Braveheart (1995) Film Review: A Historically Inaccurate Epic That Still Stands The Test Of Time.

 

Historical/Biopic films are a hard genre to do justice. Although it seems rather easy to just copy every event or moment that a historical figure has been recorded to be a part of, there's the issue that filmmakers need to ensure that audiences are engrossed in the film itself, which would result in fictional aspects in order to have the film be somewhat conventional in otherwise unconventional stories. Such was the case for Mel Gibson's take on the First War of Scottish Independence. In 1297, King Edward "Longshanks" has already conquered Scotland and has allowed his nobleman to take over land and earn special privileges, despite the misfortune of the Scottish people. When William Wallace marries his childhood friend, she is suddenly executed for fighting off English rapists. Wallace demands revenge as he and his plan overthrow the local English occupants, starting a war between the English and Scottish people as the latter refuse to stand down to their oppressors. I think it's common knowledge that although the film covers the basic story of Wallace and the war, there are plenty of inaccuracies scattered throughout that make the film look really questionable, especially by today's standard. From the occupation of Scotland, the portrayal of various characters, to the dramatization of the war itself, the historical inaccuracies pile on and on. With that said though, I actually don't mind the changes from history that much. Keep in mind that not only is Gibson starring and directing a medieval epic, but he not only has to do the story of Wallace and the war some sense of justice, but to also make a coherent and gripping story for a variety of audiences. Heck, if one watches the commentary, Gibson himself admits that he knew of the inaccuracies, but had to make choices for the film to be more compelling for a general audience. Regardless of the inaccurate take on history, the story still works as a medieval war flick that has a bit of comedic and romantic aspects to draw in plenty of audiences and ensure an gripping, entertaining film, you just have to accept that it's not a really good representation of what happened in history.

Mel Gibson as William Wallace at first seems like a really bad choice on people. Not only is the director the star of his own movie a really pretentious act, but the fact that he's an Australian trying to play a historical Scottish figure seems like it should derail the entire film. However, when you watch the movie, you would honestly be surprised by how good Gibson is at playing Wallace. His Scottish accent is pretty decent, he mixes his established charisma to this leader figure that makes him more likeable, he has the slower dramatic moments to flex his acting skills, and he simply brings this badass warrior that only Gibson can really pull off. Sophia Marceau as Princess Isabella of France acts well, but her character is only thrown to have another love interest for Wallace, considering the character being unrelated to Wallace in real life. Patrick McGoohan as King Longshanks does a great job as the tyrannical ruler of England who wants the Scottish people to be put to place, which he believes will occur once Wallace is dead. From then on, there are too many side characters to list, but I will name a few that I find pretty memorable. There's Angus Macfadyen's Robert the Bruce, who is conflicted whether or not he should join Wallace or follow Longshanks, Catherine McCormack's Murron, Wallace's newlywed wife and childhood friend who is killed during the first act of the film, Brenden Gleeson's Hamish, Wallace's longtime friend and formidable warrior in the army, James Cosmo's Campbell, Hamish's father who always has the spirit to fight no matter how many injuries he sustains, and Peter Hanly's Prince Edward, the son and successor to Longshanks who fears his father's wrath and is secretly a homosexual. All of the actors do a great job and the characters, major and minor, all manage to have a sense of humanity and personality, which is mainly by how great the cast is. However, even though every character gets their moment to shine, it's Gibson's leading role as Wallace that is the highlight, mainly by how he manages to excel expectations of his performance in general.

Gibson's second film directing proved to pay off as this film got him the Oscar for Best Director during that year. Regardless whether or not you like Gibson as an actor, no one can deny that he can't direct a movie. It's quite clear that his experiences in Hollywood managed to grant him this gift of directing that's unlike any other. Gibson is always known to have a sense of scale and grandeur in his films and "Braveheart" is clearly no exception. The use of backdrop locations in Ireland and Scotland for one really lets the viewer transport to that country. On top of that, the production design and costumes are great in capturing the 13th-century attire. Of course, there are some inaccuracies here and there, but I love the simplistic and raggedy costume design. There are no shiny knights or a variety of fancy uniforms, the costumes are baggy, dirty, and appropriate for the time period of the early medieval setting. The Oscar-winning cinematography by John Toll is well-deserved to say the least. Not does Toll offer excellent shots of the expanding landscape, but also some intense close-ups and carnage during the action sequences, as well as some nice angles and set-ups to showcase the sets and locations. Toll was clearly Gibson's best choice in visualizing his vision and I'm glad that he's still working to this day. The late James Horner also offers a really good score to boot, showing that everyone in the project is giving it their all. Of course there's all of the familiar Scottish beats such as the bagpipes and flutes, but offers some nice love themes and the action themes. It's nowhere near Horner's best works, but it's still very adequate. Speaking of the action, it's spectacular to say the least. Although compared to today's standards, it's not extremely bloody, but it serves as the standard for crafting well-made, extended sequences of exciting violence that series such as "Game of Thrones" take influence from. The action is always intense, you always question if the characters can pull through, and the editing by Steven Rosenblum is nicely done to show just enough of the on-screen carnage before things get too grotesque. The scene of Wallace's execution for example is fantastically put together to feel the agony and torture Wallace is going through, but Gibson and Rosenblum knew to never show any actual gore as they know Gibson's acting and audio effects are just enough to make you squirm in your seat. Inaccuracies and personality, Gibson knows how to make a fantastic film.

"Braveheart" is what you can call a flawed masterpiece. Sure, the film has a variety of historical inaccuracies that doesn't do the story of Wallace and the Scottish War of Independence full justice and the romance between Wallace and Isabella is very forced into the narrative, but aside of that, one can't deny how excellent of a film this is. From the well-balanced tone and engaging, if inaccurate, story, Gibson's acting as Wallace, the entire cast in general doing a great job giving their characters a sense of humanity and realism, the production and costume design transporting the viewer back to the 13th century, Toll's cinematography is just great, Horner's score is really good, the action sequences are extremely entertaining and well-edited by Rosenblum, and Gibson's directing offers the grand scale and scope that was necessary to accomplish the stakes and environment of the war. Even 25 years later, it's remarkable how the film is still amazing to watch and the quality of the filmmaking and acting is still preserved, despite a notorious inaccurate story. While it might not be his best film as a whole, Gibson still demonstrated that he not only has acting talent, but also the talent of a brilliant director.

Verdict: 9/10. An astonishing film that's only hampered by the historical inaccuracies. If you love medieval epics or blood-filled battles though, it's definitely one to check out!

Black Panther (2018) Film Review: Wakanda Forever...

 

With me reminding myself that nearly a month passed since Chadwick Boseman's death, I think it's time that I decide to review not only one of the most acclaimed MCU films, but my personal favourite of the franchise. With his father's recent death, T'Challa steps up as the king of Wakanda alongside his title as Black Panther. However, his recent reign has already been given plenty of challenges as he not only has to hunt down a long-evaded terrorist as well as the debate of opening up borders and helping others in need, but is also being confronted by Killmonger, the cousin of T'Challa and true heir to the throne. The story is by far one of the most riveting the MCU has to offer and that's due to the very strong writing. There are some minor issues such as the entire deal with vibranium and its functions and quantity and some odd moments for sure, but there's no real problem with the story or character decisions. Unlike many other films in the same franchise that contains plenty of plot holes and issues that are results from a contrived script, the story and characters all progress naturally and that's in thanks to the tone of the film. The MCU has only two different types of tones in their films. These include light-hearted comedies with less stakes and drama, or more serious stories with more stakes and drama while having less comedy. Not only does the film take the latter choice, but it works mainly to its advantage. From the themes explored that includes the motivations of the hero and villain as well as the debate regarding Wakanda's secrecy, to the overall epic feel to the movie as a whole, the tone is almost perfect and makes it as one of the more accessible films in the franchise. However, there's still the comedy to be concerned about. While there is an occasionally good laugh here and there, the issue is that a lot of the jokes tend to fall flat and feel forced in an otherwise mature film. It doesn't help that even a loveable character like Shuri can spew jokes about dated memes.

Chadwick Boseman as T'Challa is iconic to say the least. From the smooth charisma, the intellect and reservedness of the character, the badass moments that shows his capability as a superhero, to the African accent that works so well that hearing Boseman speak normally will be jarring every time, it's quite clear why people don't want the role recasted and how Boseman solidified the character. There's really not much to say about Boseman's performance other than that it's fantastic. In fact, the only actor that can ironically rival his performance is Micheal B. Jordan as Killmonger. Jordan mirrors the dark reflection of T'Challa from the same type of charisma, intellect, personality, and combat, but also has one of the best villain motivations with his plan to unite African-Americans across the world to fight oppression with Wakandan technology. Jordan and Boseman's on-screen rivalry offers one of the best hero and villain dynamics on top of their excellent performances. The main leads themselves are supported by a great cast of side characters. From Letita Wright's Shuri, the witty teenage sister of T'Challa who is a genius inventor, Danai Gurira's Okoye, T'Challa's bodyguard who is a master of spear-fighting, Winston Duke's M'Baku, a rival of T'Challa from the mountain tribe who eventually teams up with him, Angela Bassett's Romanda, the enduring mother of T'Challa, Forest Whitaker's Zuri, a former spy for T'Challa's father, and Andy Serkis's Klaue, the crazy terrorist who's armed with a vibranium arm cannon. While there are a good handful of enjoyable side characters, there are some that I simply can't warm up to. While I love Lupita Nyong'o as an actress, her role as Nakia, the love interest for T'Challa, is very undercooked as all of their chemistry developed offscreen, although the film does take their relationship more as an advisory-type rather than a romance. Martin Freeman as Everett Ross, the CIA agent who gets rolled up in T'Challa's hunt for Klaue, is kind of unnecessary in the story as a whole and feels like he was cast just to be the one good white guy in the movie. Last, there's Daniel Kaluuya as W'Kabi, a friend of T'Challa who drops his loyalty once the latter broke his promise to kill Klaue, who is the most underdeveloped character of the film and we never really get the sense of the friendship he and T'Challa share. Outside of some weak side characters, the cast, and, especially, the main leads of Boseman and Jordan are simply fantastic. It's also amazing that this Hollywood superhero production with a $200 million budget has a majority of black actors. There's a reason why this is considered one of the most important films of the genre as well as for the black community, and that's that kids of colour can now watch a popular, blockbuster movie where their people are the stars.

Ryan Coogler is one of the few directors who have managed to be given a lot of creative freedom by Kevin Feige, similar to James Gunn for the "Guardians of the Galaxy" films, and it's not because of his work on "Creed". The real reason and one of the film's biggest strengths is the central location of Wakanda and the production design as a whole. Outside of the creative city and imagination surrounding the fictional country and how it pools multiple African languages and cultures, I love how much like the country's obsession of isolation, the film itself feels very much isolated and stand-alone from the MCU. Outside of a scuffle in Korea, the majority of the film is centred in Wakanda, which is a location that no one from the entire world, including other superheroes, are aware of. The stakes and set-pieces only concern Wakanda and it allows a lot of reasons why T'Challa is working alone or why Iron Man doesn't show up. The stand-alone nature of the film makes it accessible to anyone, as they don't need to watch any other movie to understand what's going on. On top of that, Coogler's direction uses colour so effectively. In the cities outside of Wakanda, it's very unfiltered and is mainly visually pleasing at night. In Wakanda though, the scenes explode with colour with the daytime scenes just showing the beauty of the city and the African landscape. The use of black and purple is such a nice combination and Coogler puts detail into his colour palette. The cinematography by Racheal Morrison is great with the use of tracking shots and establishing shots. The camerawork for the most part really works around with the CGI effects, although some things can get a bit messy during the third act. The Oscar winning-score by Ludwig Goransson majestic to say the least and is the standard for how to make a great, modern superhero soundtrack. From the Wakanda theme, the Astral Plane theme, Killmonger's theme, and the various action beats that resemble a mixtape of African-inspired music, Goransson deserves every bit of that medal and has became one of my favourite modern composers. The action sequences are for the most part memorizing to watch, with the variation of combat used, both unarmed and weaponry, as well as the various gadgets that are introduced such as Shuri's arm cannons. Then, there's the CGI, which I feel the film tends to really overuse. For the scenes revolving around the city, background landscapes, ships and laser blasts, along with some action moments, it's acceptable and does look polished. But, things get really overboard by the climatic battle. Of course there's the infamous tunnel scene, but even the battle happening above ground looks more like a cartoon as the colours, weaponry and war rhinos all mash together to a CGI mess. On top of that, I simply prefer the suit/costume T'Challa wore in "Civil War" not only by how much cooler it looks, but it doesn't have the ability to emit explosive blasts whenever T'Challa launches himself. I know that was part of the comics, but I feel that it's a pretty overpowered ability on top of an unbreakable suit and combat mastery. Regardless, Coogler did a fantastic job directing and I'm happy that Feige gave him as much freedom as possible given the franchise limitations.

"Black Panther", in my opinion, might be the best MCU film to date, regardless of my personal favourite title. It's not flawless, in fact, all of the MCU films have some critical flaw of some sort. The use of vibranium can get pretty out there at times, some of the jokes really don't work at all, the characters of Nakia, Everett Ross, and W'Kabi are very underdeveloped and not very likeable or necessary in the long run, the CGI can vary in quality and be extremely overused, and the climatic battle, as fun as it can be, feels artificial and cartoony from the overbearing amount of colours and effects. Despite these issues, there are plenty of reasons why this is being regarded as one of the best superhero films to date. From the great story that feels adult and asks difficult questions, the mostly serious tone that complements the maturity of said story, the performances of Boseman and Jordan giving us not only great characters, but an excellent dynamic for the hero and villain, a very good supporting cast of loveable characters and actors, the cultural significance of the film in general, the use of colour, Morrison's pleasing cinematography, Goransson's excellent soundtrack, enjoyable action sequences, and above all, Coogler's direction of not only creating a distinct location of Wakanda and using so many cultures spread across Africa, but the stand-alone nature of the film compared to the universe it inhabits. I don't think this film even needs a sequel, considering that it doesn't even foreshadow one to begin with. Disney and Marvel should really just let this film be the exception as not only a great film, but as an important piece in Boseman's legacy.

Verdict: 8.5/10. If a few of these issues were ironed out, it would have been a masterpiece. Even then, it's still one hell of a superhero film.

Alien Resurrection (1997) Film Review: No Resurrections This Time...

The "Alien" franchise is one that is honestly one of the more quality-ensured in cinematic history. Aside from the "AVP" films, practically all of the films, from the original to the prequels, have a lot of strengths to them. While not all of them are masterpieces, they, at the very least, offer some very good efforts. However, there is one film in the series that has and never will come near to that quality, the fourth and last title in the main series. Set 200 years after "Alien 3", the United Systems Military have finally resurrected Ellen Ripley and the xenomorph Queen embryo inside her following the former's self-sacrifice. As the military begins to study the aliens via fresh bodies donated by mercenaries, the aliens quickly begin to grow in intelligence and escape their cells. As Ripley and the mercenaries attempt to survive and prevent the ship from landing on Earth, she starts to exhibit a type of connection to the aliens due to their DNA's merging, allowing the aliens to become smarter and Ripley to exhibit enhanced physical abilities, and the creation of a new, grotesque alien hybrid known as the Newborn. The biggest problem of the story is the lack of real stakes and tension. As the military finally gets their hands on the xenomorph, they quickly learn that this was a bad idea. The "tension" is that the ship is making its way to Earth, potentially spreading the species to the planet. Their big plan to stop it? Crash the ship into Earth anyways and cause a nuclear explosion. On top of that, if you watch the Special Edition, we learn that Earth is in fact a wasteland, so what was the point of attempting to save it to begin with? All of these issues can be ignored if the tone kept itself seriously, which it clearly doesn't. Joss Whedon wrote a very over-the-top, cartoonish script that contains some of the most ridiculous moments in the franchise. I understand that this is in response to the very bleak "Alien 3", but man, it goes overboard. From the double kill combo from the chestburster, the death of General Perez, and the demise of the Newborn are just so insane that it almost comes across as a parody at times.

Sigourney Weaver returns as Ripley, but she's clearly phoning it in for this film as she doesn't bring that sense of investment or charisma for the majority of the runtime. Ripley's personality is also all over the place due to her clone, alien-crossed status and acts very horny now as she talks about the aliens in general. While there is an occasional good scene by Weaver that makes the character feel some sense of drama, she's clearly not bringing in the same energy as before. Winona Ryder as Call is added as a pretty unnecessary addition as the android that Ripley connects with for her touch with humanity despite being a machine. I understand what they were going for, but it just felt that they wanted to add a popular, uprising actress in the film and it generally feels like that as a result. The side characters range from very enjoyable to really bland and forgettable. Ron Pearlman's Johner, the arrogant, selfish member of the mercenaries is perhaps the most beloved in the film, Dominique Pinon as Vriess, the handicapped mechanic who bickers with Johner constantly for his attitude and bullying is very fun, Gary Dourdan's Christie, the first mate of the crew and has the signature sleeve pistols has a likeable prescence, and Brad Dourif's Dr. Gediman, the scientist who obsesses over the alien creatures is just as enjoyably hammy as ever. Aside from them though, the rest are just not that engaging. Micheal Wincott's Elgyn, the captain of the mercenaries who dies fairly early is painfully boring, Kim Flower's Hillard, the lover of Elgyn who does practically nothing at all, Dan Hedaya's General Perez who feels like he was auditioning for "Machete" rather than an "Alien" movie, J.E. Freeman's Dr. Wren is the typical evil scientist who backstabs the group for no real reason other than he's bad, Raymond Cruz's Distephano as a soldier who joins the group and has the generic monotone soldier personality to boot, and Leland Orser's Lerry, a human host to a chestburster who only exists to be involved in the most over-the-top death of the franchise. It's a very mixed bag of enjoyable performances and engaging characters, but it's quite a shame that Johner, Vriess, Christie, and Dr. Gediman are more entertaining than Ripley in this movie.

Jean-Pierre Jeunet's only contribution to an American production is one that remains a very interesting mark on his resume to say the least. Mainly hired for his style and being able to follow studio orders and avoiding conflict, you can tell that Jeunet gave the executives the film that they wanted, which to their credit, isn't a bad one by its cover. The production design and stylization is the most notable aspect of the film, for better or for worse. It tends to feel more like a music video or a surrealist production at times with the erotic themes and crazy cinematography by Darius Khondji. There's so much variety of angles that it does range in quality. Some shots and sequences can look really good, while others feel a bit awkward at times. At the very least, there's a sense of life and energy to the filmmaking that captures your attention and embraces the zaniness of the tone and film, but that acts as a double-edged sword as a result. The score by John Frizzel is for sure the weakest in the franchise. No disrespect for Frizzel and his work, but it just lacks any memorable beats or rhythms that the other films carry. It works fine as it is, but I can't remember anything from the soundtrack outside of the awesome trailer music. The action scenes are well-made and do have some neat scenarios such as the underwater sequence, but they not only feel flashy in its editing, but the action beats don't compare to the intensity and epic feel to "Aliens". The visual effects are somewhat of a mixed-bag. The shots of space and the spaceships flying around feels pretty dated as the miniature work isn't that convincing, but the aliens, for the most part, look really good. At times, the CGI is obvious as they look way too shiny in scenes, but they look the best when they are people in suits or animatronics. The Newborn creature is also brought to life really well and while the design is grotesque, it works for the hybrid nature and attempt of tragedy of the being. The make-up and gore though is where the film really needed to tone the heck down. I love gory movies at times, but the film at times goes far and beyond to disgust you. While there are some well-done deaths, the last three regarding Dr. Gediman, Distephano, and the Newborn are just nasty. The death of the Newborn is especially the most unpleasant scene in the film as it not only tries to make you feel bad for the monster as it screams in pain, but the way it dies by being sucked out of the ship through a tiny hole while its insides is blown out is just so unpleasant. It now joins the ranks of scenes that make me want to vomit with the third act of "Akira" being the only sequence that trumps it. Jeunet's filmmaking talent is perhaps the only thing that keeps the film more than a terrible movie, if I'm being completely honest.

"Alien Resurrection" is clearly the worst film in the franchise by a mile. From a lackluster story that has no stakes whatsoever, over-the-top tone that feels out of nature in the series, Weaver's performance being less invested in Ripley's erotic-behaving character, Call feels forced in due to Ryder's star power, some of the side characters are just completely forgettable and unnecessary as a whole, Frizzel's soundtrack is underwhelming compared to the rest of the franchise, some questionable miniature work, and a few death scenes that go way too far to gross you out, it's not hard to see why the fourth film in the franchise has very little fans pleading for its defense. However, it's not all that bad as there are a few redeeming qualities to the film that makes it far better than the "AVP" films. Some of the side characters are very enjoyable to watch and root for, even more so than Ripley at times, the unique cinematography by Khandji, the action sequences are enjoyable and feel the most in spirit to the franchise, the effects and make-up of the alien creatures are very well-detailed and expressed, and Jeunet's music-video-like stylization does make the film have a eye candy value to it and offers a distinct look in the franchise, regardless about how you feel about the film as a whole. At the end of the day, it's good that the series still remains strong with Scott's prequel films as if this was the last film of the franchise as a whole, it would be a far more painful experience to sit through. 

Verdict: 4/10. A bad movie overall and the only real stinker in an otherwise solid franchise. One viewing is all you really need for this film and that's generous compared to other bad movies.

 

Nightcrawler (2014) Film Review: A Modern Thriller Masterpiece.

 

If there is an actor who has never gotten much recognition for his acting skills, Jake Gyllenhaal is definitely one that might pop up in your head. Tie this with a film that not only has him in the starring role as he just takes over the film with his amazing talent, but the film itself also received barely any acknowledgement from the Academy? You got a recipe for an experience that ages like fine wine. Louis Bloom is a petty thief living in a rundown apartment in Los Angeles. One night, Louis comes across a car accident and a couple of men known as stringers, who are freelance cameraman who try to get as much video footage as possible about grisly aftermaths before the police show up to close off the area. Being inspired, Lou gets his own equipment and even an assistant as he works exclusively for a local news station who the news director, Nina Romina, is seeking for the most gritty and eye-catching footage that Lou can offer. However, as Lou gets more and more sucked into his job and develops a desensitization for the misery and death he films, he starts to do more illegal techniques in order to capture the best footage he can possibly have. The story is more on the minimal side as it's really based off on Lou and his turn to a more sinister, manipulative sociopath in order to succeed in life. The story does eventually build up to a conclusive plot-thread that is mainly introduced halfway through the film, but the story isn't really the focus for this character-based thriller. There's a nice progression of the character's evil nature which I feel that the only media that can be compared would be "Breaking Bad".  It's a nice comparison not only by the look and character development of the lead, but the tone is perfectly align to the aforementioned show. It's dark, gritty and set in a very grounded world, but there's a touch of levity and humour at times. It all helps in creating suspense as you wonder what Lou is going to do next.

Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom is by far the best performance of his career. Gyllenhaal plays this psychotic criminal mind while hiding the criminal acts under a seemingly decent and intelligent exterior. Lou does some pretty bad things throughout the movie and the film doesn't really make him too sympathetic outside of showing that he lives in a crappy apartment and is trying to make as much money as possible. However, regardless if he's sympathetic or not, Gyllenhaal has so much charm and demeanor in his performance that the viewer roots for Lou mainly because he does deserve what he has been building up to and Gyllenhaal helps by making Lou far more likeable than he even has any right to be. Although it sounds like Gyllenhaal takes over the entire film, he is supported by a great supporting cast, albeit there's only a few characters to note. Rene Russo plays Nina Romina, the news director of KWLA 6 who loves Lou's work and continues to use the footage as much as possible, but feels uncomfortable with Lou as a person as he has far more intellect and malicious intent as he leads on. Russo does great in mirroring the view of the audience, which is a back-and-forth battle of either liking or hating Lou overall. Riz Ahmed plays Rick, a young hustler who is hired by Lou as an assistant for driving to destinations and capturing other angles of deadly aftermaths. Rick offers the light humour the film has, and acts just as awkward and insecure as Lou's false personality. He doesn't have any moral code and is only working for the measly pay that he accidentally suggests to Lou, which Ahmed does a nice job in making a somewhat likeable character in a film filled with harshness and bitterness. Lastly, there's the late Bill Paxton as Joe Loder, a rival stringer who pressures Lou for working with him once the latter is managing to prove to be great at his job. Paxton does a really good job at being a slimy, despicable man who is only caring for profit and his ego, which Lou manages to get revenge on. Outside of these four recurring characters, that's really about it. All of the actors do a great job in creating these realistic, morally-grey characters, but it's Gyllenhaal who, of course, steals the show as Lou for a performance that was unfairly snubbed at the Oscars.

Dan Gilroy's directorial debut after years of work as a screenwriter pays off in his best work to date, both by direction and writing. The most striking thing to note about his directing is mainly how he sets up the nighttime aesthetic of L.A. While there's an occasional scene set in daytime, most of the film and the setting is set in night or an interior set. The nighttime setting paints a far different picture of L.A compared to the more general knowledge the city has been known for. In nighttime, there's not much traffic, people or pollution that stands out, but rather an almost different city where the industrial side keeps working, cars chases and top speeds can be tested, and the underbelly of nightlife scum and opportunists take charge. All of this is perfected by Robert Elswit's cinematography, which is simply gorgeous. It's mainly comprised of handheld camerawork, but it not only fits the premise of the film, but it has a very polished feel. The framing alone is just simply gorgeous. There are some very nice close-ups and tracking shots, but the shots of the city and exterior landscape is what really shines as L.A at night has so much character and beauty than you might think. The score by James Newton Howard isn't one of his best works, but it's still really good. It works at being a bit more minimalistic as some scenes of suspense and intensity might not offer music, while others can have an eerie, horror-esque underscore. The score seems somewhat inspired by an 80's feel while not incorporating any synthesizers, instead having a more instrumental base. At times, the score can feel oddly inspirational, while at others, it can give off an eerie vibe. Last worth noting would be the suspenseful scenes of Lou getting footage. I love the aforementioned minimal music at times and how Lou is attempting to have a horror-esque mindset in trying to capture his footage. The final car chase at the end as the LAPD chase down a pair of criminals who get involved in the story is simply amazing as the cinematography stays completely inside Lou's car as we track this horrifying car chase that would otherwise be exciting in a typical action movie. I hope Gilroy continues to write and direct more films, because we need more brilliance like his in the industry.

"Nightcrawler" has gone down as one of my favourite films from the 2010's and being a high contender as the top 10 best thrillers of all time. From a nice setup for a story following the job of stringers that serves as an excellent character study of Lou, the tone being very dark and grounded while also having a bit of lighthearted fun at times, Gyllenhaal's outstanding performance as Lou and one of the best leads in the genre, the supporting cast also being just as good for their characters while also helping Gyllenhaal shine even more as the star, perfect cinematography by Elswit, a pretty good score by Howard, engaging tension-fuelled scenes of suspense, and Gilroy's directing and portrayal of the city of L.A is as masterful as the screenplay. There's practically no flaws in the film, which is really hard to achieve for this kind of film. Perhaps a few might not like it for their own reasons, but personally, "Nightcrawler" remains as one of the best films to come out of the last ten years.

Verdict: 10/10. A flawless masterpiece. If you haven't experienced this film yet, please do whenever possible. You won't be disappointed.

  

Bad Boys (1995) Film Review: Micheal Bay's First And Best Film To Date?

 

We all at some point make fun of Micheal Bay's career in general. While the man can clearly some competent blockbusters, they tend to not really be all that great or go down in history as greats of their respective genre. Even his biggest successes being the "Transformer" franchise have all been notoriously panned ever since the first film. However, the one franchise that Bay has managed to not only keep relevant but consistently good in some matter are the "Bad Boys" series, with the first not only being his directorial debut, but fans have stated that it's the best film of the franchise and Bay's career as a whole, which is either saying a lot or not at all. Miami PD detectives, Marcus Burnett and Mike Lowrey, are tasked to take back $100 million worth of heroin that was stolen from the police vault within five days before the department gets shut down. When one of Mike's informants gets killed by the man responsible for taking the drugs, a witness, Julie, who managed to survive and knowing of the identity calls the Miami PD, stating that she will only talk to Mike given her friend trusted him. With Mike briefly incapacitated, Marcus is forced to act as his friend and partner in order to make Julie comply and help with the case. However, Marcus is finding it very difficult to act like his smooth, womanizing, playboy best friend, but he and Mike have to keep up with the lie before Julie refuses to cooperate and walks off with a key piece of evidence. The story for the first film in the popular series has been acknowledged not only by fans, but even the filmmakers that it's not really good. It's essentially just a typical police story with a generic villain out to profit from drugs while the detectives are at the end of their deadline to crack the case. We've seen this story done plenty of times before, but the real core of the movie is the chemistry and relationship of the two leads as a lot of improvisation was used throughout the film. While the story itself might not be original, the partnership of Marcus and Mike is refreshing and offers the film's humour in what is really a serious story and film. The first movie has the most serious take for the story and the scale of the action shows as there's not hundreds of explosions or elaborate set-pieces all over the place unlike the sequels. As for the humour, it's really more on the dialogue between the leads, Julie and the police captain rather than some oddball scenarios or repeating gags that the sequels will use to make an attempt to bring out more laughs. Sometimes, simple is better.

The duo of Marcus and Mike, played by Martin Lawrence and Will Smith, are the real heart of the franchise. While they aren't the most original characters in the genre, as Marcus is just the uptight, family man, while Mike is the rich, action-junkie playboy who tends to kill a lot of criminals in his job than necessary, no matter how hard he tries not to, Lawrence and Smith have such fantastic chemistry with each other that it really works. They argue and bicker like a married couple, but they also manage to come and work together like a pair of brothers. While both are great to watch, the highlight in the first movie is really Marcus as the story not only centres around him the most due to his role in the story, but he also offers most of the film's humour. Tea Leoni plays Julie Mott, the witness who saw the man who killed her friend and only demands to cooperate with Mike. While Leoni does manage to work off Lawrence and Smith and offers some good lines, the character of Julie is just not very likeable. Not only does the audience barely care for her friendship with Mike's informant, but she tends to be really annoying with her judgements of "Mike's" behaviour and lifestyle as well as willing get into trouble and danger because she's so obsessed with killing the guy who killed her friend. It's an attempt to make the female character less of a damsel in need, but it really backfire as a result. Fouchet, played by Tchekey Karyo, is a generic French drug kingpin who wants to get rich by selling the repossessed heroin. Karyo does try his best to ham up the character, but the character of Fouchet is just so bland and forgettable. Compared to the other villains of the series, Fouchet is no doubt the worst when it comes to personality and memorability. The side characters however manage to even outshine the key roles of Julie and Fouchet. From Joe Pantoliano's Captain Howard, the hot-headed, cynical captain of the police force, Theresa Randle's Theresa Brunett, the wife of Marcus who hates how her husbands works more than he spends time with family as well as suspecting him of cheating, Saverio Guerro's Chet, the front desk worker of Mike's apartment building who wants to be a cop himself, and Nester Serrano and the late Julio Oscar Mechoso as Detectives Sanchez and Ruiz, the Hispanic duo who constantly poke fun with Marcus and Mike with stereotypical insults, to which the leads also constantly make fun of them in retaliation. There are some smaller characters that I could note such as Mike's informant, Max, and the police secretary, Francine, but their roles are just way too limited and only take up screen-time for a single, critical moment in the movie. Overall, the cast are all enjoyable in their own right by their performances and acting, but of course, Lawrence and Smith are the stars of the show.

Micheal Bay is known for his overuse of flashy editing and explosive action and set-pieces, but in his first feature film, all of these tropes were not only premature, but unable to occur due to the film's very limited budget. While the other films of the series try to have as much action set-pieces as possible, the first film tries to space it out and focus on being a movie first. Even though the story isn't anything impressive, Bay's directing showcased his future talent even in a small-scale degree. Although there is some literal flashy editing that we come to expect from Bay, it's very dialled back from his more notable works and the editing never gets too choppy. Scenes actually play out as they intend to and the pacing is actually very well-handled. The usual setting of Miami is nicely captured with Howard Atherton's cinematography with plenty of sweeping, establishing shots and extreme close-ups on people's faces. The interior sets are also nicely presented with plenty of character thrown in. From Mike's luxury apartment that looks nothing anyone can buy on a cop's salary, the police headquarters that's constantly moving about and active as people's jobs are on the line with a five day time limit, Marcus's quaint family home that's just the right size and comfortable for a family of five, the gothic, grunge rock night club, Club Hell, and Fouchet's secret base of an abandoned ship in the Miami port being used to house a very ineffective drug lab. Despite the typical story and genre beats, the film just oozes with character both by the actors and the filmmaking. The opening credits is tied together with the city of Miami in sunset and Mark Mancina's energizing score, which proves to be his best non-Disney collaboration. While not every aspect of the score is great as there are plenty of beats that sound very ripped out of the "Lethal Weapon" franchise, the main theme and action beats make his contributions very welcome and the memorable music and licensed songs remains one of the best modern action soundtracks to date. The last thing to note will be the action, which is not exactly the film's strength compared to the sequels. Don't get me wrong, there are some nice action scenes, namely the fight inside Club Hell, the chase scene where Mike has to run after Fouchet after he kidnaps Julie, and the climatic shoot-out in the airfield that has some memorable kills and has the trademark of Bay's explosions. However, some of the action scenes are just really generic shoot-outs or car chases, which while directed fine, are just not that memorable. Even if the sequels overuse the action, it's all memorable at the very least and each set-piece is engaging to watch till the end. While there's still some amateur work at times, Bay at the very least knows how to make a film with a small budget and not being able to hide his filmmaking skills, good or bad, with fast editing or extended action sequences.

"Bad Boys" is perhaps Bay's best film and a strong first installment to an overall very good series. While there are some issues such as the very generic story, Julie as a character is annoying and idiotic at times, Fouchet is an extremely boring villain, there's some lazy, flashy editing from time to time, some of Mancina's score sounds very much like "Lethal Weapon", and some of the action scenes are pretty standard and generic. With that said, it's easy to see why some people feel that this is still the best of the series. The tone takes itself the most grounded while offering some great dialogue-based humour, Lawrence and Smith as Marcus and Mike are a simply fantastic action-comedic duo, the cast of side characters help play off of the leads with their own loveable personality and charisma from their actors, the interior sets are not only well-detailed, but are just fuelled by character and subtle details, Miami is wonderfully shot by Atherton's camerawork with some iconic imagery from the trademark sweeping shot of the leads to the city's landmarks, Mancina's score as a whole has some very awesome music beats and licensed songs that fit the movie and its personality, there are some engaging action sequences here and there, and Bay's directing shows that he knows how to make an actual movie that's not stuffed with explosions, action set-pieces, and crazy editing throughout the entire film. I find that all of the "Bad Boys" films have their own strengths and weaknesses and one person or fan will have a movie from the trilogy that suits them the most. While I, for one, don't think that this is the best film of the franchise due to some of the weaker aspects, I will agree that it's at the very least, Bay's best film of his career.

Verdict: 7/10. An overall solid action-comedy that began a surprisingly memorable franchise that's all thanks to Micheal Bay. Watch if you haven't seen it or if you only became a fan from this year's "Bad Boys For Life".

21 Bridges (2019) Film Review: A Surprisingly, Decent Flick Boseman Can Be Proud Of.

With the recent death of rising Hollywood superstar, Chadwick Boseman, I decided to review one of his last films he has starred in, which was considered a box-office bomb and critical disappointment. Detective Andre Davis has a reputation for killing "cop-killers" in self-defense, a reputation Andre himself is not keen with having. One night, two criminal war veterans take a job to steal several kilos of cocaine, but when the job goes horribly wrong and the two kill several police officers in the process, Andre is tasked to quickly end the case by any means by only a few hours before the FBI takes over the case while forced to team up with a narcotics detective at the same time. Although the story seems pretty generic face-level, the film does its best in keeping it engaging. For one, there's an actual mystery unfolding as the story progresses that is not completely obvious. You might piece everything together by the second act, but you will never know what to expect or guess the ending of the film by the first ten to twenty minutes, unlike some poor detective mysteries. The movie also manages to stay very intense once the story begins. Not only was I actually on the edge of my seat wondering what's going to happen, but I did get invested in the story and characters for the most part. While that's all said and good, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. This isn't an over-the-top action fest as you might expect. There's action from time to time, but the film honestly takes the detective work and police work serious for the most part.

The late Chadwick Boseman will go down in history as yet another beloved celebrity who died too soon not only for his age, but to not get much acknowledgement for his acting skills from his more serious roles to his role as T'Challa. Boseman of course steals the show more than ever as Andre, who is essentially a generic role for the honest, hard-working cop who persists on finding the truth and only kills when necessary. Boseman just gives off that attitude and charisma that rivals other actors who take on similar roles such as Clint Eastwood, Danny Glover, etc. He's so good that not even Sienna Miller's terrible character, Frankie Burns, dumbs his performance down. Burns is the detective that Andre partners up with for the case as the typical sidekick and is a character that practically keeps the film from achieving greatness. Not only is her character completely unlikeable and useless as a detective for only stating the obvious or being so hot-headed and trigger-happy, but her role could have easily been removed, even when the twist of the film is revealed. The fact that her character survives the movie leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth. Taylor Kitsch plays Ray Jackson, the violent, unstable criminal who makes extremely dumb decisions and rarely listens to his more rational partner. Kitsch plays the part well, but even the movie doesn't know whether we should hate or feel bad for him, considering all of the choices he makes from speeding at the light to get his picture taken or just being blunt-headed. Stephan James as Micheal Trujilio though is really good as the honest partner-in-crime who doesn't want to hurt anyone and yet is running for his life due to Ray's actions. James does a great job and offers a very sympathetic, misunderstood antagonist who's life you start to worry about as the film goes on. Lastly, there's J.K Simmons's Captain McKenna, the captain of precinct 8-5 and who is revealed to be a dirty cop along with every member of his team. Simmons is great as always and he works pretty well as a twist villain, but it could have been more effective if Burns was removed from the film. Not only does McKenna act like an honest cop, but it also makes his role and reveal more effective if the arrogant and unlikeable Burns wasn't in the movie practically reeking of guiltiness. As for the side characters, they are practically not worth mentioning as the only ones to note are some FBI agents threatening to take over the case, and a few helpful officers back in the headquarters. Overall, I do think the cast is great with Boseman in particular stealing the show, but characters such as Ray and Burns really damper the film by how unlikeable they are, especially Burns.

Brian Kirk's feature film directorial debut proves to be somewhat strong, but stumbles behind in a few areas. I will start off by saying that Kirk's direction is really nice and slick. For a movie centred mainly on nighttime shots and some interior sets, there's very good lighting and set design to match these demands. The cinematography by Paul Cameron is pretty competent with some nice establishing shots of NYC, a wonderful birds-eye view shot in the beginning, and nice use of handheld camera movement that matches the intensity of the story and grounded nature. While Cameron does a great job, there's one thing that's holding him back and that's the staging of the actors. I don't talk about staging much, but in this movie, whenever there's a shot consisting of more than three or so people, the scene looks pretty amateur like a cheap sitcom. So, while the cinematography can be great at times, there are some poor shots every now and then. I also feel that Cameron and Kirk really obsess over the establishing shots of New York. Like yes, they are nice to look at and the story is focused on locking down Manhattan, but there's just way too much that creating a drinking game out of it will kill you for sure. The score by Henry Jackman and Alex Belcher is very average for the genre. It's not terrible, but it's forgettable modern thriller music that you will struggle to remember. Last worth mentioning will be the action, which is honestly really well-handled for gunplay. It's intense, brutal at times, and engaging to watch. Headshots don't feel cartoonish or over-the-top, but rather really real in a way. The final action scene at the end where Burns survives an ambush from McKenna's officers is not only cool to watch, but has some nice editing and cinematography as well. The action sequences aren't exactly the best of the genre or worth watching just because, but they do help add on to the enjoyment and intensity of the film as a whole. For a man who mainly directs TV episodes and has a limited resume, Kirk honestly did a great job in proving his directing skills, even if there are a few mistakes here and there.

"21 Bridges" might appear to be a generic cop thriller that you might see in your streaming service, but it's actually far better than the critics make it out to be. The story is both engaging and keeps you guessing for a good while unlike some lazier mysteries, the fast pace and intensity of the situation really complements the story and works at keeping you engaged, Boseman is simply entertaining to watch as detective Andre, James and Simmons do stand-out jobs in the supporting cast as Micheal and Captain McKenna, the production and set design is nice as it gives the movie a cinematic feel, Cameron's cinematography is really good and offers some creative and visually pleasing shots, and the action sequences are both realistically brutal and handled with the same amount of intensity that fuels the story with some very nice editing and camerawork to give them extra flair. Even though all of this makes it sound like one of the best crime thrillers in recent years, there are some issues. Miller's detective Burns is extremely unlikeable and her inclusion feels really unneeded given that she barely does anything other than to make the twist of the movie easier to spot from his arrogance, Kitsch's Ray is a really idiotic antagonist that makes some pretty brainless decisions and forcing unearned sympathy, there's a bit too many establishing shots in the film for anyone's liking, some scenes have some really bad staging of the actors that it makes you question the professional work being involved, and the score by Jackman and Belcher might as well be background white noise, since I can't even recall any nice beat. It's not a perfect film and it does, at times, feel like that generic cop movie that was advertised and what many were expecting. But, when it plays out, it actually really works and you understand why Boseman took the project and even produced it alongside the Russo Brothers, which is because there was clearly tons of potential in it.

Verdict: 7/10. It might be the weakest film in Boseman's resume, but honestly, any film he was in has a ton of quality in it. This only adds to how great of an actor he is and how it's a damn shame his career couldn't span for much longer.

 

Secret Window (2004) Film Review: The Best Stephan King Adaptation Of The 2000's?

 

When it comes to the decade that had the best movie adaptations of Stephan King's work, it's a debate between the 1980's, 1990's, and the 2010's. The weakest decade of Stephan King movie adaptations has got to be the 2000's though. While there are some decent films such as "The Mist" or "1408", they aren't going to be recognized as one of King's best film adaptations anytime soon. One film that came out that decade and has been one of the more polarizing adaptations when it comes to quality is the 2004 film, "Secret Window", based on King's novella of the same name. Despite its mixed reputation, I might consider it as the best film of his works during that rather dry decade. The story follows Mort Rainey, an acclaimed writer who is in the process of finalizing a divorce between him and his estranged wife. As he's in the middle of a writer's block and a stage of depression, he is confronted by a man named John Shooter. Shooter is furious over Mort for seemingly plagiarizing his work as well as changing the ending, despite Mort constantly claiming that he never heard or read anything resembling Shooter's story. As he argues to bring proof that he came up with the story first, Shooter starts to stalk and threaten Mort to the point where Mort is afraid of Shooter killing him. The story has a great hook for a thriller as the viewer hopes to learn what is really going on and if Mort actually plagiarized Shooter's work or not, which spirals to anxiety and death as the film progresses. On top of that, Mort also has to deal with finalizing the divorce papers for his wife and her boyfriend, which he is constantly avoiding out of spite. I will talk about the twist ending later, but for the general story as a whole, it's pretty solid, but I do feel that there's a bit too much attention with the divorce and it does drag the story a bit at times as it's not as engaging between the dispute of Mort and Shooter. The tone of the film is perfect Stephan King in my opinion with shades of nail-biting suspense and odd doses of humour and charm. It might not have worked if Johnny Depp wasn't in the film, but because Depp is front and centre, the tone perfectly works in switching from serious drama and thriller to a bit of an oddball comedy.

Johnny Depp just came off from his Oscar-nominated role as Jack Sparrow, so you can tell that the filmmakers just wanted Depp to just be as quirky as possible while also being grounded in ways. Mort is honestly one of Depp's better roles and one that I feel only he can really play. Not only does he look and behave the part of an insecure, depressed writer, but Depp gives him so much personality and charm that the viewer not only roots for, but sides with him even if he does some questionable things. John Turturro plays John Shooter, the southern writer with a grudge against Mort, who might be Turturro's most intimidating role he has done so far in his career. I normally see Turturro as the comedic, zany actor, but his performance as Shooter really works in not only scaring Mort, but give the viewer a sense of anxiety. The character might be a bit over-the-top in his quest for revenge, but as the film progresses, not only do you not care, but you understand his role in Mort's arc as a whole. Maria Bello plays Amy Rainey, Mort's estranged wife who tries to fake sympathizing her husband in order for him to finish the divorce papers. Amy, by design, isn't meant to be a likeable character. While the film offers ideas as to why she cheated on Mort, her tendency to never admit her faults or actions really makes her a despicable character and one who ultimately deserves her fate. The side characters include Timothy Hutton's Ted Milner, Amy's boyfriend who despises Mort, Len Cariou's Sheriff Newsome, the local sheriff who appears not very helpful to Mort due to his age and his assumption of Shooter's crimes, and Charles S. Dutton's Ken Karsch, a private investigator that Mort hires in order to check his house and capture Shooter. The cast as a whole are very good in their performances, though some might be a bit too unlikeable or over-the-top for some viewers. As for me, it's really Depp and Turturro's performances that steal their show for their right amount of zaniness as well as taking their characters very serious to create an electrifying rival dynamic.

David Koepp is far well known for his writing credits on beloved films rather than his directorial efforts. However, not only does Koepp have a good screenplay to attach the film, but he also manages to direct perhaps the best film of his career. A good example is how he creates a mood and atmosphere that we have all seen before, but portrayed a bit differently. You'd think that a film like this will mostly take place at night as it makes the cabin and the surrounding woods more scary in order to give off some chilling suspense. However, Koepp decides to go for more daytime shots to allows more warm lighting and colours in the environment. Not only does it feel far less cliche for the genre, but it honestly makes sense for the story as we later find out it's all a part of Mort's mind. Mort's cabin is not only characteristic and somewhat comforting to be in, but also has a tad bit of creepiness due to the overall size and the isolation that it creates. The cinematography by Fred Murphy also gives out his best work in his career as he offers some great sequences that is enhanced by Jill Savitt's editing. Although Murphy's camerawork is mostly standard with some nice angles and close-ups from time to time, it's the false one-shot sequences in the beginning of the film and the establishing sequences of Mort's cabin that are well edited and creative, especially for Murphy's resume. The score by Phillip Glass is also very good with a nice use of bass and orchestra. It might not be one of his best works, but it's pretty good for this film. The last thing to really mention will be the twist ending, which reveals that Shooter was in Mort's head the entire time and is a split personality that takes form and is behind the killings of the movie. It's a very different ending from the original novella and it's honestly a great and somewhat satisfying ending to watch as Mort/Shooter succeed in killing Amy and Ted and manages to get rid of the evidence by making them decompose overtime in corn crops he has made in his garden, despite the sheriff's and the town's suspicion. It's not a perfect execution though, as while the twist itself makes sense, it can be pretty obvious to some viewers as the film progresses. To Koepp's credit, it's a hard plot element to keep hidden until the end and it could have been handled worse if they had scenes of him and Shooter public or something. Koepp might have written better films in his career, but this is clearly the best film he directed himself.

"Secret Window" is probably never going to cracking the top ten lists of Stephan King movies anytime soon, but it's at the very least the best adaptation of King's works in the 00's. While there are a few issues such as the side plot of Mort's divorce taking a bit too much runtime, the somewhat over-the-top tone and characters can be jarring at times, the characters of Amy and Ted are written to be somewhat completely unlikeable whatsoever, and the twist ending could have been a bit more hidden, it doesn't ruin the film that much. From a very interesting story along with a great twist reveal, the tone being perfectly balanced with serious drama and suspense with doses of humour and zaniness, Depp fitting perfectly to the role of Mort, Turturro offering a really eerie, albeit, over-the-top performance as Shooter, the cast as a whole doing great jobs with their characters, Murphy's cinematography being creatively ambitious at times with help of Savitt's editing, Glass's score giving some power and dread into the music, and Koepp's directing manages to have a standard thriller have a unique feel from the execution of the tone to the location being much more grounded and warm than being dramatically gothic and bleak. It helps that this film has a meta feel to it as its story not only parallels King's career, but flips the script by having the story change the ending, which not only makes it more effective, but makes it one of the more interesting adaptations of his work.

Verdict: 8/10. A great thriller and Stephan King adaptation as a whole, but won't go down as the most groundbreaking or memorable film compared to others. Check it out if you haven't seen it!

Bill & Ted Face The Music (2020) Non-Spoiler Film Review: The Enjoyable Yet Weakest Return To A Nostalgic Time Capsle

 After nearly 30 years since their previous adventure in the afterlife and becoming superstars in their universe, Bill and Ted had yet still written a song that would unite the world and fix time and space and have become washed up ever since. With only a very limited amount of time to repair reality from being collapsed, the duo must figure out how to make that special song with the help from old friends, historical figures, their future selves and even their daughters. The long-awaited third entry had been circulating on the internet for more than a decade as the project went on and off development. While it has finally been released, it clearly shows that it had been a long work in progress. While I think the story itself is pretty good as a follow-up to the series, the issue is that it constantly feels messy and unfocused. From the storylines relating with the duo, their daughters, their wives and even the involvement of the future, too much is happening that it barely gives the viewer to breathe. Perhaps if it only focused on Bill and Ted and perhaps having adventures with their future selves, it would be fine. Having all four of these storylines though, no matter how much they connect to each other, makes the story very cluttered. It also doesn't help that the film constantly breaks the rules and logic given by the previous films. I won't go into it much, but from the rules of the afterlife and the established lore of the future and the events of the previous film, the third film practically ignores what the series had set up after all of this time. Then again, perhaps I might be overanalyzing the film and should just enjoy it for what it is, as the tone is very much in spirit to the franchise as it does go in weird directions and the films were never meant to be taken seriously to begin with. The humour does has its moments, but I felt that it had the least amount of laughs in the series. Whether it's due to the tone being much more lighthearted than before or the lack on focus in the story to allow hilarious sequences and set-ups to play out, there's not that much times where I laughed with this film compared to the previous films.

Alex Winter and Keanu Reeves fit perfectly back as Bill and Ted, the two air-headed rock stars. Not only do they manage to look like their respective characters as middle-aged adults down to the hairstyles and clothes, but their personalities are practically preserved. Reeves though does a much better job in recapturing that energy and charisma though as it's hard to recognize the actor from his second wave popularity in the media as he just slipped back into the character that pioneered his career. Newcomer actresses, Samara Weaving and Bridgette Lundy-Paine, are actually really good as the daughters for their respective parents, basically acting and looking as the iconic duo, but female and less air-headed in their decision making. From there on, there are a multitude of characters that are just too many to list. From the returning characters that include Ted's father, brother, Missy, the princesses, and William Sadler's Death, to the historical figures such as Jimi Hendrex, Louis Armstrong and Mozart, to the future characters such as Kristan Schaal's Kelly, Holland Taylor's The Great Leader, and the insecure killer robot known as Dennis, all of the actors are clearly having fun in playing these either over-the-top or grounded roles. Although a few characters can come across as annoying or unmemorable, the real highlights from the cast are Winter and Reeves reprising their roles with Weaving and Paine backing them up to have a nice, fun chemistry.

Dean Parisot, best known for his work on "Galaxy Quest", takes charge in the director's chair to attempt to recreate that sense of low-budget cult adventure feel that the previous films in the 80's/90's had. Although it was a noble effort, the truth is that the film does actually feel cheaper that the previous films in a few ways. The first two films might be independent in their release, but they did attempt to put as much money as they can for some nice sets, locations and general scale of the film. Although Parisot is working with a $25 million-dollar budget, the film tends to use some cheap sets, standard locations and CGI for the most part. With the exception of a mansion set-piece and the location of Hell, the rest of the film feels pretty safe and standard. Even the costumes designs are underwhelming as the future people are wearing less elaborate attire and the robot himself looks like a padded-up person with make-up rather than an actual robot. I know that it might be just for the tone and humour sake, but it just feels lazy if the last film had more uniquely designed robots that felt more realistic. With all of that said, Parisot does manage to exceed in other aspects of the film. The cinematography by Shelly Johnson is very good with some nice uses of wrap-arounds and establishing shots. It's also a very colourful movie with lots of sunny daylight, some unique location lighting, and even some of the character's wardrobe adding variety. The music by Mark Isham is enjoyable and the music the characters create themselves not only feel natural to their personalities, but are honestly nice to listen to. Lastly, even though the CGI isn't great per se, it's adequate for the very modest budget they are attached to. On top of that, there are actually some nice visual effect shots when it only inhabits the screen with the landscape of Hell and the final shot of the movie. Overall, Parisot does manage to put together a pretty solid production for the respective vision. However, if he put more attention to making the film feel as cinematically presented or ambitious as possible with their limited budget much like the previous films, Parisot's job would have been excellent to say the least.

"Bill & Ted Face The Music" might not be the greatest return or conclusion to the franchise, but it's far from being a forgettable attempt. While the story is very messy and unfocused, the humour might be the weakest from the series in terms of memorable set-pieces, the production values could have been used more perfectly with more ambition, and sets as well as costume design do feel lazy compared to previous films, there's plenty to enjoy about the third entry. From the unapologetic, light-hearted tone, Winter and Reeves doing a stand-up job in recapturing these iconic roles, Weaving and Paine making good impressions of the youthful daughters, the entire supporting cast clearly giving it their all and having fun with their respective roles, Johnson's decent cinematography, the colourful aesthetic, Isham's likeable score and original music that ties into the film, and a few effective uses of CGI and sets. It might be the weakest entry in the trilogy even if you remove your nostalgia glasses, but it's still fun to watch and, at the very least, offers a product that feels like it's out of this timeline.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Above average and might not be completely worth the rental price, but if you love Bill & Ted or any zany adventure, chances are that you won't mind.