Bambi (1942) Film Review: Disney's Own Masterpiece?

What was Walt Disney's most beloved film that he has made? Some of you might think that it's either "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" or "Fantasia", but according to many reports, "Bambi" remains as Disney's favourite. Although I loved this film growing up, is it a film that has aged like a fine liquor or proves to be outdated from modern hits? Well, let's start with the story, or the lack thereof. The story essentially chronicles the life of the titular character as it follows him from childhood to adulthood, repeating the cycle of life that nature has become accustomed to. The coming-of-age formula is extremely uncommon in animated films, especially those targeted towards children. However, this film makes the formula so engaging not only by the loveable characters, but by some great visual storytelling such as the reduced amount of dialogue and the use of seasons to show time passing and the aging of Bambi. I made an entire university project about it, but the point is that the film mostly borrows the structure of a German expressionist production, with the story and characters being in the background and simplified, while the backgrounds and animation are in the forefront and artistically complex. Tonally, it crosses from child-like innocence in the first half to the dangerous reality in the second half. The second half is intense and brings in tons of mixed emotions, but it still allows some lighthearted fun during the time where Bambi and his friends search for love.

Although the characters are beloved, it must be admitted that they aren't full of depth whatsoever and have somewhat shallow personalities. However, this is done in order for the characters to symbolize an archetype or role someone would recognize in their own life. Bambi for instance is the everyman and one that doesn't have a concrete personality as he is meant to be the embodiment of the viewer on the journey of life. Thumper is supposed to be the energetic best friend we all knew of during our childhood that wanted to spend the most time with you. Flower, who barely appears in the film, is more like the secondary friend who tends to be shy and bashful in public. Bambi's mother might have the most character in the film, but we all know that she fits the role for the caring mother figure. Feline, who although has dated poorly as just the love interest who loves Bambi just because, is meant to be the first crush/eventual soul mate in the film as Bambi's reactions are very much how boys and young men would relate to. As for the weak personality, that can be attributed to her being a doe and the lack of on-screen chemistry being justified for the animal in nature. Friend Owl is sort of meant to be the kind, wise elder who would get some fun out of teasing or scaring you, kind of like a grandparent. The Great Prince of the Forest or Bambi's estranged father is not only fitting for a deer's life cycle with the father not taking care of the fawn and being in charge of the herd, but more representative to one's overall bloodline and destiny as it is Bambi's eventual position in life to take over this position. Lastly, there is the unseen, antagonistic Man. The off-screen enemy is more or less a depiction of death and misery and can be viewed as illness, a natural disaster or even a hostile man in some cases. Man is regarded as one of the most greatest villains for a reason as his role is more of an act of nature rather than a character, but yet the audience knows that this hunter is an illegal game hunter due to disobeying the rules of the hunt and killing a doe. Overall, the characters are brilliant in a way that's not defined by engaging personality, but rather relating to the viewer's own life and how a film about animals is really a mirrored version of a very human story and circumstance.

The animation is simply beautiful and might be one of the real key factors to why this might be Disney's favourite film. The forest environment have plenty of layers with plants or trees in the foreground to waterfalls or fog in the background. The backgrounds alone without the characters added in would make for fantastic paintings by themselves. The character animation and designs however are outstanding. The animators took a lot of research into the anatomy of the animals and their behaviour, which is why they all move so realistically and barely act like cartoons. Sure, there are very brief moments of comedic expressions or actions, but the animation mostly makes it its mission to make the animals move as realistic as possible. The colours are also very pretty as there's a lot of warm, soft visuals to the film, but the stag fight and forest fire changes up the animation by incorporating a lots of reds, blacks, and oranges to have a distinct look that replicates the intensity of the scene. The music is also beautiful in its own right as it hits the beats of the tone with the soft, themes of childhood innocence and the admiration of the forest to the intense, almost horrific beats of Man's attacks on nature. The songs though are another story of their own. Personally, I'm not a fan of them as it does take me out of the film a bit with the vocals not being from the characters themselves. However, I can't say that these songs are bad or even unnecessary as they do serve some purpose whether it's to make the audience admire the animation and the beauty of the forest, or to signify a change of season. The artistry of the animation and music though is simply brilliant to say the least.

"Bambi" is clearly my favourite Disney film, even more so as I grow up. Although it's not the easiest film to get into due to the uneven tone by design and it being very much an animated film that's anti-typical of the modern animated formula, you can't deny that everything in the film was carefully constructed to carry more depth that it leads on to. From the coming-of-age story that hits viewers close to home,  a tone that cleverly shifts from innocent fun to deathly serious by story and thematic reasoning, surface-level characters that are designed to represent a role in a person's life, breathtaking animation that makes the forest and the animal inhabitants come to life with pleasant colours to boot, and soothing music and songs that puts you at ease or at the edge of your seat during the film's runtime. There are plenty of contenders of my favourite Disney film and they are serious competition, but when it comes to a practically flawless vision and goal, "Bambi" deserves the right to not only be Disney's own favourite film, but my favourite as well.

Verdict: 10/10. A timeless masterpiece that will remain the best Disney has to offer as time goes on. Please give it a watch whenever you can!

Bulletproof Monk (2003) Film Review: A Hidden Gem Buried Under A Sea Of Obcurity?

Has there been a film where you remembered a lot from your childhood, but it seems that only you has ever heard of said film? Maybe it's a TV movie, direct-to-video film, or a theatrical release that just completely fell into obscurity? For me, that movie was "Bulletproof Monk". Based on the comic book of the same name, it follows a nameless monk who holds a scroll that allows its user to be  immortal and powerful as the role for guarding said scroll from enemy forces. After many decades of being hunted down by an aging Nazi officer, the monk feels that it's time for him to pass his role to an apprentice, which he feels that the young street thief, Kar, might be the one to fill his place. While the story itself is pretty silly in concept, the film takes itself really seriously, albeit allowing some comedy being thrown in, mainly by the relationship between the monk and Kar. Honestly, a part of me really enjoys the story for its trope-filled nature of having Nazis as the bad guys, the chosen one being a guy who you'd least suspect, the cheesy romance, etc. My only issue with the plot is that it moves way too fast. Not that there isn't any slow or subtle moments, but the entire story of Kar becoming the next guardian happens in literally two days. So, apparently in those two days, the villains always know where to find our heroes and Kar not only finishes the three prophecies, but fully commits to this new role of his. It's a pretty big logical gap when one thinks of the time in the film, but you can debate it adds on to the charm of the film. Another small issue is that it does take itself a bit too seriously as there are plenty of opportunities to have a funny joke, but it keeps to the script for whatever reason. With that said, there's still a handful of funny moments throughout the film that work fine.

Chow Yun-Fat is excellent as the nameless monk. He has a charming charisma and doesn't act as the typical master role. He has a sense of humour and does like to poke fun at Kar and play on his sarcastic attitude. You can tell that this is a man who has adapted to modern society and culture, despite his ethnicity and longevity throughout the decades. He's practically the best character of the film. Seann William Scott is well-cast as Kar and fits the punk youth who attempts to look and act cool for his self-worth. However, his character development is hindered by the short time logic of the film. His bantering and bonding with the monk though does really work though as the characters are polar opposites and always attempt to top the other with their reasoning, which the monk always prevails at. Jamie King as Jade plays the typical kickass female fighter that Kar falls in love with. There is a twist in the end regarding her role, which is clever, but she's just not a very engaging character. Karel Roden is Strucker, a Nazi captain who is hellbent on capturing the monk and unlocking the power of the scroll. Roden plays the role as over-the-top as possible with his yelling and anger chewing up the scenery, which makes him enjoyable in his own right. Victoria Smurfit plays Nina, the granddaughter of Strucker and the second-in-command who leads her group of henchmen. While the character is played up as an evil femme fatale, there's no real reason for her to be in the story as the film never bothers to explain why she cares to aid her grandfather and what does she earn in return. Lastly, there's Mr. Kojima, played by the late Mako, who is an owner of a Chinese theatre and Kar's employer that really cares for the guy. Mako is always enjoyable to watch with his charisma and he does get a few laughs. His role also helps Kar's shallow development as it pushes Kar to fight for what's right. There are a few other side characters such as the monk allies or the underground gang Jade is with, but they barely play a role and only appear in one scene or so. Overall, the characters are decent all-around with the monk, Kar, Strucker, and Kojima being the highlights. However, Jade, Nina and aespects of Kar's character development do damper the cast as a whole.

Paul Hunter is known for his length role as a music video director, making some popular videos for various superstars. However, this film proved to be the first and only he has directed for Hollywood. Whether or not his lack of will to direct another film is due to the box office or his directing skills in general, his directorial debut wasn't as bad as one might expect. To Hunter's credit, he knows how to direct sequences well and shows potential on making a feature film. At times, his staging and pacing does feel like he's attempting to make another music video, but his directing is pretty decent. The real issue is the editing though as scenes are cut very quickly or inserted randomly. The editing really undermines Hunter's directing. The sets are very nicely put together such as the Tibetan temple, the Golden Palace theatre, Kar's crib, Strucker's lair, etc. The choice to make Toronto as the backdrop for New York actually works out for the most part, but like other careless directors, the CN Tower appears in one nighttime shot. The cinematography by Stefan Czapsky is pretty good with some nice crane and handheld shots. However, there's a bit too many close-ups of characters faces in an awkward angle for my liking. The music by Eric Serra is very good as it has a lot of range. From the martial art and scroll theme, the light comedic score with Kar and the monk, the frantic modern action theme, the dramatic music during the low points, the list goes on. While I don't think it's near my favourites, the original score and soundtrack of the film are underrated gems of their own right. The action sequences are a mixed bag. On the one hand, there's some nice stunts and wirework that pays tribute to the wuxia genre. On the other hand, the editing really bogs down these sequences and there are some awkward moments. These moments include some random force powers that Strucker uses in one scene during the climax and some really dated green-screen effects. Overall, Hunter didn't do a bad job for his only feature film and it's a shame he lost the motivation to return to the industry.

"Bulletproof Monk" is a film that proves to have plenty of charm even if no one cares to remember it. While there are issues to be found such as the illogical timeframe of the story and character arcs, Jade and Nina being very bland femme fatales, awkward fast-paced editing, and some dated green-screen effects makes the film pretty amateur at times despite the talent on and offscreen. However, there's some joy and fun to be had with the film. From the over-top story that takes itself with just the right amount of seriousness, Fat delivers a solid charismatic and physical performance as the monk, characters such as Kar, Strucker and Mr. Kojima are enjoyable in their own right, some nice cinematography by Czapsky, a very good low-key soundtrack by Serra, some nice wirework and action motifs, and Hunter's directing being pretty solid for the most part. It's both generic, but unique in its own way. I don't think it's meant to be seen as one of the great action or martial art flicks, but it's a harmless watch at the very least.

Verdict: 6.5/10. A decent watch that should at least be acknowledged in its own right. Go in with low expectations and you'll might be smiling when the film ends.

Space Jam (1996) Film Review: A Classic Or A Nuisance?

Has there ever been a film where you questioned how does anyone come up with the idea alone? Not because it's a fantastic premise with excellent writing to back it up, but because the idea is just so bonkers that almost no one would ever green-light it to existence? Well, "Space Jam" is the perfect example of how any film, no matter how insane or ridiculous, can be made and released with a big fanbase that will loyally defend the quality of the film. Based on the commercials (yes, I'm not kidding), the film follows basketball superstar, Michael Jordan, as he briefly retires from basketball and attempts to take up baseball, which he's not really good in. He is suddenly pulled into an animated world when the Looney Tunes ask for his help to play with them against the Monstars, a group of aliens who took the talent of other famous NBA players and are employed by Mr. Swackhammer, a businessman who wants to throw the famous cartoons into slavery for his failing amusement park. If you can't clearly tell by the story, well, it's over-the-top and ridiculous. However, you should really have expected this as the tone and pacing of the film. The story goes by really fast as not only is there's not much of a story to begin with, but there's barely any pointless filler. Although one can say that seeing the world's reaction to the NBA stars losing talent or cancelling the season is not needed, it adds some fun comedy and references for older audiences. The tone is also perfectly silly and insane as even the live-action world has a goofy nature to it as people don't react to Jordan being sucked down a golf hole as a huge problem or being way too harsh on their beloved stars. The humour surrounding the Looney Tunes though is a mixed bag. While there is an occasionally funny line and some chaotic, almost dark, slapstick violence, that's all there is. Sure, I love seeing characters who barely get hurt like Bugs Bunny, Tweety, Granny, or the Road Runner get absolutely demolished, but it wears out its welcome if the whole joke is just them getting hurt again and again. The perfect energy and timeless humour isn't replicated and it has divided fans of the characters because of it.

Micheal Jordan plays himself as a straight-man to the Looney Tunes wackiness. He's very deadpan and not very emotive, but there's something about his performance that's just fun to watch. I think that because he's just playing himself as a very chilled-out dude with a lot of tolerance to the hijinks going on around him, he comes across as enjoyable, even though his acting skills are limited. The Looney Tunes then fill up the rest of the main cast and the majority of the supporting. Because there are way too many characters, I will just say that they are the same characters that we have seen before, except they work as a sort of community and their humour extends to pop culture and even the fourth wall. My favourites from the group have always and will still be Daffy, Sylvester, Wile E. Coyote, and Martian the Martian. The only character that's noteworthy in the group is the debut of Lola Bunny, which I feel enough people have said plenty of her from the lack of personality to the animated crushes discussion. The Nerdlucks are the aliens who take the talent of various NBA players and become the Monstars. As the small, child-like aliens, they are pretty annoying and are one of the most unfunny characters in the line-up. When they become the Monstars though, their personalities actually improve as their original personalities are now mixed with a specific NBA player as well as a more aggressive, hostile attitude. It's actually pretty creative and some of the designs even match the NBA stars. Mr. Swackhammer, voiced by Danny DeVito, is a very forgettable villain, serving as just the evil businessman who just wants to win at any cost. As for the side characters that aren't animated, there's Wayne Knight's Stan Podolak, Micheal's loyal publicist who Micheal finds annoying and clingy, Micheal's family members who are barely in the film since they aren't really important in the story, the five NBA stars who lose their talent as they attempt to use every type of medical treatment to find out what's wrong with them, and Bill Murray plays himself as a golfing friend of Micheal who not only asks if he's NBA material, but even joins in at the game as a fifth player when all options were out. What I like about these human side characters is that they themselves act as if they were in a cartoon from their over-the-top portrayals and quotes. The acting is pretty good across the board and you can tell that everyone had fun being on set. In fact, the majority of the characters are enjoyable on their own right, with the only bad characters being the small Nerdlucks and the generic Mr. Swackhammer.

Joe Pytka is not a director known for his feature films as this was his second and final film he has made. He's mainly known for directing various music videos, so his direction is pretty standard to say the least in the live-action segments. The only thing to really say about his directing is that he does know how to make some comedic timing. Outside of that, any other inexperienced filmmaker can pull off these scenes the same way. Pytka never really got hands-on during the animation segments, since it's not his field, hence why I'm not really going to judge his direction as a whole much. The cinematography by Micheal Chapman is also very average in the live-action segments, but does get more creative with the green-screen scenes with Jordan and the Tunes. However, it's the animation that really shines in the film. Not only is the 2D animation really good and allows a multitude of characters to be very energetic and chaotic all in the same shot, but Jordan actually looks like he blends into the animated scenes with some great green-screen work. It's not extremely convincing, mind you, but it does give off the illusion that Jordan is acting onscreen with these cartoon characters. You can't deny that the animation is great and put on a ton of effort, especially in the basketball game where a crowd of obscure characters had to be filled up by any means necessary. However, what's not really convincing are the CGI effects, which makes the movie looks more like a video game than an actual film such as Moron Mountain and Stan's inflation. To be fair, there's a bit of charm seeing really dated effects like this and it gets a chuckle out of me. If there's one thing that can rival the film's animation, it's the soundtrack. James Newton Howard provides the score and while it's not bad by any means and fits the Looney Tune aesthetic, it's the pop songs that everyone remembers. From R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly", Seal's "Fly Like An Eagle", "Space Jam" by the Quad City DJ's, and various others, this soundtrack is filled with memorable beats and hip-hop songs that it remains as one of the best movie albums to date.

"Space Jam" is a film that is easy for people to both really love and hate. If you're a hardcore Looney Tunes fan, chances are that you won't like the change of humour and tweaks to the personalities of these loveable characters and the new Tune characters such as Lola, Swackhammer, and the Nerdlucks might cause you to hate this movie. However, if you just love basketball movies, Micheal Jordan in general, and are familiar with the Looney Tunes enough, this film will fly high enough. From its insane story that complements the zany tone and pacing, the live-action segments offering some nice comedy, Jordan being fun to watch as a deadpan straight man, the side characters, Looney Tunes and Monstars being enjoyable and tolerable enough depending on your patience, the fantastic hand-drawn animation and use of green-screen to make Jordan share the same space with Bugs Bunny, and of course the killer soundtrack with plenty of great pop songs along with Howard's decent original score. The film is not perfect though with very dated CGI, the humour still being hit-or-miss at times, and the live action segments being a bit flatly and shot directed despite Pytka's comedic timing. Really, your enjoyment of the film is just based on whether or not you love over-the-top comedies or a Looney Tunes elitist.

Verdict: 6.5/10. A fun watch that's a solid piece of entertainment. Can't wait for the sequel next year with LeBron James and a return to 2D animated hybrids!

The Legend Of Tarzan (2016) Film Review: The Forgotten Blockbuster of 2016...

 2016 was a year filled with memorable blockbusters, whether they were good or bad. One film that has fallen into obscurity is the 2016 "Tarzan" film. With a massive budget and plenty of star power behind it, the film barely broke even, making sequels or any other film based on the Edger Rice Burrough's character unlikely to be made in the near future. The film follows John Clayton III, the man who was once known as Tarzan, as he is invited by George Washington Williams to return to the Congo and investigate the claims of the enslavement of the country's people. As they arrive to a familiar village, they are ambushed by Leon Rom and his men who were planning to capture Tarzan for a chieftain who will exchange diamonds for his revenge, kidnapping Jane Porter in the process. Tarzan and George now must work together in order to stop Leon's plans to conquer the country. With a couple of flashback scenes thrown in to replicate imagery and scenes from the source material, this feels more like a middle chapter of a trilogy that we never got to begin with. The film hopes that you know enough of the character before they launch you into this grand adventure, which removes some critically interesting plot points such as the romance and Tarzan's introduction to civilization. The story is pretty good though, using historical references to paint the landscape and circumstances of the Congo under the Belgian rule along with a few historical figures being prominent in the fictional plot. However, there's one issue with it. It's not much of a "Tarzan" story as the character doesn't really go through an arc that makes it a film about him specifically. The tone is also trying to be more adult and edgy with the assortment of action and death, while throwing in some humorous banter and one-liners, which does make the film a bit overdramatic at times. The comedy works every now and then, with George taking the most comedic lines for himself, but there are plenty of lines that aren't funny at all, but just leaves an awkward couple of seconds as you watch.

Alexander Skarsgard is a pretty underwhelming actor as Tarzan. While he does look the part and clearly put effort into his physicality for the role, he just has a bland personality where he's relaxed and knows exactly what's he doing in the wild due to past experiences. On top of that, he doesn't receive any character arc at all during the journey. Perhaps if he becomes more and more animal throughout the film as his civilized demeanor vanishes, that would be interesting.  The only thing noteworthy of his character is how he has done questionable things in his past, mainly the people he has killed, which doesn't really get explored outside of one very well-made scene. Samuel L. Jackson as George is perfect as always. He doesn't do much in the story and his involvement in the film does raise eyebrows, but Jackson makes the film much more entertaining from his charisma and line delivery. He brings this buddy-cop energy as the straight man who gets round up with the confident and knowledgeable Tarzan, who acts as his guide to the jungle. Margot Robbie plays Jane who for some bizarre reason is American, despite the character being British. Regardless of nationality, Jane is just a generic "strong" damsel in distress. Robbie plays the role fine, but it doesn't do any favours to the character of Jane, which I still firmly believe the Disney film still portrayed brilliantly. Christoph Waltz plays the villainous Rom, a Belgain captain who is driven by greed and plans to buy tens of thousands of mercenaries in order to conquer the Congo. Waltz delivers a very devilish performance and adds plenty of character and personality to an otherwise one-note character. I also like the rosary being his signature weapon of sorts. Lastly, there's Chief Mbonga played by Djimon Hounsou, a bitter leader of a tribal group who wants revenge against Tarzan for the death of his son, who killed Tarzan's adoptive ape mother by accident. Outside of one fantastic scene where the two are at knifepoint as Mbonga drills into Tarzan about his son, the character barely gets involved in the plot. Hounsou looks extremely well for the part and he acts perfectly, but the character and his tribe don't do anything during the climax, which makes his inclusion pretty pointless as a whole. The cast itself is very good, though the leads aren't the most engaging due to their lackluster personality, which isn't blamed on Skarsgard or Robbie rather the way the characters themselves were written.

David Yates is known for directing the later half of the "Harry Potter" films and the "Fantastic Beasts" series, which gives some confidence as this is a man who knows how to make big budget films and adding some nice visuals and set pieces. The cinematography by Henry Braham is really good. There are some beautiful establishing shots of the Congo and there is some cool and creative imagery, along with some well-shot close-ups. The camera can get a tad shaky at times, but it's not to the point of distracting you. The sets are extremely good and the added effects to extend the exteriors and landscape are convincing to say the least. I was actually shocked to learn that the film was all filmed in a studio outside of some landscape shots. The filmmakers did an excellent job in making the environment feel alive and making the actors feel like they are indeed in the Congo. You can tell that the $180 million budget went mainly to make these sets and environments look as realistic to the location as possible, which should be congratulated and was clearly why Yates was chosen in order to manage the budget and focus on the set design. The score by Rupert-Gregson Williams is decent as well, though the tribal music and singing is what's really making it memorable. However, Yates really shouldn't have collaborated with Mark Day for the editing. Not only do scenes get cut way too early, linger a bit too long or just randomly thrown in with a weird reaction shot, but they really harm the film's action sequences. The action has some awesome set-pieces such as George shooting down plenty of Rom's men and saving Tarzan, the train sequence, and the climax, but the editing has so many jump-cuts added in, perhaps to hide the poor stunt choreography or to avoid making the action look extremely violent. Perhaps if the film was rated R and the editing wasn't as hectic, the action would be spectacular. However, there's also the CGI to point out. I'm not going to lie, the effects aren't all that bad in the film. Not only do they nicely bring the environments and sets to life, but the animals look rather decent. The apes aren't extremely realistic like "Planet of the Apes", but the CGI is not bad for bringing the animals to life. However, it's really bad during the daytime action scenes. Whether it's Tarzan swinging to the train or a stampede of wildebeests destroying a port town, the effects are painfully noticeable and does make the film look much cheaper than it really is. So, Yates knows how to bring environments and sets to life, but he can't make a coherent action scene and does at times overuse the CGI.

"The Legend of Tarzan" is honestly a rather decent film, despite how forgotten it has become. Sure, there are plenty of issues one can point out, from the story not really relating to Tarzan, the lack of character arc Tarzan goes through, Jane being really generic, Mbonga being completely underutilized, some really awkward dialogue at times, the editing is a hot mess with the action sequences being completely butchered, and some poor uses of CGI in action scenes. However, I won't lie that there's so much that's actually good in the film. Although it's not a Tarzan story per se, the story itself is engaging and uses historical events and figures excellently, there are some good one liners that balance the more mature tone, Jackson's involvement automatically makes the film more entertaining, Waltz being an engaging villain, the cast in general giving it their all despite the writer's limitations, the great cinematography by Braham, the spectacular set design and environmental effects to make you believe that the actors went to Africa, some decent CGI on the animals, an above average score by Williams, and Yates's seasoned directing duty making the film as cinematic as you can get. I wish that this film did some changes with the violence, character arcs, and editing, but at the end of the day, there's surprisingly quite a bit for me to come back to. Considering that we might not see Disney remake their "Tarzan" film for a long time, I think that this is the best they could have done.

Verdict: 6/10. A decent romp that, while very flawed, can get you to chuckle and be engaged quite a bit. Watch it for the first time with no expectations and see for yourself.

The Princess and the Frog (2009) Film Review: The Best Of The Disney Revival Era!

The Disney Revival Era is also known as the second Disney Renaissance, a period where the company put out hit after hit from 2008 to the current year, critically or financially. It started out with 2008's "Bolt" and was followed up by what Disney hoped would be their grand comeback after years of disappointment, as well as the return to 2D animation after a five year hiatus. However, "The Princess and the Frog" didn't set the box office on fire and when "Tangled" was released the year after, Disney completely separated itself from hand-drawn animation. "The Princess and the Frog" is not seen as a modern classic or even that relevant ten years later, but I personally believe that this is in fact the best film Disney had made over the last decade. The story follows Tiana, a workaholic waitress who hopes to open a restaurant for her late father's memory in New Orleans. At a friend's costume party, she encounters a frog who turns out to be Prince Naveen who hopes that a kiss from a princess would break the spell. The kiss backfires as Tiana turns into a frog herself due to her not being a princess in the first place. The two of them now have to work together in order to break the spell as well as thwart a local voodoo witch doctor who is planning to take over the city. What works so well about the story is all of the creative liberties given to the source material. The original fairy tale was way too short to adapt into a full-fledged movie, so they have to completely rework the entire story by the setting of New Orleans and the character development of the leads. The story isn't the easiest to follow though as from the villain's plan to the reversal of the curse and all of the technicalities in between. To be fair, it makes for a more interesting narrative and outcome compared to the average family film, but more younger audiences will be way more confused by all the twists and turns. The tone however is pitch perfect. You got the above-average humour and the lighthearted adventure, but there's a hidden element of dread whether it's the villain's actions or the pressure to remove the curse. It's no "Tarzan" or "Hunchback" by any means, but I love the slight adult edge it carries.

Tiana is perhaps the best princess character Disney has created. Not only does she have a fiery and loveable personality, but she goes through a very interesting character arc. Tiana is a workaholic, obsesses about trying to open a restaurant up for her father's sake, but she has denied finding love or cutting loose in the process. However, as she spends more time with Naveen, she realizes that what she wants is not what she needs, and what she needs is love. Prince Naveen is also the best prince character Disney made as well. Naveen has a fun-loving, energized personality that conflicts with Tiana's more serious and judgy character. Naveen also starts to realize that money isn't everything and his goal to marry a rich woman starts to go away once he starts to fall in love with Tiana. The film's strength are the leads and the romance between them, which many Disney films tend to have a hard time perfecting these elements in one film. It's the most believable when it comes to chemistry and it's the one you root for the most, since you love both of the characters, not because you love just one of them. Dr. Facilier or the Shadowman as the locals call him is a solid villain. He's a man who just want riches in exchange for the souls of New Orleans, but has voodoo magic and allies from an unholy place in order to aid him. He's not the strongest villain that Disney made, but he is largely helped mainly by his animation and Keith David's vocal performance. Side characters range from Louis, an alligator who plays the trumpet and wants to perform on stage, Charlotte, Tiana's best friend who is a rich, spoiled woman who wants to marry Prince Naveen, Mama Odie, a blind, old witch doctor who helps guide the characters on how to break the spell, Ray, a Cajun firefly who is in love with the Evening Star, and Lawrence, Naveen's valet who works alongside Facilier in order to marry Charlotte and inherit her wealth in the process. All of the characters are actually enjoyable in their own way. Sure, Charlotte and Ray can get a tad annoying, but you tend to slowly warm up to their antics. However, it's Tiana and Naveen that remain the most engaging characters.

This film was the last Disney film to use hand-drawn animation with a big budget, and man, does it look beautiful. I always prefer hand-drawn animation more than CGI due to the impressive work and skill required to do it. One can appreciate hand-drawn since it needed the animator to bring characters and locations to life with passion driving them. New Orleans looks great and recognizable and the 1920's setting makes it very unique for the medium as this is the most modern time period Disney ever did with 2D animation. The bayou location is mainly just a dark swamp, but it still looks pleasant to be in. The colours pop with the expressive characters, backgrounds and effects. It's a very lively movie to say the least. The character animation is also fantastic, mainly due to the variety of humans, species and age groups involved. They all move so fluently, even more than the CGI animated films. Speaking of CGI, there's practically no special effects for it in the film. Outside of perhaps a few carriages in the background during the beginning, there's no CGI effect that stands out, which helps you to appreciate the hand-drawn work even more. The score and songs are by Randy Newman, which is the mixed-bag of the otherwise flawless film. The music sounds very much like Toy Story, and it pulls me out from the film. To be fair, it's not bad and it does work on occasion, but I just feel that Newman's music is just not the greatest match for this film. The songs are also a mixed bag as it ranges from quality. "Down in New Orleans", "Almost There" and "When We're Human" are pretty good songs, but it's "Friends on the Other Side" that shines as the best song in the film which is once again due to David's fantastic vocal performance. However, there are quite a few stinkers in here. "Dig a Little Deeper", "Gonna Take You There", and "Ma Belle Evangeline" are just bad in my opinion as they feel the most like filler songs and just don't match the others. I feel that if the soundtrack and music were done much better, I believe that this film wouldn't been looked down upon as much compared to "Tangled" or "Frozen".

"The Princess and the Frog" is a film that rivals many of the CGI films made by Disney during the decade from its great update of the story,  a tone that's geared towards both older and younger generations, very good humour all around, extremely loveable leads and chemistry, a memorable villain with a fantastic song of his own, enjoyable side characters that never get you annoyed, beautiful hand-drawn animation, and some catchy songs in between. The only issue the film has is Randy Newman's score and the few bad songs thrown in, which does impact the soundtrack negatively for sure. The film as a whole though is brilliant and I feel that it's the last great Disney film that they put out, not because of hand-drawn animation being completely thrown away, but the creative stories and well-written leads as well.

Verdict: 9/10. An amazing film only hampered by some awful music every now and then. If you haven't seen this film yet, please do by any means!

Cinderella (2015) Film Review: The Best Of The Modern Disney Remakes???

Since I reviewed the "Aladdin" remake a couple of weeks ago, I felt I should bring up what I feel is the best of the live-action Disney remakes made in the past decade. While I still think the 1994 "Jungle Book" film is my favourite, the "Cinderella" remake might be my second favourite. I think all of you know how the story goes, so I'm going to skim through it. Ella, nicknamed Cinderella, is a hard-working girl who is forced to do the chores of the household due to her stepmom's controlling nature. When the palace invites every maiden in the kingdom as prince Kit befriended Cinderella prior to the event, her abusive family leaves her behind at home. Cinderella though is helped by her fairy godmother to make an impression at the ballroom. The classic fairy-tale remain very much the same, but with some smart updates and changes compared to the original animated film. These include fleshing out the characters of the prince, king and the stepmother to be more realistic and human, significantly reducing the screen-time of the mice, and include more backstory and development for Cinderella, along with some story tweaks. Most of these are great improvements, though there are some issues when it comes to Cinderella and the fairy godmother that we will touch upon. The tone is also well-handled as it's for the most part lighthearted with moderate doses of humour. However, there is still some space for some drama surrounding the lead, which works very well most of the time.

Lily James as Cinderella is a role that's hard for me to judge. Personally, I think James does a good performance, but the character is not exactly very fleshed-out to be very relatable, as she's just a walking metaphor for the theme of the film. While she does get into some dramatic moments, the issue is that she feels a bit unrealistic personality-wise due to her overwhelming gullible nature and forgiving attitude. Cate Blanchett is fantastic as Lady Tremaine though. Not only was the character's motivation behind her actions brought into light, but Blanchett plays her role with style and grace that you at times side with the villain due to her charisma. Richard Madden as the prince is good as well, bringing in way more personality compared to the original with his reluctance to move in to his father's position as king. Then, there's Helena Bonham Carter as the Fairy Godmother. She's not bad by any means, but her comedy wasn't very funny. However, it's her constant narration of the story that really gets on people's nerves as she's reinstating the obvious past the first act. On top of that, a lot of people would have just preferred if the character was older, much like the original's grandparent-like caring personality. The side characters are all well-acted and characterized from the stepsisters, the king, the grand duke, and the captain of the guard. I personally like the update to have the stepsisters not be ugly, but rather unskillful on top of their bratty personality. The mice can't even be considered characters as they don't even talk, but you can tell who they are supposed to be from the original. Honestly, the entire cast is great, but the main issue is that the character of Cinderella and the Fairy Godmother don't really make themselves appealing.

Kenneth Branagh is a director known for his visionary eye, bringing kingdoms to life with surreal amounts of colour. Branagh does a perfect job in his work and unlike Guy Richie's work on "Aladdin", actually uses his eye-candy aesthetic into good use. I think the one thing people are going to get out of the film is the costume design, as they are both stylish and colourful to the saturated world. The settings are also very well constructed and designed from the warm yet cold aesthetic of Cinderella's childhood home and the glamorous palace. You can tell a lot of the Disney budget went to the aesthetic of the film, which is its shining achievement. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is also very good from some creative shots and iconography. What's not very good though is Partrick Doyle's score. It's not awful, but it shoves the magical, whimsical music so much into your ears that it becomes almost as abusive as Lady Tremaine. The CGI is also on the weaker end as you can tell that it's one of the few elements Branagh didn't need to put much focus on, along with the budget being surprisingly modest. The effects are just very average to say the least. What you see is what you get, and what you got are fake mice, stags, and lizards that don't feel or look realistic. Regardless, Branagh's skills are put to the test and accomplish the look and feel of the film, even if a few things are lacking.

"Cinderella" is honestly my second favourite Disney remake, and my favourite from the past decade. To be fair though, it has quite a bit of issues from Cinderella's personality, the misuse of the Fairy Godmother, the over-bearing score by Doyle, and the below-average effects. However, there's so much that's done well from the mostly smart and creative changes from the original while keeping the story itself identical enough, the tone being a simple use of lighthearted drama and comedy, Cate Blanchett's performance as Lady Tremaine, the cast and characters in general, Branagh's visionary directing, the aesthetic of the film ranging from the costumes to the interiors of the sets, and Zambarloukos's cinematography complementing Branagh's direction. For me though, the big take-away and why I have this as my favourite from the modern remakes is how they written the story to be different, but same enough that it respects the original, but stands out as its own to a degree. The issue with a lot of these remakes is that they either strive too far from the source material or stick way too close to it with unnecessary changes. I hope future remakes really learn from Branagh's work and this specific remake, because if not, we will continue to suffer from weaponized nostalgia bait.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good remake, but it could have been much stronger. Maybe the new "Mulan" can learn from this film, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

Shaft (2000) Film Review: How To Reboot A Dated Franchise Perfectly.

The "Shaft" films from the 1970's were blaxploitation crime films that remained one of the most successful in its genre, both financially and critically. So, when the franchise started to become more irrelevant as time went by, a reboot was made in order to kick-start a new series of films. However, production issues and meddling results at the box office caused this film to fall back into obscurity. In this sequel/reboot, John Shaft II is a police detective who is hellbent on making Walter Wade Jr, the son of a wealthy man, serving jail-time after he gets away of murdering a black man in cold blood. As the justice system fails to sentence Wade twice, Shaft quits the police force and attempts to handle the case by himself by finding the only witness of the attack who refuses to participate. Wade is also pursuing the witness and partners up with a Dominican drug lord named Peoples in order to hunt down and kill the witness to tie all loose ends. What works about the story is that it's perfectly simple to follow, but throws in twists and turns to make the wild goose chase more engaging. As much as I enjoy the 2019 film, the story is just uninteresting as it's your typical overly-complicated crime set-up that feels really unrealistic. The story for the 2000 film works much better due to the simple premise, but sprinkles in some nice plot events in order to keep the narrative fresh. It also helps that the pacing of the film is perfect with very little filler involved in the story. The tone leans more towards a serious take, but it does have its own cheeky humour, mainly from the one-liners and Shaft's personality of a womanizing, smooth detective. The 2019 film is perhaps the funniest of the franchise as there's more attempts to give out some great, raunchy humour, but the 2000 film has a more balanced experience as the story takes more of the centerstage rather than the comedy.

Samuel L. Jackson is just perfect as Shaft, emulating both the badass crime-stopping detective while having a charming, yet hot-headed personality that causes him to be so likeable by his peers and the ladies. Sure, it's mainly just Samuel L. Jackson playing a more glorified version of himself, but he does it so perfectly. Christian Bale as Walter Wade Jr. is slimy and despicable as both a vulnerable, but untouchable bastard who attempts to get away from murder. What I like is that he's not really the main threat to Shaft as he seems to get himself in positions where he lacks power from his ill-fated partnership with Peoples Hernandez, played by an over-the-top Jeffery Wright with a convincing Spanish accent. Peoples is just a fun villain for his crazy and demanding outbursts, while also having some intense, calm, charming conversations. Wright is almost unrecognizable as Peoples and practically becomes this Spanish drug lord the first time you see him. The side characters range from Vanessa Williams's Carmen Vasquez, a police detective who helps Shaft in his case, Busta Rhymes's Rasaan, a messy, pot-headed friend of Shaft who assists him as his drive-away guy, Toni Colette as Diane Palmieri, a waitress who is threatened by Wade after she saw him attack his victim, and Richard Roundtree as John Shaft I, the "uncle" of Shaft who acts as a guide and word of advice to his "nephew". I'm putting quotation marks here, since the 2019 film retconned this into his father pretending to be his uncle, which is a clever joke in hindsight. The cast is generally well-acted and even smaller characters that I chose not to mention can get a nice highlight in the film. None of the actors slip out of their roles or come across as awkward, they all stay in their convincing characters as long as they appear onscreen.

The late John Singleton directed this film as if it was almost a home video given some budget for some nice flair, giving the film this independent look while still being professionally directed. It's almost trying to visually pay homage to the franchise's humble beginnings. What is great about Singleton's direction is that he attempts to make the film as if it was set in the 70's, as outside of the modern soundtrack, the film never uses modern technology or political background at all. It makes it more in line to the franchise than the modern and updated take in the 2019 film. This can also act as a double-edged sword though as some viewers might not like the dated aesthetic of the film. It's a shame that Singleton passed away young as he was a talent in the industry. The cinematography is good with great uses of close-ups and establishing shots, as well as emulating the feel of the original by its simplicity. The score by Dave Arnold is mostly reusing the main theme from the 70's, which personally works well in my opinion. Considering that the film isn't obsessed of showing the updated technology and landscape, the seemingly outdated score blends well due to the lack of attention given to the late 90's world. The soundtrack is really good with the highlights being Black Rob's "Whoa" and of course the Oscar-winning Shaft theme. Personally, I prefer the soundtrack of the 2019 film more, but this one is also pretty good. The last thing to mention would be the action, which isn't supposed to be the takeaway of the film. The shootouts present are filmed as if they were made back in the 70's. So, you got a bit of over-acted deaths, not much use of blood outside of headshots, and a style that feels low-budget rather than going for style. However, it should be pointed out that this was intentional. Singleton was practically trying to emulate the 70's films with just a new fresh coat of paint, so the action should feel similar to that. I feel it's more effective than the 2019 film, as that tried to be stylish and modern, but came across as generic and boring outside of the climax.

The 2000 "Shaft" is a film that perfectly reboots and pays tribute to the 70's franchise. Sure, it's not extremely funny, the action isn't something to write about, and the film really commits to the 70's filmmaking aesthetic that it might turn some viewers off, but honestly, these are barely issues. From the simple yet engaging story, Samuel L. Jackson's charisma as Shaft, the villains being so well acted and despicable from the talents of Jeffery Wright and Christian Bale, the side characters being memorable in some capacity, Singleton's excellent directing that homages the roots of the franchise, good cinematography, and a catchy soundtrack and score despite the unoriginality. To be honest, the first time I watched it, I thought it was just okay. But the second time, I completely understood why the film was made the way it is, which gains a lot of respect from me. As much as I did bring up the issues of the 2019 film, I personally enjoy the franchise and all of its entries, with the 2000 film perhaps being as great as the original.

Verdict: 9/10. A great film that's perfect in its mission and existence. Give it a watch if you want to watch a slightly modern take on the franchise or if you love anything Jackson stars in.

Constantine (2005) Film Review: A Hellish Delight?

When a women commits suicide, her detective sister doesn't believe that she would kill herself due to her devout Christian practices. Seeking help from John Constantine, a cynical, occult detective and exorcist, they learn that there's much more to the suicide, which is tied to the son of Lucifer attempting to claim Earth involving the Spear of Destiny. Based on the DC comics and character, the movie makes plenty of changes to the source material, but still makes the story feel like it fits the character. The story itself is a bit of a mixed bag, as it does have a bit too much stuffed inside. The Spear of Destiny is shown in the beginning, but disappears until the end of the film when it becomes relevant. There's also plenty of characters that serve some purpose in the story that makes it bloated. However, by the end, everything clicks in place in order for everything to make sense from the motives and overarching narrative. It's a story that seems confusing and muddled at first viewing, but by the end, you understand what's been happening up until now. This does create a viewing experience though that some might tackle or give up their attention on, depending on one's patience. It doesn't help for the impatient viewers that the tone takes itself very seriously, giving it a dull exterior. That doesn't mean that there's no humour in the film, as there are plenty of good lines in the film that reflect the personality of the source material, but you can tell that the film is focused more on being epic rather than fun for the audience, which once again can divide some people.

Keanu Reeves as John Constantine is one of the most miscast performances in his career. Constantine is supposed to be a blonde, British, punk who's cynical personality causes the people around him to both love and hate him. Not only does Reeves not match that criteria, but he plays the character more seriously with a quiet, monotone voice. To be fair, when the writing makes the character feel like the source material from his lines and actions, it works really well, regardless of Reeves's performance or not. However, many would just wished that Matt Ryan played the role. Rachel Weisz plays Angela, an LA police detective who has the repressed ability of a psychic who joins Constantine in figuring out her sister's suicide and her unknown role of a demon uprising. Although she does have some interesting moments in the story, Angela is just your typical, "strong" female character entering a new world of the hero, even though the two never get together by the end. Shia LeBouf plays Chas Kramer, an apprentice to Constantine who while inexperienced has studied the ways of the occult and wants to prove his worth to his master. He's not in the movie much and although he's supposed to be the comic relief, Chas never becomes irritating as you'd think. Dijmon Honsou plays Papa Midnite, a witch doctor who runs an underground club who, despite his neutral status, aids Constantine. Honsou is well-cast as Midnite and I did wish that he got more time onscreen, since he's an intriguing character. Tilda Swinton plays Gabriel, a half-breed angel who plans to unleash Mammon due to their distain against humanity. Swinton plays the role fine as this angelic, powerful figure, but the issue is that there's barely enough time of her onscreen to suggest her true nature or villainous position. Peter Stormare as Lucifer though is casting that's just fantastic. He's so over-the-top compared to the tone and characters, but his charisma is just so fun to watch and provides a very different take on the character. Also, the way he is used in the film is just so extremely well-written that it just breathes the comic. The only characters that really don't work are the characters of Beeman and Father Hennessy, allies of Constantine who get dispatched throughout the film. The issue of these characters is that not only do we have Chas as the loyal ally already, but we don't know anything about these characters. The only memorable thing about them is how Hennessy dies, which is a cool death scene as he seems to be unable to drink alcohol no matter what, but he actually drowned from all of the liquor he seemingly couldn't get a taste of. Other than that though, they really should have just made Chas fit these roles rather than having two more characters that are just going to die anyway. Overall, the casting and characters are average with some of the characters being very effective in their role and some of them being generic and bland, which mirrors the mixed-bag result of Keanu Reeves as Constantine.

Francis Lawrence's directorial debut is one that's unpolished, but shows the the visionary talent of the director. One thing that I won't defend though is the very dark aesthetic of the movie. It's very gothic and dreary and can be unappealing to look at sometimes. However, certain locations such as Midnight's nightclub and the hospital are nicely designed and lit for the mood of the scene. The hospital in general gets plenty of visual cosmetics, which is thanks to the lighting that gives context of the situation. You can tell Lawrence has the eye to make some great-looking imagery though. From the scene where the possessed Mexican walks towards a herd of cattle that die and rot as he walks near, to the sequence where Angela is pulled away by an unseen force creating holes throughout the office building and walls, or the slowed down moments as one descends to Hell. I like the design and concept of Hell, which is a windy, rustic, destroyed Los Angeles where time stops in the real world for one, and the demons are varied and creatively designed. The CGI isn't amazing though. You can tell what is made from a green-screen or from a computer, but the designs overcome the average effects. The cinematography by Philippe Rousselot is good, but misused at times. There are some great establishing and close-up shots, plenty of which offer some nice visual flair when perfectly edited, but the editing is pretty awkward at times, inserting some unneeded shots or cuts that ruin the purpose of the shot. The music by Brian Tyler and Klaus Badelt is hard to judge, mainly due to the lack of it. The score is very minimalistic and the film mainly keeps it subdued, only bringing it out during the action moments or pivotal plot sequences. When it appears though, it's decent, albeit you crave to hear more of it as soon as it goes away. The two songs used throughout the film though reeks of early 2000's, but it has its charm. The last thing to look at would be the action scenes. There's not much of it and it's very underwhelming if you came in expecting action. I for one didn't expect much to begin with, since the character in the comics is more of a detective rather than a hero that battles evil, but it's pretty disappointing. Outside of the sequence of Angela's abduction and Lucifer's intervention, the action scenes last way too shortly and generally lack a uniquely, cool impact to it. The scene where Constantine uses holy water and a crucifix shotgun is very ripped out of Blade and the scenes where he battles a specific demon such as the insect one and the generic, side-villain are very anti-climatic due to Constantine being able to stand his own by sheer luck, whether it's a car or unestablished brass knuckles. However, considering that the action isn't really in the forefront as the film is more detective-thriller, I wouldn't complain about it too much.

"Constantine" is a bizarre movie to say the least. There's plenty of bad that people can point out from the overly-serious tone, the messy story, Keanu Reeves as Constantine, the generic human characters, the mediocre CGI, the ugly gothic aesthetic, the choppy editing at times, and the short, uninteresting action scenes. However, if you have knowledge of the character and source material, or if you are able to hold plenty of patience for film in general, there's actually plenty of good things in here. The story becomes much more understandable and coherent by the end of the film as all of the pieces come together for the audience as a detective story should be, plenty of great one-liners that Constantine fans would praise, the portrayal of Constantine being very different but still engaging and carrying the attitude of the source material in some excellently-written scenes, the supernatural characters are all well-casted and performed with the stand-out being Stormare as Lucifer, certain settings and creatures being well-designed and established, the cinematography by Rousselot when it's perfectly executed, the decent yet quiet score, and Lawrence's visual directing creating some fantastic scenes and imagery. It's a film that's enjoyment really relays on your general knowledge of the source material or are into supernatural, religious action-thrillers. If not, you might not like this film due to the multitude of issues. The screenplay is really the deal-maker/breaker for the viewer and it seems as if half of it was blessed by angels while the other half was cursed by unholy demons.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Personally, I managed to find enough enjoyment to call it slightly above average. It's an extremely flawed film that is only balanced by your preferences.

The Boondock Saints (1999) Film Review: An Underrated Classic Of The Action Genre.

When two Irish brothers kill two members of the Russian mafia in self-defense, they hear a calling from God that they must punish the wicked or bad men in order for the good to flourish, starting with the Russian and Italian mafia. As a friend teams up with the duo, a gay, eccentric FBI agent is tasked to solve their identities while a part of him admires the work they have done in the community. What works really well about this film is that it perfectly balances an over-the-top tone with a story that feels grounded in reality. This is not your typical action blockbuster with the unstoppable hero going up against an army of bodybags. This is a film that is at times edgy, satirical, and even intellectual over self-right justice, vigilantism and how people view them. I won't spoil the ending, but there's a brilliant scene that plays over the credits that mirrors our reality and how the everyman would either agree with the actions of the Saints or disagree with their violent ways. The film also has its share of funny moments, which is mainly due to the entertaining characters and charisma of the cast. If there is one issue with the story, it's that the pacing and story direction is a bit all over the place, as once the Russian mafia is out of the picture, the group turn their guns to the Italian mafia. I feel that perhaps the group should've focused on taking care of other small-scale criminals such as rapists or neo-Nazis. The focus on taking down the mafia is a bit too standard in the genre and the ones depicted in the film aren't the most evil bunch in media.

Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as Connor and Murphy MacManus are just great as the onscreen brothers. You can feel their chemistry being so genuine and caring as the two bicker with each other from Connor's action-movie loving mindset and Murphy's hot-headed attitude. Both brothers are written so that one isn't written to steal the other's spotlight. You can like both characters equally for their own personalities. Willem Dafoe as Agent Smecker though is perhaps the best character and one of Dafoe's best performances in his career. Smecker is a man who's so good in his job that he simply enjoys mocking the local police force with his flamboyant personality and enhanced knowledge of dissecting a crime scene. Dafoe puts so much commitment to this character that it's actually awe-inspiring as not only is the character so over-the-top and a bit demeaning, but the scene where he disguises himself as a women shows true dedication and how talented the legendary actor can be. David Della Rocco plays Rocco, a friend of the MacManus brothers and the third member of their crusade as he plans to take revenge against the Italian mafia for setting him up to a death trap. Rocco is insane, hammy, and a bit unlikeable, but you understand why the brothers care for him, as he's not only a man with plenty of info, but he is also committed to killing bad people. As much as he does feel like a scumbag, you do start to feel for the character as the film progresses. Lastly, there's Billy Connolly as Il Duce, a mysterious assassin who is tasked to kill the Saints. While he doesn't say much, his presence in scenes work effectively to show how dangerous of a man he is, until a hidden revelation about his identity is shown. There are other characters such as the local police officers assisting Smecker and the members of the mafia, but they don't stand out much due to the main cast just soaking up the spotlight. Although Dafoe might be the huge takeaway performance, Flanery, Reedus and Rocco manage to stay afloat with their engaging characters and charisma.

Troy Duffy is a director who although has very few titles to his career, proves to be a creative mind with his passion project. There is some amateur filmmaking though that sticks out like a sore thumb. The film takes place in Boston, but it was clearly shot in Toronto, which careful viewers can find TD Bank and the CN Tower in the background. The opening credit sequence is sketchy, and the use of fade to black transitions feel a bit awkward at times. However, outside of these issues, Duffy knows how to direct the meat of the film, which are the action and crime-solving sequences. Instead showing the action and have Smecker piecing the crime-scene together, we instead see the aftermath of the action and as Smecker pieces more and more of the evidence, the more we see of the action taking place. However, Duffy would also switch things up as there's an excellent sequence where we see Smecker describing what took place while we see the action unfold while sharing the same space as the Saints in a creative and visually engaging scene, along with Dafoe's scene-chewing charisma. The editing and direction of these sequences as well as every part of the action and comedic moments are just perfect. The cinematography also has great use of low angles, close-ups, and establishing shots for these sequences. I also like the choice to have a more gritty, dirty, unpolished look to the film along with the lack of striking colours outside of some bright interiors, as it adds to the film's story of the Saints cleansing the evil that lurks though the city that's more scummy than morally correct. The score by Jeff Danna is 90's cheese with the edgy, almost skater boy quality to it, but it does work for the film. I can't recall much of the soundtrack outside of that. To be honest, I wish Duffy gets more work as a director, because he clearly shows creative talent with a low budget, so imagine with a much bigger one that can iron out some amateur mistakes.

"The Boondock Saints" is one of my favourite action films, despite its flaws. The story could have done without the mafia being the villains, the side characters aren't very memorable outside of the one cop Smecker makes fun of, and Duffy's uses of fade to black transitions and awkward editing in the beginning of the film gives off a TV movie vibe to newcomers. However, despite this first impression, the film manages to become an unexpected classic. From the great story dealing with vigilantism in a realistic, but fun matter, the perfect tone to balance the humour and the grounded reality the film sets up, the main cast is excellent to say the least with memorable characters and performances, Duffy's creative and brilliant directing with the action and crime solving sequences, good cinematography to attach itself to these great sequences, editing that perfectly emulates the vision of the director, and a score that matches the goofy, fun half of the film. It's a shame that the franchise is practically dead with very little flow in the industry as the concept and characters need to be expanded on to cover other sides of the police force and the criminal underworld. It's a film that, underneath its cover of glorifying violence and twisted forms of justice, has a sold theme and proves some sort of relevancy today.

Verdict: 8/10. A great film that's flaws barely take away from the excellent qualities. Watch it if you never saw it, it's going to give you a good time no matter what.