Encanto (2021) Film Review: Disney's Best After Five Years?

 

Ever since "Zootopia", Disney Animation hasn't really been putting their biggest effort in their films. "Ralph Breaks the Internet" and "Frozen 2" were insulting follow-ups to respectable films and "Moana" and "Raya and the Last Dragon" had their moments, but didn't have a sharp script or strong enough theme to complement the film. Much like "Raya and the Last Dragon", I barely noticed the advertising of the latest film from Disney and expected something that was going to be average, but was pleasantly surprised by the time the credits rolled. In a rural town, the Madrigal family are the most talked-about, mainly due to their magical house and candle that grants each member of the bloodline a special gift. One member of the family though, Mirabel, never received a gift and is treated like the black sheep because of it. When Mirabel starts to notice signs of the house losing its magic, it's up to her to learn what's causing it and the true nature of her family's struggles. Throughout the story, I was sucked in to the growing mystery and narrative from a lost family member to uncertain outcomes to the themes of the story about families needing to work through toxicity and not holding the status quo. While the story did hold my interest for the entire runtime, it sadly falls by the very end. Not only does the film never explain why Mirabel doesn't receive powers whatsoever or if her being the only one without powers has a greater meaning, but the ending actually makes everyone loses their powers and magical house only to give everything back to them by the final minute, just for the sake of a happy ending for children. The ending really needed to have been changed or expanded upon in my opinion. And while I like the more mature tone that fits with the themes and storytelling along with the solid emotional and character moments, the comedy is pretty mixed in the use of good and bad jokes. I watched it in theatres with a good amount of families and the laughs are very uneven to say the least. When the humour is focused on the family dynamic, it's pretty good. When it's focused on animals or outsider characters, it's not.

Mirabel, voiced by Stephanie Beatriz, is on the same level as Judy in regards to loveable Disney protagonists. She's quirky, wholesome, a bit of a klutz and just has a great range of personality and emotional range. Her acceptance of embracing herself despite lacking a gift is a great arc, even if that whole plot point can be frustrating to me. Abuela Alma is a very interesting character that I'm surprised a Disney film would cover. While at first a supportive, if stern, grandmother, Alma reveals her true colours at revealing her vile side in making both Mirabel and Bruno the black sheep of the family in order to hold that perfect reputation for her family. She's extremely realistic in how much she loves her family to the point that it starts to hurt them, but is not evil or completely unredeemable. She's just a toxic family member that needs to be put on the same page as others. Uncle Bruno, voiced by John Leguizamo, is a bit of a retread of Hector from "Coco", but he's such a fun and tragic character that I honestly wouldn't have minded if the film copied that whole plot-line from the Pixar masterpiece. The rest of the family are also well-developed and have their moments of chemistry and growth with Mirabel for the most part with the muscle-bound Luisa, the super-hearing Dolores, and the innocent, animal-loving Antonio along with more minor, comic-relief family members, particularly the male characters. However, not everyone of the family is as fleshed out as they could have been or even likeable. Julieta, Mirabel's mother, is the typical supportive mother who doesn't have a unique conflict with her own mother, which is something that felt oddly left out. Tia Pepa is just the stressed-out and annoying family member that never really connects with Mirabel or even her own son. Lastly, Isabela, Mirabel's sister, is far too mean to Mirabel for literally no reason when the film could have made her envious by making her wish that she lacked her gift and be in the background like Mirabel. Still, the cast is very enjoyable with many characters competing for being a favourite, much like the conflict of the film.

The animation is fantastic as usual coming from Disney. Not only is the film bursting with vivid colour and even a moody atmosphere on occasion, but the detail is just spectacular. The character designs are a nice balance of cartoonish and realistic with a touch of exaggeration, but they look just like how they act like real people. The songs by Lin-Manuel Miranda are pretty good with "The Family Madrigal", "Waiting on a Miracle", "Surface Pressure", "We Don't Talk About Bruno", "What Else Can I Do?", and "All of You" being respectable numbers on their own right. Although his work on "Moana" is probably more memorable, the songs he writes here are inherently better as it not only feels like Miranda wrote them, but it ties a lot more into Columbian and Latino music as a whole. Overall, the animation and songs are top-tier in Disney's line-up.

"Encanto" manages to get up to the top ten best that the studio has offered, but could have easily been in the top five or even three. The ending, along with unsatisfying aspects of the plot and characters, just hold the film back from being a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean it's not a strong effort. The story did a great job in unfolding a mystery, the themes and morals are resonant, the more mature tone is balanced off with the more juvenile humour, Mirabel is a fun protagonist, Alma is a unique deuteragonist, the rest of the family member mostly add to the fun or even have some great development with Mirabel, the animation is beautiful, and the songs/musical numbers Miranda and Disney has offered for a while. I was very pleased to know that this film was as good as it was, flaws and all.

Verdict: 8.5/10. A great Disney classic in the making, but so close in being their next masterpiece. Looking forward for their next project to come...

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Close To The Best Of The Best...

 

When Spider-Man's identity is revealed to the public and causes problems for his and his loved ones, Peter Parker asks Doctor Strange to make a spell to make everyone forget that he was Spider-Man. As Peter starts to get cold feet about the results, the spell is messed up and pulled in five villains who knew Peter from other universes. Upon learning their history though, Peter wants to save the villains from a dark fate, something Strange doesn't care or seek to aid him in. That's all I will say about the plot, but let's just say it gets pretty spectacular. I wasn't in love with the previous Holland films due to the MCU nature, but the final installment in this trilogy starts to mature out from the typical MCU formula to an actual Spider-Man movie, one that's really good. The story however does have minor issues and large plot holes galore, but the film is hoping that you ignore these writing problems and get won over by the overall experience, which it does, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist. The tone is a perfect marriage of MCU light-hearted humour and actual drama. Although some jokes overstay their welcome or are just not that funny, a large amount of them do hit and the emotional beats are actually effective in this trilogy, because Peter isn't whining or put in a mild predicament. It's dark, but fun at the same time.

Tom Holland excels at his performance of Peter, thanks to a vastly improved screenplay and character growth for the character. I always thought that he's a great actor, but the previous films held him back in the writing department. Now, these issues are gone and you start to feel for Holland and the journey he has to endure. Zendaya and Jacob Batalon as MJ and Ned are still great supporting roles as the girlfriend and best friend, who are also at their best in this movie. Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is still decent and they actually gave Marisa Tomei's Aunt May actually have a character rather than be a youthful aunt joke. It should have happen much earlier, but I'm glad that the character of May is actually fixed. Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange is also kept as the perfect side role for a MCU lead, unlike Tony or Nick Fury in previous films. He does do pivotal things in the story, but Strange is written in a great way so that he has perfect reason why he doesn't get involved as much as he does. The returning villains are also done justice for the most part. Willam Dafoe's Green Goblin is such a classic to see and challenges Peter's mission throughout the movie, Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is a disgruntled, hopeless broken man that doesn't believe in salvation, and Jamie Foxx's Electro actually was improved from his initial appearance as they utilize Foxx's charisma and his previous development of him turning into a villain because he felt like a nobody. While these villains are done very well, the same can't be said for Sandman and Lizard. I will try to not dive into spoilers, but the issues with their characters is that they not only have strong motivations unlike the other villains, but they rarely feel connected to the others, because of the lack of chemistry and jokes played much with them and lack of character development. It also doesn't help that the effects on them are a bit off and the actors are reduced to a voice-over role. I understand the reason why they are done the way they are in order to keep their involvements secret along and to flesh out the other villains, but I wish that they either got different villains to take their place or just give them more development or moments of interaction. Despite that creative hiccup, the cast is greatly acted and loveable throughout, holding a strong foundation for the entire runtime.

Jon Watts is slowly, but surely, becoming a talented director. While Watts still suffers from having that lack of flair, style, overproduced, studio look in the first half of the film, he starts to experiment far more by the second half. From creative shots to use of colour to just avoiding the typical MCU look, Watts branches out more by the time it feels like he can get passionate about the film he's making, which is a far cry from the lackluster effort he did from previous films. One thing that holds him and the film back though is the editing by Jeffery Ford and Leigh Folsom Boyd. While the second half of the film feels mostly untouched, it's very apparent that the first half had tons of scenes and moments trimmed down or cut. From cutting down on the opening crisis of Peter being framed for murder to making certain reveals or moments feel awkwardly start or end, the editing in the first half is messy and I hope deleted scenes make it into the home release. The cinematography by Mauro Fiore is solid, but doesn't utilize the impressive tracking shots and methodical planning from his other work. Still, he offers some great iconic shots and moments throughout the movie to make up for the lack of trademark. The score by Michel Giacchino improves even more for this final theme as while he carries over the previous themes and mixes them around, he cuts out a lot of licensed music and settles for a more dramatic, orchestra complete with choir. Giacchino is slowly becoming a prominent name in the composing title and this film shows off just what he can accomplish. The visual effects are very good for the most part with the best aspect being the de-aging effects for Molina and Dafoe. While some of the CGI is a bit spotty during the climax along with the overall appearances of Sandman and Lizard, it's still great work and never comes off as problematic. The action sequences are again another thing that vastly improved from the previous films. Not only do they feel much more grander in scale and have more numerous fights, but there's a great fight near the end of the second fight that got me smiling throughout the entire thing. The climax is also a lot of fun, even if the setting feels a bit done-before. Aside from some weak effects here and there and the choppy editing in the first half, the filmmaking is vastly improved, thanks to the talents of Giacchino and Watts.

"Spider-Man: No Way Home" manages to be my third favourite "Spider-Man" film ever made. What holds it back from "Spider-Man 2" and "Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse" are the more noticeable issues as opposed to the other's only containing one issue (2's power loss narrative in a logical sense and Spiderverse's villain issue). From the various plot concerns, the poor treatment of Sandman and Lizard, and the editing by Ford and Boyd do make their presence known and it does hold this film back from truly the best of the best, unless you just don't care or ignore these issues, which I can't. Despite this, this film still accomplishes a lot. From the great story, wonderful use of a light and dark tone, Holland's Peter offering the best performance and development in the franchise, the side characters being more prominent and supportive, the main three villains offering their great presence and new character arcs, the camerawork by Fiore offering some great imagery, the score by Giacchino being the best of the trilogy with the more dramatic approach, the effects being pretty good all throughout, the action being far more exciting and memorable than ever before, and Watt's direction managing to improve more and more by the end of this trilogy. If future Spider-Man films are just as good with the potential of another trilogy, we can have the best superhero trilogy ever made. While flawed in its areas, this is still a great Spider-Man movie and superhero blockbuster extravaganza.

Verdict: 8.5/10. An amazing installment, but could have been even better if tweaked in areas. Still excited for the potential future of the character.

 

Eternals (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: A Never-Ending Borefest...

 

With "Spider-Man: No Way Home" coming out this week, I feel it's appropriate to review the last MCU film to come out today. Because of a borderline disinterest, I didn't watch "Eternals" when it came out and was actually planning to review the new Resident Evil film instead. However, due to a change of plans, I did manage to watch this in the weekend and got what I was expecting to get. Is it just as bad as the other MCU films that came out this year? Kind of...

Positives:

• The acting as a whole. While the characters have their issues for sure, the performances are pretty solid and you can tell that the actors and actresses are doing their best in handling this material.
• Chloe Zheo's direction. The Oscar-winning director does truly lend her talents to the MCU in regards to the commitment to on-location shooting and a polished, cinematic feel that is overlayed on a film that looks like an Oscar-bait attempt.
• The cinematography by Ben Davis. From the wide, establishing shots to the creative angles and zoom lens, Davis does a great job at making this film look as visually pleasing as it is.
• The score by Ramin Djawadi. While not his best work in regards to memorability, Djawadi does try to make this score feel as unique as possible when contrasted to other Marvel films, offering a lot of choir, orchestra and a dramatic scale to the film and its emotional moments.
• The visual effects. Not every effect is convincing, but the CGI is well-rendered and does look like it matches the movements and gestures of the characters onscreen.
• The action sequences. Although the action is hampered by the pacing, it looks pretty good mainly thanks to Davis's camerawork and the visuals. The fight with Ikiris and the ambush in the Amazon are the best sequences that the film offers. While not holding a light to "Shang-Chi", it at least is better to watch than any of the action presented in "Black Widow."

Negatives:

• The story. The premise of a group of immortal beings being on Earth for thousands of years and not partaking in the mold of human history is a neat, albeit complicated, concept. While the idea of the supposed heroes actually being villains in regards to their purpose being to monitor and destroy worlds for their cosmic creators is interesting, the story itself falters by the type of franchise it is in along with the various characters and sub-plots it throws in. Exposition is another big problem as the film literally opens up on a wall of text rather than showing the viewer the backstory. Even the story doesn't feel necessary to the MCU as all of the characters get pulled out of the galaxy and the world can continue on not acknowledging the events of the film much at all. I will expand more on how the story ultimately doesn't work as I continue through.
• The pacing. The film is two-and-a-half hours long and it feels much longer. The issue is that the story is set up to bring the gang back together for the climax. This type of narrative isn't so bad on paper, but the editing completely screws up the execution. The use of flashbacks overstay their welcome and the attempt to introduce the characters and their lives on modern-day not only gets repetitive, but slows down to the point that they have to introduce the final character by unearthing their ship, which raises a ton of questions and feels a bit unsatisfying. The worst part about all of this is that scenes and sub-plots take up too much time and don't amount to anything, which makes the film even more padded than it really is. This problem is doubled down on when other sub-plots and elements don't have much time to elaborate on, particularly certain philosophies and romances.
• The tone. This is the most uneven tone I've seen in a MCU film. The film tries hard in making an otherwise serious and introspective story, but is forced to endure the cliche MCU comedy. The comedy itself rarely hits the mark and should have been reserved to one or two characters than all of them. As for the serious nature and themes, these elements alone could have made the film one of the best in the MCU, but it botches that up by not really going all the way with its ideas. While ideas such as the consequences of immortality, powers that one can't really use, human design, universal plans, and even the larger question of letting one world die to make hundreds more are mostly downplayed upon, making the characters mostly align to one shared view by the end.
• Sersi as the protagonist. Gemma Chan is a great actress, but her talents can not save this blank slate of a character. Sersi has no notable personality traits and her reasons to love humanity and defend Earth is so basic that it begs the question why was she chosen as the lead character for this film. The worst thing about her character is the romance between her and Ikiris not being fleshed out. The film never explains why she grew distant from Ikaris romantically despite being together for thousands of years and it makes her feel like a deus ex machina by the end because Ikiris gives up his conquest after refusing to hurt Sersi.
• The villains. Ikaris, played by Richard Maddon, is well-acted and does have the potential to be a threatening villain, but the aforementioned romance with Sersi brings down his credibility since his life-long goal can easily be derailed from a lame romantic sub-plot. Ikaris also being another evil Superman archetype is pretty lazy as well. But the worst offender have got to be Kro, voiced by Bill Skarsgard. The Deviants are already pretty lame monsters that the Eternals have to battle, but the film shows a bit of potential as the leader of the Deviants begins to evolve by taking the powers and intellect of the Eternals he has killed, eventually vowing revenge on the Celestials and Eternals for what they have been doing to his kind. This could have been interesting by the climax as Eros could have joined forces with the Eternals to defeat Ikiris and stop the birth of another Celestial, which would be a satisfying arc and conclude the arcs of Thena and the Deviants perfectly. But nope, Eros is killed by Thena, despite being able to heal his wounds throughout the film and he just served as a lame villain at the end of the day.
• The other characters. I will try to get through all of the other characters as brief as possible. Kingo is meant to be the comic relief of the film and does shine in a few moments, but the character ultimately doesn't serve much purpose as he actually refuses to participate in the climax, which makes him a bit of a scumbag. Sprite's child-like appearance allows for an interesting debate and potential arc for this spiteful, envious Eternal, but her villainous deeds get randomly rewarded by Sersi for no reason. Her crush on Ikaris also goes completely nowhere as the film wouldn't even allow Sprite to kiss Ikaris on the cheek, let alone have Ikaris admit any feelings whatsoever. Phastos is pretty likeable and manages to be the unsung hero by the end of the film, but his motivation and philosophy is so on-and-off that it slows down the film and even hurts the character a bit. Makkari has her moments with the action and her charming personality by being a deaf hero, but her deafness doesn't actually factor in towards any conflict or philosophy and her being the final hero to recruit is lazily thrown in at the last minute as just being in an underground ship for the entire life out of boredom, making her a pretty pointless character in regards to the themes of the film. Druig is just an unlikeable asshole who, despite stating that he will use his powers on humans after leaving the group, doesn't do anything but make a village with some human puppets, which downplays the potential villainy or heroism of the character and just makes him the character you're supposed to dislike. Gilgamesh barely has time to define himself, other than that he cares for Thena and is a comedic, kind-hearted guy with no philosophy or perspective to share, not even a question of if Thena is a burden to him. Ajak is the leader of the Eternals and really should be the protagonist of the film due to her development and personality, but is killed by Ikiris before the film really starts, forcing us to deal with Sersi as the lead. Thena is just the badass female warrior whose mental illness could spark some interesting ideas to the rest of the team and the overall messages of the film, but it just acts as a minor hinderance and plot device. Lastly, Dane Whitman just serves as the current boyfriend of Sersi who knows the true nature of the Eternals and disappears from the majority of the film, despite the fact that he could easily be a great human perspective character/protagonist of his own. The point is, the entire cast of characters failed to completely win me over or justify their purpose in the story.

"Eternals" is the definition of style over substance, despite their attempt on the latter. While the actors are great, the camerawork is fantastic, Djawadi's score has its unique flair, the effects being visually interesting, the action being pretty entertaining in their short bursts, and the direction by Zheo offers the best-looking and cinematic film of the franchise with the on-location shooting and the creative visionary of making a superhero film feel like a potential Oscar-winning one. However, the film simply fails at its most important elements. The story lacks impact and relays too much on exposition, the pacing and editing is dreadful and almost keeps you hostage for two hours and a half, the tone is poorly uneven with lame comedy and the seriousness coming off as melodramatic and underdeveloped, Sersi is a boring protagonist the viewer is forced to root for, the villains lose their creative potential and are either defeated by lazy writing or needlessly included to prolong the film and leave no impact, and the rest of the side cast are filled with characters who don't fully develop, accomplish or even establish their conflicts or philosophies. While it is better than "Black Widow" thanks to the filmmaking being unquestionably better overall, it falls short from "Shang-Chi" in regards to keeping the story and characters engaging enough, regardless if the film wastes their potential or not. It is shocking that so far, all of the MCU films released this year are among the top five worst films I've seen in 2021.

Verdict: 4.5/10. This is what we call a polished turd. Can Spider-Man break this bad streak once and for all? 

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) Film Review: The Battle Of Originality And Nostalgia...

 

The "Ghostbusters" franchise has had a complicated history. While the first film was a smash hit and the sequel being a disappointing follow-up, a third film refused to be green-lit due to script troubles and Bill Murrey refusing to be a part of the project. After the 2016 reboot, it seemed that a third film starring the original actors was dashed, until the surprise announcement of this continuation. After multiple delays, the film is finally here with most fans praising it as a proper return to form with critics being mixed on the overall delivery. So, was it worth more than thirty years of development hell? The story shows off the dual identity of the film, both good and bad. When a single mother and her two children are evicted out of their home and have to relocate to their only inherited property, a run-down farmhouse in a small town in Oklahoma left by their deceased grandfather. As the three slowly readjust to the small town, the daughter, Phoebe, starts to discover more about her grandfather and discovers the legacy of the Ghostbusters, becoming fascinated by the paranormal team. When an ancient foe is set to return to rule the earth, it is up to Phoebe, her family, and some newfound friends to stop this ghostly apocalypse. The most frustrating thing about the story is that I really love one half of it and found the half shockingly lazy. The first half of the film does a great job at being a lower-level entry point of the franchise and having Phoebe and her family get comfortable with the town and her desire to be like her late grandfather. The second half of the film completely drops all originality and just does the first film all over again just for the fans. There are things to enjoy in the second half of the film, but it severely drops in quality. The tone does stay consistent in being a grounded and witty family film with relatable drama and humour. Not every joke works, but a good portion do, and it does feel like a nice gap between the classic film and injecting a new identity to the franchise.

The new characters, for the most part, manage to steal the show. Phoebe, played by McKenna Grace, is fantastic as the lead since she is so likeable in her dry wit and chemistry with the cast, along with being a sympathetic character. Paul Rudd is entertaining as always as Mr. Grooberson, Phoebe's teacher and massive fan of the Ghostbusters. While I do wish he got to participate more in the climax, Rudd steals every scene he's in. Carrie Coon is also great as Callie, Phoebe's mother who holds justified stress and spite towards her estranged grandfather while hoping to have a nice romance with Mr. Grooberson. Lastly, there's Logan Kim as Podcast, Phoebe's new friend and comic relief. While I do think Podcast could have needed more serious moments, Kim is just loveable as the eccentric kid who wants to make friends. Not every new addition works though. Finn Wolfhard as Trevor, Phoebe's brother, doesn't have much to do with Phoebe's narrative other than crush on a girl. He does have some good lines and Wolfhard is a charismatic actor, but the character feels like an afterthought when compared to Phoebe. And then there's Lucky, Trevor's love interest played by Celeste O'Connor. Talk about a pointless character. Not only is the romance between the two so underdeveloped that they don't have a kiss or anything, but the attempt to have a fourth member of the new team backfires when she barely gets involved in the action and has a bland personality to boot. As for the returning characters, this, again, is another issue of the film. I don't mind seeing the classic characters and actors return during the climax, since fans wanted them to return. However, the choice to reuse Gozer as the main threat along with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper is just lazy. Not only does it detract from the film's unique and original direction, but they barely do anything fun. or interesting with the use of Gozer, aside from a few jokes. Nothing new is discovered and it actually gives the 2016 film some credit in that they actually tried doing a new villain for the franchise. So, the cast is mixed in my opinion. I think that Phoebe and Callie are great additions, Mr. Grooberson and Podcast being fun yet under-utilized, the returning Ghostbusters being a predictable yet necessary moment for the film, and the use of Trevor, Lucky and Gozer as poorly written or used. With that said, all of the cast members do a great job, it's just that some characters needed improvement.

Jason Reitman takes over his father's franchise and utilizes his indie talents on a special effect-driven franchise. What Reitman does so well is that he captures the small-scaled nature of the film and setting and yet makes it feel far more cinematic than it has every right to be. The isolated environment and sleepy-town aesthetic helps make the film more like an indie comedy-drama than an action-packed blockbuster and it really excites me to see what Reitman does in the future. Reitman's long-time cinematographer, Eric Steelberg, offers some great wide shots that show off the rural landscape as well as some more personal close-ups that is very reminiscent of the first film. The score by Rob Simonsen however is a bit underwhelming. While there are some nice new tracks that touch on the more dramatic and personal side of the story, especially towards the end, Simonsen overuses the iconic soundtrack and motifs from the original and it overstays its welcome and adds to the conflicting identity of the film. Since the film is more modest in budget, the effects aren't going to be mind-blowing, but they look decent for what it is. It helps that the film doesn't try to push the effects as much as possible and tries to use practical work for more smaller moments than going bombastic in design. The action sequences are also well done and try to be creative in their set-ups. Personally, the 2016 film offers the best action of the franchise in regards to the use of creative gadgets and offering the biggest set-piece out of all of the films. However, for the small-scale nature of "Afterlife", the action is solid. The only thing I have an issue with though is that the film fails at being nearly as scary or creepy compared to the first film. While mainly a comedy, the first film had some great jumpscares that freaked children of any age to this day due to the snappy delivery and lack of warning. "Afterlife", much like the 2016 film, fails to scare audiences because of a sanitized market and it's a shame. Despite this, Reitman did a wonderful job in directing a franchise that his father created and would be proud of.

"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" is a good, but not amazing, return to the franchise. While the film has some prominent issues in regards to the lazy retreads of the second half, Trevor and Lucky being pointless in the overall film, Gozer being reused as a villain and not do anything new with it, the over-use of nostalgia sound cues and music, and the lack of real horror moments, the rest of the film delivers on being a worthy follow-up. From the more human and grounded first half storytelling, a balanced tone of wit, heart and comedy, Phoebe being a loveable lead, Callie, Mr. Grooberson, and Podcast being great newcomers on their own right, the cast as a whole being generally likeable, the return of the classic Ghostbusters is a nice moment, the camerawork by Steelberg replicates the original in a fresh way, the visual effects are neat in its modesty, the action is decent in being small-scale in nature, and the direction by Reitman shows how indie filmmakers can add to a iconic franchise. It's not as amazing as fans make it out to be, but I wouldn't say that it didn't make me feel good by the end of the day.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but not close to being on par with the original. Still better than the 2nd and 2016 reboot though.

Jungle Cruise (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: I Will Take The Flight Back Home Immediately.

 

After a month of papers and labour, I finally return to make a review for the blog! Another thing that has been stopping me from making reviews is that I haven't watched any new movies for the entire month of November out of disinterest. In fact, the only new film I saw was this summer blockbuster in a second-run theatre out of boredom. Like most people, I rolled my eyes upon the announcement of the project. However, many people managed to praise this film as a good time, so I hoped at the very worst, it would just be an average adventure film. Let's just say that it's far worse than it can accomplish.

Positives:

• Emily Blunt as Lily. Blunt surprisingly works as both an action-packed female heroine and a pawn to some of the comedic antics. While I don't think everything from her character works, particularly the dramatic and the feminist agenda, I think the character is a pretty solid co-lead.
• The cast in general. While the characters have issues that I will address, the actors attached do their best in having fun or hamming up their performances that it almost averts your attention from how badly-written the characters really are.
• The cinematography by Flavio Labiano. While his work needs improvement during the action scenes, Labiano has some creative shots in the establishing and tracking moments of the film that offers flair to an otherwise bland movie. 
• The score by James Newton Howard. While his offering is one of his more weaker ones due to the generic sounds from the genre, Howard does his best to make the music above-average and nice to listen to.

Negatives:

• The story. While an adventure surrounding a group of characters trying to find a magical healing tree for their own benefits in the Amazon sounds like fun, it tries too hard to copy the formula of "Indiana Jones", "The Mummy", and most transparently, "Pirates of the Caribbean." The latter inspirations are very apparent with the introduction of cursed undead beings, an evil empire trying to get power for their own, and said magical MacGuffin getting destroyed because of a random rule or variable. It's just really hard trying to get lost in the adventure when said adventure is trying way too hard to be three notable movies at the same time. It also doesn't help that the tree in question is inconsistent in its rules. Not only can stone people "consume" a petal to remove their curse, but the tree manages to bloom one final petal just when they establish that it just died a few minutes ago!
• The tone. The comedy rarely gets laughs and the film, for the most part, doesn't take itself seriously compared to the films it inspires, because Disney likes light-hearted, family-friendly fun. The only laughs are ironically the exact same puns that are used for the ride, which is not saying much in the writing department. However, when things do need to get serious, it feels out of nowhere or laughably executed. There's a scene where Lily's brother talks about being gay while not directly saying he is that, while a nice moment, feels randomly placed because his sexuality never comes back in the story. There's also a flashback sequence that explain's Frank's role with the conquistadors and the curse, where he tries to defend the local tribe. Again, this should be a very dramatic moment, but for some reason, they chose this action-packed music in what is otherwise a serious scene.
• Dwayne Johnson as Frank. While Frank's character is not bad in trying to make a likeable asshole who has his moments of selfishness and heartfelt connection, Johnson is very miscast for this character. Johnson just can't play that type of character, because he's far too charming of an actor. If an actor like Bruce Campbell was chosen, the character would be far more effective and loveable than he is now, because Campbell has proven that he can play those type of selfish yet likeable roles. It also doesn't help that Johnson's figure and size is very over-the-top to take seriously when his employer holds him by a leash and that he's the only one from his conquistador group that looks like they bench-press.
• The villains. Jesse Plemons as Prince Jochman is clearly having a lot of fun with the role, but the character is too much of a joke that you can't take him seriously. There's only one moment in the film where they treat him like an actual threat by killing a bunch of guys with a sword, but by the climax, he becomes a pathetic wanna-be villain that doesn't even get killed by one of the leads, but by the comic relief side character! On top of Jochman, the film also feels the need to force the cursed conquistadors as villains too, who are cursed to stay close to the river and have became hybrid creatures of the elements. Not only are they just a copy-and-paste trope from the cursed pirates from literally all of the "Pirate of the Caribbean" films, but their motivations are also random in whether or not we should relate to them. The leader, Don Aguiree, wanted to find the tree in order to save his ill-ridden daughter, which should make him a character that would do anything, even murder, to save his child. However, his daughter never comes back in the narrative and his motivation as a cursed soul doesn't reflect that same motivation. This added level of complexity just made Don Aguiree an even worse villain, because he doesn't feel like a defined character whatsoever. What's worse about all of this is that there's simply too many villains for what is a simple adventure. If the film chose one or the other, they could develop one of the villains far more to be compelling and memorable and save the other for a sequel. Instead, they tried to have too much ambition in having "cool" villains and completely fail both of them.
• The side characters. While there's not too many to list, they all suck in their portrayals. Jack Whitehall as MacGregor, Lily's brother, has his moments as the bumbling idiot, but the film forces in the gay scene and him being able to fight off the villain competently that it makes his character inconsistent. It also doesn't help that MacGregor is the same supportive brother character that "The Mummy" had with its female love interest. Paul Giamatti as Nilo, Frank's harbourmaster, doesn't do much other than be the jerk character that gets a bit of karma instead of just dying. Like I mentioned earlier, it just doesn't make sense why Nilo seems to have control over this immortal, muscle-bound man, instead of being a bit cowardly. Lastly, there's Veronica Falcon as Trader Sam, the chief of the Puka Michina tribe. The chief serves as a complete foil to Frank's plan to ditch Lily, since she can speak English, and the chief herself is played up for laughs when she ditches MacGregor to be taken by Jochman instead of participating in the climax. The "wittiness" of modern Disney movies is just really cringe the more it forces itself into a narrative or character.
• The direction by Jaume Collet-Serra. I have nothing against Serra as a filmmaker as I have enjoyed his earlier work and I'm looking forward to his work on "Black Adam." However, his skills are completely nowhere to be found in this movie, since it feels like it was made on committee. Because of how generic jungle adventures are, the film looks generic to boot. Instead of taking inspiration from films from the early 20th century that the film attempts to homage, it's instead taking inspiration from more modern productions, which makes it feel older than ever. Watch "Orphan" and this back-to-back and try to see if this was made by the same director. When directors can't put an ounce of their motif or talent in a blockbuster film, it's insulting for both the viewer and the filmmaker. And it's not like the film is poorly directed, but it just feels like anyone could have made it, which isn't good for a visionary like Serra. 
• The visual effects. For a film that costs $200 million to produce, the visual effects are not the best way to show where the money has gone into. It's strange because big companies like ILM and Weta Digital were involved in the CGI, yet it looks like it could have been made twenty years ago! I understand that studios don't want to use real animals or prosthetics anymore for their own silly reasons, but the best thing you can do is at least make them look good.
• The action sequences. Adventure films usually don't have the best action in comparison to other genres, but they make up for it by the unique set-pieces and choreography. "Jungle Cruise" however drops the ball when it comes to action. The hand-to-hand combat is shot and edited poorly and isn't doing anything unique. The submarine chase is a bit creative, but its placement in the film and the execution isn't nearly as fun as it could be. Even with the introduction of the cursed conquistadors, the action sucks because either the people fighting the villains completely fail at fighting these creatures or Frank just dominates all four empowered men with just his fists alone and no special abilities. The action doesn't impress because it's either not creative enough or fails to do the most creative elements justice with the action.

"Jungle Cruise" should have been a harmless yet forgettable adventure romp with the biggest stars of the industry today. Instead, it somehow manages to be one of the worst films of the year! While Lily is a fun character, the actors are doing their best in their respective roles, the camerawork by Labiano is decent from time to time, and the score by Howard is better than it has any right to be, this can't save an insultingly lazy film. From its story being too in nature to other films of its kind, the humour missing far more than hitting, the serious moments being too out-of-place or mismatched in a very goofy movie, Johnson as Frank is painfully miscast, the villains are too silly to be taken as a serious threat, underdeveloped and forced to share screen-time with one another, the side characters are cliched tropes or too goofy to take them seriously as characters, the CGI is below-average for a high production cost and top-notch animation studios attached, the action sequences are boring from a lack of creativity and bland choreography, and the direction by Serra is so automatic that I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Chapek himself directed it. It's actually dumbfounding that they are going to do a sequel because I can't imagine how you can improve a film like this, let alone the fact that people actually think that it's a good movie in general.

Verdict: 3.5/10. Pretty bad, but not quite as insultingly awful as "Mortal Kombat". Still not recommended to watch when you can watch so many better adventure romps.

Unhinged (2020) Film Review: Am I Crazy Or Is This Actually Good?

 

When the pandemic shut everything down back in March of 2020, theatres went with it. As things stayed shut down for the entire spring, a brief period began where theatres briefly opened for the summer and fall of that year, with this indie-distributed thriller being the first film to be widely released and welcome back moviegoers. I never went to see this in theatres, since I thought it just didn't look that good. When it come out on Netflix, I decided to give it a chance and man, I honestly wished I saw it in theatres when I got the chance. Rachel is not having a good day. She overslept, is late driving his son to school, is fired from her work, currently in a messy divorce, and stuck in painful traffic. It seems like it can't get any worse, until she exchanges some nasty words with a truck driver and refusing to apologize for her petty behaviour. This unknowingly causes something to snap in the man and is now hell-bent on making Rachel having the worse day she could never imagine. The premise is sort of meant to be shallow in order to have the crazy rampage and violence that the film unleashes and it work well for the most part. However, there are plenty of moments that can cause the viewer to question the situation. Like, how did the man plant a flip-phone and memorize the number to swap it out for Racheal's phone? Also, Racheal is constantly doing brain-dead decisions like not locking her car or leaving her phone in said car to make the whole thing escalate. It is pretty mindless like that, but I think that's kind of the point for this film. It's a turn-off-your-brain and have fun movie like that. It works so well that I wish it could actually have been longer. The tone is overly-serious, despite the insane action and circumstance, and it really works to be both intense and entertaining in how over-the-top it can get.

Russell Crowe as Tom Cooper/The Man is fantastic as the insane mass-murdering psychopath behind the wheel. What makes Tom such a great villain for this type of movie is that Crowe perfectly switches from a calm, almost civil guy to a vicious and monstrous criminal in an instant. Even though we are shown a lot to not sympathize with Tom, Crowe gives enough personality and details in his limited backstory and perspective of society. Caren Pistorius as Rachel is great at playing this stressed, paranoid woman who doesn't want anything bad to happen to the people around her, but the character herself is pretty idiotic at various times and her big mouth got her in trouble in the first place. Gabriel Bateman as Kyle, Rachel's son, is decent, but he doesn't really do much in the film and Bateman's acting can be pretty questionable at times. The side cast is also pretty shallow in regards to their limited development. Jimmi Simpson as Andy, Racheal's friend and divorce lawyer, is probably the best side character in the film thanks to Simpson's acting and the diner scene offering the best of both and Crowe's character working off each other. Austin P. McKenzie as Fred, Racheal's stoner brother, is hilariously miscast since McKenzie looks almost as young as Andy in the film to make me think that he and Racheal are siblings. Juliene Joyer as Mary, Fred's girlfriend, gets nothing to work off since she only gets one scene of existing before getting killed by Tom and her death, while brutal, is too rushed to have a sense of sympathy or tragedy to it. Lastly, there's Rachel's mother and ex-husband, who are essentially offscreen characters despite having actors attached to them. They simply serve as light additives to the world, with the mother moving to a retirement home being critical for the location of the climax and the ex-husband existing so Tom can throw shade at Rachel. The cast isn't the best of its genre and majority of the characters are given little development for the bare minimum, but Crowe gives it his all for his villainous performance as Tom.

Derrick Borte is a German director that has made quite a couple of independent productions prior to this film. While I haven't seen any of his prior work, I can tell that Borte did a pretty good job for what it's worth. The grungy, unfiltered look perfectly fits the grounded tone and raw intensity that will be presented in the film. New Orleans looks cloudy, hostile and unforgiving, which is far different from other vibrant portrayals. The cinematography by Brendan Galvin is solid in serving a hand-held, close-up focused camerawork throughout the feature. It's not a cinematic or overly-ambitious offering, but it perfectly fits the film it shoots. The score by David Buckley is average for the most part, but really shines when the main chase theme plays. It's intense and gets you pumped up for the thrilling action. Speaking of which, the action itself isn't too bad here. There are some moments that can be over-the-top such as when a truck squashes a police car or when Tom causes an insane accident on the freeway, but that just serves the mindless fun that the film offers. The chases are rightfully intense, paced well, and have a gritty feel to them that is just as hard to watch as the brutal kills that are presented. The stunts and gore used is pulled off in a convincing matter that just adds to the rawness of the film. While the film is not as polished as other films from that year or even from its genre, Borte did a solid effort in what is meant to be a schlocky production.

"Unhinged" may continue to fall more into obscurity for just being known as the first film to welcome back audiences to theatres in the summer of 2020, but it's actually far better than it deserves to be. While the story has its plot holes, Rachel is a very idiotic protagonist, and the side cast is certainly lacking, it serves its purpose as a fun action thriller by having a fun premise, serious tone, a fantastic performance and villainous portrayal from Crowe, Pistorius is great in the acting department, Galvin's camerawork is perfect in the use of hand-held and personal-feeling shots that make the viewer part of the action, Buckley's great main theme, some well-made car chases and grisly executions, and Borte's directing offering a gritty, drab appeal that reflects the miserable nature of the lead characters. For what it is, it's quite well-made and offers a lot of fun, which makes me kind of wish that the film itself was fleshed out and expanded upon more to be one of the best of its kind.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Pretty good, even if it has some obvious issues. Check it out if you're having a bad day and just want to have an hour and a half of unapologetic thrills!

Dune: Part One (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: This Is Just The Beginning...

 

In the year 10191, House Atreides is assigned by the Empire to rule over the desert planet of Arrakis and harvest the resource known as Spice, unaware that it's an elaborate coup to eliminate the whole family and allow House Harkonnen to continue their iron-fisted rule over the planet. As Paul Atreides, the son of Duke Leto, starts to have mysterious dreams and visions about Arrakis and its people, Harkonnen attacks, causing Paul and his mother to escape and stranded in the hostile environment. Paul, and his growing power known as "the voice", seeks vengeance on House Harkonnen and the Empire by allying himself with the local populous known as the Fremen. The film only covers half of the acclaimed novel and it really shows. I won't go into much detail, but the ending feels abrupt, almost as if we just ended in the first act of a greater story. While that can be problematic for those wanting a more conclusive story, the film excel in its storytelling. Frank Hubert's novel is infamous for its complicated lore and narrative, but the film manages to make it as digestible as possible to those unfamiliar with the source material. It can be easily viewed as a straight-up sci-fi epic about good vs. evil and the chosen one archetype, while also incorporating various themes and allegories on religion, colonialism, politics, and historical resonance. While there's a bit of humour, it's a film that takes itself very seriously and is nowhere near the 80's cheese that can be found in the original 1984 adaptation.

The cast is enormous to try and condense for everyone and considering the part-one nature, not everyone is given much screen-time, but I will try my best to get the most important characters across. Timothee Chalamet as Paul is great at playing this distant, almost emotionless teen who is forced into a massive conflict and prophecy that he has to take part of. While some might say that his acting is wooden, that's just how the character is written from the novel. Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica is fitting as the mother of Paul who have a special bond due to her heritage as a Bene Gesserit. Oscar Issac as Duke Leto is very good as the noble lord who hopes to make peace with the Fremen unlike House Harkonnen. Lastly, Stellan Skarsgard is brillaint as the villainous Baron, a vicious, gluttonous lord who wants to keep control of Arrakis and the Spice harvest. The supporting cast is also well-cast, but are limited in their screen presence. Jason Momoa is fun as Duncan, a high-ranking soldier of House Atreides, Josh Brolin is perfect as Gurney, the serious weapons-master and mentor to Paul, Dave Bautista reeks of menace as Rabban, the nephew of the Baron, Zendaya is fitting as Cheni, the Fremen love interest for Paul, and Javier Bardem steals whatever scene he's in as Stilgar, the leader of the Fremen. There are far more minor characters that I'm leaving out, but everyone here is doing a great job with their respective character, so much so that not one of them surpasses the other in regards to stealing the film for themselves. While not everyone is developed or characterized here, I will let it slide due to this being a part-one of a larger story.

Denis Villeneuve is quickly becoming one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of this generation and it's not hard to see why. Right away, Villeneuve perfectly brings the aesthetic of the source material to life. The technology and costumes are the right blend of timeless and modern to make a surreal-looking distant future. There's both a sense of grit and beauty to the film, which Villeneuve knows exactly how to balance akin to previous works in "Arrival" and "Blade Runner 2049." The cinematography by Greg Fraser is excellent with massive wide-shots that show off the scope of the world and extensive cast. Fraser's camerawork screams both prestige and cinematic experience by the calculative spacing and framing. The score by Hans Zimmer is one of his best efforts of his career with the use of choir, booming music, and feel of dread and epic-ness. Instead of sounding futuristic and modern, it has a more timeless and natural base. At times, it does get a bit too repetitive and even abrasive during scenes with no real action, but it's still a fantastic score. The visual effects, much like Villeneuve's previous films, are used effortlessly here that it feels real and expansive of the world, all thanks to the camerawork and direction that makes it feel more feasible then it really is. Lastly, there's the action, which the film lacks, but makes up for it with its execution and style. The use of sword-fighting has a raw, close-combat approach while incorporating a martial arts flair along with the imaginative designs and principles of the world-building. This is not a film for action fanatics, but it's one that is executed almost flawlessly by Villeneuve's involvement.

"Dune: Part One" may not be my favourite film from Villeneuve, but that's not saying much in regards to his resume. While the part-one structure and some underdeveloped side characters may dimmer the quality for the time being, this is still an excellent attempt at adapting what is widely regarded as one of the most impossible novels to adapt onscreen. From the digestible storytelling, various themes and allegories that can be interpreted, brilliant actors that perfectly fit their respective characters to the point of all being on the same level of talent, Fraser's camerawork sharing the grand scope, prestige and movie-going experience that this story demands, Zimmer's unique and timeless score, outstanding visual effects, great bits of action, and Villeneuve's direction and portrayal of Hubert's world and large sense of scope, scale, and lore that manages to feel tangible. "Blade Runner 2049" is still the best film he has made to date, but this is a close second for sure.

Verdict: 9/10. A sci-fi classic in the making. "Part Two" has a lot of pressure on its shoulders now after this debut.

Sausage Party (2016) Film Review: A Party That Will Be Hard To Forget...

 

R-rated animated films are a pretty rare sight. Either they get piled up with direct-to-video trash or they happen to be part of a well-established franchise such as "South Park" or "ATHF". "Sausage Party" managed to surprise everyone, both by how vulgar it gets and how successful it was as an original R-rated animated film, still carrying the record of being the highest-grossing film of its kind. The food found in Shopwell's all have a varied yet collective dream, which is to be chosen by their human gods and taken to the Great Beyond. Unaware of what really happens to food outside of the store, a freak accident causes an assortment of characters to be thrown off their carts thanks to a suicidal honey mustard. A sausage named Frank wants to discover why the honey mustard killed himself following his return from the Great Beyond and pulls his girlfriend, Brenda, along with a bagel and lavash to discover the truth about the Great Beyond. The "Toy Story"-sounding premise is actually more than it seems as the film has a clever dose of religious allegory and commentary, which is far better than most R-rated animated content would offer. The film however uses its R-rating to its full advantage as there's constant swearing, sexual innuendos, gore, drug use, and a chaotic and almost uncomfortable finale that is unapologetic whatsoever. The vulgar identity that the film carries is both entertaining to a degree, but also a bit repetitive and tiring, particularly with the swearing. Still, the film contains a ton of laughs to be had and it's all down to the clever writing and character dynamics rather than just constant swearing.

Frank, voiced by Seth Rogen, is sort of the average leader character who puts himself on a journey that will cause some distance between him and his peers, both literally and figuratively. While Frank has his enjoyable moments, his role as the protagonist is a bit odd, especially with Rogen's more comedic antics and vocal performance. Barry, voiced by Micheal Cera, does fit the role of protagonist more than Frank, which is thanks to the character's naive personality, the extended role he gets in the B-roll story, and perfect direction by Cera. Brenda, voiced by Kristen Wiig, is pretty likeable as the worrying girlfriend, but she doesn't really have an arc compared by Frank or Barry and she has some weird racial undertones every now and then. The side cast is massive, so much so that I'm not even going to bother listing the other actors and actresses since it will just double this section alone. Sammy Bagel Jr. and Kareem Abdul Lavash are fantastic comic relief in their portrayal of Jewish-Muslim tension, Teresa del Taco is a solid supporting character who aids the group and lusts for Brenda, the Non-Perishables are an entertaining group of wise men who know the long history of the Great Beyond, Gum is a charming parody of Stephan Hawking, and Douche is a decent, if simple, antagonist who wants revenge for not being able to enter the Great Beyond. There are also the human characters such as the drug dealer and Darren, but they don't have a lot of time to be enjoyable. Overall, the entire cast is great in regards to the sheer star power attached and the characters themselves are fairly likeable or humorous. However, there are some questionable decisions in regards to the role of protagonist and underwritten characters like Brenda and Frank.

The animation is one of the more fascinating aspects of the film, considering that the budget was just $19 million. While you might think that the animation would be of poor quality with that low production value, it's actually not the case. The animation itself isn't perfect though, as there are some odd texture moments and the emphasis on more smooth and simplistic designs means that you're not going to get the most detailed renders out there. However, the animation proves to be pretty fluent and imaginative given its limitations, going for a more cartoony aesthetic and the character designs for the food products being fairly unique in how it has an old-school approach with the gloved hands and black outlines and the food itself adds to the character animation or how they are represented in-universe as a clique or ethnic group. The music by Christopher Lennetz and Alan Menken is above-average. While there are some generic tracks to be sure, Menken knocks it out of the park with "The Great Beyond", which is a charming, Disney-esque musical number that perfectly introduces the tone and feel of the film. The licensed soundtrack itself is also pretty good with Meat Loaf's "I'd Do Anything For Love" and Wham!'s "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" being used in some memorable sequences. Overall, the animation and music is nowhere near the best when compared to other films, but it's pretty adequate given the budget and film it is. 

"Sausage Party" isn't going to be a movie for everyone. The vulgar nature can be too much at times with the swearing and gross-out ending, the characters of Frank and Brenda are underwritten for the roles they play, and the animation isn't the most prettiest thing to look at. For some people, it's going to appear like it's a film made just to be edgy and attract teen audiences for how crass it is. However, the film actually manages to hold up quite well even five years later. From the entertaining premise that complements its R-rating, the witty and hilarious commentary that does a great job in poking fun and criticizing religion as a whole, Barry being a solid secondary protagonist that deserves to be the main character, the various cast of side characters that are likeable in their personalities and comedic writing along with their talented voice actors, the decent and creative animation that does the job well given its low budget, and the offerings from Lennetz and Menken being fairly memorable thanks to "The Great Beyond." If it just held back on its vulgarness in areas and tweaked some central characters, this would honestly be one of the best animated films from that decade. As is, it's still a shockingly great comedy that has a lot more than meets the eye!

Verdict: 8/10. Great, but can be divisive in areas. Watch if you can deal with countless F-bombs and sexual overtones. 

Black Widow (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: More Like Bland Midow...

 

Here's yet another movie I've been trying to avoid for this year. I have already shared my disdain towards the MCU in my "Shang-Chi" review, so I won't go into depth again. While I was somewhat interested in "Shang-Chi", I had zero interest for "Black Widow". Not only did the trailers look generic, but why should I spend time on a story about a dead character that will have no impact in the future of the MCU? Well, curiosity got the better of me and after two-and-a-half hours later, I instantly regretted watching it in a second-run theatre.

Positives:

• Natasha's character arc. Even though her character arc could have been more impactful and resonating if the film was far more serious or take bolder steps in its story, I do think that Natasha has a reasonable arc that the movie gave her when it comes to reconciliation, regret, and confronting the sins of the past.
• The family unit that consists of Natasha, Yelena, Alexei, and Melina. Not only do all four have believable chemistry, but they do come across as generally likeable and you want the family that is once broken to fix their relationship. Personally, David Harbour's Red Guardian was the best character in the film in terms of character and enjoyability.
• The acting. Regardless of whether the character is done well or not, the acting is pretty solid all around. While the Russian accents do seem a bit silly and over-the-top at times, the performances never once feel phoned-in.
• The cinematography by Gabriel Beristain. While the conversations is constantly given close-ups, Beristain is good at having some scenic shots, panning, and scale during the action set-pieces.
• The score by Lorne Balfe. The action music is pretty generic, but the dramatic work is not that bad using both Russian themes and an orchestrated approach.
• The stunts involved during the action. While the action sequences have their fair share of problems, the same can't be said about the effortless stunt choreography. It's both brutal and kinetic that it's a shame that the stunts were just in a better movie.

Negatives:

• The story. While the premise of Natasha trying to shut down the Red Room once and for all is fine along with the established character arc, the problem is that the story both doesn't take risks and feels overstuffed in order to satisfy her arc. Aside from knowing that her death won't occur for another few years, the film just doesn't have the guts to have huge moral consequences to strengthen Natasha's arc. Aside from one Widow, none of the brainwashed female assassins are killed off by the heroes from their life-or-death situations, let alone any of the major characters. The story is also trying to tackle a lot of themes, not only the ones relevant to Natasha's arc, but also the role of women in the film and how the villains use and treat them, while pushing a feminist and female empowerment agenda at the same time. These themes are fine to include in this type of movie, but it gets too crowded in the narrative and it also hampers any boldness potential the film could have had for the sake of pleasing a tent-pole crowd. On top of everything that's been established, the film feels completely pointless in regards to the rest of the MCU. The only thing that is important is the post-credits scene that teases Yelena hunting down Hawkeye. Only a minute of this movie's runtime actually matters in the future of the franchise and you have to seat through the entire film and credits to get it.
• Too much exposition. A lot of the film's backstory is exposition from the context of the opening scene, the Budapest mission, the villain's motivations, development of the other characters, etc. It's nowhere near as bad as "Mortal Kombat", but it's ridiculous that the film never shows you any of these things. The birth of Taskmaster and Yelena's torture in the Red Room would have been  powerful moments in the film, but we never get to see it.
• The tone and humour. If you think "Shang-Chi" had an awkward juggling of tone, this goes the next step beyond. The beginning scene is so hokey and wholesome before the dark, gritty opening credit sequence that includes a montage of human trafficking and little girls enslaved to being assassins all while a depressing rendition of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" plays in the background. If the film continued the dark tone that the opening credits carries, that would actually be sick! But of course, we get the typical Marvel formula that's not overly-serious or dramatic in order to put in fun, lighthearted humour for the whole family. While the humour isn't as painfully used in "Shang-Chi", the jokes rarely hit and they really clash with the supposed darker storytelling. There's literally a scene where Yelena describes her sexual organs being removed as part of her experience being in the Red Room to Alexei as a joke. It's this corporate mandated decision making that makes me not a fan of the MCU.
• The villains. Firstly, there's Taskmaster, a silent, badass assassin who is hunting down Natasha. This is one of the worst portrayals of a comic-book character I've seen in a while. Not only is the design lame and the abilities to copy various superhero's completely wasted, but the decision for the character to go from a snarky, self-centred mercenary in the comics to being a tortured, brainwashed daughter of the villain is mind-numbing baffling. It also doesn't help that Natasha also manages to save Taskmaster in the end rather than having her be killed to show the unfixable consequences that Natasha's actions has caused. There's also Dreykov, a made-up villain played by Ray Winstone. Wintstone is great at playing this cold and cunning villain, but Dreykov comes across as a generic bad-guy who wants to be evil and treat woman like objects just because. If the film played up the more sympathetic end of how he uses the assassination attempt on his and his daughter's life as motivation, it would have been interesting. But we just get an exposition dump of a villain who, while acted well, is very forgettable in regards to the franchise he belongs in.
• O-T Fagbenie's Rick Mason. This character isn't even a character at all. All he does is point Natasha to the next objective by giving her a necessary thing or vehicle that she's able to call. His connection to Natasha comes out of nowhere and his ability to just summon the things she needs is just lazy. It doesn't help that Fagbenie doesn't really offer much in his performance other than the guy looking after Natasha.
• The direction by Cate Shortland. Shortland offers no unique style to the film whatsoever. While I get that she was trying to approach a Bond-esque spy thriller for the film, the issue is that the film looks too overproduced, stock, and lacking flair that makes it a distinct spy movie. It just looks like the typical Marvel movie from a cheap director-for-hire. While things do get more visually unique in the third act, the film just has this grey, generic look to it that does its best in feeling grounded despite the fact that the film carries a literal sky fortress in its narrative.
• The overuse of CGI. For a character who has no special abilities, why does this film need $200 million to produce? While the effects are ok, there's a lot of times where it's fake-looking and it starts looking like a "Fast and Furious" movie in regards on how silly it looks and unapologetically bad it is.
• The action sequences. A huge issue with the action is that the film is awkwardly edited by Leigh Folsom Boyd and Matthew Schmidt. While not as horrendous as "Mortal Kombat", the editing still comes across as choppy and rapid-fire, which makes some of the action confusing in regards to what just happened or the sudden appearance of a random person or element. Even if you look past the editing, the action itself is just not that exciting. While I appreciate some of the more brutal beatdowns and the stunts used in said action, the set-pieces themselves are just uninspired and generic due to the lack of style, stakes, tension, and creativity. This is a movie with Taskmaster as a villain and the action is just bland to look at. Not only does the action in "Shang-Chi" blow this out of the water, but even action from bad movies such as "Snake Eyes" and "Mortal Kombat" were better in their creativity and execution.

"Black Widow" is just as bad as of a MCU film can get. While Natasha's character arc is solid, the family dynamic of the main characters is well done, the acting across the board is good, the stunts pulled off nicely, Beristain's camerawork offers some sense of scale and iconography the film desperately needed, and the dramatic score by Balfe is pretty decent for the overall franchise, the rest of the film is either bland, generic, or just straight-up bad. The story refuses to have stakes or consequences or even being relevant in the MCU, there's too much exposition scenes to "flesh out" context and characters, the tone and humour is at its most distracting in regards to how the film wants a serious approach while being goofy at the same time, Taskmaster is just awfully done in every single way, Dreykov is just generic and boring, Mason is the embodiment of lazy writing, the CGI is overused and poorly rendered at times, the action sequences lack freshness and coherency with iffy editing by Boyd and Schmidy, and Shortland's directing feels soulless in being a corporate blockbuster and failing to inject life in the spy genre. If I hadn't watched "Mortal Kombat" prior to this, it is easily the worst film I saw this year, but just being the second worst isn't a big achievement, especially for a MCU film.

Verdict: 4/10. A bland entry to the MCU blockbuster that is a key example for what the films constantly suffer from. Just watch the post-credits scene online to set yourself up for "Hawkeye" and skip this nothingness of a movie.

Mortal Kombat (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Fatality...

 

I've been trying to avoid watching or talking about this movie for so long ever since it came out earlier this year. While I'm not one that grew up on "Mortal Kombat," I'm a big enough fan to know that the blood and gore is just one of the many great things the games offered. Even thought the original film back in 1995 didn't have the blood, it did excel on the game's world-building, characters, and style, proving to be a pretty entertaining and well-handled adaptation. So, when a reboot got finally green-lighted during the resurgence of the games, it seems like we were about to get a fantastic film on its own right. But as more and more information about the people behind and on screen are revealed, the more I got hesitant to watch it. While it was a flop at the box office, it did great on streaming to potentially continue the franchise. This is disappointing as I can't imagine how anyone would be looking forward to a follow-up based on how shitty this movie gets.

Positives: 

• Some of the side characters in the film. Kano, Jax, Kabal, Sub-Zero, and Scorpion are probably the best characters in regards to their personality and acting. Their character development is hindered by the screenplay, but the actors do their best in wanting you to have more screen-time with them.
• The cinematography by Germain McMicking. We will talk about the direction later, but McMicking does try to inject a sense of style and scale in the film when it acts like a "Mortal Kombat" movie. The dialogue scenes and staging feels very amateur and basic, but I chalk that more up to the director than the camera operator.
• The make-up and special effects. This is perhaps the only thing the film truly excels in. The blood and gore is well done and graphic thanks to the use of practical props and make-up. The CGI is also pretty solid and rendered given the film's low budget. There is some bad green-screen used throughout the film, but considering how restricted said budget was, it's impressive that the CGI looks as good as it is.
• Some of the action. Much like "Shang-Chi", the film overdelivers in the first act as the fights between Bi-Han and Hanzo, the mini encounter between Jax and Sub-Zero, and the fight with Reptile are solid sequences that isn't as hampered by the editing and choreography compared to the other fights we do get.

Negatives:

• The story. There's so much that's wrong with the story that it's hard on where to start. There's so many problems I have to break them down in their own paragraphs. For one, the plot is all about the villains trying to kill the heroes before the tournament could begin. This is a "Mortal Kombat" movie where Mortal Kombat doesn't even occur whatsoever. So, that's pretty dumb on its own regard. But the film forces the idea that if you want to see the tournament and more recognizable characters from the games, you should support the movie with its sequel-bait ending. That's even more scummy than the "Sonic" movie, because at least they finished their own adventure they set-up to begin with!
• The world-building and lore. If you were expecting world-building on the level of "Lord of the Rings," this isn't it. The opening sequence doesn't explain the conflict between the Lin Kuei and Shirai Ryu at all, leaving only die-hard fans to know the context. After the title appears, the film offers the most sorry, piss-poor attempt at a paragraph to set up the universe the film takes place in. There's no narration or flashbacks explaining Outworld and Earthrealm and elements such as the Elder Gods are barely mentioned. Again, the writing expects that the film is only for fans and that they can fill in the dots themselves, but that's not how you write a movie that introduces casual moviegoers to your franchise. The script reeks of "show, don't tell" exposition that explains everyone's backstory and it feels so cheap. I understand that the budget of the film isn't particularly high, but maybe some animatics or just putting effort is enough?
• The numerous plot-holes surrounding the narrative and characters. This is too big of an issue that I won't bother go into depth with, but all I will say is that nearly any aspect of the film whether it's a specific story moment, character, or fight scene has some leaps of logic or reasoning for the sake of writing.
• The dragon tattoos and arcana. Apparently, this movie for the fans needs a logical explanation for why their favourite characters can do their special moves. The arcana is a bullshit attempt at making everyone unique and special because they have a special tattoo that makes them destined to fight in the tournament and achieve a special power. There's a lot wrong with arcana, but I will only go over two aspects of it. For one, it makes the characters who don't utilize on special abilities in the games feel less special. Instead of Sonya or Kano using technology to shoot lasers, now it's just their power to shoot it out. The second thing is that the powers are just so inconsistent. Some characters don't appear to have arcana at all such as Reiko and Natara, while the powers that others do get are so oddly specific that it's just bad writing. Why is Kano's power to shoot a laser from one eye? In the games, it's because of the cyborg eye, but here it doesn't make sense. Why is Jax's power to get bigger metal arms? That's pretty petty and dehumanizing for Jax that his power is just enhancing his arms? What if Jax never lost his arms in the first place? Why is Cole's power to have literal plot armour and tonfas? Why is it not one of the other?
• The tone. The issue isn't that the tone is bad on paper. After all, it is good to have a balance of seriousness and light-hearted fun by poking fun at the source material. However, it doesn't work when only one or two of your side characters is able to address the absurdity. If the main lead was someone with personality like Johnny Cage or something, it would be the perfect way to have this tonal balance, much like in the original film. But because we are stuck with Cole as the no-nonsense protagonist, the tone just feels mishandled and it probably should have stuck being more like the games, which take themselves more seriously given the stakes.
• Cole Young. This guy is alone to derail the movie on his own just by existing. For one, Lewis Tan can't act for his own good as a leading man. Two, his personality is so bland you swear that he was just a cardboard box. Three, his role in the story is so forced by giving him overpowered abilities, being a decedent of Scorpion, and being able to kill both Goro and Sub-Zero after getting his ass beat throughout the entire film. Lastly, it feels so corporate that the studio wanted Cole as the main lead just because they didn't want a "white male lead" like the original film. Ok, if you don't want Johnny Cage, that's fine. But if you want a diverse protagonist, why not include Jax, Sonya, or Liu Kang? Why would you pick the most American half-Asian you could get as your diverse lead?
• The side characters. Quick lightning round for this one. Cole's family is forgettable and should have been killed off to motivate Cole much like Hanzo. Raiden is bland and uncaring for his combatants, Sonya is mad because she's the only woman in the group and one that had no role in the tournament at first, Shang Tsung is just a generic evil man that lacks the charisma of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, Liu Kang doesn't feel as important as he should be, Kung Lao doesn't feel as cocky or entitled in the games, Mileena has no personality at all, Reiko and Nitara just yell and shriek a lot, Reptile is a literal reptile, and Goro is just a obstacle rather than the Outworld champion of Mortal Kombat. Not only is their characterization all over the place, but their acting is very sub-par to say the least.
• The choice to kill off iconic characters. I know that people must die in Mortal Kombat, but the amount of beloved characters that get killed before the tournament even began is absurd. The worst part about all of these deaths is that it basically makes sure that any of their interesting development found in the games are now null and void. Reptile being the last of his race is not mentioned, Kung Lao being the descendent of the Great Kung Lao who was killed by Goro has him die not living up to his legacy, Prince Goro is killed by a newbie fighter all thanks to plot armour, Kabal is killed before he can redeem himself like in the games, and then there's Mileena. One of the most beloved characters of the community so much so that the fans successfully campaigned for her to be included in MK11 is killed before the film can explain her backstory, her aspirations, and her connections to Kitana, Shao Khan, and the Tarkartans. I understand that changes were to be expected and not everything will be adapted properly, but the last you can do is do something special with these characters instead of wasting their potential by killing everyone off. On top of everything that I have explained, the film alludes to the idea that they could potentially be back, mainly as revenants. So, what's the point of killing them off if you're going to use them in the sequels anyway?
• The directing by Simon McQuoid. Imagine offering a film adaptation of one of the most iconic video game franchises to a man who has only directed a bunch of commercials and a single short film in his whole career on top of adapting a screenplay from a writer who has this be his first work adapted to screen. That was the huge red flag that made me worried about the film as a whole. I don't want to be too harsh on McQuoid since I get that this opportunity would be tempting not to pass to add on his resume and that he was approached primarily to not spend much on him due to being inexperienced. However, I simply can't defend his direction and lack of style whatsoever. Whenever the film isn't in fight mode, the movie looks like a cheap commercial or fan-film. There's no ambition in adding style, flair or even vivid colours in the film. The movie doesn't feel like "Mortal Kombat" at all because of how inadequate it looks. The original film managed to feel and look unique in its aesthetic, style, and filmmaking. This just feels like a sloppy first attempt. It doesn't help when the other way McQuiod can portray Outworld is by filming the Australian desert. Like, why does he got to be so cheap and lazy?
• The music by Benjamin Wallfisch. While I liked his work in other films, this has got to be his weakest score to date simply because it feels so generic. The music from the games are atmospheric, epic, gothic, and simply awesome to listen to during gameplay. The music here is so forgettable that I forgot I'm watching a "Mortal Kombat" movie because of it. Now, there is a neat rendition of "Techno Syndrome" from the original film and it's pretty good, but that doesn't make Wallfisch's score good or even average if your music is generic stuff and the only good piece is a remix of a popular track twenty-six years ago!
• The action and editing. While the first act does have some nice fight sequences, the same can't be said for the others. While the effects and kills are nice to look at, the editing by Dan Lebental and Scott Grey is so choppy and quick that it practically signals the viewer that there's something wrong with the fight that they are trying to hide. The staging is messy, the choreography is awkward to the point that it doesn't feel like life or death stakes are occurring, the injuries and flow of the combat is inconsistent because no matter how brutal a hit seems, the fighter doesn't seem to act like he's close to death, and the worst thing is that these fights are plagued by conveniences. Like, aside from Hanzo and Reptile, all the people that die feel like they died because of a deus ex machina. It's by no means the worst action I've seen or action that is boring to watch, but considering that the film's primary goal is to excite you with the action, it's very bad to see that the action is as sloppy as its screenplay.

"Mortal Kombat" serves as a solid contender for the worst movie I've watched in 2021 and realistically should be considered one of the worst movies of this year. While some side characters are enjoyable, the camerawork by McMicking is solid in attempting to add flair and style, the gore effects and CGI characters are executed perfectly, and a couple action sequences prove exciting and well-handled, that's all the film scrapes to offer. In return, you have to endure a terrible story that just sets up future sequels, no world-building or lore set-up, countless plot holes, arcana nonsense, a mismatched tone that doesn't fit in this particular film, Cole Young's bland attempt at being a relatable protagonist, mishandled characters paired with rough acting, character deaths that are unnecessary and insulting to the fans, Wallfisch's lazy score, horrible editing by Lebental and Grey, the majority of action sequences that are poorly staged, choreographed, and written to feel kinetic and genuine in the flow and execution, and McQuoid's first-time directing packaging the film in a cheap, unpolished package that informs the viewer how cheap and uncaring the studio was to this project. As a film for the die-hard fans, it's insulting and cringe to watch in its treatment to the source material. As a film for those who know absolutely nothing about the franchise, it's a terrible first impression due to its awful story-telling, pacing, and minimalistic approach to world-building and characterization. The only people that this movie is able to please are the edge-lords who only like Mortal Kombat for the blood and gore. Yes, the blood and gore is awesome to look at, but there are so many better films to watch that have ultra-violence. It's far better to play the games if you really care about bloody spectacle.

Verdict: 3/10. An insulting adaptation that fails to target casual and die-hard fans alike. Watch the original 1995 film if you want a better portrayal of the source material minus the blood and guts. 

The Many Saints of Newark (2021) Film Review: The Devil's Doing...

 

"The Sopranos" is one of the most beloved television shows of all time, thanks to a brilliant cast and narrative pacing about Tony Soprano and his life in two worlds: family and crime. So when a prequel film was announced that will dive back to Tony as a youth played by the son of the actor that brought Tony to life in the small-screen, fans were excited. While I have only watched a few episodes of the show, I can see the appeal and prestige that it carries, something that this film is not going to offer as time moves by. I will try to describe the story as much as possible, but it's pretty messy when watching the movie. To put it in summary, it's about Tony's uncle, Dickie Moltisanti, a soldier in the DiMeo crime family who has a "special bond" with a young Tony. The story chronicles the fall of Dickie from the murder of his father, his affair with his father's young Italian wife, and the rising conflict from an all-black gang from a former associate, Harold McBreyer, during the aftermath of the 1967 Newark riots. From the summary alone, you can tell that a lot is happening, almost as if an entire season of the show is squashed into two hours. The worst thing about all of this is that the film has absolutely no focus on anything. Dickie's bond with Tony is supposed to be the most important and impactful for the franchise, considering that he "made" Tony, but their chemistry and time together is very much fast-forwarded. Dickie's affair is never caught by his wife, who practically disappears from the film upon the affair occurring, and the chemistry between him and his mistress, along with her interest in Harold, is just sloppy. As for the gang war between Dickie and Harold, it goes unresolved since Dickie is killed by the end in an unrelated incident while Harold just kinds of stands around. It's clear that the filmmakers are hoping that this film can spawn multiple prequel films that continues the narrative of Tony and Harold, but considering the abysmal box office returns, it's not likely to happen. It doesn't help that the editing by Christopher Tellefsen is choppy at times as context is missing or entire sequences such as the arrest during the fair feel like they come out of nowhere due to a lack of set-up. I will say though that the film does at least get the tone right in regards to feeling like a Sopranos story with a very dark tone and black comedy thrown in a bit here and there.

Despite the marketing pushing the idea that Tony is the protagonist, Dickie acts as the central character of the film and the narrative suffers because of it. Alessandro Nivola does a fine job and all, but he's not a likeable character by design for people to get invested in. Perhaps if the film focused primarily on Dickie and Tony's relationship, this could be salvaged, but as I mentioned earlier, it barely does. Michela De Rossi as Giuseppina Moltisanti is fantastic in being the beautiful, naive mistress of Dickie, but her character doesn't really amount to much as she gets killed by Dickie after an affair with Harold that went nowhere in the grand scheme of things. Maybe if the film focused on her deception and lust to try to get both men to give her what she wants, that could be interesting, but it never does that. Leslie Odom Jr. as Harold, a black crime-lord that wants to take over Newark after being inspired by the 1967 riots, is excellent as always and probably plays the most engaging newcomer in the film, but his role and likability in the film is constantly in flux. His cause seems strong, even though he has done some bad stuff while working for Dickie. His affair with Giuseppina doesn't get called out by his wife or amount to anything as he doesn't help Giuseppina with her beauty parlor anyway. And while it seems like the gang war will end up with him or Dickie dead, he manages to stick around and seems like he's just a set-up for a sequel. So, the newcomers are pretty much of a waste, so what about Tony and the other members of the family? While there are too many to list, I will just say that everyone of the Soprano members are fantastically depicted and portrayed by the new cast with Micheal Gandolfini stealing the show by capturing the look and personality of a young Tony Soprano that only his late father could have pulled off. While this is great on the side cast's part, it begs the question: Why wasn't Tony the central protagonist at all in this film? No matter how good their performances are, it doesn't change how unlikeable or underdeveloped the central characters are.

Alan Taylor has gotten a lot of flack for his work on "Thor: The Dark World" and "Terminator: Genisys," but the one thing that you can't deny is that he at least knows how to make a competent film. The 60's and 70's culture and style were greatly reconstructed to feel like the era was reborn. Taylor himself manages to make the film feel like it can be reasonably spawned from the time period it takes place in, going so down as to the look of the film. While some can argue that the film is too grey or dull-looking, it sort of fits the tone and feel of the film while showing how Newark isn't exactly a glossy place to live. The cinematography by Kramer Morgenthau is great, considering his work with Taylor on "Terminator: Genisys" and "Game of Thrones." There's a lot of great panning and wide shots used throughout the film and Morgenthau injects some nice style and staging of shots to put some more personality. The score by Peter Nashel is completely absent. I swear that I recalled absolutely nothing in regards to an original piece of music used in the film. There is a decent licensed soundtrack that uses songs from the time period such as Jackson 5's "ABC" and other recognizable beats including the iconic song from the show's intro. Lastly, there's the effects and action, which is used sparingly throughout the film. The practical make-up and kills are great with the highlight being a nasty display of removing a man's teeth. The only digital effect I recall being in the film is when Dickie sets his father on fire and it's so fake-looking that it bothers me. Like, they really couldn't burn a fake body or dummy to get a more convincing display? And while this is no action film, the riot sequence and the shootout between Dickie and Harold is pretty intense. So, the directing by Taylor is actually pretty good, but it's just a shame he constantly picks out sub-par projects to make.

"The Many Saints of Newark" is sadly one of the more disappointing films of the year. While the tone captures the feel of the show, the supporting cast being especially strong in their portrayals of the Soprano family with Gandolfini's performance as Tony being outstanding, the camerawork by Morgenthau is slick and pleasing to look at, the soundtrack is solid, the practical make-up and brief action moments are great, and the directing by Taylor manages to capture the time period the story is set in with a grey colour scheme that fits the aesthetic of the tone and series, these things can't really save the film to make it an appropriate piece in the franchise. From a sloppy narrative that has too many things happening and not enough impactful things happening, the need to set-up future films while barely creating a story for this film, the focus on Dickie, Giuseppina, and Harold as central characters rather than Tony proves to be a heavy issue in regards to being attached to them or even basic development or arcs, the score by Nashel is not even present in the film, and the editing by Tellefsen is so choppy in cutting out entire sequences or scenes that harms the story and characters even more than they already do. Perhaps if I actually did watch the entire series, I could enjoy the film a bit more in regards to easter eggs or appreciating the performances of the established cast, but that's not really a big boost to the film's quality. For fans, it's a mildly intriguing piece that expands a bit of the characters and world, but for people who barely or know nothing about "The Sopranos", this comes across as a mediocre and clumsy mafia movie that doesn't know its true potential.

Verdict: 5/10. A painfully average mobster movie that acts as a disgrace to the legendary franchise it was spawned from. Don't bother going to the theatres for this one and just wait until it hits streaming.