouldn't be nitpicking as much over a shorter film. I think that the only reason why people really don't like the film is due to "Days of Future Past" being so much better as a film that it makes it look that Singer lost his game. Sure, it sucks that this is not as close to a masterpiece that "Days of Future Past" is, but this is nowhere near the worst of the worst for the genre or even the franchise as a whole. It has its issues, but it's nowhere near the disaster as people want it to be.

Verdict: 7/10. Down-of-the-middle for the franchise, but on par with your standard superhero romp. Try to give this one another chance to give you an impression.

The Punisher (2004) Film Review: Great Ideas, Poor Execution...

The Punisher character hasn't had the best of luck in film and TV. From three films that never launched a franchise of their own, to a Netflix series that ended before it can properly finish its story, the violent vigilante can't seem to catch a big break. The best film that involves the character is also one that's not exactly good either. Frank Castle is finally retiring his duty as an FBI agent and plans to move to London with his family. On his last undercover mission though, he unintentionally caused the death of Bobby, the son of mafia boss Howard Saint. Howard and his wife, Livia, exact their revenge by killing Castle's entire family during a family reunion in Puerto Rico, including Castle's wife and son. Castle manages to survive the attack and returns months later to avenge his family by slowly making Howard lose everything one by one. Although it isn't the most comic-accurate interpretation despite many scenes brought to life from various issues, there are elements of the story that I do like. I love the change to have Castle lose his extended family, which albeit not necessary, amplifies the complete isolation and broken nature of the character. I also like how Castle tries to manipulate Howard's life and cause him to lose his money, best friend, wife, and eventually his life. However, the one thing I'm not a fan of is the uneven tone. The film is, for the most part, trying to be serious and gritty, but the majority of the characters are really hammy and goofy, almost as if they belong in a different type of film. I understand why the film was made like this, since it was much early on in the comic-book film revival, but it just feels very misguided. Any attempts at humour is trampled upon, due to the uneven tone of the film.

Thomas Jane as Frank Castle is my favourite performance from the character. Not only does Jane look the part, but he's got a charisma to him that is a nice blend of monotone, serious, and cynical. John Travolta as Howard Saint is hammy and slimy, playing an almost Donald Trump-like persona that makes the viewer can't wait for his eventual demise. The same can be said for the rest of his family, who are despicable and also serve as satisfaction once they are killed off. While the leads are handled fine enough, it is the side characters that are a mixed bag. Although majority of them are from the comics, their live-action debut aren't exactly done well. While I like the role of Mickey in the film, he feels a bit underused despite his role as the inside man for Castle. The Russian, while very comic-accurate, is just really goofy in his action sequence, which doesn't match the mostly grounded world that the film takes place in. Joan is a boring and unnecessary love interest for Castle, Bumpo is a goofy fat stereotype, and Dave's arc is rushed by allowing himself to get tortured and calling Castle family, despite the limited time onscreen they had. The acting for all of these roles are fine, they just feel like the majority of the cast feel like they belong in an entirely different film.

Jonathan Hensleigh, a seasoned writer, began his directorial debut with this film, which clearly shows as they are clearly signs of amateur filmmaking, despite his vision being rather clear and thought out. Hensleigh was clearly inspired by grind-house action films of the 70's and 80's, as well as trying to make a thematic film surrounding the character of The Punisher. I like the lighting from the dirty daylight and the gothic nighttime to match the gritty atmosphere. The guy can create a very suspenseful scene such as the massacre in Puerto Rico, Dave getting tortured, and the scenes where Howard kills his best friend and wife. It is how the action sequences are directed that makes Hensliegh look very amateurish. Despite the R-rating, the film is overly edited to avoid a lot of blood and gore. I understand that the studio might have been responsible for the limited use of blood, but the editing could have been much better if that was the case. There are some neat kills and action moments, but the sequences as a whole could have been so much better. Same can be said for the cinematography, which while decent for the most part, can feel flat at times in scenes that aren't trying to look like they came from the comics. The score is also very forgettable, as it comes across as more of a melodrama. Hensleigh clearly tried the best he could, though it's not enough for certain aspects of the film.

"The Punisher" is the best of the Punisher films, but that doesn't mean it's a great film overall. While I enjoy the story that was offered, the acting of the main leads, the mostly dark tone, the lighting, and how Hensleigh directs some really good suspenseful scenes. However, the inconsistent goofiness, side characters, forgettable score, average cinematography, and action sequences that are over-edited to decrease the violence really bog down the film's enjoyment factor. What's a huge shame with this film is that you can tell that there was a lot of potential to make a great film. If Hensleigh made his film more serious and the studio allowed more violence, I believe that this film would have been a perfect Punisher film. As it is though, it's entertaining enough, but there are plenty of issues to find that you can either forgive or can't get behind.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Watch for some well-directed suspense scenes, Jane and Travolta's performances, and a decent Punisher story. Action and those who like a solid tone, perhaps "War Zone" might suit your needs.

Bad Boys For Life (2020) Film Review: Bad Boys Become Good Men

25 years have passed since Mike Lowrey and and Marcus Burnett partnered up, with Marcus considering to retire for good after his grandchild is born. When Mike gets involved in an attempted assassination on his life, the two of them have to work together yet again to find out who is after Mike, while also teaming up with a new division of the department known as AMMO. I'm not too familiar with the "Bad Boys" franchise. I remember specific scenes in the 2nd film, but I don't recall much of the plot with the previous films. The plot for the third installment is for the most part generic, as it follows the tropes of the case where the protagonist is trying his best to find out who is after him, only to learn that it's someone from his past. It can however be enjoyed for what it is, since the "Bad Boys" films were always made to be like typical, action, buddy-cop films. While it's not as tonally ridiculous as the previous films, it's still very over-the-top with the action and specific plot elements. I found the part where the villain posts a video of him shooting Mike six months later that still manages to break the news really silly to me, as much as a guy smashing through a stone pillar with his body. However, the comedy is still pretty good as I managed to laugh quite a bit in the film, although there are instances where jokes didn't land.

Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are great as ever, reprising the roles of Mike and Marcus. The sense of friendship and comradery is both believable and charming as their personalities enjoyably clash together, with Mike acting like the hotshot playboy despite his age, while Marcus is trying to turn a new life with his retirement and refusal of violence. The antagonists, Isabel and Armando Aretas are also pretty good as they prove to be more of a threat to our leads compared to the generic villains from the previous films, which helps since they are acting more serious in the toned-down over-the-top franchise. I bought their motivation and their desire for vengeance against Mike, which is a step-up from the previous villains who never connected to the characters in a personal level. While the protagonists and antagonistic duo are well done, the side characters are very forgettable. Outside of Marcus's wife, who can't stand her husband's goof-ups, and Joe Pantoliano's Captain Howard, the rest of the characters aren't able to make me laugh or enjoy their personalities. I don't despise the characters that make up the AMMO team, but they are practically pointless in the story and just add to the theme of old vs new. Overall, the film is most fun when the old cast and villains are onscreen, but the new characters they try adding in to the team was completely unnecessary and distracted the focus on the strongest elements of these films, the chemistry between Mike and Marcus.

Micheal Bay doesn't return to direct the third film of the franchise he started, instead handing off the keys to Adill El Arbi & Bilall Fallah, a duo of Belgian filmmakers. While the limited filmography might be a red flag for some, the directors do a surprisingly good job. Although I do have a soft spot for the over-the-top direction that Bay gives out, it can prove to be very messy as a viewing experience. That's not to say that the directorial duo hasn't tried to emulate the infamous director as there are plenty of explosions and choppy editing. While I enjoy the explosions fine, the editing is the reason why I don't like Bay's films as they can be too quick and awkward, even when it's just two people talking. Despite the editing style being present, it doesn't override the film the longer you watch. The cinematography is really good, making Miami and Mexico City look gorgeous day or night.There is a great one-shot moment where it pans to a rooftop and as Mike and Marcus engage, it pans out for a good while. The action scenes are also very well-made and shot. It's easy to spot what's going on and the editing doesn't ruin the enjoyment in these sequences. The soundtrack is extremely good, with majority of the songs being a mix of hip-hop and Reggaeton, which is not only fitting for the locations present in the film, but great to listen to. If there is one thing I'm not a fan of the directing outside of the editing, it would be the effects during the action scenes. As much as one can make fun of Micheal Bay, you can't deny that he tries to make his action look really good, and the earlier films of the franchise try to be as on-camera as possible while being overly directed as Bay does. While Adill and Bilall have a sense of flair in their action sequences, there are plenty of uses of CGI that can take you out of the film, mainly the greenscreen in driving sequences. The climax has a unique use of lighting and setting that tries to emulate an almost suspenseful horror-esque effect, but the fake fire pulls you out of the film. I can tell what they were going for and it does look a bit cool, but the fact that they couldn't just use real pyrotechnics gives off a sense of cheapness to the viewer. Despite all of the issues, the duo manages to make the film their own with their talents, which allows us to not worry about Bay returning to the franchise alongside his choppy, flashy filmmaking.

"Bad Boys For Life" is not about to transcend the action genre. With some extremely over-the-top moments, a generic storyline, forgettable cast of new side characters, use of choppy editing and CGI, the film ain't going to be known as the best of the action genre. However, it should be known for continuing a 25-year old franchise and managing to still keep it fresh with the pure sense of enjoyment and humour, Smith and Lawrence retaining the same charm, much better villains that prove to be a threat to our protagonists, the action sequences, the cinematography, the soundtrack, and the introduction to the directing duo that hopefully surprises us even more in the future for their talent in the industry. The third film has gone through development hell and back, but the final result proves that it's never too late for a sequel to any franchise.

Verdict: 7/10. Simply good. Watch it if you still haven't had a chance to see it yet, regardless if you are a fan of the franchise or not!

Sonic The Hedgehog (2020) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Not Fast Enough For Laziness...

I should start off this review by stating my thoughts on the Sonic franchise as a whole. To be fair, I used to love the franchise as a kid, playing "Sonic Heroes" on my Xbox, and to this day, enjoy the cast of characters and the "Sonic Boom" cartoon. I wouldn't say that I'm casual though, since I haven't played a game from the franchise for years, mainly due to poor quality or the gameplay just not appealing to me. I had some low expectations for this film due to the lack of talent behind the scenes and how the trailers didn't really get me excited, despite the redesign of Sonic. However, when the positive feedback came out, I started to get a bit excited. The truth is though, leaving the cinema, I felt pretty underwhelmed. I could just simply say that I enjoy the film so that the Sonic fans don't lynch me, but I love film in general, and when I notice a really flawed film, I must call it out. I also need to spoil some things, since that's where the issues are resided, whether they are critical plot points or things that the marketing doesn't push in order to keep people from cringing.

Positives:

• Let's address the best thing of the film: Jim Carrey! I missed his charisma on-screen and the film gave him a nice chance to return to his over-the-top ways. Surprisingly, he never made me cringe in the film at all. He might be a bit too zany and not resemble Dr. Robotnik with his fake-looking mustache, but he was just so fun to watch. I also like that he's a beta version of the character as his technology and character design haven't evolved yet to the more recognizable Dr. Eggman and his robotic army.
• Sonic was also pretty enjoyable (for the most part). Ben Schwartz does a nice job with his vocal performance and the animation on him is really good. I'm not really the biggest fan of the character personality-wise, but in this film, I can see that they were trying to make him a child-like figure, despite the adult voice coming out from him. He does have some fun moments such as the scene where he's in the bar, but there's one huge negative with him that I will address later.
• The soundtrack is pretty good. I was afraid that the producers were going to play some overrated, modern, trash songs like "Old Town Road", but they surprisingly used songs that haven't been beaten down to death from the radio. The original score by Junkie XL is decent for the film it was made for, which is light-hearted adventure/comedy, though the piano theme of the theme song at the end was nice.
• The few good laughs I can get out of the film, such as the fungi pun and Sonic trying to beat a big guy up. Robotnik also has some decent lines as well.
• The references to the franchises that offer nice easter eggs and teases for those who are seasoned with the franchise. Tails was also a nice treat for the mid-credits.

Negatives:

• Where do I start with the negatives but with the opening for the film? I have to say, this is the worst opening to a film I have seen for a long time. The problem starts where Baby Sonic meets his guardian, Longclaw, a female owl who looks much more realistic than the cartoon hedgehog. Before you can get used to the design, the two are suddenly attacked out of nowhere by ecidnas (no Knuckles in sight). Longclaw gives Sonic a bag of teleporting rings and chooses to get killed when there was clearly enough time for her to leave with Sonic. The issue with this opening is that things happen way too fast and start off the film with so many questions. Who is Longclaw and how come she adopted Sonic? Why are the ecidnas trying to kill a child for no reason? Why did Longclaw not leave with Sonic when she had enough time to go into the portal? The opening feels so disconnected from the film that I don't get why they even bothered to show it, other than to have a reason for more merchandise with Baby Sonic. It doesn't help that the opening is tonally more intense than the rest of the film and feels like it came out from a different movie altogether. I know that this is the lore, but couldn't they have fleshed this out? Another plot-hole I would like to address is that Sonic causes the conflict because he for some reason kept running in a circle for being upset from his loneliness? Pretty bizarre way to get the movie going.
• The rest of the human cast. James Marsden as Tom Wachowski is bland as butter. Outside of "Westworld", I can never get invested in this guy and he feels so generic in this film. He's your typical everyman that's nice to Sonic, despite him being really annoying. Never seen that before, huh? His arc is pretty dull, with him questioning to leave his small town to San Fransisco, which Sonic gets really offended of for barely any reason. I understand the theme they are presenting, but Tom kind of has no reason to stay home, since leaving would be better for his career and life in the long run. The people of Green Hills are more annoying or stupid than charming, so they never really offer much to stay behind. The side characters are also forgettable and dull such as Tom's wife that does nothing, Tom's sister-in-law that hates him, and his really braindead friend at the police station. I know this is a family film, but these people are more childish than actual children.
• The humour. I won't judge the overall tone, since it's more geared towards families, but the comedy is pretty dry. There are a few good chuckles, but the issue with the comedy is that most of the jokes are pop-culture references or product placements. Olive Garden is a gross place to eat in, so why does Tom have an app for it and why does the general congratulate him for the events of the film by giving him a $50 gift card? Because it's stupid. However, what I find worse is Sonic's never-ending pop culture references. I know what you're thinking. How does Sonic know pop-culture when he is from another world? Well, the movie explains that he spent 10 years on Earth. This element of the plot allows Sonic to give out cringe-worthy line involving namedropping Keanu Reeves, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Vin Diesel, Find My Phone, taking selfies, and flossing. FLOSSING! Like, how pandering are these writers and producers are to modern culture?!?
• Jeff Fowler's directing. You can tell this was his first feature film, let alone live-action directional debut. The film looks and feels like a low-budget Disney Channel series. The cinematography, outside of the action sequences, are so flat and uninspired. I won't complain about the visual effects, since they aren't bad at all, but they clearly don't gel together at all. Sonic and Robotnik's drones are popping with colour compared to the grey, almost unfiltered world they inhabit in. The few moments of CGI environments that we do see are also nice to look at, that it makes me wish that this film was animated the whole time and not some live-action hybrid.
• The last, though the biggest, issue I have with this film is the overall laziness of the film. You can tell in many areas of the film that it felt so lazy in the writing department with barely any creativity. This is prominent with the story and utilization of the source material. I'm not talking about plot holes here, but the fact that this film feels very much like a first draft. The opening fits this with barely any time to address Sonic's past as well as how he needs to spend 10 years to pick up on disgusting pop-culture references. The plot however is just the typical buddy comedy where a strange character asks help from a boring male lead that bond a friendship in very short time with barely any conflict to each other outside of misunderstanding and such. Why couldn't the film be set in a brand new world that can be explored? Why can't we have more characters like Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow, or others join the fun and have some cool interactions with each other and engaging human characters? Why does the subplot of Tom being viewed as a terrorist completely vanish and how come he doesn't react to the news at all? Why does Sonic stay on Earth at the end of the movie? He can defend himself now and return home, try to befriend the other creatures that misunderstood him years ago. Why is Tails even looking for Sonic if he has never met the guy and have no knowledge of him since he left when he was a baby 10 years ago? The best things in the film involve Sonic and Robotnik. When they are onscreen, it feels like the games coming to life. I understand that this is meant to be more like the first Sonic game when it comes to elements from the source material, but if so, why not include some of Sonic's power-ups or Robotnik's mech? I heard the argument about introducing more elements in sequels with larger budgets, but I have to compare this to "Detective Pikachu". That film could have easily just copy the generic formula of the titular character being sent to our world and needing help from a everyman to get him back home. But, they actually try to put effort in using the source material and give us a new world as well as allowing us to see beloved creatures from the franchise other than Pikachu, while also offering triple amount the easter eggs and references on the side. It's not a perfect film, mind you, but I can say without a doubt that they tried so hard on that film, when the filmmakers here didn't even try with the original design of Sonic whatsoever.

 I really wanted to join the bandwagon on this, especially for a video-game adaptation. Heck, I want to be in the majority to avoid being argued upon. But, I have to be honest and address my honest take. Although I very much enjoyed Carrey's Robotnik, Sonic's characterization, soundtrack, the good bits of humour that can be salvaged, and the references/easter eggs, this film is a complete mess. From a laughable cold opening, dull human characters who aren't Robotnik, cringe-worthy humour that consists of product placements and pop-culture references, Frowler's amateur directorial debut, and the overall laziness in the screenplay regarding the massive missed potential of making a much better film. I know that all of the die-hard fans are planning to lynch me and ignore my criticisms, since they just wanted to see their beloved character on the big screen. I end off with this. I love the Hitman franchise and love to see Agent 47 in more mainstream media such as live-action films. I however can't defend how poorly made the Hitman films are. Sure, I can enjoy the 2015 film from time to time, but I will admit the various issues it has. I believe though that addressing issues in these films offer a lesson to these inexperienced directors, producers, and screenwriters that they must try harder in making movies like these. And if you praise heavily-flawed films like these, chances are that sequels and other adaptations are going to inherit movie-breaking issues.

Verdict: 5/10. I can't say this is an awful film, but it is one with crippling flaws that the qualities aren't enough to call it good either. Regardless, I still recommend a watch if you love the franchise, but be more mindful on how the film is overall, not what the main characters look like.

Honey, I Blew Up The Kid (1992) Film Review: Bigger Story, Smaller Reward.

I think a lot of people have heard of "Honey, I Shrunk The Kids". While it never became a huge franchise for Disney, it served as a vehicle for Rick Moranis and also sparked imagination with the sets and effects surrounding the shrunken kids. With the first film being a hit, the sequel decides to switch things around. Instead of having a character shrinking down, how about one growing in size? The sequel opens up a few years after the original, where Wayne Szalinski is working on a project for a modified shrink ray that can both shrink and enlarge thing. Wayne brings his kids to work one day in order to secretly solve the issue. His two-year old son though gets zapped by the machine, which gives him the ability to grow enormously when around an electric device. Wayne and his family now struggle to find a way to shrink him down to normal size, while the public becomes aware of the rapidly-growing toddler. An issue that many would spot first is that the tone is much more childish than before, which is mainly due to the toddler being the source of the story which of course involves his family trying to calm him down or make him stop causing trouble. Another problem is that despite the 90 minute runtime, the pacing feels really slow, which is not because things don't happen for a long time, but rather the opposite. Basically, too much happens as the toddler, Adam, gets exposed and makes his way to Las Vegas, making the third act feel extremely bloated. Despite this issues, the film is still charming with the absurdity and it does have some imagination to it, albeit not as much compared to the first film.

Rick Moranis is once again fantastic as Wayne Szalinski, the eccentric yet goofy scientist. Moranis is just really charming as this character and it's quirky to see how smart, naive, and slow Wayne is, which makes him a fun character to watch since you won't know exactly what his next move could be. Marcia Strassman plays Diane, Wayne's supportive yet furious wife who gets roped in with her husband's misadventure and pushes him to help shrink down their son. Nick Szalinski, Wayne's teenaged son, played by Robert Oliveri, is helpful and bonds with his father, but also wants his father to help him out impressing his crush. These characters and the family dynamic is well done and almost believable for their chemistry, but the side characters are either generic or unnecessary. Adam, the toddler who gets blown up in size, is not necessary a bad character for what the role he is needed for, but the kid can get pretty annoying and bratty at times. Mandy Park, played by Keri Russell, is Nick's crush who shares no chemistry with him, since they act like being in the same situation instantly means personal attraction to each other. But, the worst character here is the antagonist, Charles Hendrickson. Hendrickson hates Wayne for no real reason and wants him to not get involved with the shrink ray project, despite Wayne having vastly more knowledge than he does. When Adam is revealed to the city, he attempts to capture him for testing and experiments. The guy is just a complete asshole for no reason and feels so forced in the film, which didn't even need a villain to begin with. So, the cast overall is generally decent with the Szalinski's being the best characters, while side characters such as Mandy and Hendrickson are just unnecessary or annoying.

Randal Kleiser replaces Joe Johnston as director for the sequel and it clearly shows I do like the change of the location compared to the first film, as being set in Nevada lends them the ability to use Las Vegas as a plot element in the film. I also like how there are much more gadgets present in the Szalinski residence, which makes sense for the character to try to experiment with small-scale ingenuity. The directing, lighting, and cinematography for the most part though is very average, which doesn't help in making a film stand out from the crowd. The score by Bruce Broughton is not bad as it does have similar beats for the franchise, but it just blends in with the film, while the main theme from the first film is more memorable due to it being more prominent. The biggest thing to mention however are the effects. When Adam grows to around seven feet, the effects are done extremely well. It's clearly using editing and green-screen, but it's so well done that the actors look like they inhabit the same space with each other, making scenes with the family in the house look amazing. However, when Adam grows much bigger though, the effects kind of get worse, since the outline is more obvious and it's simply not as convincing. Heck, they use plenty of close-ups for the giant toddler to make it easier to film around, but it just speaks lazy as a whole. The problem is that since the entire third act uses this effect, it loses care and attention from the viewer. Though with that said, the props are really good and gives off vibes of the micro-world from the first film. The main issue with the direction overall is just the lack of ambition.

"Honey, I Blew Up The Kid" is perhaps the weakest of the franchise. With the childish tone, pacing issues, awful side characters, average filmmaking, forgettable score, noticeable effects for the giant Adam, and the lack of ambition from Kleiser. However, the best things of the franchise still apply to this film. The film is still very charming and offers some creative scenarios (albeit not as much compared to the first film), the Szalinski family are well acted and offer a very nice dynamic amongst each other, Moranis is just as enjoyable as ever, and the props and effects are really good, especially the seven foot tall Adam. Overall, I can't call this a good movie, but I don't want to say it's a bad one. It's slightly above average in my opinion. The good stuff combats the negatives, although I find that the direct-to-video sequel almost outshines this film surprisingly.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Has plenty of issues, but one can still find some enjoyment out of it. I hope to cover the nostalgia that is "Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves" in the near future.

Birds Of Prey (2020) Non-Spoiler Review: A Cluttered Yet Enjoyable Time.

Since the events of "Suicide Squad", Harley Quinn and the Joker have broken up, which results in the former to find her own calling. She stumbles unknowingly upon a deal gone wrong, when a pickpocket kid steals a very valuable diamond from mob boss, Roman Sionis. As she pursuits after the kid in order to save her own hide, she also gets involved with Sionis's nightclub singer Dinah Lance, GCPD detective Renee Montoya, and the assassin known as the Huntress, which leads up to their eventual team-up against Sionis's forces. While the story itself is standard, the main issue with it is that the movie needed more time to expand on certain elements or characters. The pacing of the film is quick, trying to squeeze in the details of characters or plot points, but there's not much time where it slows down and allows the characters to breath or have chemistry amongst each other. With that said, it can't be denied that the over-the-top tone and zaniness is a huge draw for those that don't care much for the story for their comic book films. It's not an extremely funny film, but it's just more random and goofy, matching the narration and mindset of our protagonist.

Margot Robbie is once again fantastic as Harley Quinn. From the look, the accent, and the personality, the character delivers yet again to help make a film more enjoyable. She's not alone chewing up the screen though, as Ewan McGregor does a very fun and unique performance as Sionis also known as Black Mask, playing both an intimidating mobster and an eccentric nightclub owner. Rosie Perez does a great job as Renee Montoya, the hard-boiled detective who doesn't deal with nonsense, while the performances of Lance, Huntress, and Zsasz are good, though get overshadowed by the others. If there is one character though that doesn't work for me whatsoever,  it's Cassandra Cain. For one, she is completely different from the comics to the point of being insulting. True, the other characters aren't completely comic-accurate, but the concept of their personalities and traits are still intact. Not only is Cain a name-only character, her role in the film is not strong as she is supposed to serve as the reason why Harley stands up against Sionis, but they barely have any chemistry together that it feels rather pointless. In fact, most of the chemistry between the characters aren't really strong enough prior to the team-up, except for the rather hinted gay romance between Sionis and Zsasz. Regardless, the cast are clearly enjoying their time performing and present mostly enjoyable characters.

Uprising director, Cathy Yun, hails the film with style and dedication. To begin with, there is the colours and visuals of the film, which makes it one of the more eye-pleasing films of the genre with a lack of monotone colours, unlike the mostly bland-looking "Suicide Squad". Gotham is much more colourful with the interior sets such as the nightclub and the abandoned amusement park, but the cityscape still looks grounded, emphasizing the more small-scale story of the genre. I also like the costumes of our characters, particularly Harley and Sionis since they have multiple different outfits throughout the feature that establishes their personality. The editing is for the most part solid, though I noticed quite a few rough cuts in certain areas. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique is great with a lot of great shots from varying distances as well as the scope and tightness of the action sequences. Speaking of the action, the film utilizes engaging, brutal close-quarter fights that uses great stunt-work and the use of the R rating to its advantage. While it's not overly graphic, the impact of hits just feels brutal than typical superhero beatdowns. Yun also appears to be inspired by martial arts films, due to the physicality, slow motion, and the length of the fights in order to take the audience's breath away. While I can't even recall the score made for the film, the soundtrack is really good for the film's tone and utilization.  Overall, Yun did a really good job stepping into the superhero genre and I look forward for her future projects.

"Birds Of Prey" is a film that's going to make it or break it for people. On the one hand, there are things to complain about from Cassandra Cain, the lack of depth in the story and chemistry of characters, unmemorable original score, and many changes from the source material such as the costumes, personalities, etc. However, it's hard to deny the qualities such as the over-the-top tone, wild humour, performances from the wide range of characters, Yun's directing, visual style, cinematography, soundtrack, and well-made action sequences. It's easy to see the division of fans, critics, and moviegoers alike. For me, I would say that you would most likely enjoy the film if you just want some fun at the theatres since it gets a lot of entertainment value. However, if you obsess over the comics or complex narratives, this is not the film for you. It has its issues, but you just have to take it for what it is.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but one can see the missed potential. Still a win for the comeback surprise that is DC Films though.

Diary Of A Wimpy Kid (2010) Film Review: A Very Confident Coming Of Age Film

I think any kid today would be aware of the popular Diary of a Wimpy Kid books, which has had annual installments since 2007. I of course grew up with the books, but lost interest around 2014 or so, since there were just too many books and the character of Greg Heffley never seemed to evolve as a truly likeable character. Regardless, the worldwide success eventually brought the series on to the big screen with four films being released and Disney planning to create a series for their streaming service. The first film was released back in 2010, when the series was at the peak of its popularity and became a cult classic for fans. The film follows Greg Heffley as he enters middle school with the goal to become the most popular kid at school, while attempting to change his best friend Rowley to help his overall image. A lot of the events that occur in the book appear in live-action with accuracy, though there are new elements, characters, and characterization of established characters. There isn't an overarching narrative, taking the approach of a coming-of-age/slice-of-life tale, which is the best approach you can do for the film, something which the fourth film had a problem with. This could make the film appear to have a lack of real direction, mainly just an excuse to throw gags, but this is saved by the main focus on the friendship between Greg and Rowley. This film isn't knee-slapping funny, but it's more charming than most modern comedies.

Anyone can tell you that the actors were perfectly cast for their roles, which is important for any adaptation. Zachary Gordon is a great Greg Heffley by pulling the character off with a self-centred mindset, but he comes across as a real kid with how he acts a bit innocent in his delivery and the moments where he's truly enjoying himself. We all knew or at some point were like Greg in our lives, but we matured out of that phase, which he clearly learns to do by the end. Robert Capron as Rowley is another great casting choice as the childish yet good-hearted Rowley. He's so good that you almost think that Capron is just Rowley, despite that it's all an act. The chemistry between the two friends is where the heart of the film resides. We all probably had that friend or knew a friendship where the two are somewhat polar opposites and one almost tries to improve the other, despite there's none needed. You feel like this is a real friendship that is testing itself with the middle school environment. There are just too many side characters to list off though, but I will try to mention the important ones. The casting of everyone is all above the board perfect. From Devon Bostick's Roderick, the mean older brother, Steve Zahn's Frank, the quirky father, Rachael Harris's Susan, the supportive yet embarrassing mother, Karan Brar's Chirag Gupta, the small know-it-all, and Grayson Russell's Fregley, the weird kid. As for new and different characters, Chloe Grace Moretz plays Angie, an older student that tries giving advice to Greg and Russell, who never appeared in the books, and Laine McNell plays a much more bratty and aggressive Patty Farrell who is very different from the books. The cast is practically perfect, bringing a colourful and fantastic performances from the main and major supporting characters.

This is the only film in the franchise to be directed by Germain filmmaker, Thor Freudenthal, who hasn't had the greatest track record regarding his projects. It's understandable since he does at best a decent job. His directing is amateurish, as he doesn't try to be cinematic, but rather standard and down-to-earth. Basically, Thor's directing feels like a cheap TV movie or TV series, which this isn't supposed to be for a moderate-budget theatrical film based on a beloved series. On the other hand though, one can reason that this makes the film feel more real since it's not trying to be glossy or ambitious, which I can see. I do like how the film never shows us the city or anywhere that's not in Greg's neighbourhood, which is perhaps due to taking the slice-of-life approach and how the area surrounding Greg makes him learn overall. I like how Thor captures the settings of particular places with the school being absolute humiliating or judgy, Greg's house being a madhouse with his family in control of his torment, and the neighbourhood usually filled with sun though empty for our leads to walk and talk amongst each other. The score by Theodore Shapiro is generic, but the main theme is actually pretty catchy and works for the series, albeit it sounds a bit too much like the "Peanuts" theme. The soundtrack as a whole though is pretty good, using a variety of pop songs for certain moments that works well with the context, not like other films where it acts as an auditory transition to the next scene. I was mostly surprised by how I didn't cringe much rewatching the film. For me, the only scene that I didn't like was the mother and son dance event, which yes, is almost insufferable as Greg is experiencing, but it lasts way too long for me, and I really doubt that the dance moves from Rowley and his mother would really be hyped up rather than mocked at by the boys. If there is one thing that Thor should be proud of, it's that this is his best directing work on his resume.

"Diary of A Wimpy Kid" surprisingly holds not only as a good adaptation of the series, but also as a solid coming-of-age children's film. Sure, it's not super funny, the dance scene is cringe, and Thor's directing clearly needed more work, but the cast is simply fantastic, the friendship between Greg and Rowley is charming and believable, the slow pace of the coming-of-age formula mixes quiet well with the rapid fire approach of gags and silly events, the overall setting of the neighbourhood is fleshed out and self-contained, the soundtrack works well enough, and the film is overall just enjoyable to watch and reflect on. I may have grown out of the book series, but with my love of films as a whole, it helped rekindle a certain respect for them as well as the film itself.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good, but just like the source material and the protagonist, it won't ever be perfect, but that's just how it is.