Over The Hedge (2006) Film Review: Dreamwork's Definitive, Hidden Gem!

Dreamworks Animation has had a rocky path over the years. In recent years, I believe that they have dropped from quality as of late. With the exemption to "How To Train Your Dragon" and "Captain Underpaints", every other film since "The Croods" have been pretty mediocre. With a completely unnecessary "Trolls" sequel coming in the following weeks, it's time I look at perhaps the most underrated films that should've got a sequel in the first place. Based on the comic strip by Micheal Fry, "Over the Hedge" is about a raccoon named RJ who cons a group of animals to forge a mountain of food to avoid himself getting eaten by a bear, while he begins to bond with the others and have a rivalry with Verne, the leader of the group who isn't keen on stealing human food due to the potential consequences. This film does of course incorporate the lier reveal plot thread, which not everyone is a fan of, but I believe that it's handled well and the resolution is quick for the others to forgive RJ in a believable way. It should also be said that this is no satire with plenty of adult humour and commentary, outside of RJ's speech about how food revolves around human life. This is very much a kid's film that is effective by how cartoony and over-the-top it gets such as the multiple explosions used in the film. However, unlike most animated films today where the viewer is expected to see some over-the-top moments, this film starts off standard in a grounded world where, as the story progresses, the action or humour gets more exaggerated and zany that it keeps surprising the viewer by how far the film goes. It reminds me a lot like "Loony Tunes" in that sense and energy. Even if it's not the funniest film that Dreamworks has written, it just has so much charm, heart and personality to it that makes it clear that the filmmakers actually cared about making an above average feature, unlike Illumination' films.

For me, the strongest element to the film is the characters, as I believe that it's hard for people to say that they are unlikeable or bad. Sure, some are archetypes, but they are enjoyable to watch regardless. RJ is a cliched, but likeable protagonist with his charm and smarts and his genuine realization for how much he has bonded with the group. Verne is also fun to watch for his slapstick moments and his clashing personality with RJ, sort of like a Woody/Buzz dynamic in the first "Toy Story". Hammy is the hyperactive yet childish character of the group who has his moments to shine with the OG Quicksilver moment. As for the side characters, the porcupines are a typical, caring family of two parents and three boys, Stella, the skunk who ain't ashamed of being a skunk, the possums, consisting of a dramatic, overprotective father and a teenage daughter, and Tiger, a Persian cat who falls in love with Stella. As for the villains, there's Vincent, the bear who is threatening to eat RJ if he didn't get him his food, Gladys Sharp, an arrogant woman who despises woodland animals, and Dwayne LaFontant, an exterminator who is hired by Sharp to take care of her vermin problem. Not only are all of these characters enjoyable in their own way, but the celebrities they hired to voice act for these roles are so spot-on that it just sounds like the character themselves speaking rather than the celebrity, with the exception of Wanda Sykes as her voice is too distinct to be unrecognizable. Anyone can have a favourite character of their own, whether it's one of the main characters or even one of the side characters or villains.

After 14 years, the animation has aged rather decently. I will address my issues of the animation first. The background of the suburbs can look really lifeless and bland at times, and some facial animation in certain scenes look a bit stiff and awkward. On the side note, while many of the humans look fine, the kids look like they came out off of the movie, "Monster House", as they look less rendered and almost clay-like. Outside of these issues, the animation is pretty good from the textures, fur, the designs of the animals, and how it keeps up with the speed and varied elements of the various action sequences. The food also just looks so good. There's even small details that I find impressive such as when we first see Dwayne's truck driving up the road, there's even a mirage effect on the asphalt. I think the animation is more creative and even looks better than some recent animation films that get released in theatres such as "The Nut Job" or even some modern Illumination or Dreamworks films as of late. Then, we got the music. The original score by Rupert Gregson-Williams is decent and fits with the lighthearted nature of the film, but it's the songs by Ben Folds that makes the soundtrack standout. "Heist", "Still", and a reversion of "Rockin' in the Suburbs" are just great to listen to by themselves and are well integrated in the film. Sure, much like Phil Collin's songs in "Tarzan", one can say that the songs are distracting or even too cheesy to handle, but I believe that it helps make the film more charming and establish the fun-loving identity that the film is going for.

"Over The Hedge" is by no means the best of the Dreamworks catalogue, but it is honestly close. Despite some aged aspects of the animation and the more family-centric tone compared to the studio's bolder and better works, that's honestly the only flaws the film has. The story is familiar and fun, the tone is perfectly unexpected, over-the-top, cartoony mayhem, the slapstick is spot-on with some decent lines to boot, all of the characters are likeable and enjoyable, the animation overall holds up with some care and fantastic detail, and the songs by Ben Folds are ear-wormy and wholesome. If you want an animated film with complex themes, character development, and adult references, this is not it and it shouldn't be compared to be like that. The film is simply aiming to make you smile by its charm, personality, zaniness, and heart constructed by the filmmakers and animators, much like how RJ conned his way to get Verne's group on his side.

Verdict: 8/10. A great, nostalgic trip. Watch if you want to have a trip of the senses of taste (mouth-watering animated food), sight (the film itself), and hearing (Ben Folds's catchy songs)

Westworld (1973) Film Review: An Outdated, Amateur Romp Despite A Great Premise

Delos is a futuristic, adult amusement park that utilizes life-like androids to simulate people residing in the time-based worlds, such as the Old West-themed world, Westworld. Guests pay thousands of dollars to compete in duels and have sexual encounters with no sense of moral code or danger present. However, when a computer virus starts to infect the machines, it turns off safety protocols, allowing the androids to malfunction and be able to kill the guests, which first-time visitor, Peter Martin, soon discovers. Based off an original story by Micheal Crichton, the author who wrote "Jurassic Park", "Westworld" has a fantastic premise, which is explored in perfection in the HBO series of the same name. The film itself though is a horse of another colour. The main issue with this film is that despite the low runtime of ninety minutes, the movie just drags on and on without much happening, which is why the HBO series works so much better due to the episodic nature. The first act introduces us to the characters and the world, which is perhaps the most effective part of the film. The second is where the technicians are realizing that the androids are slowly starting to go haywire and ignore protocols, which is the most uneventful part of the film as the guests don't notice these changes at all outside of a rattlesnake bitting Peter's friend. The third act is where the androids finally begin to cause havoc and death, which should be the best part of the film as Peter is being chased by the same android he has been killing for the past two days. However, the issue is that the climax almost comes out of nowhere due to the very slow pace of the story, and this is where plot holes start to emerge ranging from the lack of rogue androids roaming around the park to the ending that just comes out of nowhere and leaves the fate of Peter unresolved. It doesn't help that the tone of the film is a bit all over the place as there is constantly failed moments of humour from the other guests of the park.

Richard Benjamin plays Peter Martin, the first-time visitor to Delos and is just amazed by the experience. Peter isn't the most complex character, but he works fine enough as a protagonist as a fish out of water. James Brolin plays John Blane, Peter's friend who has been in Westworld multiple times. John is relaxed and mellow and counteracts Peter's excitement and confusion. Yul Brynner plays the Gunslinger, an android that has been killed by Peter multiple times only for it to become a bigger threat once the virus interferes with its programming. Although Brynner doesn't have much character or dialogue, he's probably the best actor in the film due to his silent, but deadly persona and physical acting that would inspire both the T-800 and T-1000 in the "Terminator" films. The side characters are completely forgettable and useless as they ultimately don't serve a role in the plot. The other guests of the park such as the wimpy sheriff and the medieval lord are distractions with the lord being the first one killed by the androids in a well-constructed sequence, and the sheriff vanishing from the film after the bar fight. The technicians could have been more important to the story outside of learning about the virus, but they are randomly killed off not by androids, but suffocating in the control rooms closed off due to a power outage.  I believe that the film would have been much more effective if it only focused on the main characters and how they realize day-by-day that the androids are becoming more unstable and dangerous. It also could help make characters such as Peter and John to be more interesting and likeable if the focus was entirely on them rather than the random guests or technicians.

The film was actually directed by Micheal Crichton himself, which is a big leap from his established role as an author. Although this could be a good idea in concept to allow a writer to foresee his vision, it's clear that not everyone is cut out for the job. To be fair, Crichton does have some good shots and direction of certain scenes. The opening shot after the cold open is iconic with a man's sunglasses reflecting off the terrain he's flying over. The reveal of the androids finally being capable of killing the guests is effective and the third act chase is very horror-inspired that clearly inspired motifs in the aforementioned "Terminator" films and even "Predator" when the Gunslinger attempts to use infra-red vision in order to find Peter's heat signature only for Peter to outsmart it by sheer luck. Despite these moments of brilliance, Crichton is not a good director at all as his directing comes off as flat and uninspired for most of the time with a good shot here and there. Some scenes just go for far too long and lose suspense and focus from the viewer with the aforementioned infra-red vision moment being shot for too long to become rather awkward. It also shows how messy and unfocused he is, due to putting in other worlds and characters that are pointless as a whole. The editing is also pretty bad as scenes just get cut too quickly. You can tell that this film was butchered in the editing process as it explains the short runtime and the missing characters and elements that remain mysteries in the lore. The score by Fred Karlin is interesting at times with its mixture of western music and electronic beats, which works so well with the material. However, the western music is so generic and unforgettable that it really grates on your ears. The visual effects are actually pretty good. Seeing the mechanics of the androids is both surreal yet realistic in a way, and the vision of the Gunslinger is actually the first use of any form of CGI, albeit on a 2D scale. At the same time though, you can get the sense that this film was on a restricted budget and that there was missed potential. The scene where Peter splashes acid on the Gunslinger's face is followed up by a disappointing reveal of the damage as the android is barely scarred and doesn't show any mechanical details underneath. Perhaps with a bigger budget, more ambitious shots and effects would have been possible, but the effects overall are good given the time and budget.

"Westworld" is a film that I really want to like. From its fantastic premise and a solid first act to hook, Brynner's performance as the Gunslinger, some good cinematography, the third act revelation of the rogue androids, the visual effects being great with the first use of CGI, and the chase between Peter and the Gunslinger being a horror-inspired sequence that would influence other sci-fi horror films in the 80s. However, there are just too many problems with the film. The pacing is dreadfully slow and uneventful, the third act (despite its enjoyability) has plot holes galore, the tone is inconsistent with failed humour, the side characters are a waste of time, Crichton's mostly flat and dragging direction, choppy over-editing, and Karlin's mediocre score. The problem with this film was that it was simply overambitious for its time and budget. Perhaps if it did have a much bigger budget and a great director that knows what needs to have focus, this could've been a great sci-fi classic. As it is, it's a fantastic, untapped story that 70's filmmaking just couldn't do justice, instead having to wait more than 40 years to be perfected.

Verdict: 4.5/10. It's pretty bad to watch in retrospective, but should be viewed as a stepping stone for an otherwise brilliant IP. If you love the HBO series like myself, this is an interesting film to look back on.

Toy Story 4 (2019) Film Review: A Black Sheep Or Completely Necessary?

Some time after "Toy Story 3", Woody is feeling rejected by his new owner, Bonnie. As he struggles to find his self-worth, he makes it his duty to keep Bonnie's new toy, Forky, from throwing himself in the garbage. As the two get stranded during a road trip, Woody runs into his old fling, Bo Peep, a sinister doll who wants his voice box, and other side characters to make the other side characters useless. It goes without saying that this film is really unnecessary as the previous three films ended off so perfectly that it feels like a disservice to make any more sequels. Even if the filmmakers plead that this was made out of passion, the film feels like it wasn't half the time. Sure, the humour and the development and maturity of Woody's arc is very well-handled, but the writing feels mostly contrived and forced in order to keep the story flowing. Unlike the other films, where the characters and events feel genuine or realistic, this one tends to feel lazy to have certain points of the plot to keep moving. An example is the flashback to when Bo Peep gave Woody the choice to come with her rather than to stay with Andy. The way the scene plays out feels so unnatural and forced that it doesn't make sense for Bo not to come with Woody back to Andy's house. The writing just feels restrictive in a way. I will say that I appreciate the maturity of the film as it feels like an evolution from the previous films of the franchise.

The characters is where the film goes all over the place with, as it not only tries to get returning characters to shine, but introduce new characters at the same time. However, due to the extended cast, things get very jumbled. The only character that is allowed his development and arc to conclude is Woody. His journey of self-worth and identity is for the most part portrayed nicely. Sure, there are some odd nitpicks about how he goes to his final decision, but it's quite clear that the film was mainly focused on giving the character his own type of swan song. The villain, Gabby Gabby, is also a great addition as a morally grey character who has solid reasonings for why Woody should give up his voice-box and even a solid, albeit oddly humorous, twist regarding his desire. My only issue with this whole voicebox dilemma is that it doesn't really change Woody other than that he no longer has an automated voice. Duke Caboom is also a fun new addition for his Canadian heritage and confronting his failure for being unable to pull off a jump. Outside of these characters, the rest are a mixed bag. Forky is a funny character for the first act, but after he gets captured by Gabby Gabby, he just becomes the MacGuffin as he just instantly accepts being Bonnie's toy pretty quick into the runtime. Ducky and Bunny get the most laughs, but they don't prove their usefulness in the journey and their arc to find a child goes nowhere. Giggle McDimples is also another pointless character to include. As for the older characters, the film insults their roles by either dumbing the characters down to be barely helpful or just underused. Buzz is enjoyable as always, but his new character quirk of listening to his "inner voice" makes him much dumber than he was in previous films and makes choices that he wouldn't normally do. Jessie went from being a major side character to just getting like five lines of dialogue that sound exhausted and lazy. The other side characters are just part of the background with some getting a moment to shine as they help out or just literally do or say nothing. Lastly, there's Bo Peep, the character prominently returning to the franchise after being removed in the third film. While she becomes a typical action girl who does actually add something to the plot and Woody's arc, the issue is that the characters just never had great chemistry with each other. It's not bad, but it's not as strong or as well developed as say, Woody and Buzz's friendship in the first film. And considering that the film is pushing on their chemistry to be a factor as to why Woody leaves the gang in the end, it's a pretty big issue for the character.

This film perhaps has the best animation Pixar has put out. From the realistic effects of the textures and elements, to the mixture of both colourful and grounded settings and lighting, the animation is gorgeous. The environments are almost photorealistic, yet the characters feel natural in their surroundings as their polished looks blend in with the new environments. It's just impressive to see how the animation in all of the films improve on each other such as the improved textures and the amount of humans shown. However, the town setting is one that I'm not the biggest fan of, as it overstays its welcome and the road trip could have been a much more interesting backdrop for the story rather than the old dusty town that is only used for the carnival and antique shop, which could have been in different locations and still utilized a similar plot if there was a rewrite or two. I will say that I did like the idea of the unplayed toys finding ways for any kid to play with them and how Bo Peep helps them out, not worrying about having an owner due to her newfound independence. Randy Newman returns to score the music and it sounds like typical Randy Newman. I did like the song, "I Can't Let You Throw Yourself Away", but other than that, it's the same themes that you're familiar with in the franchise. Despite being directed by a first-time feature film director, this film once again shows the extreme amount of polish Pixar films always demonstrate.

"Toy Story 4" is a hard one to talk about. On the one hand, it matches up to the rest of the franchise with the excellent animation, the somber maturity of its themes, the characters of Woody, Gabby Gabby, and Duke Kaboom being both enjoyable to watch and characterized brilliantly, the score by Randy Newman, and the humour being the best out of the franchise. However, the film suffers from a contrived, lazy script that forces the plot to go the beats the filmmakers wanted, Bo Peep's chemistry with Woody isn't strong enough to warrant dramatic tension, the majority of the characters are either unhelpful, serve as just comic relief, or dumbed down to the point of regressing their characters, and I found the town location to be just boring. It's clearly not a bad movie, in fact, it's quite competent in some areas. The screenplay is the major issue as it just doesn't feel as tightly written as the previous films and feels, in some ways, rushed. I don't hate this film, but I will say that it shouldn't have existed if it was going to be inferior to the previous films, making it my least favourite of the franchise.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Decent overall, but could have been so much better. Still worth a watch if you love the franchise though or the theme of moving on from the past.

My Spy (2020) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Abort Mission Immediately!!!

So, I wasn't planning to review this film, considering how I was never interested in watching this to begin with. However, as I spend the day with family and hope to escape the current situation plaguing the world, this movie was the only one playing in a convenient time for us and I prepared to face my maker. After all, this film was supposed to come out last summer and got delayed to this year. Heck, the U.S doesn't even get to watch the film until April 17th, which remains debatable given the epidemic. But, lucky for me, this film is released a month early for the UK and Canada, and I wish it wasn't.

Positives:

• The actors. Not the characters, mind you, but the men and women acting and trying to get something of value out of the screenplay. Dave Bautista, Chloe Coleman, Kristen Schaal, and Parisa Fitz-Henley all do great jobs for their otherwise generic characters. They manage to bring out some life and likeable energy at least.
• I will admit, there were a few moments where I did chuckle whether intentional or not. I will get into the humour in the negatives, but there are a few laughs.
• Peter Segal's directing. It's not perfect, but the scenes filmed in the apartment complex were actually well made, shot, and paced for the most part.

Negatives:

• Let's discuss the biggest issue with the film: The screenplay. It is just awful. So awful that I have to split it into multiple paragraphs in order to explain the elements that the film does so poorly. Let's start off with the story. It's generic and uninteresting. A screw-up CIA agent has to be in charge of a serious investigation, but gets outsmarted by a smart-alec girl and eventually forms a bond with her and her mother. The story has quite a few problems. For one, there is one big plot hole from the beginning in the film, which is the girl, Sophie, recording JJ and his investigation, which she uses to blackmail him to go with her to events and to hang out with her and her mother, the obvious love interest. The issue is that JJ, at any time, could have broke the phone as she holds it out with no one around to intervine, which would be in his character to do so. Second, the spy plot itself is so far into the background that you forget why the investigation even started and how cutting back to the villain does nothing to progress the story at all. Third, the characters are just too generic to keep the story engaging and they make dumbfounding decisions that raise red flags to those around him. Compared to "Spy", the story and characters are just so underwritten. Before you say that this is clearly made for kids, hence the lazy writing, that is very debatable.
• The tone is pretty inconsistent when it comes to light-hearted family fun and uncomfortable dark comedy. Like, the first time JJ and Sophie hang out in the skating rank feels uncomfortable, and it's demonstrated as her mother sees them come home together and kicks him in the nuts while trying to call the police. So, the pedophile vibes are pretty strong in the film. There's also the fact that the mother just accepts that JJ is her new friend without much argument. The mean-spirited jokes are "Family Guy" level humour, there's a surprising amount of profanity, and they act like death is a joke with Sophie making a one liner as she just sees a guy falling to his death for the first time in her life. 
• Speaking of jokes, the humour relies on pop culture and cringe moments. To be fair, few of the cringe moments work, but they are up to you if they are intentional or not. The pop culture humour is just painfully bad though, much like "Sonic the Hedgehog's". Another problem with the humour is how the editing makes the scene much more awkward or unfunny. They cut too early to make the joke, funny or unfunny, fully pay off.
• The score by Dominic Lewis. It's not horrible, but the only thing that I remember from it are the sad, dramatic cues in scenes that are just poorly done to convey any drama. Like, why should I feel sad for JJ in his unrealistic luxury apartment for screwing up on his job? Why should I feel sad for Sophie not fitting in with the other girls that she never gets payback for? Why should I get invested in the scene where JJ reveals the truth of his career to the mother and Sophie is crying about? Well, the generic music is telling me to feel bad, so I guess I should feel bad then.
• Even though I said Segal's directing is pretty good in the apartment locations, the same can't be said for the exteriors or other locations outside of the apartment complex and the CIA headquarters. The direction feels like a cheap TV show that you'd see on the CW. Actually, it makes CW shows look like they were filmed by Christopher Nolan. Using the city of Toronto as a replacement of Chicago is so noticeable that it might as well be set in Canada. At least "Shazam!" had some shots and set-pieces that made the characters look like they were located in Philly. Chicago in this film looks just like any other city. Heck, there's no mention of horrible winds or bad winters to emphasize that they are set in Chicago rather than some generic big city.
• Lastly, there's the action scenes or the lack thereof. Despite being a spy comedy, there's only two scenes of action in the entire film. One in the beginning and the other for the climax. The action is so uninspired and boring that it just copies moments from "True Lies" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" with the gun falling down the staircase and the plane set-piece. The fake, CGI cliffside located in the airfield is just so poorly implemented in the film that even Kristen Schaal's character comments on it. I understand that comedy was the primary focus for this film, but it doesn't excuse for unimaginative, boring action. "Spy" was also focused on comedy more than the spy action, but the multiple action scenes used throughout were not only fun to watch, but also humorous, which is strangely lacking in this film for no reason at all.

Surprise, surprise, "My Spy" was a bad movie after all. Outside of the actors doing the best they can and a few chuckles, the film is practically unsalvageable. From an uninteresting, generic premise that adds no substance whatsoever, a very inconsistent tone that doesn't belong in a very juvenile story, humour that consists of cringe moments and pop culture references, forgettable score by Dominic Lewis, Segal's poor direction in the majority of locations that makes it feel cheaper than the $14 million dollars it took to make this film, and the action scenes being too little and far-between while also being lazily-crafted and boring. There are just much better and creative spy-comedies to watch such as "Spy", "Johnny English", or even the first "Spy Kids". Don't even bother with this trashy production that attempts to be fun for the whole family. Support "Onward" or "Bloodshot" in the theatres, which are not only better quality, but at least knew what type of film they were going for. "My Spy" is unappealing for adults, teens, elders, and children who know better.

Verdict: 2.5/10. The great cast is wasted on a terrible film. If you like these actors, watch any other film or show they are in. It can't be as bad as this.

Bloodshot (2020) Non-Spoiler Review: Might Need Some Stitches, But Fine As A Whole..

When Ray Garrison wakes up in an unfamiliar place with no memory, he learns that his body is fuelled by nanites that regenerate his wounds and gives him super-strength, which is all thanks to Dr. Emil Harting. As he gets used to his new body, he remembers that he and his wife were killed by a man that Ray swore vengeance towards. As he hunts his killer down, it becomes apparent that not everything is what it seems. Considering that the trailers have revealed a bit too much, I will try to not reveal too much for those who are curious of seeing this. Although the plot at times might be cliched, the film does offer some interesting ideas and progression of the story that the marketing doesn't reveal. The tone of the film is serious, but has fun with the action and cliches of the plot, giving it an over-the-top yet entertaining feel. I believe that these were intentional choices, as a film based on an obscure 90's comic book series sort of needs to be a bit cheesy to be enjoyable. The humour though is pretty awkward, as only a few lines really work. It does help a bit that the humour is mostly spewed by the techie, I.T guys that viewers would come to expect in these films, so it's not like this wasn't expected.

 If you're going to watch a film starring Vin Diesel, you should expect that the film is  meant to be just for fun and thrills, with Diesel bringing the same type of performance of the reserved badass who you don't want to mess with. You don't go to watch Diesel make a dramatic performance, but rather the charisma and chill/hot-tempered attitude. So, Diesel does fine, considering his career and the films he's accustomed to. Eiza Gonzalez plays K.T, a woman who feels sorry for Ray's mistreatment and has a device that can controls how she breathes. Her performance is good, but K.T is essentially eye candy that does get involved with the plot and acts as a sort of love interest for Ray, seeing that she is one of the few people that care for him. Guy Pierce as Emil Harting is decent as the eccentric, yet sinister villain, reminding me of a much more reserved Justin Hammer from "Iron Man 2". Lamorne Morris plays Wilfred Wiggins, a hacker who learns of Ray and tries to help him upon his revelation. Despite his hit or miss humour, Morris is very enjoyable as the laid-back, British hipster techie that is much smarter than he leads on to. The side villains that are the muscle to combat Ray are generic, with one of them being an unrealistic douchebag, but their roles just add on to the tropes of the joyride. The other I.T members that work for Harting are pretty pointless though as despite their lighthearted personalities and humour, they don't really get involved in the story or even choose sides, eventually being completely forgotten during the climax. Overall, the majority of the cast of characters are enjoyable and well-performed, even though they are archetypes we have seen before and never become filled with depth and complexity.

The film was directed by David Wilson, who aside from working in visual effects and an episode of "Love, Death & Robots", hasn't had experience on directing a feature-length film, let alone a live-action superhero film. This is where the film struggles as you can tell that this film is being made from someone with limited experience. The film at times feels like a fan film one can find on Youtube, but at others, an actual blockbuster. The cinematography has some nice panning, establishing shots and some moments of the action are caught fine, but there's also quite a lot of shaky camera movements, even when there's no action onscreen. The score is pretty generic, though the use of the song, "Psycho Killer" gives off a fun, if awkward, scene regarding the introduction to a character. The visual effects are actually quite decent and even impressive, given the moderate budget and extensive use of said effects. The scenes with the nanites and certain moments in the climax look pretty good in particular. They aren't super convincing, but they are rendered well to say the less. Sure, the climax gets overly cartoony, but it's better looking than "Black Panther" at least. The action is a real mixed bag though. On the one hand, they are poorly edited and overuse the slow-motion. However, there is some nice direction on the creative end and are just fun to watch out of pure enjoyment. It's absurd to see Diesel with super-strength beating the crap out of people and there is some nice set-pieces such as the tunnel assassination and the assault on the complex with one scene focused entirely on Ray's view while the other is told mainly by Harting's perspective as he monitors Ray and his mission. Wilson should have directed a smaller film prior to this, but I think it could have been directed far worse in my opinion.

"Bloodshot" isn't a movie for everyone. From a cliched narrative, poor attempts at humour, half-baked cinematography, awful editing, lazy score, and amateur directing, there appears to be nothing redeemable whatsoever. However, the film can only be truly enjoyed if you're willing to just have fun with it. The story does have some interesting ideas and moments, the tone is a bit self-aware for the over-the-top nature subject matter, the actors all do a fine job in the roles they have been given, there are some occasionally well-shot and directed moments, the visual effects are pretty good for the limited budget, and the action sequences are just fun to watch due to the creative set-piece and the absurd strength and brute mindset Ray goes through. If you're looking to have some fun in the theatres or are curious of the Valiant comic-book character, this is not a bad film to check out. You must be somewhat forgiving in its faults in order to enjoy it as much as you can though. For those who are generally critical overall, there are plenty of issues to prevent you from having as much fun as you could have. To be honest, I'm hoping that more films based on Valiant comics get made, so we can have more joyrides as this one.

Verdict: 6/10. A decent watch, whether if you enjoy it for how good or bad it is. Considering the lack of big releases this month, check this one out if you're bored and need something to clear your mind over pandemics.

Spawn (1997) Film Review: Hidden Gem Or Should've Stayed In Hell?

With "Bloodshot" coming out this week as well as the character almost released in "Mortal Kombat 11", it's time I should review the film of the most popular non Marvel/DC comic-book character, Spawn. The film follows a mostly accurate origin story of the titular character as Al Simmons, a Special Forces assassin, is killed in action by Jason Wynn, his superior officer. Simmons is then approached by the demon known as Malebolgia, who offers him a second chance in life if he agrees to lead his army. Simmons agrees, but the deal back-fires on him. Not only is he covered by burn marks, but five years have past since his death, where his wife moved on as she marries Al's best friend and gives birth to a daughter. Simmons is then put on a path between justice or vengeance as he struggles to figure out what to do with his life and abilities. While I personally liked the story fine, I understand why many don't like the film's interpretation, mainly due to the gated source material used in the origin story and how the film doesn't try to adapt more interesting storylines that could have been brought to life in live-action. Since this was the character's first film though, I think that the origin story was needed for the general audience at the time. However, it is the tone that proves to be a persistent issue as it clashes with it being both serious or goofy. Although the character known as the Violator is meant to be over-the-top, the other villains are also silly to watch due to their embarrassing portrayals. Considering that there are constantly present throughout the film, it makes the tone extremely conflicted with itself, seeing how that the Spawn character and his dilemma is captured dramatically, but the villains are just too cartoony to be taken serious. At the very least, the comedy performed by the Violator is pretty fun to watch, mainly because of John Leguizamo's performance.

Micheal Jai White is well-casted as Al Simmons. Not only does he get the character beats well such as the wrathful yet hopeless soul, but his commitment to wear the make-up for the majority of the running time is admirable. John Leguizamo is perfect as the Violator, the filthy, midget clown who is trying to persuade Spawn into leading the armies of Hell. I honestly believe that this is Leguizamo's best performance in his career due to the energy he brings to the character and the physical look of the character being very comic-accurate to the point that you'd forget that Leguizamo is playing him. Martin Sheen plays Jason Wynn, the typical evil bad guy who creates a deadly virus that he threats to unleash on the planet. Outside of him also making the deal with Malebolgia that goes south in his plans, Wynn is just a generic villain with no morals. Cogliostro, played by Nicol Williamson, is Spawn's mentor towards the path of light, for he was once a Hellspawn himself who managed to align himself with Heaven. Despite his limited screentime, Williamson does a pretty good job in his performance. As for the side characters, there's Wanda, Simmons's wife who does nothing in the story, Terry, Simmons's best friend who is genuinely a decent man and learns of Wynn's diabolical plan during the film, Jessica Priest, Wynn's female bodyguard who is just as over-the-top as his boss, Zack, a kid who hangs out with Spawn in the slums, and Cyan, the daughter of Wanda and Terry who has a kind heart to Spawn, despite his scarred appearance. To be fair, most of the characters and actors do a respectable job, although Wanda should have done more in the film overall. I feel that Sheen's performance as Wynn, as well as Priest, really drags the film quite a bit, due to their generic personalities.

The film was directed by Mark A.Z. Dippe, which remains as his only blockbuster he has ever directed to date. To be honest, Dippe really shouldn't have directed this film. The movie is full of dark and grey colours. Although there is some bright green due to the necroplasm, the look of the film is overbearingly dark and not in a gothic way that makes the visuals stand out. It's simply just a dark film. The cinematography by Guillermo Navarro helps at times to make the shots look good and have certain scenes to be directed well. The score by Graeme Revell reeks of the 90's though with grunge rock, though the dramatic moments have some nice, softer beats. The editing can range from good to pathetic. The transitions of fire effects or the face of Malebolgia are so gimmicky and silly, and certain cuts can come across as awkward such as the random moment where Simmons puts on the necroplasm armour while a trio of Satanists are performing in the same graveyard. The make-up effects are generally fantastic as Spawn and the Violator look extremely good, with the bonus that White and Leguizamo are performing with the prosthetics. However, the weakest element for this film are the visual effects. Despite Dippe's background as a visual effect artist, it's quite clear that the film didn't have enough time for the artists to render the CGI properly. Although there are elements that I don't mind such as the cape, chains or even the Violator's true form (since there are moments of him being a animatronic), but Malebolgia and the sequences in Hell are so poorly rendered that it looks like a game made for the Playstation. Malebolgia is so laughable that it makes the Violator more scary than that of the portrayal of the Devil. The action sequences are affected by this as well. Although the action done in the truck chase or Spawn's assassination attempt towards Wynn are done well enough, it's the fights between Spawn and the Violator that are unbearable due to the poor quality of the CGI and the climatic fight in Hell looks so silly that it doesn't appear that it belongs in the final cut of any film. Overall, Dippe really should have directed some animated films before working on a live-action feature, as it would give him experience to not turn the live-action film into a Saturday morning cartoon.

"Spawn" is a mixed bag at the end of the day. While the origin story is well-told, the majority of the characters are portrayed good enough(albeit The Violator steals the entire film with his characterization and Leguizamo's performance), the fantastic make-up on the main leads, the decent cinematography, and action sequences do their best in making a competent film, there are just too many glaring issues. From the inconsistent tone, poor characterizations and performances of Wynn and Priest, poor directing from Dippe, horrendous lighting and colour that refuse to have a visual flair, the underwhelming score, the cheesy editing, and the poorly rendered CGI. It's by no means as terrible as others make it out to be, but it's very botched up to the point that it's not easy to point to one issue that would improve the film drastically. At the end of the day, you can still get some fun out of the film by appreciating the elements that are done quite well. However, don't expect it to be anything but decent at best.

Verdict: 5/10. Mediocre overall. Stick with the HBO animated series if you are a fan of the character or want a much better adaptation.

Onward (2020) Non-Spoiler Film Review: A Fun, Emotional, Albeit Familiar Quest

In a fantasy world where the inhabitants gave up on magic and rely on technology, two elf brothers get an opportunity to bring their deceased father back for one day with the use of a magic spell. But, when the spell only brings back his legs, the brothers start a quest to find a rare gem needed for the spell to work, as their personalities clash with each other. I think many of us are familiar of this type of story and the cliches that acquire, which "Onward" is no stranger towards. I did sort of predict the story turns and emotional scenes for the most part, but it's the climax that caught me off guard. I won't spoil what happens, but I'll just say that the themes and emotional conclusion I was expecting was subverted excellently. The tone and humour is more on the lighthearted side of Pixar's filmography for the most part, outside of the dramatic scenes. I didn't mind the tone and I managed to chuckle quite a few times. Much like many of Pixar's works, I like how it doesn't push too much for children, but rather a balance for all demographics. However, I wouldn't be lying if I admit that I personally like films with a more adult tone such as "Coco" or the first "Incredibles" film.

If your film is going to have familiar beats, the best thing to counteract the story is with solid, likeable characters that the audience gets invested in, which "Onward" prevails in. Ian Lightfoot is a teenager lacking in self-confidence and pessimistic of the use of magic, unlike his older brother, Barley, who is a historical and role-playing nut that makes him unpopular in the city. The relationship and chemistry of the brothers is the heart of the film, as it is both fun and heartwarming to see the brothers that are polar opposites work off each other. I also love how the voice actors, Tom Holland and Chris Pratt, manage to blend in extremely well with the characters that you forget that these A-list actors are voicing the characters, though it's Pratt's work that proves more effective in becoming the character. For the side characters, there's Laurel, the caring mother, Colt, Laurel's goofy boyfriend that the brothers mock, Octavia Spencer's Corey, a manticore who helps out Laurel to find the brothers before they run into danger, and lastly, there's Wilden, the deceased father. The father, who is mainly presented as legs, does present a personality through the mime act, but the film isn't really about him, bur rather the brotherhood dynamic of the main characters. In this case, I would've preferred that he didn't even have a voice actor attached to him, considering the role he plays in the film as well as the film's main protagonist being Ian, who has never seen his father at all. Regardless, the characters are very solid and likeable, though it's Ian and Barley that remain the strongest thread.

What can I say about the animation? It's fantastic as always, with great detail, textures, character designs, and capturing the action or lack thereof. The world that the film creates is vibrant and at times creative, particularly the roles of specific fantasy creatures in this modern world and how magic is something that's real, but forgotten in history. However, I would like to mention that the world is lacking in imagination for the most part, as it plays it pretty safe on the representation of the modern world with these characters. Unlike "Zootopia", "Monster's Inc" or "Coco", where the world is so creative to the point that they are very unique in the field of animation, "Onward" feels a bit uninspired in that field, as the film is trying to focus on the grounded relationship of the characters. This is not a bad thing, but it brings the question up about just having the characters just be humans if the world isn't developed enough for this fantasy setting. The action scenes where our characters are in peril is nicely paced and chaotic, where the film generally offers some suspense due to the tight situations and the limited time and resources they have in their disposal. The music by the Danna brothers also feels safe for the formulaic plot, but the score used in dramatic beats are very nice. Lastly, I want to point out how I love the lack of an antagonist in this story which, with the fantasy setting, could have occurred to have reason for using magic and action. However, the only thing that the brothers are in conflict of is valuable time, misguidance, and the importance of family. As much as I adore "Coco", I will admit that as much as I liked the surprise villain, I did kind of wish there was no villain to begin with, which "Onward" exceeds in with the use of obstacles that get in the brother's paths.

"Onward", in my opinion, is one of the better Pixar films in the studio's resume. It's not perfect, as the mostly formulaic plot, underwhelming score, and an underdeveloped world keeps it from being excellent. However, the third act development, charming tone and humour, likeable characters, fantastic animation, fun action scenes, and effective drama are the staples that hold the film together to make it another classic from the studio. I really enjoyed watching this film and while it's hard to claim about it being one of the best, any good adventure from Pixar earns my respect and praise.

Verdict: 8/10. Just about great, although there are much better films from Pixar. Regardless, this is still a film to watch once or twice with family or by yourself.

Coco (2017) Film Review: The Best From The Best!

With "Onward" coming out this week, I was considering reviewing "Shrek" for the whole fantasy setting, but I felt that I should talk about perhaps my favourite film from the studio. It might seem unfair for the new film, since I doubt that it will be on par with the best films from Pixar, but I will be reviewing it without it meeting one's standards. "Coco" centres around a boy named Miguel who loves music and listening to his idol, Ernesto de la Cruz. However, his family forbids music, due to his great-great grandfather abandoning his family, including his daughter Coco, in order to pursue a career in music. Miguel soon believes that Ernesto must have been his family relative and decides to steal his guitar in order to play during the Day of the Dead. However, upon stealing the guitar, he finds himself transported into the Land of the Dead, where he must pair up with a down-on his-luck skeleton named Hector as Miguel must get home before he becomes a permanent resident of the afterlife. What makes this story so unique is the Mexican location, which allows for the culture, lore, and allowing an all-Latino cast to participate for the voice acting. The biggest strength of the film though is the thematic and emotional weight. Tonally, this film is more geared towards older audiences than children due to the subtext of the story and the powerful moments of the raw emotional highlights. I could just talk about these moments in great length, but let's just say that the story revolving around the afterlife and death is going to be have beautiful, tearjerker moments. There's still humour in the film, though there are a few moments that don't work for me. I personally find the jokes relating to the family and the Mexican culture most relatable for me, as well as some gags in the Land of the Dead. I however don't like the jokes revolving around Dante, the goofy canine, as it is a bit too juvenile. However, this is basically the only nitpick I have with the film and I understand that the film needed to have something children can get attached to when it comes to comedy.

Miguel is a very likeable child protagonist. You can understand his passion for the forbidden art that is music and he doesn't come across as whiny or annoying at all. He's quite relatable in his plight of wanting to do something that he loves rather than being told by his family on what he should do. He serves nicely as a fish-out-of-water in the afterlife, a comedic character, and a nice role model for kids overall. Hector is just about as enjoyable due to his colourful, funny personality and underdog status. You learn about his predicament and how you want him to achieve his goal, even if he seems to be selfish in the moment. It's also an emotional, bittersweet moment for a character to fail in his goal, though succeed in it in a different way that's very unconventional. Ernesto de la Cruz is a perfect example of how to include a plot-twist villain. Even though the film didn't appear to need one concept-wise, the inclusion of Ernesto being responsible for Miguel's journey and his self-centred nature is captured so well. I believe how a character like him can do evil things compared to someone like Hans from "Frozen", considering the set-up and context of the evidence prior to the reveal. Ernesto's not the best Pixar villain by far, but he is one of the best twist villains in the modern Disney/Pixar era that started from 2012's "Wreck-It Ralph". Miguel's family, both living and dead, are nicely used as caring, though unsupportive in his desire to play and listen to music. They are simply charming and offer some nice moments of comedy. As for the side characters, they are all simply regulated to comedy, whether it's Frida Kahlo or the clerk who explains how Miguel can return home. To be fair, they are funny in their own regards and it helps to make the tone more light-hearted than completely depressing and mellow. The characters are generally well-written and characterized to be both likeable and understandable to become much more real than animation gives credit to.

The animation is of course stunning as Pixar always knocks it out of the park. From the textures of the people, clothing, and bones, to the fluidity of the characters, the animation is once again top notch for the studio. The Land of the Dead is a prime example of the beauty of the animation. Not only are the colours so vibrant and varied compared to the pretty though dusty-esque town, but the imagination and scale of the world is a visual marvel that remains one of the most creative and visually-engaging settings, second only to "Inside Out". What makes this film stand out from the other Pixar films is the heavy use of music and songs without becoming a full-on musical. Instead of musical numbers where the characters sing their feelings that are disconnected from reality, the songs here are established in the world in which the characters enjoy singing these songs. Songs such as "Remember Me", "Un Poco Loco", and "The World Es Mi Familia" are great songs that are nice to listen to, both with and without context of the film. The score is also nice with the mariachi vibe and Spanish rhythm. One last aspect to mention is the use of Spanglish dialogue and lyrics. Even though it can come across as inconsistent at times, I personally find that this is both necessary and well-done in order to appease both Western and Latino audiences.

Regardless if you think it's among the best of the Pixar library or not, it can't be denied that "Coco" is indeed a masterpiece in its own right. Although I personally don't like the juvenile humour at times in an otherwise rather mature story, the film excels in its evolving story, emotional weight, likeable characters, beautiful animation, wonderful songs and music, and the use of Mexican culture, setting, and language in an American production. Many have their favourites from Pixar, whether it is "Inside Out", "Toy Story", or another modern classic. For me, "Coco" is most likely going to remain as my favourite film from the studio, mainly due to the strong use of drama and Latino representation.

Verdict: 10/10. A modern masterpiece that will most likely go down in history for the studio. Looking forward to review "Onward" this week.