The Fast and the Furious (2001) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Should Be Called Slow and Tame Snore-fest...

 

The "Fast & Furious" franchise is one of the most popular franchises that is still going strong today, with the last two films in the main series earning over a billion in the box office. This is mainly due to the over-the-top action and various stars that show up in the films along with a sense of awareness to the identity of the franchise. Can you think of a franchise that went from some racing melodrama that evolved into a spy-action blockbuster with explosions and A-list actors? Well, that should mean that the first film must be considered a classic in its own right, correct? After all, it did inspire a highly successful franchise, much like "Iron Man" or "Mission: Impossible"? Well... let's just say that if it were up to me, this franchise would've been dead in the water going by the first film alone. 

Positives:

• Vin Diesel as Dominic Toretto. While Dominic isn't the deepest of characters, which is not something that can be found in this franchise, this is clearly the role that Diesel is both born to play and will be famous for. A notorious street race and leader of his crew, Dominic is both charming in his brute nature while being dangerous both in and outside of a car. I also like that he's portrayed as a morally-grey character who has his demons, but is only doing illegal business to provide for himself and the people he loves. Outside of Diesel, I will give credit that the cast are good actors, but their characters are just another story in general.
• The stunts provided in the few action sequences in the film. Considering how over-the-top and CGI-heavy the later films get, it's refreshing to see practicality in the first film. Sure, the action isn't as entertaining and is pretty small-scale in comparison, but franchises do have to start somewhere.
• The tropes that originated from this film. From the endorsement of "Corona" beers, the street races with shots of sexy girls, the meat-headed attitude of the street racing community, and Dominic stating that he cares for his "family" is all started here. Regardless of your take on this film, this is the building block that would eventually carry this franchise to unexpected heights. With that said, it's just pathetic that this film could have been much better as an actual film.

Negatives:

• Let's start with the story. Brian O'Connor is an undercover LAPD officer sent to locate and infiltrate Dominic Toretto's crew due to the FBI's suspecting that they are the one responsible for stealing DVD's and other electronics from cargo trucks. As Brian spends more time with the crew though, he starts denying that they are the one stealing the cargo and points to a rival of Dominic, Johnny Tran. On top of that, he starts to rethink his allegiance as he and Dominic start to "bond" along with Brian and Dominic's sister, Mia Toretto, start falling in love. The problem with the story starts when you clearly realized that this is in fact a rip-off of "Point Break". Even if one takes away that resemblance, the story itself is just so cliched and boring that it's almost painful to watch because the viewer is always ahead of the characters which doesn't help due to the pacing feeling slow at times. The worst offending aspect of the story is that it recycles the plot-line of a blooming romance between the lead and the rival faction in order to cloud his judgement. We have seen this in "Avatar", "Princess Mononoke", "Ferngully", and countless other movies. It doesn't feel that Brian abandons his job because of moral duty, but rather because he's finally got a piece of ass in his life. It's a ridiculous story-thread and although the film attempts to claim that Brian and Dominic's friendship is what truly tested his position as the undercover cop is completely laughable. The characters do interact, but it's not like they really bonded that much or Dom's viewpoint has completely evolved Brian, it just feels that Brian is caring for Dom just so he can have permission to bang his sister. On top of that, the whole subplot of Tran being the suspect behind the heists is completely pointless and just makes Brian feel so much of an unlikeable idiot.
• Paul Walker as Brian O'Connor. This is a very unpopular opinion, but I hate Brian O'Connor in all of the times he shows up in the franchise. It's sad that Walker died from a car accident and he's generally a good actor that is mainly famous from this franchise, but man, does his character suck in practically every appearance. The biggest problem with Brian in this first installment is just how terrible of a character he is. For one, you got the terrible romance that I already mentioned. Second, he's a horrible cop for screwing up the operation for the FBI. Thirdly, Walker just has no charisma in this film that makes you want to root for him. I actually wished that Eminem took the job of playing the character as intended, since at the very least, he would have been much more charismatic to work off on Diesel's performance. When I see Walker as Brian in this film, I just see some pretty-faced white boy that's pretending to be far more pathetic than he really is and only evolves to be an unlikeable douchebag that doesn't make up his own mind with shallow logic.
• The rest of the cast and characters. Although some of these characters do return and become much more fleshed out and enjoyable, their first appearance leaves a lot to be desired. First, there's Michelle Rodriguez as Letty, Dom's tough-as-nails girlfriend. While Letty becomes far more dynamic in the later films, she doesn't really do anything at all in the first film aside from just being a crew member that Dom just so happens to be dating. Next, there's Jordana Brewster as Mia, Dom's sister who is in love with Brian. I also think that she's a pretty terrible character in the overall franchise as she's just made to be the cute girl that serves as Brian's love interest. Mia never gets to be useful at all in the franchise, other than to tell Brian where her brother is. She never partakes in the action, racing, hacking or anything, and is the most useless character in the crew. Speaking of the crew, there are some faces who fans will never see again with one exception. There's Vince, Dom's friend who picks fights with Brian due to his crush on Mia, Jesse, the brains of the crew who's diagnosed with ADD and gets killed before he left an impact on the franchise, and there's Leon, the most forgettable character of the crew because he literally disappears from the franchise and never shows up again after Jesse's death. Vince is the only member of the original crew to reappear in the franchise and not for that long, mind you. The last character to mention would be Johnny Tran, the Vietnamese leader of a rival gang that Dom is competing against and Brian is trying to pin the former's crimes on. Rick Yune tries his best, but the character is just one-note, which is the best way to describe the majority of the characters in the movie. Aside from Dom, everyone else has either not matured yet to being fleshed-out, generic as all hell, or just Brian O'Connor.
• The directing by Rob Cohen. Considering his filmography, I don't think he has ever made a good movie aside from the Bruce Lee biopic. This film looks like it was made by a first-time director accustomed to music videos or high school plays. The staging of the actors is just all over the place. Everyone looks like if they are about to bust a rhyme or get into a musical number, and considering the cheesiness of the films, I wouldn't be that surprised. Considering the more grounded, if stupid, storyline, you'd think that the first film would be the most realistic, but it's kind of sad when you consider the later spy-action sequels feel more natural than the bare-bones original.
• The cinematography by Ericson Core. I don't want to bash Core too much, since he made the excellent "Togo", but his work on the first "Fast & Furious" film is not the best demonstration of his work. This is mainly due to Cohen's directing and making the film look unnatural, cheap, and lazy. The action scenes at the very last do have some visual style going on with the shaky camera and the rawness of the stunts and stakes.
• The music by BT. Who's BT? He's a DJ who has worked with many stars during his career and is generally more noteworthy in the music industry due to his limited experience on film scores. The music presented here is very much on the hip-hop/electronic, but it just blurs into the lack of identity the film has. BT's work just suits Cohen's vision of having the film appear like some early 2000's music video and it makes whatever music he has actually made just forgettable. As for the licensed songs, there are plenty of them for sure, but man are they forgettable. It's odd, considering the later films will have some iconic songs attached, but the first film has like nothing to take note.
• The drag-racing sequence. Oh god, the drag-racing sequence at night. There are a few racing/car chase sequences presented in the film and they tend to be pretty underwhelming, especially compared to later sequels. The problem is that Cohen's lack of style or ambition really makes the racing kind of bland and the use of tons of close-ups of the driver tends to let the viewer glance over any racing or "stunts" during these scenes. The truck heists tend to be the only scenes where the stunts and showcasing of the cars and entertainment work. But then, there's the street race at night where Dom and Brian race for the first time. You'd think with the whole framework of the franchise that the first racing sequence would be one of the best highlights, right? Wrong! You will bear witness to terrible green-screen and flashy editing that makes you feel that you're in a crappy Universal Studios ride. It's really embarrassing to have one of your racing sequences in a franchise all about racing and cars to not even have anyone actually drive in this sequences. I understand if it's a chase or action sequence like in the newer films, but this is literally a street race at night, something that other directors manage to accomplish in the sequels. This scene alone practically speaks of the film's overall quality.

"The Fast and the Furious" has got to be one of the weakest first films in any franchise. Although Diesel as Dom is great, the stunts during the truck heists are pretty good, and the film does indeed laid the foundation for the tropes of the series and as a building block of what's to come, it can't be denied how bad this film gets. From the story being a template of "Point Break", Brian O'Connor being a terrible protagonist, the cliched romance between Brian and Mia being really unrelatable, the rest of the characters being either underdeveloped, shallow, or generic, the music by BT being one of the most forgettable soundtracks in the franchise, a terrible drag-racing sequence that just screams lazy and poorly-aged, and Cohen's directing makes the film look like a outdated music video from the era with bad staging and undermining Core's cinematography. It's surprising that this film managed to spawn a billion-dollar franchise, because going by the quality alone, a sequel shouldn't have been made. With that said, I can't even say that this is the worst film in the franchise. It's just a first installment that proves to be extremely underwhelming compared to the franchise. The only reason why anyone should watch this is mainly just for the cheese factor and the staples of the franchise being introduced without knowing how far it will depart in the decades to come.

Verdict: 3/10. Just a bad movie all-around that happens to be significant for the franchise it spawns. It's not worth watching, unless you like cliched, hammy stories and characters that don't fit in with the later half of the franchise.

Inside Out (2015) Film Review: An Emotional Dissection Of The Human Mind.

 

Pixar has always been making classic after classic. The reason as to why is how they make their films both for children and adults. Kids will laugh or be engaged by the visuals or jokes, while the adults might admire the maturity and themes of the film. Notice that the worst films from the studio tend to lean towards pleasing children rather than having a balance for age groups while challenging viewers with certain ideologies or themes. "Inside Out" is probably the best example of why Pixar is the most acclaimed animation department in the industry. Riley is an eleven-year old girl who's family has just moved into San Francisco. She, along every being on earth, is home to emotions that manage the inner workings of the brain and mind, being responsible for making Riley herself. During this sudden adjustment to life, her inner emotions start to react horribly to the change, despite Joy's attempts to stay in control. While she is fighting with Sadness, due to the latter's sudden ability to turn happy memories into sad ones, the two manage to get sent outside of the headquarters into long-term memory. While the two emotions try to get back to the base, the other emotions (Anger, Fear, Disgust) attempt to take over Joy's job, but the emotional imbalance is causing Riley to not only act like herself, but might make her life more complicated. The story is mainly the adventure of Joy and Sadness as they try to make their way back home while exploring the human mind. There's no antagonist involved, but rather the characters acting out of impulse. Sure, the story itself can be home to a few plot holes, with the biggest being the memory recall tube and the unhelpful mind workers, but it's made clear that the story is not based on logic, but rather, as the film's overall subject, emotion. This is where the tone comes in. While the film, at first, and for most of the runtime seems to be quite juvenile or childish in terms of design and humour, it gets really serious and somewhat thought-provoking by the third act once the importance of Sadness comes in and the Memory Dump. While kids might be a bit too young to comprehend the themes and instead feel worry from the gloomy imagery, it's the older viewers who can understand the emotional impact of what Joy is feeling. With that said, the comedy is more on the childish side, which is not something that should be changed. After all, it's a family film at the end of the day and the light-hearted and silly jokes are needed to balance out the deep themes.

Joy, voiced by Amy Poehler, is one of the best animated protagonists when it comes to their personality and journey. Joy just wants to make Riley feel happy all of the time, which causes herself to have a bit of an ego-centric problem as she feels that only she's responsible for Riley's life. She would go far as to leave Sadness in the corner as she feels that she does more harm than good. However, as she learns the importance of Sadness in herself, she not only changes as a whole, but matures to be more accepting for the other emotions and realize that all of them are equal rather than only needing one. Sadness, voiced by Phyllis Smith, is another great character that works off on Joy. Although she seems to be more of an hinderance in the group as she appears to be constantly negative, she manages to finally earn her own self-worth when she finally manages to have some say and control in the situation due to how powerful her influence is in order to have Riley have more positive experiences. From then on, you got the other emotions. There's Anger (Lewis Black), an emotion who's prone to madness and makes things in the HQ more complicated, Fear (Bill Hader), a straight-man emotion who's always bullied by Anger by his reasoning, and Disgust (Mindy Kaling), a popular girl-esque emotion who looks after Riley's fashion and social status. Aside from the emotions, there's Bing Bong, Riley's imaginary friend who's been forgotten and helps out Joy, Riley herself, an eleven-year old preteen who loves hockey and her family struggling to keep up with the sudden transition, and her parents, which are the typical stressed-out couple that have to focus on work and sorting things out with the move. I won't lie, the actual human characters aren't too interesting as the film never focuses too much on them, but the emotions as well as Bing Bong are really fleshed out. What I love about these particular characters is that they aren't exactly morally good per se. A lot of them are hoping to have things their way and hope to undermine others, but they have enough reason to believe why they do the things they do. Even though their personalities can be summed up by their names, they are much more deeper than their key character, especially when it comes to Joy and Sadness.

The animation presented in this film is probably one of the most distinct styles and uses of colour in a modern animated film. There's a lot to unpack about the animation alone, so I will just go over some highlights. The particle effects on the emotions look great, giving them a fuzzy yet glossy appearance to them. The textures of materials in general are really polished and feasible I love the details given in the real world and how the colour is sucked out due to Riley's feelings about the move. Then, there's the world-building of Riley's brain. It's just so damn creative about how the film portrays the functions of emotions, memories and so much more aspects. Long-term memory is a endless archive, the emotions use a control panel that are suited to all of their needs despite the small size, dreams are presented as movies being shot in real time, the memory dump is a depressing sea of forgotten memories, the train of thought is literally a train, and so much more details are layered in the world they create. The score by Michael Giacchino is yet another excellent score ranking with the soundtracks of the Pixar library. The main theme is both simple, beautiful, innocent, and mature, it's one of the best main themes in the animated field. The majority of his tracks tend to be on the playful, charming side, but when things get serious, it either gets really quiet or somber. Giacchino crafts a great score that remains as one of his best in his career. Pete Doctor always tends to be directing some of the best films in Pixar and this is no exception.

"Inside Out" is going to be coming down as an animated classic as time goes on. From a great premise, a tone that carries an extraordinary balance of childish innocence and earth-shattering depth, Joy and Sadness being great ploys and characters interacting off each other, the emotions in general being tied to great voice actors, the gorgeous animation that feels unique and stand out from the studio, the world-building of Riley's mind and how the animators/writers come up with creative and fun ways to portray the functions of the brain, and Giacchino's endearing score that both reflects the film's nature and identity while also becoming a great selection of music that joins the never-ending list of Pixar's catalogue. While the film shines in almost every corner in terms of quality, it's hard to ignore certain plot holes here and there, which I feel do keep the film from being perfect. While I still find "Coco" to be my favourite Pixar film, "Inside Out" is a close second.

Verdict: 9.5/10. An extremely strong contender from Pixar that's almost flawless if not for the noticeable plot holes. Besides that minor issue, it's yet another film from the iconic studio that will preserve over time to be a classic in its own right.

Green Book (2018) Film Review: Should Something This Safe Earn Best Picture?

 

If there was ever a film that people scratched their heads in confusion for winning the Oscar for Best Picture, it would be "Green Book". While it has been deemed a solid film, some felt that a more unique film should have won such as "Black Panther" or "BlackKkKlansman". Others even go on to say that the film was actually not deserving its awards and even slam the film for various issues. So, I wanted to take a look at the film to finally answer the titular burning question. It's the fall of 1962 and Tony Lip is in need of a job as the Copacabana is closed for renovations. He gets an offer to be the driver/assistant for Dr. Don Shirley, a gifted pianist who is planning to tour in the Midwest and Deep South of the US. Tony agrees under his negotiated price and embarks on a two-month journey. Although polar opposites at first, the two men start to form a bond that isn't gated by their colour or background. The story is more on the minimal side as it's really the chemistry between Tony and Shirley that grows as the film progresses. The film is not a white-savior story as the haters portray it to be. Yes, Tony is hired to protect Shirley at times, but it's not like Tony is fighting for him in every scene nor is Tony even a knight in shining armour that stands up for all minorities. It's more about the moral support and how the two learn off each other rather than Tony battling for social justice and society to change. The tone is lighthearted and tends to be more comedic than the typical biopic. I managed to get a lot of laughs out of myself and that's mainly due to Tony and the interactions between him and Shirley along with a few ignorant bystanders. While it's funny for the most part, there are some nice dramatic moments, mainly surrounding Shirley's abuse and his speech to Tony about feeling isolated in the world.

Viggo Mortensen is phenomenal as Tony. From the Brooklyn accent, the Italian-American meat-headed attitude, his enormous appetite, his obliviousness, to his caring nature when it comes to his family and Shirley, Tony is just a wonderful personality. The only issue with the character is the one scene in the beginning where he tosses the glasses that two black workers drank from in his house. I wouldn't mind if he acted like this in the rest of the film, but Tony never actually acts anything as close to that after that scene, which is really odd and almost harms the character in a way. He's so great in the film that his acting nomination might not even cover his performance. Mahershala Ali as Shirley is almost on the same level as Mortensen in the acting department. While I felt that Mortensen did a better performance, Ali still does a stand-out job in portraying the socially-tortured and posh pianist. While the film covers racism and prejudice with the mistreatment of Shirley, I find the dynamic between the two leads to be interesting as Tony, aside from that aforementioned scene in the beginning, is not portrayed as a typical racist. He's just ignorant with what he says about Shirley not fitting in with other African-Americans and how he's more black than him in regards to how he lives and the social class he inhabits. The two leads are the soul of the movie. Along with these heavy hitters, there's also a solid group of side characters. Aside from the racist one-scene characters that really come across as just the right amount of despicable, there's Linda Cardellini as Dolores, Tony's wife who receives his letters from the road-trip, Mike Hatton as George, the American bassist in Shirley's trio, and Dimiter D. Marinov as Oleg, the Russian cellist who Tony butts heads with. One thing I like is the extended family of the Vallelongas being present. Although they just act like the typical Italian family that the media has been accustomed to, the fact that certain members of the family are played by real family members of the Vallelongas is really special. The cast is generally solid, but it's really being supported by the two pillars that are Mortensen and Ali, whom the latter earned an Oscar for his performance and piano-playing.

Peter Farrelly is best known for his work on comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber" and "There's Something About Mary" along with his brother, Bobby. While still being a comedy, Peter stretches his filmmaking skills to the biopic genre, which proves to be a great choice on his part. The first thing to note about his work on the film is the impressive reconstruction of 1962 America. The film only contained a budget of $23 million, so a director has got to be careful in spending the money on the setting. Farrelly cleverly uses certain neighbourhoods, scenic routes, costume design, and vehicles to achieve the time period and it's extremely effective in bringing the viewer back to the early 60's without having grand sets or city altering. The lighting is also just wonderful as the film is just bursting with bright, natural colours during the day, and crisp nighttime shadows at night. It can be a very picturesque movie all thanks to Sean Porter's cinematography. Although it's not the most imaginative or ambitious camerawork, it gets the job done well with some nice close-ups of the characters and the landscape shots whenever Tony and Shirley drive or stop during their trip. The music by Kris Bowers is also really good with its use of music and songs being played around the time era, and the original score being more soft and hearty rather than showy. It's a bit familiar and generic at times, but I find that it really works. Overall, Farrelly did a great job in his departure from crude comedies into a more heartfelt and humorous experience.

"Green Book" is a film that rightfully deserves the praise and awards it receives, even if others prefer different films. Outside from an awful moment with Tony that feels very out of character, the film has an interesting story based on a true friendship, strong comedy and drama, acting from Mortensen and Ali, the loveable and believable chemistry of the two leads, the setting of 1962 being expertly recreated by a limited budget, visually pleasing cinematography by Porter, Bower's charming score, and Farrelly's directing being able to reach outside the reputation he's been known for in his work. Sure, it seems safe and far from being a unique film in terms of its themes and approach to writing, but it's still a great movie all around. Did it deserve to win Best Picture? Maybe not. But is it a horrible choice for the accolade? Far from it.

Verdict: 9.5/10. An almost perfect film if one simple scene was cut out of the final product. Aside from that, it's one of my favourite biopics to date.

Ford v Ferrari (2019) Film Review: Car Manufacturing Has Never Been This Entertaining!

 

If there's one thing I will let you know about myself, it's that I'm not a fan of cars. I don't care about their specs, their design or even the desire to drive them. I just don't really care for them, unlike some friends and family members I know. So, aside from the talent that was attached to this film, I wasn't really into the premise. In 1963, the Ford Motor Company is experiencing diminished sales due to heavy competition from Ferrari. After a proposed deal for Ford and Ferrari to merge falls through, Henry Ford II orders a sports car that will beat the Italian company at Le Mans, a racing competition that requires racers to drive for 24 straight hours and earn the most laps. Ford enlists Carroll Shelby to construct the Ford GT40, who Shelby brings his friend, Ken Miles, to not only help in designing the car itself, but to be the one in the driver's seat in Le Mans, to which a vice president and Ford himself refuse to allow due to Miles not fitting the "American image". Although one would believe that the racing would be the only entertaining aspect of the film, I actually thought that the smaller moments and the sequences where Shelby and Miles try to build the sports cars were really interesting, which is surprising considering my disinterest for cars in general. I think the strength is that the script and dialogue is really good in making both experts and general moviegoers to both grasp and get hooked into. It's really the character interactions that really work in making the film stand out. The tone however can be a bit odd at times. Although the film takes itself really serious for the most part considering it's based off true events, there's a surprising amount of comedy involved. While most of the jokes and situations are funny, it's jarring for this particular film. On top of that, there's some awkward dialogue here and there along with an odd scene where Miles's wife is driving recklessly just so Miles can tell her that he's planning to work with Shelby. Sometimes, the scenes blur the realism at times, but I think it's, for the most part, effective in trying to make the viewer entertained in an otherwise slow-paced film. Besides, the scenes aren't extremely over-the-top or jarring, they just seem a bit unusual despite the somewhat naturalism behind them. Despite what I said, I really love the fight between Shelby and Miles that comes across as childish and pathetic to the latter's wife.

Matt Damon as Shelby is pretty good as the eccentric yet somewhat reckless car designer and former racer. Damon shines in both the dramatic and comedic moments of the film, although he can say a pretty bad line on occasion. Christen Bale however kills it as Miles, the British mechanic and aspired racer. Not only does Bale look like the real-life counterpart, but he's fully let loose to be this hotheaded, goofball who has a good heart and just wants to make his son proud of him in during his racing. Anytime Bale is onscreen, the film is just extremely memorizing and the chemistry between him and the people in his life such as Shelby are just wholesome to watch due to how Bale buys into the character and performance. From then on, there's an assortment of side characters that carry some importance to the story along with a great performer attached to them. There's Jon Bernthal as Lee lacocca, the vice president of Ford who was the one to suggest the company to race in Le Mans, Caitriona Balfe as Mollie Miles, the supportive and concerned wife of Ken, Tracy Letts as Henry Ford II, the CEO of the Ford Company and an uptight business man, Noah Jupe as Peter Miles, Ken's son who idolizes his father and roots for him to win every race, Josh Lucas as Leo Beebe, the douchebag executive who butts heads with Shelby for him pushing Miles as the driver, and Remo Girone as Enzo Ferrari, the founder of the self-named company who's highly confident in his cars to once again win the Le Mans. The cast is generally great in their roles and all of the characters tend to feel human. Even the more questionable characters such as Ford, Ferrari and Beebe are just acting the way they are in the hopes of preserving their careers, not because they just want to do bad things on purpose. It's really the performance by Bale that stands out the most, and it's a shame he didn't even get nominated for an Oscar for his role as Ken Miles.

James Mangold is rising up to be one of the most prestigious directors and screenwriters in the industry, despite only really getting recognition in the past decade or so. His films tend to have a more gritty, humanistic approach in terms of the tone, story, and characters. Another thing that I particularly love about his films is how he recreates or constructs the settings of his films. The 1963 setting is exceptionally brought to life from the cars being driven, the technology being shown, the clothes that the characters wear, and even the dialogue that is being said feels appropriate to the time period. Although I'm particularly not a huge fan of the dated lines that Shelby or Miles say every now and then, I can't deny that it doesn't fit in the setting. I also love the use of natural lighting during the exterior shots as the California setting allows great, sunny daytime scenes as well as some pleasant-looking sunset/nighttime scenes. The cinematography by Phedon Papamichael is also fantastic, mainly by the choice of angles and feel of intensity during the race sequences. Even during the non-racing sequences, there's a sense of grandeur and beauty to the camerawork with certain exterior shots of the Californian landscape really building a sense of atmosphere along with long takes and close-ups of the characters to allow their emotions to speak out without much dialogue. The score by Marco Beltrami is underwhelming though as I can barely recall any original composing aside from the dramatic music during the end. With that said, Mangold instead relayed more on a licensed soundtrack that helps establish the 1963 backdrop to its max potential. The racing sequences are praised all across the board from the editing, audio, and sense of stakes. I particularly love the low-angle shots and the iconography of the hub caps igniting whenever the brakes start to fail, it's visually outstanding. However, I do find the ending of the film to be a bit sloppy as it tends to overstay its welcome. I personally feel that the film needed to end after Miles died in the accident in order to be an effective shock of emotion for the viewer, but they tack in Shelby being distressed and him visiting Peter, which, while decent scenes, really hold the viewer hostage for a few unnecessary minutes for an already long movie. Regardless, Mangold is still a director on the rise that will lead an outstanding legacy in Hollywood for years to come.

"Ford v Ferrari" is an extremely solid, sports biopic that manages to make the process of building a racing/sports car interesting for those who never cared for automobiles. While the tone is a bit unbalanced at times with the humour, the few lines of dialogue that sound awkward and laughable, Beltrami's score being barely noticeable, and the ending overstaying its welcome a bit, it's hard to deny that the film is very effective both in terms of its quality and entertainment value. The script and dialogue, for the most part, is easy to follow for those who don't care for the car industry nor the real events that inspired the film, the character moments are just as fun to watch as the racing sequences because of said script, the comedy is nice despite its odd implementation, Bale gives out an excellent and loveable performance as Miles, the rest of the cast, both leads and side characters, feel both natural in their performances and involved in the story despite their screen presence, Papamichael's cinematography is brilliantly shot, the soundtrack is nicely implemented for the setting, and Mangold puts all of his effort in making both the racing sequences as engaging and well-made along with the setting of 1963 California being both lively and nice to look at in regards to the exterior scenes. It's really something special when a talented filmmaker can manage to make a film on an otherwise uninteresting story for some and turn it into both a fun film to watch and a great standard for biopic and sports films to boot.

Verdict: 8/10. A few issues could have been tuned up, but it still works pretty well. A recommended watch and a film that deserved far more nominations during the Oscars. 

Bad Boys II (2003) Film Review: The Biggest Bayham Of Micheal Bay's Career!

 

With me covering the entire "Back to the Future" trilogy this past week, I thought I should finally wrap up the "Bad Boys" trilogy as well by finally getting to the sequel that outshined the original film for nearly twenty years. I'm not going to lie, this trilogy is probably the most consistent when it comes to being good action flicks with different strengths and weaknesses. Marcus Burnett and Mike Lowrey are put on the case to take down Hector Tapia, a Cuban drug lord who's distributing ecstasy into the city of Miami. As Marcus and Mike try to dig evidence and links to take down Tapia, Marcus's sister, Sydney, arrives in town as an undercover DEA agent. Tensions between Marcus and Mike build up as the former is planning to transfer, while the latter is secretly dating Sydney and is afraid to tell Marcus the news. The story is once again on the weaker side, which is not very surprising for the franchise. What is surprising though is the nearly two and a half runtime, making this the longest film in the trilogy. This is a really big problem when it comes to the pacing as the film tends to be a bit sluggish when it comes to finishing up the story. You'd think the film is about to end by the two hour mark, but they decide to extend to another half hour when Sydney gets kidnapped by Hector to allow an over-the-top climax to take place. While the story is lacking as usual, the tone is probably the most insane it's ever been, and it is mainly due to the heavy use of comedy. The first and third film is mainly reliant on the interactions between Marcus and Mike to get in the laughs, but the second one throws in some crazy scenarios to maximize the comedic potential on top of the dialogue. From the embarrassing live recording that makes the partners sound really gay, Marcus's cheap pool, Marcus being shot in his ass, the KKK shootout, to the morgue, and Marcus accidentally consuming ecstasy, the sequel goes all in with the comedy and it's probably the funniest film in the series because of it.

Will Smith as Mike is still charismatic as always. While Smith's character doesn't really go through much changes or development in the sequel, his womanizing playboy personality still tries to steal the spotlight from the cast. Martin Lawrence as Marcus is largely the same, hot-headed family man with an emphasis on large. Aside from him gaining more pounds and the sequel's focus on putting more attention to Mike rather than Marcus, Lawrence still works really well off on Smith and he still manages to secure the most laughs from the cast in regards to all of the things that happens to his character and his reasonable reactions to horrible situations. Gabrielle Union as Sydney Burnett is a nice addition to the cast, albeit her role is not as big as it seems, aside of her trying to take down Hector and ultimately getting kidnapped. While I love the sibling rivalry between her and Marcus when it comes to being protected and her career in the DEA, the romance between her and Mike is very underdeveloped as the relationship formed offscreen prior to the beginning of the film. They really needed a scene or two with her and Mike to sell their chemistry and it's a waste of potential by the end when they decide to call off the relationship. Jordi Molla as Hector is a step-up from Fouchet from the first film when it comes to being somewhat memorable. Molla hams up the screaming, larger-than-life villain who has odd quirks with his family members such as his mother and daughter. Honestly, Hector perfectly fits the tone and direction of the sequel, but he pales in comparison to Armando and Isabel Aretas from the third film when it comes to being developed and relatable. The side characters are strong as always. You of course got the returning characters such as Theresa Burnett, Marcus's wife, and Captain Howard, the boss of Mike and Marcus who doesn't stand the two's ability to always get into a crazy gunfight, but the sequel also adds some characters that stay memorable despite only appearing in this film. There's Detective Vargas and Reyes, the Hispanic officers who always joke stereotypes with Mike and Marcus, Alexi, a Russian drug dealer working with Hector played by Peter Stormare, and Floyd, a KKK member that's constantly bullied by Mike and Marcus, who's played by Micheal Shannon. That's not even including the various family and gang members that Hector surrounds himself in, who all manage to get a laugh just like the entire cast and leading stars.

Micheal Bay returns to direct the sequel, but with more than a hundred million dollars added to the budget due to his earlier box office hits. The first film had a small budget for his directorial debut, but Bay made sure that the sequel was the biggest film of his career in that time, which is kind of a double-edged sword. Miami still looks great with the sequel taking advantage of more neighbourhoods, car chases, and even the climax taking place in Cuba. One thing that I don't like about the film is the overall grungy look. The first film was shot on film and has the grain you'd come to expect, while the third film was shot digitally with crystal-clear image. This sequel was also shot on film, but there's a noticeable layer of tint or fuzz. It's hard to explain, but it resembles a lot like a music video from that time period, which feels glossy yet rough. With that said, the cinematography by Amir Mokri fits the style and flashy filmmaking that Bay is infamous for. While the non-action scenes feel like it's  sitcom-esque with mostly standard shots that hold on and a few wrap-arounds, Mokri's camerawork really shines during the action sequences. From the spin-around gunfight in the drug dealer hideout, the zoom-ins showing the bullet firing out of a pistol, aerial shots, vehicle mounts, to so many more set-ups. Mokri makes the film feel like an aforementioned music video and that's not a terrible thing as long as the film looks great. The music by Trevor Rabin replaces Mark Mancina's memorable score from the first film, which would be brought back for the third film. Rabin uses more hip-hop and R&B music to fit the film's music video aesthetic and the popularity of the genre during the time it was released. Although Mancina's score is still superior when it comes to the music involved in the franchise, Rabin's composing works really well for this specific film along with a great soundtrack that was produced by P. Diddy and Dr. Dre. The last thing to really mention would, of course, be the action sequences. I'm not going to lie, it's a step up from the first film, but a bit of a mixed bag. The action certainly gets bigger from multiple car chases, the shoot-out with the KKK and the drug dealers, and of course, the climax at Hector's mansion. While there is great camerawork and visuals along with the chaotic energy, the editing is just unbearable at times. This is the film that spawned the cliches of Bay's trademark filming style, particularly with the editing and the flashy action sequences. For me, the smaller action scenes such as the shootouts are far more effective than the car chases, which is where the edit cuts start to multiply and they overstay their welcome. While this can prove to be a problem with some viewers and haters of his work, it's hard to say that Bay can't make an adequate and somewhat engaging film with a unique sense of style.

"Bad Boys II" is about as good as the other Bad Boy films with its own pros and cons. The issues come with the weak story, very padded runtime tied with a slow pace, Sydney's character doesn't do too much in the story, the overall look of the film is a tad unappealing at times, and the extensive action sequences can really start to be bothersome with the over-editing. However, the sequel manages to balance out these issues with an over-the-top tone and focus on humour, Smith and Lawrence being great as always, Molla as Hector gives out an entertainingly silly villain, the side characters still offer laughs and memorability, Mokri's cinematography is great in terms of style and ambition, the score by Rabin gives off a new fresh hip-hop soundtrack that fits with the film and characters, the smaller action sequences are frankly some of the best in the trilogy, and the directing by Bay does work in making an extravagant, almost music-video, film that creates its own identity and builds up many foundations from the first film. All three of the "Bad Boys" films are enjoyable in their own right, but has a type of flavour for certain people. The first film is more on the chemistry and situation comedy surrounding Marcus and Mike, the third film is the best made and strongest in terms of the story, action and evolution of the characters, and the second film is the funniest and most over-the-top action-comedy fest that is great to view with friends or in the background. I hope that more films in the series are made as it remains one of the most entertaining action franchises to date.

Verdict: 7/10. Good for the comedy, tone and bombastic action, which is probably what many were expecting out of the film. All of the films are a blast to watch, but the second film is the most memorable despite its problems.

Back to the Future Part III (1990) Film Review: A Less Ambitious, Yet Solid End Of The Ride...

 

I wasn't planning to actually review all of the "Back to the Future" films last week, but after revisiting the masterpiece that is the first film, I just couldn't resist on reviewing the whole trilogy. Well, the second part was good for what it is, but a really disappointing follow-up to the first film when it came to the story and script. So, the third film must be even worse, right? Well, not really. Following right after the cliffhanger ending of the previous film where Emmett Brown got himself sent back to 1885, Marty McFly gets help from the 1955 Doc in order to send him back home to 1985, but not before learning that the Doc is going to die by the hands of "Mad Dog" Tannen a few days after he wrote his letter to Marty. Determined to save and return Doc back to the present time, Marty goes back to the Old West, damaging the DeLorean in the process. While Marty and Doc reunite and figure out how to get back home with the limited resources they have, the two get into their own share of drama with Marty being challenged to a duel with Tannen, while Doc starts falling in love with Clara, a schoolteacher who shares his love of science. The story got much more simplified compared to the second part, which is very welcome, given how that film was chaotic when it came to what it wanted to do for the story. However, the focus on making the story being set in the Old West serves a mixed bag. On the one hand, they do use the time period to their advantage when it comes on how Marty and Doc will get back home with the DeLorean. On the other hand though, the Old West is not really that interesting of a location as it's been very exposed in the media and the Western has created plenty of cliches that the film borrows. Although the writers do try to have fun with the time period as the humour and tone still remain strong and consistent, the setting of the Old West makes the third film kind of underwhelming when it comes to fresh or unique ideas. However, despite the overdone setting, the story itself is good, easy to follow and gives out the familiar suspense and engagement that the other films carry.

Micheal J. Fox as Marty is still enjoyable to watch. While the story isn't really centric or reliant on him compared to the previous films, I always appreciate Fox's performance. He's still a bit awkward in his environment and tries to act cool as much as possible, but I also like how he has both a lot of confidence and paranoia in this film when it comes to being a part of the Old West and the dangers he's about to face. Christopher Lloyd as Doc is the real star of the film though. Not only does the story revolve around him the most, but his character is the most evolved it's ever been. Doc has became more mellow in his time-travel experience and starts to question the consequences of time travel (or the lack thereof), while being eccentric when the scene demands it, and the love story between him and Clara is really charming to watch. The previously mentioned Clara, played by Mary Steenburgen, is a standard love interest for Doc Brown as she's generally sweet and loves discussing about astronomy with the scientist. Thomas F. Wilson returns to play Buford Tannen, an outlaw who's in the same lineage as Biff. Wilson is always fun to watch as the villain, and while Buford isn't as energetic due to the Western stereotype, Wilson still gives out a decent performance. With the case of the side characters, the film manages to improve on the memorability of these smaller roles, while also messing up on a few aspects. While the background characters such as the bar patrons, Chester the bartender, Buford's gang members, the mayor, and Marshal Strickland are likeable and offer lots of charm and laughs, McFly's ancestors are practically unnecessary in the story as there's no arc for them and it's really just an excuse to have Fox play an ancestor while Lea Thompson plays as his wife for literally no reason other than to have the actress involved in the film. This is also on top of George being even more sidelined than before, which is still insulting for Crispin Glover. Regardless, the main cast is as strong as ever and the minor characters actually get more to do. It's just that there was no need to have the McFly ancestors at all as it just takes up useless time of the film that could have been put more into the chemistry between Doc and Clara.

Robert Zemeckis clearly wanted the last film of the trilogy to be set in the Old West due to his love for the Western genre. While he once again shows that he's skilled on the directing chair as always, the issue comes with the fact that his homage and vision to make his own Western film backfires in his face a bit when it comes down to the setting. The 1885 Hill Valley just doesn't look fleshed-out or real. While there is some nice attention-to-detail and the background characters are lively, the town itself looks very much like a set on a studio backlot. I understand that it's due to the geography of the town and also just to make it feel more old-fashioned, but the depiction of Hill Valley just makes it feel shallow and generic when it's just the typical small, Western town. However, Dean Cundey's cinematography manages to ensure that the film looks great with lots of arial, panning, and establishing shots that allow the landscapes of the countryside to really shine. Even though the film is not as colourful compared to the previous films, Cundey uses great amounts of brown and natural lighting to his advantage. The score by Alan Silvestri actually improves from the previous film and creating a unique identity in the audio department as the iconic music is remixed into a western-sounding score. I also love the music that plays in the opening credits as Marty and Doc sleep in the latter's place. As for licensed songs, the third film doesn't utilize any due to the setting, although the band, ZZ Top, cameo as a band during a celebration and play one heck of a country tune. I did make a mistake in my last review by not mentioning that Part II did have a rock song when Marty enters the town square of the alternate 1985. The song however is still really forgettable and blends in with the chaotic ambience in the scene. The visual effects are far more downplayed in this film due to the Western setting. However, there are still some neat uses of the actor playing multiple role technique with Fox in the McFly estate and the climax revolving around the train heading straight to a cliffside in an attempt to speed up the DeLorean is a great set-piece with amazing use of miniatures and fire effects. Surprisingly, Zemeckis's direction fails to create a convincing Old West setting, but the rest of the filmmaking puts all of their effort to the setting and creating a high-stakes and visually striking adventure despite the less ambitious location and story. I also think the ending is great. Sure, the whole bit with Needles and the laughable screentime of Jennifer and the McFly family is contrived, but the ending revolving the theme of the future being unwritten and that it's up to how one lives their life is really profound stuff and leaves a satisfying end to a trilogy that really didn't need to be made.

"Back to the Future Part III" manages to be a nice, albeit flawed, conclusion. The setting of the Old West lends to a bunch of tired cliches and underwhelming continuation of the ambition of the previous film, the McFly ancestors are extremely unnecessary in the story and really only serve as a sight gag, and the overall location of the 1885 Hill Valley is just really poorly created and looks like a theme park attraction rather than a real, breathing town due to the surroundings and overall Western genre tropes. With that said, there's still plenty of good things. The story is far more straightforward to follow, the Western setting does at least offer some challenges for the characters, the tone and humour is still consistent, Marty and Doc feel more evolved than ever with strong performances by Fox and Lloyd, Clara offers a nice romantic subplot into the story and development of Doc's character, Wilson as Buford still chews the scenery as the enjoyable villain, Cundey's cinematography is his best work in the series, Silvestri's score stands out more and manages to sound different yet familiar to his original composing for the first film, the visual effects and stunts are really good at bringing the most ambitious climax in the franchise on screen, and Zemeckis manages to wrap up the trilogy with a nice ending and a little, if uncreative, take on the Western genre. I honestly feel that the sequels were mainly created just to have the impactful message at the end of this film, which might have caused some weaker writing as a result to create that specific ending. Even if I don't think a trilogy needed to exist, the "Back to the Future" films are all entertaining in their own right and are still charming to this day, even if the first one is undoubtedly the best.

Verdict: 7.5/10. A better follow-up compared to Part II, yet pales in comparison to the first film. Still, a fitting, if somewhat safe, conclusion to the trilogy.

Back to the Future Part II (1989) Film Review: A Time Paradox Of A Sequel...

 

If there's a sequel that does so many things right and wrong, the second part to the "Back to the Future" trilogy might be one of the most conflicting in recent memory. Taking place immediately after the first film, Doc Brown has pulled Marty McFly to the future of 2015 in order to prevent their children to be locked in prison. After quickly taking care of the problem, Marty has the idea of buying a sports almanac in order to earn tons of cash, which Doc immediately dissuades him from. However, an observant and elderly Biff manages to take both the almanac and the DeLorean without the two knowing, allowing him to travel back to 1955 and give his younger self the almanac in order to become a billionaire. Because of this, as Marty and Doc return to 1985, Hill Valley has become a rundown criminal hang-out as Biff is the corrupt ruler of the town. Now, Marty and Doc have to travel yet again to 1955 in order to retrieve the almanac and prevent the dystopia reality to occur. The biggest problem with the sequel, and I think a lot of people can agree, is that there are clearly too many things happening in the story. The storyline regarding the future of 2015 is wrapped in the first third of the film, which also shows a meaningless plot-point of Marty's future being in trouble due to a car accident messing up his musical career and getting fired by his employer. That plot-point practically disappears throughout the rest of the film and is only ever brought up again in the end of the third film. The time spent in the alternate 1985 is only 20 minutes or so, less than a third of the film, which is odd considering how crucial it is to the trilogy. And the story where Marty is back in 1955 takes up the rest of the film, all leading up to a cliffhanger ending that ties directly to the third film. Speaking of the third film, this movie is constantly teasing elements of the third movie from Doc's favourite time period, him wanting to study women, Biff's ancestor being an outlaw, and countless other references. While I enjoy the 2015 and alternate 1985 settings, I hate that the majority of the film takes place right back in 1955, despite some enjoyable moments regarding Biff and his older self. On top of the rushed and messy narrative, the script has quite a few odd elements and contrived moments. From Jennifer being brought with the guys to the future only to be constantly unconscious, Doc wanting to destroy the DeLorean even before they see the alternate 1985 timeline, Marty leaving the door open to the DeLorean, to Marty being triggered whenever someone calls him a chicken, the script is far weaker compared to the first film. Still, the tone stays consistent and there are about the same amount of jokes in the sequel with the focus on the character interactions and the future setting.

The cast of the first film returns, albeit a few got replaced during the way and the side characters aren't nearly as memorable. Micheal J. Fox is great as ever as Marty, the good-hearted yet careless teen who has to fix his biggest mistake of having the almanac get into Biff's hands. I do like that he's given much more range in his comedic and dramatic chops, particularly in the alternate 1985. Although I like his portrayals of the future Marty and his son, I don't understand why he's playing his future daughter though. Christopher Lloyd is always loveable as Doc, who has been more seasoned with the future and the problems of time travel. While I don't like the contrived nature of him wanting to destroy the DeLorean right before anything terrible happens, I do like that the character himself does change to be more of a buzzkill as he doesn't want to carry Marty's mistakes onto his shoulders. Lloyd still has some fun moments though with the character, such as how he removes the old-man makeup in the beginning to show that he's 30 years younger, even though he still looks the same except he has no wrinkles. Thomas F. Wilson as Biff however practically steals the movie from the iconic duo. While he was enjoyable in the first film, he's the star of the sequel as he not only has more enjoyable versions of himself such as the grumpy grandpa, the chaotic grandson, and the Trump-esque businessman of the alternate 1985. He's so over-the-top in his performances that the interactions with any of his characters with either Marty or each other are probably the best moments in the film since he's both so interesting and entertaining to watch. Lea Thompson returns as Lorraine with the same amount of charm as before. Although the film is mainly focused on her 1955 counterpart, I do like the sweet old grandmother in 2015, and the submissive depressed wife to Biff in the alternate 1985. While all of these performances are as memorable as ever, there are some issues with the extended cast. Elisabeth Shue replaces Claudia Wells as Jennifer, who is not only miscast as she looks much older, but utterly redundant to the story as she's completely sidelined after the first act. It just makes you question why have the character in the first place. As for Crispin Glover as George McFly, he not only replaced by some look-alike, but he's barely in the film due to Glover not wanting his likeness involved in the film, causing the scenes in 1955 to be worked around with not having his character shown much. There are reasons as to why Wells and Glover didn't return, but the producers really didn't care for the integrity of the characters, especially with George being the heart of the first film. As for the side characters, well, they are less of them in the sequel that catch your attention. Outside of Principal Strickland, Marty's children and Biff's/Griff's gang members who are just filled with as much personality as you can for these limited roles, there's just a lack of notable background characters to make the settings feel as life-like, unlike the first film. It also doesn't help that Marty's siblings and a few other characters are just completely absent. Regardless, Fox, Lloyd, Thompson, and Wilson all do their part in carrying the torch to not only top their performances from the previous film, but to make the sequel almost as loveable.

While I thought that Robert Zemeckis was at his prime in the first film when it comes to his directing, the sequel pushes him to his limits when it comes to the ambitious yet flawed vision. The 2015 Hill Valley is perhaps the most iconic aspect of Part II. Of course there are plenty of inaccuracies, but the vision is just so imaginative and colourful. From the flying cars, wacky clothes, automated machinery, to accessing things with your thumbs are just the tip of the widely-inventive "future". You can tell that this is where a large amount of effort was put into the production, set, and visual design, which is more impressive when you consider that the setting is only prominent in the first act of the film. The alternate 1985 Hill Valley is effective at being covered in the grimy night and heavy amounts of shadows to show the corrupting darkness that has captured the town. However, it's easy to see that not much time was thought into this setting due to the lack of in-universe detail of how Hill Valley became the way it is. The 1955 Hill Valley is just as colourful and simple as before, but the charm isn't as effective due to it not only being the backbone of the entire film, but it being so prominent in the previous film. Dean Cundey returns as cinematographer along with a new camera system that allows a great use of panning to allow an actor to play multiple roles in a single setting. While I prefer the grounded and somewhat limited scale of his work in the first film, I appreciate the more inventive camerawork alongside the trademark cranes, zoom-ins, long takes, which matches the new level of ambition for the sequel and a sense of professionalism. Alan Silvestri returns to compose the sequel and offers a far more standard soundtrack as a result. Although he puts his full attention on an orchestrated theme for the music of the film, the issue is that there's barely anything new or noteworthy in the sequel. It's good to listen to, but there's no sense of evolution or identity. As for the licensed songs, well, there aren't any. Aside from "Johnny B. Goode" and a poorly-dubbed "Earth Angel", there isn't any new songs to tie in for the sequel, which is a shame as having a specific song to introduce the 2015 and alternate 1985 Hill Valley would be really effective. The visual effects however are perhaps the most effective aspect to the sequel. This is right before CGI really took over in the industry, which is why a lot of effects are using tons of practical and editing techniques from green-screen, miniatures and compositing. I made a mistake in my previous review of the first film where I mentioned that there was a use of CGI, but the truth is both films never used CGI at all, aside from that "Jaws 19" ad in the sequel. The compositing isn't perfect and there are some iffy uses of green-screen, but other than that, the effects are very commendable, especially the flying cars and the camerawork and editing that allows the same actor to share the same space with themselves. Overall, the filmmaking manages to outshine the first film in some ways, but is lacking in others, which is why I stated that Zemeckis was at his prime with the first film.

"Back to the Future Part II" is a worthy follow-up in some ways. The tone and humour are as familiar as ever, Marty, Doc and Lorraine are all entertaining as before but with an added hint of mellow and change to their characters that don't heavily alter their personality, Wilson is by far the best actor in the sequel as he's extremely involved with the various interpretations of Biff and Griff, the 2015 Hill Valley is so imaginative in its inaccuracies and goofy vision of the future, the alternate 1985 Hill Valley is cosmetically an interesting dystopia despite not much time or background into the world, Cundey's camerawork has improved even more with the new camera system and ambitious panning and tracking shots, the effects match up to the ambition of the sequel with the various use of the clever cinematography and editing along with some nice-looking compositing, matte-paintings and miniatures for the 2015 "future", and Zemeckis putting all of his directing efforts at recapturing the magic of the first film along with an ambitious vision in trying to please all of the fans of the first film. However, the sequel falters in plenty of areas that aren't easy to defend. The story is very all over the place as it constantly jumps around setting after setting with a different goal after another, the decision to have the second half of the film be a revisit to 1955 is very underwhelming despite the effects and performances, the constant teasing of the set-ups in Part III feel really hammered in with no subtlety in retrospective, the pointless sub-plot of future Marty being fired, there are some contrived moments for the characters that feel really forced, Jennifer was completely pointless in the narrative, Glover's absence makes the character of George completely sidelined and unimportant, the lack of memorable side characters and the missing characters from the previous film, and Silvestri's composing leaves little impact along with no licensed songs to help add some charm. While the sequel can at times wow you and offer a twist to the magic of the first film, the script and story really kills off its chances of being nearly on par to the first film or being considered a worthy follow-up. By sequel standards, it's not that bad, but considering how perfect the first film is, it's pretty disappointing.

Verdict: 7/10. A good, if flawed, movie on its own merits, but is a huge step in quality from the masterpiece that is the first film. Still worth a watch for the charm, effects, and performances.

Back to the Future (1985) Film Review: A Timeless Classic No Matter How Many Years Past...

 

If there's one film that is perhaps the most universally loved by anyone to the point that they would both love the sequels and deny any chance of a full-blown remake, it will be "Back To The Future". Since I recently got the 35th anniversary Blu-Ray collection, I felt that it's time to give the film a review. Marty McFly is an average teen from the 80's whose dreams of becoming a rock star are always dashed, which is worsened by his family's circumstance in how that all of his family members are losers or failures in some way. As he spends time with his very old scientist friend, Emmett Brown, he is blown away by the scientist managing to create a time machine out of a DeLorean. When Brown is suddenly killed by Libyan terrorists who he stole plutonium from, Marty accidentally uses the time machine to get away from the terrorists, sending back to 1955. Not only does Marty have to work with a younger Brown in order to get back to 1985, but he must make sure that his parents fall in love with each other after he unintentionally changed the past and have his mother fall in love with him while also dealing with Biff, a school bully who torments his young parents in different ways. The story is simply excellent. The time travel element is handled perfectly as its both really clever and simple to follow for the average viewer that it never gets them too confused about any logic gaps. Although there can be a bit too much happening throughout the film, it's never to the point where it gets confusing, which is mainly thanks to the pacing of the film. Each storyline is enjoyable in its own way from Marty and Brown trying to find a way to send the former into the future, Marty helping his young father, George, to stand up for himself and ask his crush out, and Marty trying to evade both Biff and his posse as well as the sexual advances from his mother, Lorraine. Even with the last storyline being very uncomfortable due to the incest vibes, the tone makes sure that it stays very lighthearted without dumbing it down for children. It's a film any age-group can watch and understand, albeit it's more easier to understand the story, jokes or circumstances as an adult rather than a kid. Speaking of jokes, the film is really funny, but in a different way than the average comedic film. It's really the character acting, charm, and subtlety of the jokes that gets a laugh out of me and the film never tries too hard that it shoves in joke after joke.

If the story and writing is this great, the characters are in another level. Micheal J. Fox is so charming as Marty, the teenage spirit that carries the torch of the tone and films. Fox is both dramatic and funny in every single second, whether it's small moments or stand-out sequences. Even though he's a man out of his time, it's the environment that allows him to express himself the most and get away with bottled-up emotions and feelings, mainly due to the fact that he doesn't exist yet. While Marty is the main character, he is surrounded by an entire cast of likeable actors that play these larger-than-life characters. Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown is probably my favourite character in the franchise just due to his eccentric, almost crazy yet loveable personality. He never comes across as creepy around Marty and acts very much as an uncle role model that Marty lacks in his life. The performance from Lloyd is perhaps the strongest pillar in the franchise due to his vast scientific and time-travel knowledge locked in a goofy character. Crispin Glover as George McFly is my second character of the film for his sensitive, insecure nature with a sci-fi-loving geekiness. Although Glover knocks it out of the park for all three versions of his character presented in the film, it's his 1955 self that's a core part of the movie as he really works off the partnership of Marty and the blossoming romance with Lorraine. It's a real shame that he never participated in the sequels as his performance really gave the first film a piece of likability and heart that the sequels seem to lack. Lea Thompson as Lorraine Baines is also just really wholesome. Although her alcoholic, depressed version of herself in 1985 is pretty funny, her teenage self in 1955 is loveable and innocent. While we as the viewer know that her being in love with Marty is terrible, you can't but feel charmed by her bubbly personality and it's so heartwarming when she and George do get together. Last to mention in detail would be Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen, the school bully in 1955 who lusts after Lorraine and loves to belittle George and Marty. Even though he is portraying the cliche bully archetype, Wilson plays it with so much personality and energy that he becomes loveable in his own way. On top of all of these central characters, there are the side characters that have their own quirks and shining moments. From Marty's girlfriend, Jennifer, his siblings, Dave and Linda, Principal Strickland, Goldie Wilson, and Biff's gangs, the side characters all have personality to them that make each single character fleshed out in some way or form, no matter their screentime. This is perhaps one of the best casts to date from the range of performances to the likeable, fleshed-out characters.

Robert Zemeckis is a director who I really conflicted with. While I love his early weeks, he has really lost his touch after the 2000's as he seemed to lost his sense of talent or unique direction. It's worse as when you watch "Back To The Future", you can tell that this was Zemeckis at his prime. The setting of the fictional Hill Valley, California is just bursting with character. In the 80's, it feels a bit aged and run-down with a lack of colour as time went on. But as soon as Marty goes back to the 50's, the town feels fresh and full of life, energy and colour. The production design is great at capturing the lifestyle and culture of the 1950's contrasting with the at-then present time of the 1980's. Even at that time, it was like stepping into a new world, which is how both Marty and the viewer feels like as they step into the town square. The use of the notorious DeLorean as the model for the time machine was both a contemporary in-joke and just a unique, cool idea that the car has become a pop culture icon. However, it's Dean Cundey's cinematography that makes the most out of the film's otherwise modest production budget of $19 million. There are plenty of tracking, low-angle and crane shots that give off a sense of scope and vision. What I love about it is that it never goes too ambitious or stylistic. Although it's mainly due to a limited budget, I like that the camerawork is on par to how many would shoot films in the 50's if they had a massive budget. Much like Zemeckis, it's a shame how Cundey started to work on far lesser projects during the 2000's and beyond. The score by Alan Silvestri is iconic to say the least and it might be his best work of his career. The main theme is epic, romantic and fantastical, while also capturing that youthful 80's energy and Steven Spielberg/John Williams vibe that it still causes confusion about who composed the score to this day.  On top of that, the film has a killer soundtrack from "Johnny B. Goode", "The Power of Love", and "Earth Angel". The soundtracks covers great rock, pop and slow music beats that anyone can get into. The effects are surprisingly minimalistic, given the science-fiction and time travel narrative. The use of green-screen is obvious, but the lack of it helps at not denting the quality of the film. The composite and early CGI effects however look pretty good today, mainly due to the elements being affected such as the family photo and the DeLorean. Overall, Zemeckis did a fantastic job in directing and this is perhaps the best film he has created in his career, despite some serious competition.

I don't think there's much more I can say about "Back To The Future". It has a great premise, accessible tone, nice comedic moments, the performances from the main cast are extremely memorable in their own right, the side cast is also bursting with character, the setting of Hill Valley is stuffed with personality thanks to the quaint small-town look and depictions in the 50's and 80's, the production design that perfectly sends us back in time to the 50's where anyone would want to live in, Cundey's masterful cinematography that has both scale and effort while keeping the camera a bit restricted by making the film feel as if it was made in the 50's, Silvestri's music is legendary, the songs used are earwormy, the effects are good and simple, and Zemeckis proved, at the time, that he's a talented filmmaker with untapped potential. Honestly, my only real issue with the film was that it shouldn't have been a trilogy. Not only do the sequels have problems of their own, but the first film was practically perfect at being a standalone feature. Regardless, the movie will remain both as a brilliant film and a time capsule of sorts for the time eras and filmmaking it represents.

Verdict: 10/10. A masterpiece of the 80's and Zemeckis's career. You must be crazy if you have never checked it out!