Dr. Dolittle (1998) Film Review: Slightly Better Than The New Film, But Not By Much.

I can never understand why Hollywood is obsessed with making films based on the "Dr. Dolittle" character, since it provides them with a failure one way or another. The 1967 film, although nominated for numerous awards in the Oscars and even winning two of them, was a box office bomb and wasn't really beloved as a film alone, due to the lengthy runtime and blending of multiple books. The 2020 Robert Downey Jr. reboot is also known for not being a costly box office bomb, but a contender for one of the worst films of the year. However, the most successful and most widely-known version of Dr. Dolittle is the 1998 version, which practically ignores the books and turns the character more into comedy than adventure. In this installment, Dolittle is an eccentric, workaholic doctor who has forgotten about his gift to talk to animals ever since he was a kid. One day though after nearly running over a stray dog, his gift suddenly reemerges, which the animal kingdom has started to learn of and visit the doctor as they too require medical attention of their own that only Dolittle can understand, which causes friction between him and the people around him as his behaviour makes him look insane. The story is clearly the weakest element of the film, since there really isn't one. Even if you can describe the story, the movie has such an unnaturally fast pace that it pinballs the audience from plot point to plot point to character to character. Dolittle goes from freaking out about his gift to immediately helping the animals to getting stuck in a mental institution and more. The film isn't that long, but the pacing is cranked to override for whatever reason. The pacing also attempts to deliver a fast pace amount of jokes, which are typically juvenile and unfunny. I won't lie though that there are a few good laughs in the film, but most of them either centre around toilet humour, silly quotes, or referencing famous actors and movies, which is just bizarre and mind-boggling choices rather than laugh-out loud golden moments.

It's weird to say if Eddie Murphy's performance is good or bad in this film. He's clearly overacting and the personality and character motivations of the character is all over the place, but Murphy is just having way too much fun to the point that I will let it slide. However, the rest of the human characters, especially the family, are just generic and standard. I will say that the acting from them isn't bad, with the child actors doing a decent job to boot, but their characters are typical for this cliche narrative. It doesn't help that Murphy himself is also involved with films using that same family model that are just as bad from "The Haunted Mansion" to "A Thousand Words". The animals are essentially all comic relief. There are some that get more screen-time such as the stray-turned best friend, Lucky, and the tiger Jake who gets involved in the plot due to his unknown pain, but they are still all just there to keep kids entertained. It doesn't help that outside of Lucky, Jake, and Rodney the pet guinea pig, the other animals seem to practically harass Dolittle throughout the film as they cause more trouble than the ones that Dolittle remedies to begin with. So, outside of Dolittle himself which is only saved by Murphy's charisma, the cast of characters is pretty bland.

Betty Thomas's directing credits aren't exactly good to say the least as her films aren't known for their critical acclaim. Thomas isn't a bad director per se, but she's very standard. Although the setting of San Fransisco, sets and lighting are rather decently portrayed, the cinematography by Oscar-winning Russell Boyd is flat and the score by Richard Gibbs is so generic that only the end credit song reached my memory by the time I stopped watching. The editing is just awful in its own regard that it practically derails the film in its own right. Because the pace of the film is way too fast, scenes kind of just happen and move on rapidly. As for the visual effects, they're fine for what they are. The digital editing of the animals and the green-screen of them with Dolittle work, but not a lot of the animals were onscreen. That's mainly because during production, Murphy didn't want to do scenes with live animals out of utter fear, which makes it strange for the choice to give him the role rather than someone else. The puppetry is also decent as they on occasion pass for the animal role. Overall, the filmmaking is average and uninspired with the editing being a horrible take-away.

"Dr. Dolittle" rests between harmless kids flick to an awful waste of time. While there was an occasional laugh, Murphy's performance is fun to watch regardless if it's good or not, Thomas's directing is decent for what it is, and the effects for the animals are decent, everything is either mediocre or straight-up bad. The story is non-existent and goes all over the place, the humour is mostly painfully unfunny butt jokes and references, the rest of the human characters are just generic templates from other 90's cliches, the animal sidekicks are basically annoying comic relief, bland cinematography, forgettable score, and editing that single-handedly destroys the film. If you're with a kid, it might make them entertained enough, but by yourself, it does go in a level of cringe that rivals the 2020 film. This is better as it does stick to what it is, an average 90's kids film, but that doesn't really give it a pass of quality overall.

Verdict: 3.5/10. Pretty bad, despite a few decent elements. At least it's better than Robert Downey Jr. imitating Jack Sparrow.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Roderick Rules (2011) Film Review: The Fan Favourite

As Greg Heffley enters 7th grade, he not only finds himself a crush with the new student, Holly Hills, but begins to bond with his older brother, Roderick, after they participate in a house party. Although they find newfound respect for one another, complications will get in the way of their bond and might send them back to square one. Out of all of the "Wimpy Kid" films, this is seen as the most beloved, mainly due to the amount of screentime Roderick gets. Unlike the slice-of-life approach that was used in the previous film, the sequel adds story elements/goals that have to be reached for Greg, which is mainly the school talent show and trying to make friends with Holly Hills. Personally, I like the slice-of-life approach as it's more in nature to the books and feels more genuine and realistic, but the more formulaic storyline works fair enough, although I have issues with Holly Hills, which will be addressed later. With the case of the comedy and heart, I feel that this film is funnier than the original which is helped by the story elements brought in, while the original had a bit more heart with the dynamic of Greg and Rowley's friendship as I feel that the bond between Greg and Roderick isn't as dramatic or heartwarming.

I won't go over the main characters in detail again, since they are the same as before, but the Heffleys are still very well acted and established. Zachary Gordon's Greg is still the same, but is much less selfish than before. Racheal Harris's Susan is still the supportive albeit embarassing mother who get more scenes with Greg, Steve Zahn's Frank is zany as always and gets some decent laughs, but is still a but underused, which is solved with the third film centring on his relationship with Greg. Robert Capron's Rowley is still enjoyable as always, but still is gullible to Greg's opinions and schemes, which is a bit of an issue as the previous film is very much centred on Greg changing for Rowley's friendship. Devon Bostick's Roderick of course steals the film due to the centre relationship between him and Greg. You can tell that he starts to respect and even helps out his brother as Greg "covers" Roderick's party. The relationship is also a permanent one as the third film retains that brother dynamic to the point that Roderick doesn't bully Greg in that entire film, which is only thanks due to the enjoyable relationship and chemistry with Greg. I won't go over the side characters much, except for two. Karan Brar's Chirag is given much more time to shine as he gets roped in with a side plot with Greg and gets a lot of laughs and payback for Greg's scheme. Then, there's Peyton List's Holly Hills, Greg's crush and the weakest character of the films. In the books, the character was mainly Greg's crush that Greg himself never truly got to speak to, which is due to his personality dragging him back. This works well as it's realistic and many boys have crushes that remained as such due to poor timing or their character holding them back. However, unlike the books where Holly never paid any attention to Greg, the movie not only forces her to have chemistry with Greg, but making her way too nice and relatable. It not only feels contrived, but the chemistry is somewhat hollow to warrant a friendship out of them. Outside of Holly's character though, all of the characters are perfectly casted and the performances that people loved from the first film are expanded upon here.

David Bowers replaces Thor Freudenthal for the sequels and carries a mixed-bag result in the process. Although Bowers gives out a more polished look and feel to the film, I do appreciate the unfiltered and down-to-earth style Thor gave out for the first film. Bowers is also just an average director with average camerawork, pacing, editing, and an emphasis on bright lighting for some reason. Like, this movie is just brighter than the first film and nighttime scenes are too staged because of this. I also feel that most of the settings and locations lack personality now. Outside of the goofy retirement home with the oddball seniors, the school and even Greg's home is not as characterisitc as before. To be fair, Bowers does manage to learn about the personality of locations with the third movie. The music by Edward Shearmur is just as average as Theodore Shapiro's score in the first film, to the point that it begs the question of why even bothering to replace Shapiro in the first place. The soundtrack is better and well-incorporated in the scenes and gags at least. Overall, Bowers does a fine job and much like Thor, this is clearly the best film he has directed. However, that's not saying much.

"Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Roderick Rules" has many of the same filmmaking tropes, but in some ways, improves over the first film, with the characters and actors doing amazing jobs as always, the emphasis of Greg and Roderick's relationship being the heart of the film, a much funnier script, and a better soundtrack. However, there are some issues that makes the first film better in my opinion. Holly Hills is not a very good love interest for Greg and one that is forced upon in the film, Bowers's directing removes the grounded aesthetic and personality-filled locations Thor established, and removing the slice-of-life template is a disadvantage as it does make this as well as the other sequels line towards generic family film. With that said though, I still enjoyed watching this sequel and it helps that I have an older brother myself which does make the brother dynamic very relatable to me. It's still an above-average film that can be good for the most part, but I personally feel that the first film is the best of the series.

Verdict: 7/10. Good and, at times, better than the first film, but there's a bit more issues that makes me appreciate the first film much more. Regardless, still a fun watch and recommendation if you have siblings.

Unbreakable (2000) Film Review: Shyamalan's Masterpiece

When David Dunn survives a horrific accident that leaves him the unlikely sole survivor with not one scratch to show, Elijah Price confronts him about a possible theory. As Elijah was born with a disease that makes his bones extremely brittle, he always thought that there had to be someone on the opposite scale that can be impervious to pain. David at first ignores Elijah's theory, but as he discovers superhuman abilities, he starts to take Elijah seriously as he might be the world's first superhero. Over years, this film has gotten cult status as the superhero genre becomes bigger and bigger. What makes this setup work so well is how it takes itself serious in a grounded world. It's not a superhero film that has one-liners or big battles, but a human story of how one man comes to term with his destiny. It also works that the powers displayed themselves are grounded to an extent, as there's no elements or supernatural abilities. It's a slow burn film that builds up after every act with captivating dialogue and drama, with an occasional line of light humour.

Bruce Willis as David Dunn is a very good performance and is his second most iconic role after John McClaine. His character both serves as a everyman, but also a father struggling to keep his family together and the survivor's guilt he has inherited. I love the aspect that his relationship with his wife and son gets more repaired as he accepts his role as an empowered hero with his son motivating him in the process. Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price is fantastic. You understand his fanatic reasonings and feel sympathy for the pain he endures from his birth while Jackson has a soft yet calculated tone to his portrayal. His reveal as the evil mastermind is simply poetic as you realize why he did the things he did. Spencer Treat Clark as David's son is a great child actor as he is stunned by his father's abilities yet is feeling the tension between his parents to divorce. Robin Wright as Audrey, David's wife, is not used much in the film, but she's fantastic when she is onscreen with Willis. Lastly, Charlayne Woodard as Elijah's mother is another great, albeit, minimalistic performance as she helps support her son in his complicated, cruel life.  All of the actors are doing a great job and their characters are given the perfect amount of personality and detail that they appear to be life-like characters.

M. Night Shyamalan is seen as a joke for his polarizing films. Although "After Earth" and "The Last Airbender" are atrocious, I believe that's due to studio interference rather than his own mistakes. You can tell that he is passionate for his stories and filmmaking, even if the films aren't his best. Watching this film, you can tell how carefully made this film was. Even though it's not based on any comic-book, Shyamalan directed as if each frame was from a comic panel with the methodic, slow pace. It's grey and dreary, but it's visually striking with excellent composition, lighting, and cinematography by Eduardo Sierra. The long scenes of dialogue are filmed like an expressionist film back in the 70's with long takes with the camera capturing every bit of acting from the actors. The score by James Newton Howard is perhaps the best of his career. It's both powerful and awesome to listen to, with the main theme being low-key iconic. It's a shame he doesn't collaborate with Shyamalan anymore as the composer has never been in the same level as he was during that time compared to now. Shyamalan created a film before its time of relevancy as the superhero genre gets over-saturated and people not liking how it was slow and lacking action during the time. The film works so much better over time, very much like "Blade Runner" which was criticized at the time for not being action-packed like previous sci-fi classics.

"Unbreakable" is not only the best of Shyamalan's career, but is a modern masterpiece of the genre. From the grounded superhero premise and tone, fantastic cast of well-developed characters, great cinematography by Sierra, phenomenal soundtrack by James Newton Howard, and the brilliant direction by Shyamalan. I can't find one single flaw with this film. It might be too slow and dialogue-heavy for some, but that's honestly the way the film needed to be. It's an intellectual view of a superhero story that's not dumbed down for younger audiences. Even if you remove the superhero aespect, you still have a well-made, gripping story of a man going through a time of pain and confusion while questioning his purpose in life and destiny. It's a powerful movie that will surely be remembered for years to come.

Verdict: 10/10. A true masterpiece of filmmaking and writing as well as the best film of the "Eastrail 177" trilogy.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut (1982) Film Review: The Flawed Yet Important Classic

"Blade Runner" is regarded as both a famous and infamous film in the sci-fi genre. From its poor initial release to relapsed reputation to various editions and cuts, it's a film that has a history about as interesting as the film itself. I haven't watched the film until recently with the Blu-Ray release of the Final Cut, which is regarded as the best version of the film. The film is about Rick Deckard, a retired detective who is called back as a Blade Runner, a unit that tracks down and kills replicants, human-like androids that are illegal on Earth. As he reluctantly agrees, his mission leads him to the realization of the humanity behind the machines. This is not a standard action-packed joyride that one would expect from the posters and trailers. This is a slow-burn film that is constructed more like a neo-noir with the protagonist's job. It's tonally a dark, almost bleak film that matches the night aesthetic of the futuristic L.A. There's small levity at times, but it's not attempting to become "Star Wars" or "Indiana Jones" despite Harrison Ford's main role. The film doesn't have much action, but when it does, it feels brutal and gritty with some grisly kills. It goes in hand with the tone and complex themes of humanity, life, death, technology, and so much more.

Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard is well-cast as the chiseled detective questioning his own humanity. He's much more reserved and less charismatic than his more iconic roles, which is needed for the film. Deckard isn't an action hero, he's practically an everyman who is dealing with a lot of things. He's not the most engaging protagonist of the genre, but he's made to be the window for the themes. Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty is fantastic as the replicant who desires to live longer than the four years he's running out of. He has a villainous presence, but his motives are anything but. Roy Batty is the most intriguing character of the film due to his mission and the realization that nothing can be done to prolong his life and live normally like a human. Sean Young as Racheal is a replicant who believes she's human, who Deckard falls in love with. Racheal is a necessary, but uninteresting character in my opinion as she just felt like a typical love interest Deckard needs to have. I understand why the romance is included to add to Deckard's perception and thematic resolution of the replicants, but the chemistry between them is too weak and even makes Deckard look like a rapist as he forces Racheal to have sex due to her programming of emotions being abnormal. Side characters include Sebastian, a genetic designer who has an aging disorder that makes him look much older than he is, Pris, Roy's athletic girlfriend who befriends Sebastian, and Eldon Tyrell, the CEO behind the conception of replicants. There are other minor characters such as Deckard's employer and co-worker, as well as the other replicants, but they barely do much in the plot to mention them. The cast is generally well-acted and characterized to say the least, even the minor characters I haven't mention who are barely in the film. However, it is Ford and Hauer that stand out, with Hauer's performance being the best of the film and his career for the character of Roy.

Ridley Scott is a fantastic director and this might be the best film he has directed to date. What makes his directing so great is that he makes the futuristic city of L.A come to life magically. Not only are the set designs well-detailed, the lighting so beautifully dark and moody, and the world established with the vast Asian influences, air blimps, towers surrounding the streets, and ads all over the place, but the effects are fantastic. The miniatures and models are made extremely well that they look real or operable. The city is brought to life not only from these aespects, but helped by Jordan Cronenweth's brilliant cinematography that is slow, calculated, and brings more scale and depth to the sets and models that make them much grander than one would think. It's a film that spared no expense in its budget. Despite the fantastic filmmaking and world-building that would inspire other franchises in various media, there are some things that aren't on the same level. The original score by Vangelis is good and does fit the tone and film overall, but it's not extremely memorable in my opinion. I don't hate it, but I do find it a bit overrated. However, the only issue that can be agreed on is the editing. Perhaps other versions of the film have better edits, but the Final Cut does have some odd editing choices, particularly by the climax where Deckard is fighting Roy. Although the characters are fighting in Sebastian's apartment, there's no clear sense of space or continuity for where the characters inhabit. Roy eventually holds a dove in his hands to symbolize him holding onto life, but we never see him grab a dove in the first place, he's just holding it while Deckard is in pain out of nowhere. Outside of the choppy editing in some parts, the film is extremely well-made and not only holds up after nearly forty years, but is top-quality for its genre. Also as a side note, I don't understand why people still think Deckard is a replicant even after the sequel reveals that he is indeed human. The theory and hints are interesting as a viewing experience, but in retrospective, makes no sense with the sequel shutting the theory down.

"Blade Runner" is well-deserved for its reputation and unmatched legacy. It does have its faults as the romance between Deckard and Racheal being poorly developed, Racheal herself being perhaps the blandest character of the film, an overrated score and some awkward editing in the end, the film is still fantastic and can be considered a masterpiece if one chooses to ignore the shortcomings. From the complex themes, dark noir-esque tone, the main characters and their roles for the story, the viewer, and the themes, Scott's phenomenal direction, the set designs and realization of the world, the life-like and visually striking effects that is pure eye candy, and some of the best writing and dialogue on film. Some might have more issues than I have, or have none at all, but it's understandable why this is seen as an important film. Not only is it a visually stunning achievement, but the themes and characters are impactful that it's powerful to this day.

Verdict: 9/10. I would put it a 10/10 myself if it wasn't for Racheal and the romance, but it's still a masterpiece regardless of the imperfection.

Dolemite Is My Name (2019) Film Review: A Simply, Great Biographical-Comedy

Rudy Ray Moore is a down-on-his-luck comedian and artist who one day creates a stage persona named Dolemite, who's foul-mouthed vulgarity makes him very popular in nightclubs. Ray then manages to find even more success with his comedy tracks. Ray however believes that a film based on his character must be made for audiences across the entire country, which he starts to fund out of his pocket despite how others believe that he might lose everything if the film turns out to be a failure. Based on real events, this biographical-comedy is a fascinating, even uplifting film at times as we follow one man's ambitions and passion for a movie he believes has to exist for his fans. The story seems so far-fetched at times that it seems unreal, but it just shows how interesting Rudy Ray Moore and the Dolemite character is. It's also nicely paced as there's practically no filler thrown in to pad the runtime. This isn't an extremely funny film though, despite the involvement of many comedic and charismatic actors, which I feel that this was on purpose. After all, you don't want to distract from the story too much and the film should be grounded in reality to not have so many one-liners or odd scenarios. There's still some funny moments which is mainly thanks to the actors working off each other. Dolemite's stand-up isn't particularly funny, but it's mainly just staying accurate to people's humour back in the day.

Eddie Murphy returns in a leading role after nearly a ten year hiatus, and yet his charisma and charm fit perfectly like a glove. Murphy's role as Ray feels so genuine that you can tell that Murphy was passionate for this movie and role for a long time. This isn't the fast-talking, obnoxious Murphy we've seen in his other films, it's a more human, softer performance that carries the fast energy at times, but is more sincere than acting for the show of it. There are so many side characters that also have their moment to shine comedically. From Keegan Micheal-Key as Jerry Jones, the writer of Dolemite, Lady Reed, the co-star and Ray's supportive friend, Craig Robinson as Ben Taylor, a musician who provides the theme of the film, and Wesley Snipes as D'Urville Martin, a famous actor who stars and directs Dolemite who's diva-like personality clashes with the others. That's only a handful of characters as there are many others from recurring roles to small cameos. The acting and characters are all great across the board, but it's Murphy's performance that steals the show due to his humbleness and love for the real-life figure.

Craig Brewer's directing instantly sends the viewer back to the 70's as the setting is perfectly replicated not only from the sets and lighting, but the costume designers and make-up who help make the outfits and hairstyles of the various characters match with the time period. Dolemite's wardrobe is particularly uniquely designed and adds some much needed colour in a dirty, pessimistic LA. The cinematography by Eric Steelberg is very good and feels limited to the time period as it doesn't try to go super flashy, but somewhat conventional for 70's filmmaking. The music by Scott Bomar is great with the use of funk and soul music and notable songs throughout the film. The filmmaking isn't as masterfully crafted as others, but it's very serviceable for a biographical picture.

This might sound odd, but "Dolemite Is My Name" is my personal favourite Netflix-produced film. "Uncut Gems" might be better-crafted and original, but this film just hits all of the right spots for me. From the intriguing story of Rudy Ray Moore and the making of his film, some good laughs, Murphy's wonderful performance, a whole cast of loveable actors and characters, 70's aesthetic, Steelberg's cinematography, Bomar's score, and Brewer's directing. Sure, the directing could have been a bit more creative rather than traditional and there could have been much more jokes, but I honestly think that the film is perfect the way it is, flaws and all. It's a shame that this film wasn't nominated for any Oscars whatsoever, but then again, "Uncut Gems" also got snubbed. I know this review was somewhat shorter than others, but there's not much I can really say about this film. It's just really good and should be just watched in order for it to be explained rather than I describe how good it is, as I believe it doesn't do the film justice.

Verdict: 9/10. One of my favourite biographical films. If you have Netflix, watch this as soon as you can!

Uncut Gems (2019) Film Review: The Best Netflix Film To Date!

Howard Ratner is a Jewish gambling addict who has came in possession of a black opal, which he plans to auction in order to pay off his debts and get rich. After NBA star, Kevin Garnett, becomes infatuated with the mineral and trades his championship ring for it, Howard's life and luck starts to get rocky as his loan shark becomes more hostile, his wife being more distant, and treating his mistress like garbage as he hopes that he can win big on his big bet. The story is much more minimalistic and is mainly about following Howard's decline in life, which is an engaging, if unpleasant, experience. I love the inclusions of Garnett's basketball games being critical to the bets Howard and how the film takes itself very serious and realistic. The tone is by no means lighthearted or even that comedic, as it's very much a slow-burn drama. With that said, there are some good laughs and Sandler-esque meta humour. From fighting The Weeknd to various outrages to the wonderfully edited, opening scene transitioning from a beautiful diamond to a colonoscopy, the gritty film does have some time to let you chuckle on occasion.

Adam Sandler as Howard is fantastic, mainly due to the extreme, scumbag portrayal he gives. Honestly, Sandler's characters were always a tad douchebag-like, so seeing Sandler go all out is a treat. It also help, since Howard is not a likeable character whatsoever by design. Sure, you can feel a bit bad for him, but he's just trying to get as much money as possible while screwing over others in the process. Demany, played by Lakeith Stanfield, is Howard's assistant who arranges clients such as Garnett to visit Howard in his shop, who is acted really well and enjoyable in his own right. Julia is Howard's younger, devoted mistress who I honestly don't like at all, mainly because I don't understand if the filmmakers wanted you to really like her or not. Her neediness for Howard, despite his hostile behavior at times, seems very petty and unlikeable, but she is crucial in the climax as a character to root for. I just get mixed messages from this character and I just don't like her in general. Idina Menzel plays Howard's bitter wife who has fallen out of love for him. She's not in the movie much, but she's great when she is onscreen. Lastly, there's Eric Bogosian as Arno, Howard's loan shark brother-in-law who has an intimidating presence and doesn't trust Howard's antics after many years. There are other side characters such as Howard's father-in-law and Kevin Garnett himself, but I only wanted to cover the main characters. The cast is all generally acted and characterized well, with Sandler given extra praise for his diverse role.

The Safdie Brothers are a duo of filmmakers who did an excellent job directing this film. As with the tone, the look of the film is usually grey or unfiltered in order to reflect the realistic story and characters. However, there are scenes with fantastic, colourful lighting whether it's the Weekend's concert or the magnification of the opal. The cinematography by Darius Khondji is also captured brilliantly with an almost documentary-style movement where the camera follows the back of the characters or has some motion in scenes of conversation. The music by Daniel Lopatin is very unique with an electronic-based score, unlike the traditional sympathy. It strangely fits the grounded film, due to how it suits perfectly with the almost unnerving tone. The last thing to mention is the ending to the film. I loved the decision to suddenly kill off Howard as soon as you think he just earned a happy ending from winning a million dollars from the biggest bet of his life, mainly since I felt that the character didn't deserve one to his scummy behaviour and him getting rich and running away with Julia would not only have been horrible, but a complete departure from the film's tone and theme of karma and second chances. However, there's a bit of bittersweetness that he dies smiling rather than shocked or despair, which makes the ending satisfying whether you love or hate the character of Howard. Overall, the filmmaking in general from the directing, editing, lighting, cinematography, and score is just perfectly handled.

"Uncut Gems" is clearly the best film Netflix has to offer exclusively. From the creative story, harsh tone, moments of comedy, Sandler's performance as well as the other cast and characters, the Safdie Brother's directing and editing, Kohndji's cinematography, Lopatin's unique, original score, and a fantastic ending. The only issue I have that stops it from reaching a 10 out of 10 is the character of Julia, which I feel should have been dropped from the second act after the big blowup scene. Despite one truly unlikeable character, I was in awe by this dark, yet somewhat beautiful film.

Verdict: 9/10. Amazing film, up there with "Dolemite Is My Name" for my favourite Netflix films. Check it out if you haven't got the chance to.

Pokemon: Detective Pikachu (2019) Film Review: The Best Film Based On A Videogame

With all of the "Sonic" movie clips all over the place with the early digital release, I reminded myself of a better film that was based off a video game. "Detective Pikachu" follows Tim Goodman, a young man who is summoned to Ryme City, where Pokemon and humans live together in harmony. Learning of his father's death, he goes to his apartment to find a Pikachu that's able to talk to Tim. The two pair up as they realize that there's a big conspiracy revolving around the whereabouts of Tim's father, a purple gas that enrages Pokemon, and a Mewtwo. I'm not the biggest fan of the "Pokemon" franchise, but I respect it for what it is and the cultural impact. I found it really strange that the movie itself is based on the "Detective Pikachu" game, which was not even released in the U.S before the film was greenlit. However, despite all of these aspects, I enjoyed myself watching the movie. I will say though that the mystery itself isn't the strongest suit of the film. Not only is it easy to figure out halfway through the film, but the villain's plan is just so over-the-top and stupid that it's laughable. I will go more about the villain later, but man, it's really dumb. I will say though that the journey surrounding the mystery is pretty enjoyable as the characters go into various settings and scenarios.The tone is actually handled really well. It knows when to have fun and allows younger viewers to enjoy it, but it also takes itself more grounded and serious than the typical kids film. It's perfect, as the majority of the fanbase are older audiences to begin with, which offers a great balance unlike the "Sonic" movie. This is also applied to the humour, as there's both slapstick moments and adult jokes for each demographic. There's also no annoying pop culture references, much like flossing and celebrity name drops in "Sonic".

The titular character of the film, Pikachu, voiced by Ryan Reynolds, steals the show. Reynolds actually works as the voice of the electric mouse-like creature and is basically playing himself as a PG-13 Deadpool without the 4th wall breaking. Although this can go against the film as it just makes the character too much like Reynolds, I don't mind the choice for him as the role and his involvement brings out some great line delivery. Justice Smith as Tim Goodman is a bit generic story-wise, but has some good energy and expressions to work off of Pikachu. He does channel an enjoyable Shia LaBeouf-esque performance to him that honestly kind of works for the character. I also like the trait of Tim being almost uninterested in Pokemon, as he lost his passion of being a trainer years ago. It makes him a bit more interesting than the numerous trainers in the franchise who do it for the glory, fun, etc. Lucy Stevens is a very generic love interest for Tim though as the typical investigative reporter who wants the story of the century. I will give them credit that they didn't force them to kiss or become more romantically involved, instead keeping them as friends for the meantime. The last character to mention is Howard Clifford, played by Bill Neighy, who founded Ryme City and is the CEO of Clifford Industries. Howard is of course the bad guy, as he plans to place humans inside of Pokemon in order to evolve as a whole, with him placing himself in a Mewtwo. I would have been fine if he just wanted to get rid of his disability and become one of the most powerful beings in the world, but his plan of turning people into Pokemon is so laughably underdeveloped that it makes no sense. Like, not all Pokemon are equal or even as powerful as others, so why would someone want to turn people into a useless Pokemon like Metapod or Magikarp? On top of that, seeing Mewtwo speak with his mouth is uncanny and should never be repeated. There are some smaller side characters such as the police chief and Howard's son, but they aren't really important and are just cliche roles that we've seen in plenty of mystery films. I also won't discuss the Pokemon as characters, mainly because they aren't developed in any way. I will say that the personality traits of the numerous Pokemon are retained and that we will have our favourite ones and least favourites, much like the selection in the games as a whole. Overall, the acting is pretty standard for generic roles, but Reynolds and Smith actually do pretty good jobs.

Rob Letterman takes directing duty with his background of two mediocre Dreamworks films and two average Jack Black CGI comedies. Although I'm not a fan of his previous works, this is clearly his best film to date. This is mainly due to bringing Ryme City to life in a colourful, yet realistic way. Letterman clearly tried to emulate a neo-noir feel to the film as the nighttime and illuminated scenes are bursting with colour. The city feels alive and at times, real, due to the well-designed sets. There's also some decent action sequences such as the fights between Pikachu and Charzard, as well as the final battle between Mewtwo. Heck, even the fight between Tim and Ditto was pretty creative and fun as well, although he should have been dead when he got punched by Machamp. The cinematography by David Mathieson is a mixed bag. Although he captures some nice establishing shots of the city and the set-pieces while fitting in the Pokemon in the frame as well as having some good action shots, there's a lot of shaky cam in his scenes. I believe this is due to this film being the first one he has worked on with CGI characters, as his filmography shows that he mostly stuck to live-action film rather than hybrids. The music by Henry Jackman is decent as he attempts to create an original score that doesn't fully emulate famous tunes from the games while also sounding like they came from the franchise, but it does get too generic at times in the action sequences. Still, there are some nice tracks with the scenes of Tim visiting Ryme City, both day and night. The visual effects and the Pokemon designs are the highlight for the fans though as the creatures are brought into live-action. With heavily detailed textures of fur, feathers, and scales, there are some Pokemon that look really convincing and almost physically on-screen with the human actors. However, there are times where some of the creatures aren't rendered properly and look fake with a key example being Mewtwo. While Mewtwo is a great Pokemon in general, he just doesn't look good in live-action due to his alien-like design. Regardless, Letterman did a great job directing his best film yet and I can't wait to see what else he's planning to make.

"Detective Pikachu" might be the best film based on a video game, but it's not perfect by any means. The mystery is easy to figure out, Howard's villainous plan is pretty stupid, Lucy is a really generic love interest, there's a good amount of shaky cam in certain scenes, and the CGI at times doesn't work out well on certain Pokemon. However, there's a lot of good stuff in this film. The tone and humour is perfectly balanced with appeal to both kids and adults, Reynolds and Smith are really good as the comedic duo of Pikachu and Tim, the Pokemon themselves are fully accurate to their personalities and designs while looking great at the same time, the action sequences are good and fun to watch, Jackman's score fits pretty well with the franchise outside of the generic action music, and Letterman's directing helps bring Ryme City and Pokemon in general to life in a live action setting as well as his inspirations from the neo-noir genre. The majority of films based on video games are usually mediocre at best. "Detective Pikachu" was not only the one to break the mold, but is currently the best film of that caliber by far. It has its issues for sure, but they aren't as bad as many from the past decade have been. I hope that more adaptations are on par or even better than "Detective Pikachu" as it's quite clear that the filmmakers and studio cared very much for this film with the amount of money thrown in and getting the right people in front and behind the scenes, unlike the many cheap cash-grabs that have occurred in the past and are sure to come in the future with the success of this and "Sonic the Hedgehog".

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but could have been better. It's a perfect stepping stone of the evolution of video-game movie adaptations, not the end of the journey.

The Cat In The Hat (2003) Film Review: A Guilty Pleasure That The World Despises.

Everyone who loves film has a guilty pleasure that they always go back to. A film that they acknowledge is not good, but still find enjoyable either due to nostalgia or the entertainment value overall. My guilty pleasure happens to be considered one of the worst films ever made, to which I think otherwise. Based on the classic Dr. Seuss book, the film follows a brother and sister as a boring afternoon turns into an adventure filled with random chaos as the Cat in the Hat pays a visit in order to teach them how to have fun while improving their character in the process. I think we all know the reasons why this film is despised by the story alone. Not only is making a film based off Dr. Seuss material is completely unnecessary, but the story had to be expanded so much to the point that it can be considered a terrible adaptation of the source material due to the tone, humour and predictable story beats. In my eyes, I just choose to ignore that it's based off the book and just accept it like some bizarre family film unlike any other. I will admit, it's a horrible adaptation, but because it is so far removed from the book, I might as well view it as its own separate entity The tone does fit for the most part with Dr. Seuss as it's unapologetically non-sensical and does carry a fun energy for kids. The expansion of the story makes sense if you call it an extension of the tone as the story goes from one direction to the other with the inclusion of a villain and the Cat's dimension. The humour is another target for the film as it includes both toilet humour and sexual innuendos, which is clearly something Dr. Seuss books are known for. Although I, as a kid, never got the adult jokes, they are pretty obvious and a bit uncomfortable as I'm older, but I can still laugh at them due to their inclusion alone. The humour is once again reliant on the absurdity as a whole, which can clearly make or break the movie for you.

Mike Myers, love him or hate him, is enjoying his time as the Cat with his charisma and energy. It's not like the book, but at this point, you should expect that. At times, he can be annoying, but at other times, Myers's physical acting and jokes do get to you in a charming kind of way. That laugh gets me every damn time. Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning as Conrad and Sally is the typical Bart/Lisa sibling dynamic, where the brother is a troublemaker that wrecks the house and the sister is a smart, behaved child who doesn't know how to enjoy herself. The child actors are good when there are having fun in the wacky situations, but when they have to deliver dialogue in slower scenes, they act and sound so stiff and monotone that it causes them to be the worst actors in the film. Kelly Preston as Joan, the mother, is actually pretty good and is basically the most grounded character in the film as the stressed-out mother. The Fish, voiced by Sean Hayes, is a cynical, worry-wart who acts overdramatic, but ain't funny whatsoever. Alec Baldwin as Larry, the boyfriend of Joan who is manipulative and lazy, is in the same field as Myers when it comes to his performance. It's hard to hate on Baldwin in any film as he's just too loveable to hate and his character honestly fits the actor perfectly. Lastly, there's Thing 1 and 2, who sort of remind me of prototype Minions for their gibberish and annoying nature. However, I can actually stomach the Things as they aren't in the film much and they did have one really good joke when they disguise themselves as police officers. The cast is a mixed bag. On the one hand, you can hate the characters for being cliched, over-the-top, or just poorly performed. On the other hand though, you can enjoy the charismatic performances of Myers and Baldwin as the actors generally appear to have a good time on camera and are just too fun to hate on.

Bo Welch is a production designer who has only directed one feature film in his career, which is this. His directing is okay at best, but is pretty flat with some of the scenes, which are the ones where not much is happening onscreen. Despite his average directing, it's his production design that really shines through. The sets and town of Anville is visualized as a colourful 50's throwback, though with some modern-looking clothes and slang. It's actually the closest the film gets to replicate the feel of the book visually with the cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki offering some nice shots to show the scope of the creative sets and world. The designs of the Cat and the Things aren't as visually appealing though. The Things look like repainted Whos from "The Grinch", while the Cat looks like it came out of the film, "Cats" (albeit wearing a more convincing costume than CGI fur tech). You can tell that they wanted to replicate the award-winning makeup Jim Carrey wore, but the problem is clearly that they were being much more lazy in that department for this production. I'm surprised by the amount of practical effects used not just for the characters, but props such as the Cat's car and the water ride inside the house are built from the ground up and clearly had some effort put into it. The CGI is standard, as it's not trying to be convincing at all but rather colourful and surreal, particularly in the Mother of All Messes. The music by David Newman is also decent as the bubbly, cartoony score matches the tone of the film, albeit sounds like background music for "Loony Tunes". The original songs are enjoyable, but in two different extremes. The Cat's musical number is actually decently written and directed, while "It's Getting Better", a cover by Smash Mouth, is so early 2000's and cheesy that it's a song that perfectly fits a guilty pleasure like this film.

"The Cat in the Hat" is by no means a good movie. It's a terrible adaptation of a beloved classic, humour and innuendos that are laughably misguided or executed, the kids aren't great actors and are very cliche, the fish is just so pointlessly unfunny, the costumes of the Cat and the Things are unintentional nightmare fuel, and Welch's directing isn't exactly great. However, there's a lot of entertainment value that can be viewed by certain people like myself. The tone is rightfully bonkers, the performances of Myers and Baldwin are just so hammy that it cracks you up out of enjoyment, the production design is well-realized in its surreal look, the cinematography by Lubezki is pretty good, the use of practical effects is commendable, and the music by Newman as well as the original songs are enjoyable in their own way. Even if I remove the adaptation thing aside, I can't say it's really good as there are some big issues regardless of the Dr. Seuss connection. However, I can never bring myself to hate it. It's a strange film as I can both appreciate the positives and effort, but just laugh at the execution and enjoy it as a so bad, it's good level or even a feel-good film if I need something to cheer me up. You might say that nostalgia blinds me or that I'm a crap critic, but there's nothing wrong with having a guilty pleasure, even if I'm alone in my enjoyment.

Verdict: 5/10. It's right down the middle for me, as I believe that people can hate it or enjoy it for what it is. Watch it and join the latter group like myself or call me a fool, I don't care.