Dr. Dolittle 2 (2001) A Better Sequel That's Still Just As Bad As The First Film.

Few years after the first film, Dr. Dolittle is tasked to help protect a forest by getting an endangered species of bear to mate. However, one of the bears was raised in captivity and has no idea how to adapt in the forest. Dolittle has to make do with a short deadline and a greedy, logging magnate, while balancing his family life. The first film was very messy with balancing the story, and while the sequel does have more focus on the main story and keeps the pace natural, the subplot with Dolittle's family proves to be cluttered. That subplot is mainly about Dolittle and his rebelling, teenage daughter, who realizes that she can also talk to animals. The issue is that not only is there not much time with the subplot, but the conflict with his wife appears and disappears. On top of that, you also got the villain who just wants to cut down the forest for money, which is just unnecessary. The main story alone honestly works fine, but the filmmakers keep adding more filler to make the film bloated despite the short runtime. The uneven balancing of the story is also reflected on to the tone and humour. To be fair, the humour is better than the first film, given the reduced pop-culture gags. However, there's jokes going straight for either the adult crowd or toddlers. You of course got your toilet humour and butt jokes that kids just love, but then you got sex jokes and awkward allegories such as the interspecies joke between Dolittle and the female bear. It's more uncomfortable than funny. I will say that the humour and tone isn't not as bad as "My Spy" though.

Eddie Murphy returns as Dr. Dolittle and acts much better than before. The issue with the first film was the character's personality conflicting with the story and pacing. Here, Murphy is more casual as the doctor who takes care of the animals and has a wise-cracking attitude towards his family. Considering a lot of his scenes is just him acting at nothing, he gives a lot of dedication to the role. Steve Zahn as Archie the bear is honestly great casting. The actor voices the lazy, pampered bear perfectly, though Archie himself isn't really funny or too engaging. Sometimes, he can get some cringe moments. The audience only roots for him in order to have the forest be saved, not because Archie is a loveable character. Outside of these characters, everyone else from the animals to the humans fit your cliched roles such as the annoyed, teenaged daughter, the supportive yet disgruntled wife, the stubborn and villainous, logging magnate, and the animals fitting the roles of comic relief. Much like the first film, there's not much character in the majority of the cast. They act fine and do their role, but you wouldn't remember them at all. Once again, Murphy is left attempting to save the movie himself by charisma alone, which is a hard task for any actor.

Steve Carr takes charge of directing and it's still very average and flat. Honestly, it makes Betty Thomas's directing look so much better in comparison. At least with the last film, the location of San Fransisco and the sets looked good. This film mainly takes place in the forest and you can tell that a good chunk of the scenes are a set and not very natural to the point of pleasing the audience. Like, your gut will just tell you that there's something off with the forest setting. It just feels like a much cheaper film, even though it has the same amount of budget that the first film had. The cinematography is actually even worse, mainly by the increased back to forth shots of Murphy and the animals. I know that's because Murphy doesn't like working with animals around him, but it's no excuse to get lazy because of it. The score by David Newman is so generic family fluff that the bubbly comedic music only reaches your memory, which itself is so borrowed from other generic family comedies. The soundtrack though is very bizarre, using a lot of R&B songs at any chance possible. The songs aren't bad, but they just don't fit in this movie at all. The visual effects at least did get better. It still uses green-screen and digital editing, but it's much more convincing. Considering that Archie is in the film a lot, I'm glad to see that they tried their best in making him share the same space as Murphy, which there are a few cases where the effect perfectly works. For the most part though, you can tell that he's not real or inhabiting the screen, but you acknowledge that it was the best they could do. However, the editing once again ruins the film. While not as destructive as the previous film with all of the subplots, the editing still cuts scenes far too quickly, whether they are part of a gag or not. I honestly feel that in retrospect, all of the "Dr. Dolittle" films, from the original to the Robert Downey remake, suffer primarily from the editing. What is with this franchise and terrible editing choices?

Dr. Dolittle 2 does actually improve on the original, surprisingly. From the better premise and humour, Murphy's dedication to the role being more prominent, and the digital effects being improved, you can't deny that it does make the film better than the first. However, the sequel is still just as bad. From the cluttered subplot, unbalanced tone of the humour, the majority of the characters (animal or human) once again assume the same roles that they were given, bland directing from Carr, very flat cinematography, another forgettable score, a bizarre soundtrack attached to a family film, and the editing yet again practically ruining the enjoyment and function of the movie. Once again, it might be entertaining enough to grab your kid's attention, but outside of the very adult jokes that are more awkward than funny, you might as well give up on finding a good Dr. Dolittle film.

Verdict: 4/10. Improvements don't escape the awfulness of this film. Pick your poison for what you prefer, the original or the sequel.

Aladdin (2019) Film Review: Why, Guy Ritchie, Why?!?

Months ago, I reviewed Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels", which I stated that it was his one and only masterpiece. After rewatching it, I was reminded of the worst film he has made. Although one might say his King Arthur film is worse, you can at least say that it's a Guy Ritchie film, something that you can't say about the "Aladdin" remake. A live-action adaptation of the 1992 animated hit, Aladdin is a thief who is in love with the princess, Jasmine. The villainous Jafar instructs him to capture a magical lamp, which contains a wish-making Genie that can help Aladdin become a prince to woo Jasmine, while Jafar attempts to get the lamp for himself.  While the film does stick close to the animated counterpart, they decided to change up on certain set-pieces and flesh the character of Jasmine out more, along with some political intrigue that Jafar and the Sultan are butting heads over. These differences only manage to harm the film in the process. The set-pieces are way less engaging as everything is scaled back for whatever reasons. From the Cave of Wonders collapsing being less exaggerated to the climax having a giant parrot chase the heroes rather than Jafar fighting them with his magic. Fleshing out Jasmine's character in return takes away more time from Aladdin and doesn't establish him very well, despite his role as the lead. The political intrigue is also uninteresting as it involves Jafar wanting to invade another kingdom where Jasmine's mother was from. The issue with this useless subplot is that we not only see Jasmine's mother, but not one single person from this mysterious land at all. There are other changes and inclusions, but the point is that they all degrade the original in a minimal or large scale. The humour is also lacking as it tends to go for more awkward dialogue rather than hilarious lines. It also doesn't help that the Genie is made to be more charismatic rather than goofy. It does work for the character as a whole, but the humour only grants a chuckle here or there because of this.

Mena Massoud as Aladdin is a polarizing role, as many either think he did an awful or good performance. The issue with the character is that there's not really much of one. He's deadpan, lacking emotion, and doesn't have much depth to him. However, Massoud is clearly trying his best and his scenes with Jasmine are good to say the least, going for an awkward teen asking out their crush vibe. I honestly think that he's a good actor, but he's just not been giving much direction of his character. Will Smith as the Genie is meant to steal the show and well, what can I say? It's Will Smith being fun and charming as always. He's not really funny, mind you, but he's entertaining to watch interact off with Massoud. Naomi Scott as Jasmine is also pretty good, given her increased role for wanting leadership of her kingdom, and being a good singer. She's a bit too white for the role in my opinion, but she's still a good actor. Then, there's Jafar, who is practically the worst character of the movie. Although the character was so charismatic and devious in the original, they got the worst actor for the job. Marwan Kenzari is not only too young to play a character whose age is made fun of, but his line delivery is just laughably bad. I'm sure Kenzari is a nice guy and can act in different films, but he was clearly not meant for this role. As for the side characters, there's the Sultan, who I feel is the best performance of the film, as the character is much more serious than the animated counterpart. Dalia is Jasmine's annoying handmaiden who falls in love with the Genie, who I just can't stand. She's clearly meant to appeal for the rom-com audience and is just the stereotypical role of the woman's best friend who is more thirsty about boys and won't shut up about them. Lastly, there's Prince Anders, a silly-sounding Scandinavian stereotype who is a suitor for Jasmine in one painfully, unfunny scene. Why did I mention him? Well, he's going to get his own spin-off, that's why. So, we can hear more of his unfunny voice. The cast overall is actually pretty good with the actors boasting an enjoyable performance, outside of the characters of Jafar and Dalia.

Guy Ritchie is a director who hasn't really reached his full potential since his first film. With the case of Aladdin, his directing is not only tired, but practically in auto-pilot as there's barely any creativity. Ritchie tends to direct films with a gritty, down-to-earth feel, which doesn't really work in a fantasy musical. While there are some nice sequences, mainly as the city is shown, that's mainly because there's a lot of digital effects in the way. The city of Agrabah is one that is not convincingly brought to life. The interiors of the palace and the set for the city look nice and detailed, there's just way too much CGI used in the backgrounds, especially in the nighttime exteriors. Is it that hard to shoot in Tunisia or something? Cairo in "Indiana Jones" feels much more alive than the kingdom of Agrabah. The costumes are a mixed bag where some looks stylish and fit realistically in the world, while others are either too silly or exaggerated. The cinematography for many of the romance or scenes of exposition is just flat with little care to keep the audience engaged. His signature slow-motion is thrown in at the most random of moments such as Aladdin falling into the ocean or when a fake CGI Abu grabs the fake CGI lamp. I know I keep mentioning the CGI, but a big problem of the filmmaking is the overreliance of the technology. Abu didn't need to be a CGI monkey, a real monkey could be used for most of the scenes that don't put the animal in danger, same can be said for the tiger and Iago, who has no character in this movie. Yet for some reason, they decided to stick with a fake-looking, CGI monkey doing things that a real monkey can do with much better effect. The quality of the CGI as a whole isn't terrible, but using them too much for things that can be done physically will make the effects look pretty bad as the years go by. Lastly, we have the songs. While the original songs are still nice to listen to, and the musical numbers work really well for the film and put on the best effects or physical work, there's still quite a lot of auto-tune used. It's not as bad as the "Beauty and the Beast" remake, but it's pretty noticeable. The new song, Speechless, was pretty unnecessary though. Scott's vocals are good and it's a nice little female empowerment song, but the musical number is a bit silly and the scene that follows up shows Jasmine's plan working only for Jafar to just instantly make her a damsel. It brings up the question why Ritchie was chosen to direct this film in the first place.

"Aladdin" is one of the better Disney live-action remakes, but that's not saying too much. While most of the actors do a good job in their roles, the change of Jasmine and the Sultan's character being the best improvement that was introduced, the set and costume design attempts to make the city of Agrabah come to life, and the musical numbers are decent if you ignore the auto-tune, there's also a lot of issues with the film. Most of the changes made were practically a downgrade from the original, the humour was weak, Jafar was just an embarrassment to the character, Dalia and Prince Anders were annoying inclusions, Ritchie's directing was flat, the overuse of CGI is headache-inducing, and the new musical number just adds useless padding to the film that is instantly disposed of once the scene ended. This is a film that needed to be made by a Bollywood director, which was the remake's biggest wasted potential. A Bollywood-style Aladdin movie would've worked extremely well. Not only would there be far less CGI, but there would be more effort in the musical numbers, the physicality of the actors, more on-location scenery, and perhaps an over-the-top tone that can salvage broken elements such as Jafar's performance. If the film emulated the Bollywood formula, we could be talking about one of the most boldest and creative remakes ever. However, we just got a standard, executive-charged, product that only fuels more uncreative remakes in the near future.

Verdict: 5/10. A mediocre film that could have been so much more than what it is. Just a paycheck for the washed-up director that is Guy Ritchie.

Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004) Film Review: The Best Scooby-Doo Movie To Date!

With "Scoob!" trending, it's time I should review a movie based on the long-running characters. Since I'm not willing to pay thirty dollars to see the new one, nor can't find the first movie on streaming at the moment, I should just review the second live-action film. A stand-alone sequel to the 2002 film, the Mystery Inc. gang are faced with a new challenge as previous unmasked monsters are transforming into real-life ones. While they try to solve the mystery, Shaggy and Scooby attempt to act like real detectives after they are tired of hearing how much they screw-up all the time. This is perhaps the best plot that the movies have came up with. The first film also had real monsters and a unique setting, but it didn't feel like a "Scooby-Doo" story tonally. The new animated film removes any sense of mystery or tropes from the franchise entirely. While the culprit in the film does ruin the mystery in a way, I do like how the film tries to keep it open-ended in a way with the red herrings and how the monsters are the same ones from the cartoon. The story and mystery stays true to the nature of the franchise and remains the most engaging of the films. As for the tone and comedy, it's much more balanced than the previous film. The issue with the first film was that it was rewritten to be more family-friendly, which was not the case in the original screenplay, causing the film to have an identity crisis at times. The sequel not only knows the audience it's geared towards from the get-go, but it once again appeases to the fans with references and light satire on the characters. The comedy of course has toilet humour and a bit of over-the-top goofiness for children, but there are some decent lines and gags, which is mainly helped by the dedication of the actors.

The best actor in this movie is Matthew Lillard as Shaggy. His energy, charisma, voice, and dedication to the character even made him the current voice actor of the character is future shows and movies. It's more impressive, considering that many of his scenes require him to act by himself as Scooby-Doo is all CGI. Speaking of which, I was surprised that Scooby-Doo wasn't voiced by Frank Welker at all! Instead, Neil Fanning did the voice for the movies, which I felt he did an excellent job in recreating the voice. If Frank Welker ever retires, Neil Fanning should take over the role. Linda Cardellini as Velma is for the most part good, but she does have some stall line delivery. I don't think it's because of her acting, but rather the character of Velma in general. Freddie Prinze Jr. as Fred is standard. While Fred does get some decent lines, his cardboard personality is hard to really work with. Sarah Michelle Gellar as Daphne is also a standard role, as Daphne is portrayed more as the action girl and much less of a ditz. It's not bad, but she feels like the most different of the portrayals. As for the side characters, there's Peter Boyle's Old Man Wickles, who is the red herring of the movie and is pretty funny, Alicia Silverstone's Heather, the reporter trying to shame the group's reputation, and Tim Blake Nelson's Jacabo, the real villain behind the mystery with Nelson chewing up the scenery with the very small time he's in the film. Lastly, there's Seth Green's Patrick, Velma's love interest and the other red herring of the film. Although I like Green, the character of Patrick was  underused. I felt that in order to paint him more as a red herring, they would make him the son of Jacabo, considering that the two characters look alike and the shrine has some odd connections between them, but the film never states this whatsoever. I could talk about the monsters, but there are too many of them and their personalities are limited. All I will say is that they are all generally comedic with some being more frightening and serious such as the Pterodactyl Ghost, while others are more of the comic relief and over-the-top such as the skeletons. Overall, the cast is generally solid, but Fred, Daphne, Patrick and Heather are perhaps the weakest characters of the film, since they are either generic, uninteresting, or underutilized.

Raja Gosnell is notorious for his mediocre family films. I will say that the best films of his career were in fact the "Scooby-Doo" movies, with this one being the best directed. The opening credits is honestly one of the better sequences I've seen in a movie. The film is edited well enough to let gags play out and not take over for too long. The sets are all detailed and unique from Mystery Inc HQ, the Faux Ghost, the Wickles Manor, etc. The movie works at being more gothic and having a light-hearted creepy nature, which the first film didn't work due to the exotic location and the multitude of daytime sequences. The costume designs are also good. I like the variety of clothing that the gang wears, which fits their character perfectly such as Shaggy's trampy suit at the gala and Daphne's fashion. The cinematography by Oliver Wood is decent enough. Whenever there's a new location onscreen, there's a nice establishing shot to introduce it. The action scenes are also shot nicely. The conversations and actions from Scooby and Shaggy are also shot well to help make the two almost share the same space. However, when Fred, Daphne, and Velma are onscreen, I feel that the camerawork is more limited and sluggish. I know that the more energetic scenes require more input of the camera, but it doesn't excuse the flat shots for those certain conversations. The score by David Newman is very good to say the least, mainly the different uses of the main theme and the gothic music. The songs used throughout the film though can be a mixed bag. I will admit that I like the songs used in the Faux Ghost, since it makes sense to have this music in a bar, but the various songs throughout are early 2000's cheese. They are used for around 30 seconds and they move on. To be fair, they aren't super distracting or even cringe-material, but it's definitely overused. The last thing to point out are the visual effects. The CGI is average, though not awful as people want to make it out to be. Scooby does appear as a physical being inhabiting the world. Sure, he's not the most convincing effect, but he's far from being a bad one. The monsters utilize either CGI or a type of green-screen effect to make them appear in the same scene as the characters, which work out fine. The best effect though is the Black Knight, as he has both physical and digital elements to make him the most convincing monster in the film. On a side note, the Evil Masked Figure is a pretty awful design, looking like a poor man's Dr. Doom.

"Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed" is my personal favourite film from the franchise, live-action or animated. It's not perfect though with the mystery concluding in a disappointing way, some of the characters not being as engaging or as perfectly acted, an overuse of 2000's pop songs, and the quality of the CGI being up in the air of whether it's good enough or cheap-looking. Despite these issues, the positives outweigh the negatives. From the perfect set-up and story for the characters, the tone and humour having a nice balance for kids and mature fans, the enjoyable charisma from characters such as Shaggy and Velma, the characteristic sets and costumes, David Newman's really good score, and Gosnell's best directing of his career that has the most flair and cinematic appeal. It's a film that surprisingly holds up to this day. As much as I have nostalgia for the direct-to-video animated films, I will admit that they are much more formulaic and sometimes have much more underwhelming conclusions than the mystery in this film. Even if you can't find much enjoyment out of this compared to me, you gotta admit its impact for not only being the best film of Gosnell's lackluster career, but establishing James Gunn's cynical edge and talent, along with Lillard's commitment to the role of Shaggy.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good film, both for the franchise and as a stand-alone family film. Check it out for yourself for an unexpected fun time!

47 Ronin (2013) Film Review: A Mismanaged Source Material That Had Tons Of Potential.

When a group of ronin, also known as masterless samurai, are forced to be banished from their home by the ruthless Lord Kira who managed to frame their lord into seppuku, they reunite a year later in an attempt to exact revenge, despite the Shogun's demands to not seek revenge. That's the basic summary of the story, which was based on a true-life event. This film however is very loosely based on that event though as they shoved in fantasy elements such as a villainous witch, beasts, dragons, weird lizard demon men, etc. The problem of the story is the overuse of the fantasy elements, which was mainly Universal's decision to include. I understand that they wanted to have a much more different take on the story and include Japanese folklore into the story, but it gets way too silly in my opinion. The only fantasy element I liked in the film was the Tengu forest and the need to get swords from this mythical place. Outside of that, they really needed to tone down the fantasy elements and keep the film more gritty. Another problem with the story is the inclusion of the half-breed, Kai. We will get over him in a bit, but the issue is that his inclusion felt unnecessary in the story. The tone at the very least keeps itself serious and not over-the-top, outside of the fantasy elements.

Let's go over the elephant in the room, Keanu Reeves, who is practically the only white guy in the film. Kai is a mysterious half-breed who has been trained to fight by the Tengu and falls in love with his lord's daughter. Reeves is not a bad actors, but Kai is pretty forgettable. Not only does the film not really make him the main character of the story, but his inclusion just asks more questions than answers. Like, if he's supposed to be this ultimate killer, why does he always hold back until he needs to fight the witch? The romance between him and Mika is so underdeveloped that you can tell that this was forced by some braindead executive. Kai's only purpose was to get American audiences to watch the film, which clearly didn't help out given this film's status as a box-office bomb. The cast for the most part though is good. Oishi, Lord Asano, and the army of ronin are the best characters as they felt the most engaging and developed. Oishi is practically the main character of the film and goes through much more development and struggle than Kai does. Mika was completely forgettable as she's just the helpless princess who is forced to marry the villain. A cliched, been there, done that role. Lord Kira isn't a threatening villain, but his actor is just chewing up the scenery and almost emulates the charisma of Shang Tsung from the "Mortal Kombat" movie. A problem with the cast is that because the majority are Japanese actors, their English dialogue isn't exactly the best, with the worst offender being the actress of the witch. Once again, not only do I not like the inclusion of the witch character, but her line delivery is just awful to say the least. Regardless, you can tell that the majority of the cast, regardless of their good or bad performances. I also want to point out wasted potential on the few characters you see on the poster. The big, silver samurai villain is cool, but the film teases this big battle only for him to get killed by some explosion that makes his identity more confusing. Like, was he a human, monster, or some witchcraft as he just simply disintegrates. Also, don't ask me why Rick Genest also known as "Zombie Boy" is on the poster. He only shows up for like five seconds and that's it. I heard that his role was practically cut because Universal wanted more scenes of Kai, which is a shame since I was very interested in what role the character played.

The film was directed by Carl Rinsch. Who is that, you ask? Literally some random guy. This was his first and only feature film he has ever made and completely vanished from the industry. Although you might think that Rinsch must be a terrible director for his inexperience, but surprisingly, he did a decent job. The best thing about the film and where you can tell where the money went towards is the look of the film. From the sets to the production design to the costumes to the locations, it's a visually-pleasing film and one with excellent lighting to boot to make these sets and locations stand out. This is also helped out by the cinematography of John Mathieson. The CGI is also decent. Sure, I don't like the fantasy elements to begin with, but they for the most part look good enough to fit in that world. The establishing shots of the cities and locations aren't real, but the CGI looks nice enough to not put too much attention on. The score by Ilan Eshkeri is a mixed bag in my opinion. The score is nowhere near bad, but it doesn't completely fit the film and the setting. If it was more traditional and Japanese-like, it would be perfect. However, the choice to go for a more orchestrated approach makes the score hard to stand out by itself. The worst aspects of Rinsch's directing is the editing and action sequences. The editing by Stuart Baird is so choppy and ugly in the beginning of the film, but it does get better moving on. However, the issue is that there are plenty of cases where scenes should be cut or left on for longer. Scenes with Mika in particularly needed to be cut out mainly because any sense of thematic pay-off hinted at these scenes such as the bottle of poison, the blade, or the pondering of suicide never goes anywhere and just makes her character much weaker than ever. Lastly, there are the action sequences. They aren't terrible and there are some neat shots and bits on occasion, with the stealthy attack on Kira's fortress and the final duel of Oishi and Kira standing out the most. However, the action for the most part is just underwhelming. I feel that the action is missing a gritty, R-rating as the violence lacks a lot of impact in these scenes. The climax also felt pretty anti-climatic as the final battle just felt pretty short with barely any stakes. The PG-13 rating was holding the film's action a lot in my opinion. Despite this, Rinsch clearly put all of his effort in the visual aesthetic of the film, which does standout to say the least.

"47 Ronin" is a film that had the pieces to make a great film. From making a film on the real-life event itself, Japanese cast giving it their all and some characters being likeable and established, the visual design of the movie in general whether practical or digital, and some nice cinematography by Mathieson. However, Universal butchered the film with their unnecessary decisions. From the overused fantasy elements, Keanu Reeves's Kai as a whole, Mika and the witch being the worst characters in the film, Eshkeri's mismatched score, painful editing choices, and underwhelming action sequences that lack a lot of impact and violence that was clearly needed. There's no mystery why this became one of the more expensive box office bombs, but they could have improved the film if they removed Reeves and the fantasy elements. If the focus was entirely on Oishi and the band of ronin as they have to deal with an impossible mission and the destined fate they will have, it would be a much more powerful film that can blend both Hollywood and Japanese cinema to be a one-of-a-kind feature. The film that we were given instead though will remain one of the more forgettable box office bombs to date.

Verdict: 4/10. A visually pleasing film, but not much outside of it. Watch "Seven Samurai" instead.

Gattaca (1997) Spoiler-Filled Rant/Review: A Fantastic Concept Completely Wasted For A Conventional Blunder

Another rant review this week? Yep, this week has back-to-back spoiler-filled reviews as the core issues of these films were mainly by the story. "Gattaca" was a box-office bomb back in its initial release, but critics and fans began to praise it as an underrated classic. I had no expectations when watching this, but man, was I surprised by all of the hair-pulling mistakes and missed potential from the film. Although there are some positives to note, they are just overshadowed by the overwhelming negatives that it makes this film one that I wouldn't be eager to rewatch anytime soon...

Positives:

• The concept behind the futuristic world, which is practically why this film is considered as remarkable or intellectually charged. In the future, people can be born by natural means or by biometrical means, allowing those born in a lab to be a perfect human with the potential to live longer and having a lack of health problems. This in turn leads to a prejudice in the job market where some careers such as space aviation has a mandatory checklist where an employee needs to be valid/genetically modified, while in-valids/naturally born people have to make do with lower-level jobs and defects. This is a great premise and one that writer and director Andrew Niccol should be proud of creating, as it could be the basis for a fantastic story that can be centred on society. However, as we get to the negatives, it's quite easy to realize that this concept gets wasted by the story that Niccol has written.
• The production design. The film has some great sets and designs of the interiors and exteriors. The future being portrayed feels real as it's not a huge gap of technological advancement, but the world is starting to transition to it with both a mix of new and old technology.
• The score by Michael Nyman. It's good, but is generally overhyped by the fans. It does fit the film, but similarly to "Blade Runner", I'm not going to be remembering it much.
• Jude Law's Jerome Morrow. He's basically the best character in the film. Not only does Law's performance has way more emotion than everyone else in the film, but I did get into the tragic figure and attempting to play the role that Vincent has established his identity as. I also felt that the chemistry between him and Vincent was much stronger than the romantic lead that the two should have had a gay romance. I'm not a fan though of his suicide at the end of the film, as it feels rather forced for some metaphorical conclusion.

Negatives:

• Where do I begin with the negatives? Well, let's talk about the story. The film follows Vincent, an in-valid who has a valid brother. He grows up, wanting to go to space, which is impossible given his in-valid status and his "heart condition". He is then offered to pose as a valid by using Jerome Morrow's identity. As the day where Vincent can go up to space approaches, a murder occurs and a DNA sample of his was found in the area. Vincent has to evade capture until he is allowed to leave Earth. There's more wrong with the story as we go into it, but what exactly is the problem of this premise? Well, the concept about valid vs in-valid goes completely wasted. Vincent has a dispute with his brother, which completely disappears until the end of the film in an unearned scene. The sibling relationship should be the entire centrepiece of the film and theme. Vincent taking over Jerome's identity isn't seen as a questionable ethnic choice. In fact, Vincent never shows any remorse hiding his identity or lying to himself, which doesn't work for this type of film dealing with prejudice. Vincent is supposed to be weaker than valid specimens, but he manages to beat his brother by the end of the film for no reason other than to give the idea that probability can be proven wrong. There's never truly a scene of Vincent confronting the system or getting angry at society, because Vincent, as we will discuss later, is a fundamentally awful character.
• The murder mystery sub-plot. The guy who was murdered was the mission director who literally everyone hated, since he was going to cut funds for the mission. We only see this guy in one scene before he's killed and Vincent is the prime suspect as an in-valid is most likely going to kill someone than a valid. However, Vincent can somehow pass every DNA test that the detectives give him as the detectives themselves are probably the dumbest I've seen in a movie. There's a scene where Vincent has to get a saliva and blood test at a vehicle checkpoint. Because his saliva will get him caught, he somehow convinces the police not to take a saliva test and they let him pass! When all of the employees are forced to get a blood test, Vincent appears to be the only one to freak out during the test and spills his "blood", which is very suspicious. When he flees from a restaurant, he knocks out a cop while his love interest is screaming his name, which would be enough evidence for said cop to inform his superiors. There's even a scene where a detective confronts the real Jerome and is surprised to see him in a wheelchair, given his employment. This detective never thought of exposing Vincent as he is clearly never in a wheelchair. I understand that all of these close-calls are meant to drive suspense, but it's obvious that Vincent never killed anyone and the worst he can face is being fired from the company. Having him arrested would also be a moment of opportunity for him to rant about society and his prejudice in the workforce and such, but this never happens. As for who really murdered the mission director, it turns out to be the other mission director who not only appears in like two scenes, but is dismissed because he states that as a valid, he can't kill anyone. What's so stupid about this reveal is that the film barely gives you enough dialogue to say that it was this guy the entire time and not even a scene where he is arrested. The whole murder mystery story is just a complete waste of time.
• Uma Thurman's Irene. This is probably the worse love interest I have seen in a movie by far. She just takes up interest to Vincent very quickly in the film and doesn't have a character other than that she loves him. Remember that scene I mentioned where Vincent beats up the cop? Well, Irene witnesses this and rather than run away from him, has sex with him at her place before even asking if he was even guilty of the murder. Like, what?!? The moment where she feels "heartbroken" by him when she finds out that he's sharing someone's identity makes no sense as she clearly didn't give a shit when he beat up the cop or might be involved in a murder, but apparently pretending to be someone else is a no-no? And of course, they make up by the end and continue their relationship. Irene is a love interest for the sake of having a love interest.
• The acting in general. Although Jude Law does a good job, Ethan Hawke and Thurman are just awful. The problem is that they mostly have this stilted, monotone acting that makes them robotic in a way. I get it if the valids are designed to speak like this, but Vincent also acts like this. I know someone can say that he has to act like this in order to blend in, but having a bunch of actors being stiff and cold causes you to not get engaged in them as they don't feel human at all. Hawke at times does get some emotion out, but the character of Vincent is written to not really have a distinct personality. If Vincent was characterized to be more shy, nervous or even humorous, it adds to the character's humanity of being an in-valid. However, Vincent might as well be a valid if he acts and is portrayed to be a husk of a shell.
• Andrew Niccol's directing. This was the first film he's made and it clearly shows. That's not to say that he's a horrible director as there are some nice visuals, but you can tell that he's inexperienced and seems to forget how to make coherent storytelling. There's a scene where Vincent and Irene are talking and she gives him a hair in order for him to see her defects. Vincent then says that the wind caught it, which is supposed to show that he doesn't care about what health issues she carries. However, the shot clearly shows the hair being in his hand still, even though we see the hair on the ground afterwards. What's weird is that this scene is replicated by the end where Vincent gives Irene his hair and Irene repeats the same line. However, we actually get a shot of her dropping the hair, whereas Niccol simply forgot to do that earlier. This also reflects in how he doesn't give enough details to the visual storytelling of the film. The way the murder mystery is solved is shot as if they make it seem that the murder was in fact a suicide. Niccol also likes to add characters who appear in one scene and have an unearned payoff at the end such as the mission director or the guy who lets Vincent go on the spaceship. If someone had no audio to watch the movie, that person wouldn't understand what's going on, mainly because a lot of the film has Niccol telling the audience what's going on, rather than visually showing the audience. On top of that, the lighting and day time scenes of the world are just ugly. I know Vincent says that he wants to leave the planet, but unless the world is an apocalyptic wasteland, the bright sunny days shouldn't be this unappealing to look at.
• The ending. After the murder mystery is wrapped up and Vincent beats his brother at his game, he finally leaves to go to space. After he fails the blood test, the guy in charge lets him go because they literally shared one scene at the beginning. As the ship blasts off, the real Jerome kills himself for no real reason, other than to serve a metaphorical conclusion for his character. The main issue with this ending is that the film could actually have been much better if they just did one thing at this moment, which is to have Vincent die instead of Jerome. The beginning of the movie states that Vincent is most likely going to die by thirty from a heart condition. Heck, even his parents tells him that going into space would result in his death. However, because the film doesn't want to show any real flaws with Vincent or in-valids, Vincent doesn't die at the end of the movie. Not only was his death clearly established in the beginning, but his death can be seen as a bittersweet moment for he has accomplished his dream at the cost of his death. But no, Vincent gets his happy ending. The movie just makes Vincent a fairy-tale princess who gets everything he ever wanted from his dream job, girlfriend, and "proving" the system wrong.

The saddest thing about "Gattaca" is that there was so much untapped potential in the concept. Not only that, but you can tell that they had an ambitious project with Jude Law's dedicated performance, the above-average score by Nyman, and the production design being so good that it was nominated for an Oscar. However, the film felt like it needed a complete rewrite as so many issues arise from the story and characters. From the conventional story that doesn't exactly challenge the viewer, terrible murder mystery, Vincent and Irene being just bad characters and actors, Niccol's amateur directing and lighting, and the ending being way too positive on Vincent's end that it makes you question if he deserved all of his good fortune. It's a really hard film to rewatch as it's not only dull and boring, but it's just painful to see all of the premise being shattered before my eyes.

Verdict: 2.5/10. An awful film that had so much potential to be a classic. A prime example of how a concept alone doesn't equal a fantastic film.

Savages (2012) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Ironic Title For The Critics...

It's been a while since I've done a rant review. I was planning to actually make this review in a normal format as it's not the worse I've seen by a long shot. However, a lot of the problems and issues come from the story and characters, which would require me to extensively spoil. I'm not going to lie, there are so many poor decisions that would just make you asking if this is a real movie or not.

Positives:

• The best thing in this entire movie and perhaps the real reason why you should watch it is Benicio del Toro's Lado. Holy crap, this guy is excellent. Lado is a ruthless enforcer for the cartel and does some pretty messed-up stuff such as raping O, abusing his wife, and killing innocent people, but he's probably the best character in the film and to a degree, likeable. He feels the most human strangely despite his morals, which is mainly due to the main characters being very bad, which we will get to. Basically, everyone will love Lado, regardless of what they thought of the movie.
• John Travolta's Dennis. He's not in the movie much, but this is his best role in recent years. A corrupt DEA agent who works with the main characters and Lado, he is just trying to get the best deal out of his life. The scene where he and Lado meet is just fantastic. He reminds me of Saul Goodman from "Breaking Bad" and practically emulates that same energy.
• The cinematography by Dan Mindel is pretty good. Lots of wide shots of the environments and the tight shots of the exteriors such as the torture room and O's cell.
• The ending for Lado and Dennis. The best characters surprisingly get a happy ending with Lado fleeing to work for another cartel and Dennis scoring the biggest bust of his career with Elena's arrest. The ending as a whole though isn't perfect though as we get to in the negatives. 

Negatives:

• The film's biggest flaw are the main characters. They are just way too flat, cliched, and cartoony in a gritty movie. First, there's Taylor Kitch's Chon, a hardened Iraq veteran with no humanity inside him. What a likeable character, huh? Aaron Johnson's Ben is probably the most likeable of the main characters, but he's just a hippie botanist who doesn't believe in violence. While Ben could have worked out well as a character, the acting and character change doesn't work at all. Like, you think after burning an innocent man alive, he would be sobbing or something, but no, emotionless it is. But, the worst character in the film is Blake Lively's O. Where to begin? First off, she narrates the entire movie with an annoying, dry voice and poor puns that it grates on you. Second, her character is just completely unlikeable. She's basically a druggy slut who loves both guys, though she clearly prefers Ben more. They attempt to give you sympathy for her as they try to give a relationship with her mom, but we never see the mom to begin with. It just doesn't make sense why the characters, even Salma Hayak's Elena, give her any sympathy. When she claims that she might be dead at the beginning of the movie, the audience is just praying that it will be the case.
• The story has no direction and opens up dumb plot holes and subplots that go nowhere. The deal that Ben and Chon disagree on is actually a very good and fair deal, but for some reason, dumbass Chon has a thick skull. The character of Estaben, a cartel member who has a sense of humanity, goes completely unused as Lado kills him for literally giving O a glass of milk and being "too sensitive" The film seemed to give the direction that he would help O or fall in love with her or something, but it goes nowhere. What's worse is that Lado kills him for being too soft on O, only for Elena to move her to her estate. Like, why? Elena and O start to bond in an unrealistic matter, which appears to be relative to the story, only for them to hate each other once Chon and Ben kidnap Elena's daughter. The story just doesn't know how to move forward in a coherent matter.
• Oliver Stone's directing. For a guy who has directed multiple Oscar-nominated films, this film doesn't help his case. For the most part, it's just pretty average outside of the nice shots. He does get intensity in certain scenes, but what ruins his credibility is the editing. Not only are there some pretty random cuts, but Stone decides to thrown in some filters every now and then for literally no reason. You think that this is some arthouse or first-time directing job from a new face, but it's in fact a seasoned director who clearly needs to retire before he embarrasses himself.
• The ending. Even if you never heard of this film, you might have heard about the ridiculous ending. It starts with the characters doing a hostage exchange for O and Elena's daughter. Of course, things go wrong and a shootout begins with Elena and Lado getting killed, while Ben gets shot in the throat. As O is weeping over him, Chon decides to overdose everyone as they apparently can't live without one another. Ok, standard ending where everyone dies, which is a blessing as the main characters bite the dust. Until O with her annoying narration reveals that what we saw was what she imagined the ending was going to be. Yeah, a bait and switch ending. The real ending has Lado drive off during the exchange as he gives up Elena and the others to Dennis and the DEA. Elena gets sent to prison and Dennis allows the others to be released, albeit their marijuana business shut down. O closes off the narration with some spiritual bullshit and a Beatles cover. As much as I love how Lado and Dennis manage to get the better half of the deal in the actual ending, I can't simply forgive the movie for literally having a fake ending in their movie. Also, having the main characters alive and well doesn't really help give the movie any reason for pulling off a fake, bad ending.

"Savages" is a film that part of me wants to like, but can't forgive all of the poor decisions made throughout. From the horrible main characters and O's narration throughout the entire movie, plotlines going nowhere with a contrived nature to create a story as a whole, Stone's directing and editing being very amateur-level for such an acclaimed filmmaker, and the ending being one of the face-slapping moments in cinema history. The only redeemable qualities of the film is the cinematography and the performances and characters of Lado and Dennis. Honestly, I wished that the movie was about these two and have a cat and mouse story attached to them with the reveal of their partnership being the twist ending that we deserved, unlike the final product that we got. The thing is, I do kind of recommend this movie because of Benicio del Toro and John Travolta alone. However, I must warn you that watching their amazing performances will mean you must suffer through annoying characters and a hair-pulling story.

Verdict: 4.5/10. Watch for Lado, forget everything else.

Glass (2019) Film Review: A Strong, But Fragile Conclusion.

Concluding the Eastrail 177 trilogy, "Glass" was a film no one was expecting they wanted to begin with, as an "Unbreakable" sequel seemed far-fetched after many years. However, with "Split" revealing the stealth sequel nature and providing a new enemy for David Dunn to fight, fan anticipated for the conclusion to the surprise trilogy. The film picks up weeks after the previous film as David Dunn, now known as the Overseer, is pursuing the Beast, only for the two to get captured and sent to a mental institution where Elijah is currently being held. Dr. Ellie Staple attempts to convince that their superhuman abilities are in fact nothing special and that they are simply crazy people who believe that they are more than man. As the doctor tries to break their spirt, Elijah plans to escape as well as constructing a confrontation between good and evil. I personally love the decision to have the film be about the characters stuck inside a mental institution as it helps bring the theme of faith and belief into the foreground more than ever before, which itself was a theme seen in the previous films. I hear complaints that the film wastes the viewer's time in trying to convince the characters that they aren't special, despite our knowledge that they are. I see this plot point not for the audience, but as a challenge for these specific characters. This is not the classic superhero showdown flick people were expecting, it's slow and thought-provoking much like Shyamalan's previous works. There's still fighting and long-awaited interactions, but that's not the real focus of the film. The first and third act are excellent, but the second act does tend to drag on if you were expecting more action or story to occur, as it's very much character dissection. The tone is more akin to "Unbreakable" for the thriller approach, but sprinkles in the humour that was more present in "Split". It's a perfect mix and works to bring characters from two very different type of movies into the same reality.

Bruce Willis as David Dunn takes a bit of a backseat in this film as he goes through a similar arc that he has encountered, which is the true nature of his abilities. Although people have complained about this segment, I don't mind it as it makes sense for the character of David to always be open-minded and not aggressive with his authorities. Willis still delivers a great, albeit subdued, performance regardless. James McAvoy is brilliant as ever as Kevin Wendall Crumb, with more personalities showing up to show off the underrated talent McAvoy has achieved over the years. Kevin gets a lot of focus in this film as he's not only the character to give off the comic relief, but is also the one that goes through a lot of on-screen development with the beliefs of the Beast and the personalities losing faith. Samuel L. Jackson as Mr. Glass steals the show by the second half of the film, but is excellent as ever with his charismatic, albeit loony, personality and his ultimate plan to show the world that superheroes do exist. Spencer Treat Clark reprises his role as Joseph, David's son who helps him on his vigilante duties and tries to find a way to get his father back. Clark is surprisingly really good as an actor and should be in more films in the future. Anna Taylor Joy as Casey returns to act as the voice of reason and compassion for Kevin, as she knows the tragedy of his situation and wants to help him, despite the bad things he's done. Charlayne Woodard as Elijah's mother doesn't do too much, but really does a good job as the parent who loves and motivates her son, despite the sins he has done. Lastly, there's Sarah Paulson as Dr. Ellie Staple, a psychiatrist who is attempting to show David and Kevin that they don't have superhuman abilities as they are just mentally sick. Although Paulson does a good job, Staple is perhaps the worst character in the franchise mainly due to how unlikeable and uncharismatic she is. Unlike Elijah or Kevin who show the reasons for why they do evil crimes and their beliefs, Staple shows no signs of humanity and her allegiance with the secret society only makes her character even more unlikeable. I understand that this was by design, but many villains need an ounce of sympathy in order to prevail as great characters, which is why Elijah and Kevin work as antagonists compared to Staple. Outside of that, the entire cast does a fantastic job as always with everyone having a chance to shine to demonstrate amazing moments with these great characters.

Yet again, Shyamalan knocks it out of the park for his directing skills and artistry. Although the film doesn't use the ambitious long takes like "Unbreakable" or the claustrophobic close-ups in "Split", the director mainly spends his time establishing the mental institution as the centrepiece along with some great wide shots and camera POV's to make the location stand out. The institution is both modern and visually pleasing, but also carries a cold and ominous feel to it. There's a lot more bright lighting than the previous films, but yet it's still limited due to the controlled setting and the hidden nature of Staple, giving the institution much more character than one would expect. All of this is helped once again by cinematographer, Mike Gioulakis, who does an outstanding job with the camerawork. West Dylan Thompson once again returns to compose and it actually improves over his previous work. While there are still tracks that are more in relation to "Split" with the creepy thriller-esque sound, there's also tracks that are more in nature to that of "Unbreakable". While the recognizable theme is barely used, there's some fantastic tracks such as the uplifting, beautiful score that plays in the end when David gets his costume back and the final scene of the film. James Newton Howard may still hold the best soundtrack in the franchise, but Thompson can almost rival his efforts. The action scenes are unique to say the least. Considering that it's mainly a brawl that consists of two men bear-hugging each other,  the cinematography offers multiple unique angles during the battles ranging from the close-ups of the faces, the view of the battle inside a van, the camera located on the outside of the institution, etc. Giving all of these different ways to view what can be seen as an underwhelming battle allows it to be both captivating and creative to say the least. The last thing that must be discussed is the ending and twist to say the least. The choice to kill off the leads, the reveal of the secret society that hasn't been mentioned, and Glass's actions making him more heroic than he really is has angered and confused fans since the release, making this the least favoured entry in the trilogy. I can see why people can't get into the ending as on the one hand, it appears to be somewhat insulting and ridiculous to conclude the series on. However, I can overlook the decisions and appreciate what Shyamalan was trying to do. It sucks that David gets drowned and all, but the secret society makes sense as an antagonistic group and one that would have existed all of this time, and Glass's master plan revealing superheroes to the world isn't made to primarily redeem himself, but to expose the truth and allows others to finally awake. The ending works really well as a proper conclusion for the characters and theme, but it's one that I understand is not going to be loved.

"Glass" is considered to be the weakest entry of the trilogy, despite it not being far off from the same quality as the previous films. The only issue I have with the film is the character of Dr. Staple, but the controversial ending and story decisions from the character deaths to the reveal of the secret society is widely known to cause some friction that I for one can understand. However, that doesn't mean this is a bad movie. In fact, it's pretty damn close in quality and being on par with the other films. From the unique approach to the story and exploration of the trilogy's overarching theme of faith and belief, the setting of the mental institution having a cosmetic character and creative set-piece for a superhero genre, great performances and character development from all throughout the cast with McAvoy once again stealing the spotlight, Gioulakis's crisp and theatrical cinematography, Thompson's great soundtrack, Shyamalan's phenomenal directing and passion for his product, and the film wrapping up the trilogy with a bittersweet conclusion that feels somewhat fitting and proper for the world the filmmaker has created, despite the sudden nature of it. If Dr. Staple's character was written to be more engaging, I feel that this film would have been practically perfect and be on the same level as "Unbreakable", since people wouldn't mind the reveal of her antagonistic nature if she was more developed or likeable. I love all three films and while I can get the reasons for why people wouldn't like the final installment, I enjoy it for all of the overwhelming positives it carries.

Verdict: 9/10.  Outside of rewriting Dr. Staple, the rest of the film is practically as perfect as it can be. I might not be able to fully defend the ending, but perhaps you should try to understand what I see and give it a watch.

Split (2017) Film Review: How To Make A Coventional, Yet Unique Horror Flick.

Well, seeing as I have been rewatching the Eastrail 177 trilogy, I might as well make reviews for the other films in the "Unbreakable" universe. Kevin Wendall Crumb is a man suffering from DID, giving him 23 distinct personalities. When one of the personalities kidnap three teenage girls, they must learn how to escape and deal with the different personalities while the 24th personality, an alleged monster, begins to awake. What works so well with this film is that it doesn't require people to watch "Unbreakable" in order to understand or enjoy, as the film keeps its sequel status secret until the very end. Many people went in without knowing the connection and got exactly what they expected, a solid horror-thriller, but with a mind-blowing surprise at the end with David Dunn's reveal. Even years later, the moment works so well as the film is almost in its own different world. If one removes the connections to the franchise, "Split" has a familiar premise for the horror genre, but with great execution. The typical horror cliches that I can't stand, which are mainly the poorly written female heroine, poor motivations, and the embarrassing defeat of the villain, are subverted brilliantly as the film progresses. It's somewhat formulaic, but there's enough twists and turns that pushes it beyond generic and into a broader area as the writing is one of the best of the genre in recent years with very little mistakes or inconsistencies. The film blends both horror and suspense while adding some light comedy and intriguing scenes that explores the characters. It's not trying to make you scared all the time with cheap sound effects, but rather explore the characters. It may be a bit slow at times with tons of dialogue, but there's practically no filler in these scenes as every bit of dialogue explains subtle character and story details.

James McAvoy is brilliant as Kevin, the man with multiple personalities. McAvoy is a very underrated actor that the Oscars and general public don't acknowledge much of his talents. He brings the personalities all to life so convincingly from the cunning and shady Dennis, the kind yet harsh Patricia, the innocent and goofy Hedwig, the distraught and grief-filled Kevin, and the disturbing and powerful Beast. McAvoy gives it his all in acting out multiple, unique characters with a wide range that it's a shame he never got nominated for his work. Anna Taylor Joy plays Casey, an introverted teen who is able to pick up on Kevin's behaviour and attempts to play along with the personalities and befriending Hedwig in order to escape. Her disturbing backstory offers reasons for her skills of observation and understanding the true nature of Kevin. What I love most is that unlike the majority of female protagonists in the horror genre, her conclusion is not extremely empowering with an ambiguous final shot of her character as she is told that her abusive uncle is picking her up. Casey is a strong, realistic final girl character that isn't invincible nor weak in terms of the plot. Betty Buckley plays Karen Fletcher, a psychologist who is studying Kevin and tries to help him. Karen does at times slow down the plot, but her scenes with Kevin and dialogue about her theory with her patient is intriguing to listen to. Lastly, there's Claire and Marcia, classmates of Casey who also get kidnapped and separated by Kevin, as their failed attempts of escape proves futile compared to Casey's patient and calculating strategy. They are surprisingly well-established and a bit likeable, which is a surprise compared to the majority of horror films out there. The cast are all talented whether they are newcomers or veterans, but McAvoy is the real star of the film for his amazing performance.

M. Night Shyamalan once again delivers an excellent job in his direction. Much like the character of pacing, he is calculative in his vision and how to keep the audience invested and giving them enough details to keep them intrigued throughout the film. The film could easily have failed if Shyamalan didn't know how much to give out to audiences at the right time, which is best used in the reveal of the Beast and David Dunn's cameo. The scenes that are trying to get a reaction out of you such as the scene with Casey and her uncle to her and Hedwig are perfectly made to make you uncomfortable and doesn't go across as shock value. The direction is familar, but unique and engaging. Unlike "Unbreakable", which utilizes impressive one-takes and staging, "Split" has a more personal, claustrophobic feel with its approach. Due to the horror and suspense tone, many of the shots feel interrogative which is helped by the film's use of interior locations. Although there are a few times where we can see Kevin go outside, majority of the film has Casey and the girls stuck inside the underground lair and Karen having sessions with Kevin in her apartment. This added detail helps give the film more of an identity compared to ordinary schlock in the genre. I also like the dim lighting in the film to emphasize a sort of dread and lack of hope. Not only is this present in the lair, but even in Karen's apartment sessions in order to show a hidden sense of danger. On top of that, the cinematography by Mike Gioulakis offers some beautiful-looking shots and use of shadows in the third act. The music by West Dylan Thompson is by no means close to matching up with James Newton Howard's work on "Unbreakable", but his score is appropriate for the film. There are times where scenes have no music, mainly in the first half of the film, which helps build in suspense without audio cues. The second half has much more use of the score, which I can best describe as dreadful and haunting. It's not a score that you'd listen to outside of the film, but works very well when used. The only issue I can say that Shyamalan has in this film is that there are some awkward line deliveries that feel unnatural, such as the first scene with the girls and the father, and the final scene where a lady for some reason says that the killer reminds her of Mr. Glass, which makes no sense as the two are barely similar with each other. Other than that though, Shyamalan can do no wrong.

"Split" is almost the perfect film that rivals its predecessor in a much different way. Although the story is a tad formulaic and there's some awkward dialogue on occasion, everything else about this film is greatly executed. From the rare subversion of the tired and cliched horror genre along with the use of thriller and comedic elements, the cast of well-acted and developed characters, McAvoy's fantastic and unique performance, the cinematography that's both haunting with the tight environments and dim lighting, but beautiful in some nice stand-out shots, Thompson's score being minimalistic and thrilling, and Shyamalan's excellent filmmaking that ties it all together. I might be praising it this film a tad too much than some might think, but personally, I love how this film feels conventional and gets ballsy in how it treats the usual horror cliches that I've been so desensitized to. It's one of my favourite horror films to date and is one of the best films in Shyamalan's career.

Verdict: 9.5/10. Almost perfect in my opinion if the script got a little edit here and there. Regardless if you think this is a horror film or not, let alone a fan of the genre to begin with, this is still a great watch and great follow-up to "Unbreakable" 

The Foreigner (2017) Film Review: A Fantastic Political/Action-Thriller

When Quan's daughter gets killed in a bombing made by a rogue group of IRA terrorists, he seeks revenge and starts to threaten Liam Hennessy, the Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland, as the politician's previous IRA status might know something about the people behind the attack. As Hennessy claims to know nothing, Quan continues to use fear tactics while twists and turns revolve around Hennessy. Based on the novel, "The Chinaman", the film was marketed as a straight-up action revenge film akin to the likes of "Taken" and "John Wick". Some audiences were disappointed by the real identity of the film. There is action scenes for sure and they are super entertaining, but the film is really much more serious and slower-paced as it deals with political tension between Ireland and the UK. If people don't know the history of the IRA, this film does nothing for them outside of Quan's storyline. However, I for one enjoy both the action and the heavy amounts of dialogue in the well-paced, nearly 2-hour runtime. The dialogue is just really well-written and contains subtle details in the plot and character motivation if people pay attention. It's a film heavily grounded in reality as we see the corruptness of politicians, government heads, and even questionable morality with the main characters and even the police as they torture a female terrorist. It's a surprisingly gritty, raw film that the marketing doesn't do justice.

Jackie Chan as Quan is a much more dramatic and subdued role than what you'd expect. He still manages to kick ass, but the way he is portrayed onscreen is almost like an antagonistic force at times, as he appears to use terrorist-like skills to cause panic and fear towards Hennessy and those around him. However, when there's a quiet moment for him to grieve, he manages to give out so much emotion by the lack thereof in the actions and dialogue. The best actor in the film however is Pierce Brosnan's Hennessy, who delivers a believable, charismatic portrayal of an Irish politician who gets wrapped up in Quan's revenge quest while proving to be a shady individual. From his explosive outbursts to his much subtle, quieter moments, Brosnan is fantastic. The side characters include Maggie/Sara, Hennessy's mistress who is secretly a terrorist, Mary, Hennessy's wife who's relationship has been strained since her brother's death years ago, Commander Bromley, the head of Scotland Yard investigating the terrorist attack, Sean, Hennessy's nephew who assists in tracking Quan and the terrorists while having an affair with Mary, Hugh McGrath, a former IRA member who isn't keen on Hennessy's political motives, Ian Wood, a reporter who becomes the unknowing mule for the terrorist's latest plot. There are other characters that I'm forgetting such as the other terrorists, Quan's friend, and Hennessy's bodyguards, but they don't have enough time to establish much character. The cast are all doing their best in bringing these characters to life, but it's Chan and Brosnan who steal the show.

Martin Campbell directed this film with every talent in his bone. The film is very much grey and saturated with rare occasions of warm colours. Considering the dark, mature tone, it's very welcome. Much like Jason Borne, the directing focuses on the gritty realism of the world and characters rather than the theatrical action or organizations akin to James Bond. Due to Campbell's previous works, he manages to make this film very sleek and cinematic despite the lower budget. That's mainly thanks to the choice to shoot on location and some instances of on-camera action. The exploding bus for example was in fact a real demolition that the public wasn't even aware of. The cinematography by David Tattersail is really good and acts as a character of its own. Outside of the establishing shots of the exteriors and interiors, majority of the camerawork is fixated on the ground using realistic movements and continuity to follow the characters as if the audiences are walking beside them. It works to make the film, albeit a fictional story, based on our reality. The score by Cliff Martinez is pretty typical of the action-thriller genre with the use of industrial and synthesizers. It's not bad by any means and works appropriately for the film, but it's not going to be particularly memorable. The action scenes are master-crafted as Campbell's directing allows. While there is shaky cam at times, the action is perfectly edited and the stunts are pulled off with such skill. Chan still manages to do action stunts in his mid 60's. Sure, they aren't super athletic or devil-defining, but the physicality is still admirable. It also gives those who expected action in their films just enough to be satisfied as the scenes are gritty and almost painful to watch due to the realism of the film. Campbell hasn't had the best luck since "Casino Royale", but this film not only got his groove back, but might even be a contender as the best film he's made.

"The Foreigner" is an almost perfect film in the action-thriller genre. Despite the generic score and mislead marketing, the film displays an intriguing story that feels realistic in our world with great lines of dialogue that makes the characters fleshed-out, superb acting from the entire cast with Chan and Brosnan taking the spotlight, fantastic directing from Campbell that makes a somewhat independent production visually cinematic, grounded cinematography that matches the perspectives of the characters, and action scenes that prove not only can Chan still fight and pull stunts like nothing, but manages to keep action-hungry audiences satisfied from the misleading trailers. I honestly wish that more people give this film more recognition as the marketing is to blame for the misleading film that either made people turned off from typical action junk or lied to upon the much slower paced, political thriller. Please check it out on Netflix if you can, it's one of a kind.

Verdict: 9.5/10. Practically perfect if the score was better. One of my favourites in the genre and in recent years as well.