Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) Film Review: The Best Roald Dahl Adaptation To Date?

 

Roald Dahl has made some imaginative children stories that border on the line of innocent and dark from "The BFG" to "The Witches". His most famous work is by far the 1964 novel, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". While the 1971 film adaptation continues to have a cult following and a fanbase strong on nostalgic memories, Dahl himself despised the film for various reasons from changing aspects of the music and tone to Gene Wilder's performance. When Warner Bros went to the estate to do another film based on the story, Dahl's widow and daughter agree to have the project greenlit with the condition that they have artistic license and final say on the script and casting. The 2005 film continues to be a polarizing adaptation to this day with some either loving it or preferring the 1971 film for different reasons. However, considering the development of the remake and the perspective of the Dahl estate, the 2005 film might be the most faithful and potentially the best adaption of the author's works, despite a flaw or two. The story follows Charlie Bucket, a poor, starving kid living with his family. Charlie is always fascinated by stories from his Grandpa Joe about working with the legendary and elusive Willy Wonka, a chocolatier who runs the most extravagant factory with mouthwatering treats and products. One day, Wonka announces a contest where five children can receive a tour of the factory and win a special prize provided that they find a Golden Ticket inside of a Wonka bar. Charlie manages to earn a spot in the contest and, with four misbehaved kids, he manages to experience a one-of-a-kind adventure with his idol, Willy Wonka himself. The adaptation manages to borrow more elements and concepts compared to the original film, given its larger budget and modern technology. However, it does add one noteworthy sub-plot with Wonka's past and disliking family and parental authority. This particular sub-plot is hit-or-miss as while it does work for this particular portrayal of the character, it removes some of the mystery of Wonka and it tends to make the ending a bit long. Despite this addition, the tone is wonderfully whimsical and occasionally down-to-earth. I will go over more about in the filmmaking segment, but the tone is both in spirit to Dahl's vision and in nature with Tim Burton's child-friendly work. There can be some questionable moments for those who have a dirty mind, but it tends to aim at the imagination of children rather than those who want a dark edge to their family films. The comedy is more based on the characters and their quirks, which can work if one enjoys all of the characters as a whole. There's no clever word-play or slapstick per se, but the interactions and reactions of the characters as they witness each other and the wonders of the factory.

Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka has always been compared to both Wilder's performance and the strange allusions to Micheal Jackson. Despite the actor claiming that it wasn't at all trying to replicate the personality of the late king of pop, I actually enjoy his performance no matter what were the inspirations. The Jackson comparisons are strangely correct as the appearance, mannerism and even the storyline of the estrangement from his father is very much the same, aside from Wonka clearly not liking children that much. Depp works at being this flamboyant, charming, child-minded adult who is reclusive in his work and not wanting to open up to others while also being this larger-than-life character. I feel that Depp gets a ton of unwanted hate due to how people adore the more cynical and mysterious performance by Wilder or those who don't like the Jackson-esque portrayal. Still, I feel that Depp pulls off the look and mannerism of the Wonka described in Dahl's story for the most part. Freddie Highmore as Charlie Bucket works well as the wide-eyed innocence who deserves good fortune in his life, but some feel that he is unrealistic in that he never makes bad choices in his life. I personally feel that Charlie's personality was molded by his rather optimistic family, so the criticism regarding his personality is null and void. I also think that his want to stick with family or even selling the Golden Ticket are nice subtle moments of his character recognizing his state in poverty amidst his happy-go-lucky personality. Apart from the leads, there are tons of side characters to talk about. David Kelly as Grandpa Joe is really charming in his energetic personality in this fragile body, while Noah Tyler and Helena Bonham Carter as Mr. and Mrs. Bucket act as the generic nice parents living in poverty and who never show weakness. The kids (Augustus Gloop, Violet Beauregarde, Veruca Salt, and Mike Teavee) are given some great child actors and actresses to make them both despicable and somewhat likeable for their sinful personalities and perspectives. Their respective parents are also well-casted and performed to be somewhat unlikeable. After all, it was the parenting of these kids to blame for their personalities and issues rather than the kids themselves who can redeem themselves later in life. Christopher Lee hams it up as Wonka's father, a dentist who despises candy due to wanting his son to have good dental hygiene, while the narration by the late Geoffrey Holder is endearing in how unnecessary it is. Deep Roy plays as the Oompa-Loompas, the workers of Wonka who love to sing and dance. Even though he looks nowhere close to being strange or odd as the ones who appeared in the original film or even the book, Roy is just having such a good time in an otherwise mime act as he never utters a word onscreen, with Danny Elfman dubbing over him during the musical numbers. The only characters to not really work much will be the other grandparents. Grandpa George is noteworthy for the pep talk with Charlie, but the grandmothers do absolutely nothing with one barely speaking and the other clearly having dementia or something. Regardless, the cast is frankly fantastic with everyone filling their roles as great as they can be, with Depp offering the best performance as Wonka.

If there was one director who could adapt Dahl's work most authentically, it would be the mind that is Tim Burton. The visionary director pulls off the sense of wonder and charm that is found in the novel with fantastic art design and aesthetic. Burton makes the clever and subtle choice of having the film be set in Charlie's perspective. While it makes sense when the viewer sees the stories of Wonka and the imaginative factory that could potentially be over the top due to the child's imagination, it proves most effective by the use of colour and setting. Charlie's British town is a constant dull and grey winter that has all meaning of colour sucked out. Notice that when the film switches to a location of another city or home of a ticket holder, it's far more visually clean and stimulant with mild colours, which is contrasted by Charlie's life in poverty and mild envy. The world Charlie lives in feels unfair and down-to-earth in contrast to the almost-magical chocolate factory that's hidden in plain sight. By the time the characters enter the chocolate factory, the film not only explodes in colour, but offers the surreal imagery that Burton manages to adapt brilliantly from Dahl's book. The only thing that's not nearly on the same page is the cinematography by Phillippe Rousselot. While the camerawork during the musical numbers along with the grand arial and high-angle shots work, most of the film consists of medium or close-up shots that seem to not have a real sense of direction aside from the eye candy appeal. The effects, both physical and digital, are extremely good, pun intended. The use of physical props, sets, and squirrels give out a sense of child-like wonder and realism. The CGI factory, melted chocolate, green-screen and glass elevator are used when appropriate, showing that Burton tries to not overuse CGI when possible. The music by Elfman is mostly consisting of the grand factory theme with the Oompa-Loompas doing a tribal, almost gothic, chant with a sense of mystery and suspense. However, it's the musical numbers that really shine. The animatronic-performed song introducing Willy Wonka is a nice earworm piece, Augustus's number is Bollywood-inspired with a memorable beat and rhythm, Violet's number has a 1970's funk-sounding piece, Veruca's number is akin to the Beatles with its 60's style pop and harmony choir, and Mike's number is a nice homage to both 1980's rock and Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody". Compare all you want to the original film and musical numbers, but Elfman knows how to make unique songs for the respective characters.

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" is up there with the 1990 "The Witches" in regards to being a faithful and entertaining film adaptation of Dahl's work. Despite the sub-plot regarding Wonka's past and father issues slows the ending down for being unnecessary, Charlie's parents and grandparents are either generic or boring and the cinematography by Rousselot can be a mixed bag in ambition, there's so much delight to be found in the feature. From the more faithful story and tone, comedy that works because the characters work off each other well, Depp's portrayal as Wonka is interesting in how charming and odd he can be, Highmore's performance as Charlie is great and works well in regards to the household he grows up in, the majority of the side cast is given fantastic actors/actresses who work in both being charming and awful, the physical and digital effects are really polished and makes both the factory and the candy tangible to the senses, the score by Elfman is good as always, the musical numbers and songs attached are extremely unique and memorable in their own way, and Burton's direction manages to brilliantly put the viewer in Charlie's perspective with witty uses of imagination and colour. The film is like eating a wonderful treat, flaws and all. While I personally prefer this film over to the original, it doesn't mean the 1971 film is terrible or even bad. It just means that I prefer the film that happens to respect Dahl's work the most rather than the one that was more bold with budget and direction.

Verdict: 8.5/10. Almost a family classic if the issues ironed out, but much like the forbidden chocolate bar in a diet, it's too sweet to not watch multiple times. 

The Godfather, Coda: The Death Of Micheal Corleone (1990/2020) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Worthy Conclusion To The Prestigious Duology?

 

The "Godfather" duology have been regarded as some of the best films of all time, with the original being considered a classic and "Part 2" being seen as even better by fans and critics. After the success of "Part II", director Francis Ford Coppola wanted to move away from the franchise to work on other passion projects despite Paramount's requests for him to pen a third film. After getting into financial troubles, Coppola decided to take up the project after more than a decade. The third film was to be seen as an epilogue to the duology and will close the franchise as well as the story of Micheal Corleone. While it got praise during its initial release, the final film in the "Godfather" trilogy has been slammed overtime for various reasons with Coppola releasing a re-edit of the flawed film last year with a warm response by the fans of the franchise. I have only watched this re-edit and haven't seen the original cut for the review as I didn't want to bother. The differences between the two cuts is that the re-edit is a bit shorter with scenes having a more coherent place in the film, new musical cues, and an altered beginning and end. Aside from these differences, I will be treating the re-edit as if it was the theatrical cut after thirity years. The question remains: Is "Godfather Part III" worthy of being involved in the franchise?

Positives: 

• The storyline regarding Micheal Corleone. In the film, Micheal has mellowed over the years and has been trying to leave the crime business while securing his family's wealth and safety in good hands and faith. After recently legalizing his criminal empire by dealing with the Vatican, Micheal is set to find an heir with him eyeing Vincent Santino, the bastard son of Sonny Corleone. Micheal sees potential in his nephew as his son, Anthony, refuses to take up the mantle and Vincent is seen as the son Micheal never had, despite Vincent harbouring an explosive temper and want for revenge. After Micheal announces his exit out of the industry and returns the shares to The Commission, an assassination attempt tries killing Micheal, causing him and his family to hide in Italy while they plan to take out those that betrayed him. I will go in lengths with the issues regarding the story later, but I think the strength of it is Micheal's character arc.
• The tone during the second half of the film. Again, I will bring up the issues in the first half, but as soon as Micheal and his family move to Sicily, the film starts feeling more in nature to the franchise and it's where the drama and character building with Micheal and his loved ones that shine the most.
• Al Pacino as Micheal. While some feel that his performance is either over-the-top or not in nature to his character in previous films, Pacino really helps in making Micheal the highlight of the film. Micheal over the years is depressed and diagnosed with diabetes, which has made him regret all of the terrible things he has done in the past. While people feel that he should have been cold and bitter even as he gets older, it makes sense for why Micheal is trying to turn a new life in regards with his health condition and relationships. The scene where he demands sugar for his diabetic attack is a bit silly, but it illustrates how far this man has fallen out of power and how members of his family and work see him as soft for not trying to kill his enemies. Pacino however is great whenever he is with certain characters such as his ex-wife, Kay, and his son Anthony. I also like the subtlety in the ending where you just see an elderly Micheal just sitting outside alone. It's a nice way to close his journey in regards of seeking redemption and peace but having to pay a costly price.
• Some of the side characters. Diane Keaton as Kay is fantastic as always and captures the awkwardness of trying to fix up a strained relationship with Micheal. Their scenes feel the most natural in the film which is really thanks to the acting talents of Pacino and Keaton. Talia Share as Connie is also great as the sister of Micheal who proves to be quite vicious in regards to the needs of wanting revenge. Franc D'Ambrosio as Anthony is good for being a timid yet talented opera singer that Micheal feels proud for despite wanting nothing to do with the family business. Lastly, Raf Vallone does a nice job as Cardinal Lamberto, the Pope known as John Paul I who Micheal confesses to and tries to keep up the end of the deal with Micheal and the Vatican Bank.
• The cinematography by Gordan Willis. There's a lot of nice tracking shots, establishing shots, and creative uses to fitting subjects into the frame. The scenes in Sicily really show both the beauty and the contrast of old and modern in regards to the time setting of the film.
• The score by Carmine Coppola. While there's a mix of new and familiar musical tracks, the score is of course spectacular. I also love how the opera in the third act is synced with the actions and suspense on screen.
• The third act in general. It revolves around Micheal and his family watching Anthony perform Cavalleria rusticana with the antagonist Altobella ordering a hitman to kill Micheal while Vincent assassinates Altobella and Micheal's enemies during which the opera is performed. It's an excellent set-piece and it remains as the most iconic sequence of the hated sequel.

Negatives: 

• The overarching MacGuffin that is the Vatican Bank and the Pope. I get that it's based off a real-life scandal and conspiracy during the time, but the film feels really complicated with this element. It makes sense for the overall story and why Micheal makes this deal, but a lot of the film talks about the Pope and the bank and the company Micheal invested into and it's hard to actually be invested in it.
• The sub-plot regarding Vincent and his romance with Mary. The chemistry between the two is awful and just plain wrong. The two cousins only really love each other for their looks and that's it. They both don't feel grossed out by their attraction and even the other characters, including Micheal, don't comment on this aside from that it will put Mary in danger. The fact that the re-edit still includes plenty of the two making out is just disgusting.
• The tone in the first half of the film. Because the film takes place in 1979, the film wants to feel like it's a product of that time. Characters and actors are really over-the-top and have awkward deliveries, deaths feel gratuitous and flashy, and the film as a whole doesn't take itself seriously at times with spinning newspapers and gross incest. The tone manages to recorrect itself by the second half, but it still manages to hurt the film as a result.
• Vincent Santino. While Andy Garcia is doing a good job, it's the character itself that really makes him unlikeable. For one, the incest relationship with Mary is bad enough. But the new head of the Corleone mafia is just blunt-headed and violent-seeking. I get that it's due to his age and perception of life, but it still doesn't help making the character likeable when he constantly disobeys Micheal.
• Mary and Sofia Coppola's performance. This is the most infamous error of the film and it's no question as to why. Coppola was forced into the project in the last minute when Winona Ryder backed out due to feeling ill. Coppola herself didn't want to act in the film and it clearly shows. Her performance is so terrible that it's not even funny. It just makes the film awkward and uncomfortable, especially as she has the hots for her cousin. Even if Coppola wasn't acting, the character of Mary would have still been unlikeable due to her moody personality and horniness in regards to her love for Vincent. When she dies at the end of the film, I cheered, despite all of the actors pouring their talent out in making this moment emotional.
• The villains and side characters. I'm not going to spend much time on them, since they are all shoved in for the same issue. The actors are either just bland or too over-the-top to take seriously. Everyone acts as if they are in a satire film. Altobella is the main villain and he reminds me of Tony Vivaldi from "Last Action Hero" with his personality and silly cane with a fist. The lawyers and bodyguards are just stereotypical archetypes. And the character of Grace Hamilton, played by Bridget Fonda, is just thrown in to be sexy and wear Vincent's leather jacket. This "reporter" just shows up, sleeps with Vincent, and disappears at the beginning of the film despite said film acting as if she's far more important. Maybe she had more to do in the theatrical cut, but it just begs the question why she was even involved in the movie to begin with?
• Francis Ford Coppola's directing. Now, that's not to say that Coppola is a terrible director, but it's quite clear that he both wanted to do something different and not really interested in doing another "Godfather". The film itself feels a lot more amateur than the previous films and just feels odd in contrast to the franchise. This, again, might be due to the time period the film is set and how it wanted to feel in nature to that era and the films that were made then, but it makes the sequel feel like it's heavily lacking a sense of class or elegance. Some scenes, particularly those of exterior balconies or interior homes, feel far more different than those found in the previous films. It might have something to do with the lighting, natural or artificial, or even the cinematography by Willis, but it makes the film feel both cheap and kind of visually unimpressive at times.
• The editing in the re-edit. I'm not going to put too much blame, since it's meant to trim the fat off the original film, but there are some rough cuts to be seen. Also, the fade-to-black transitions are just not very good in this film, as scenes are either cut out a tad early or the transition opens up to a shot that doesn't fit well into said transition.

"The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Micheal Corleone" is by far the weakest installment in the legendary franchise by the huge quality dip it has taken from previous films. From a confusing Vatican storyline, the romance involving Vincent and Mary, the strange tone found in the first half of the film, Vincent is an unlikeable meathead, Mary is both a bad character and given an excruciating performance by Sofia Coppola, the villains and side characters are either really generic, pointless or tonally over-the-top that it makes the film feel more like a parody, the editing is pretty rough at times, and Francis Ford Coppola's directing is lacking his sense of class and quality and manages to come across as amateur and lazy. Despite all of these problems, does that mean it's a bad movie in general? Not at all. There are some strengths to the epilogue of the franchise such as Micheal Corleone's story and character arc, the tone manages to correct itself by the second half of the film, Pacino's performance as Micheal shows that he is a gifted actor, the characters of Kay, Connie, Anthony and Lamberto are well acted and work off really well with Pacino in the dramatic moments, Willis offers great cinematography with the scenes in Sicily bringing out the beauty of the country, Carmine Coppola still offers a strong, albeit, familiar score for the franchise, and the climax as a whole manages to become one of the best sequences in the franchise in regards to the operatic backdrop, suspense and overall filmmaking. So, it's clearly the weakest film in the trilogy, but it proves to still have redeeming qualities. I think that the best way to watch it would be to just stay invested in Micheal Corleone's journey. If you trail off, you will just ignore what strengths the film offers compared to an average cash-grab sequel.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Above-average at its best, shockingly mediocre at its worst. As a film, it's fairly decent, but as a conclusion to the "Godfather" series, it can be quite bothersome for many. 

Are We There Yet? (2005) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Is It Over Yet?

 

The early-to-mid 2000's was home to a lot of mediocre, live-action family films. It started with the success of "Home Alone" and various studios and writers trying to recapture that success by having a famous actor being tortured by kids. Whether it's "Jingle All The Way" or "Daddy's Day Care", these comedies were everywhere and it got old real fast. "Are We There Yet?" was basically following the leader during its release and actually managed to spawn both a sequel and series. So, maybe it's one of the better copy-cay films of the genre, right?

Positives: 

• The premise works, albeit on the dramatic side. Nick Persons is a mid-aged bachelor who falls in love with Suzanne Kingston, a single mother who is charmed by Nick's love for baseball and being able to drive her to work when her car breaks down. When Suzanne travels to Vancouver for a business event, Nick, hoping to win Suzanne over, offers to take her kids to her when their father refuses to look after them. However, Nick isn't a fan of children and Suzanne's kids hate Nick as they see him trying to get with their mother despite them wanting their dad to get back together. From then on, it's a road trip with goofy moments and close-calls. I think what works about the premise of the film is the conflict. It makes sense for the kids and Nick to hate each other, but their growing bond and chemistry actually works in wanting the three to make amends with one another. The scene where the kids learn for why their dad refuses to see them is effective in terms of how the character dynamics alter so the kids and Nick start to respect each other more. 
• Ice Cube as Nick. Not only is he the best actor in the movie, but Nick manages to be the only likeable character in the film due to his consistency. While the movie is trying to make Nick's life a constant hell, both the film and characters do start feeling bad for him. While Cube isn't really a dramatic actor, I do think that the character of Nick is done well in terms of realism and relatability. 
• The cast in general. I will go a bit more about why they don't work well later, but the actor and actresses attached to the characters are generally pretty good. It's just the writing that holds them back.
• The cinematography by Thomas Ackerman. While the majority of the film has obvious sets and standard shots of the interior of the car, it's the roadtrip landscape, aerial shots and establishing shots that add some flair and actual effort into an otherwise low-budget comedy.
• The music by David Newman. While I have criticized his offerings and he typically puts out some generic tracks in the film, the third act overall has some good holiday/emotional music that work at trying to end the film on a heartwarming beat.
• The soundtrack. There's some good R&B songs such as Nelly's "Ride With Me" upon the reveal of Nick's Navigator and that 50 Cent song Nick tries to play in the car. Even the damn Hamster Dance manages to work for the family film aesthetic and characters.
• The car chase at the end of the film. It's not super special, but the involvement of Ernst the goofball driver and filming in an actual street in Vancouver makes the sequence fun and feel like they actually tried to make an above-average film.

Negatives:

• The tone. It's kind of bizarre in how an immature family film has an overarching plot of a simp trying to get a single mother. The film basically admits that Nick is just trying to have sex with Suzanne and it's such an odd backdrop for an otherwise over-the-top slapstick movie. I usually like a hint of maturity or adult edge to family films in regards to relatability and themes, but the issue with the inclusion of Nick trying to get with Suzanne is that it's such an adult subject matter in a film where a deer beats up Nick and a sequence where Nick is trying to find a restroom for Kevin to pee in.
• The humour. Despite the sexually charged storyline and a joke where an elderly babysitter lusts for Nick for a bit, the film is really juvenile and tries to offer slapstick and gross-out jokes whenever possible. Does it makes sense when airport security dog-piles Nick for having a corkscrew? Does it make sense when Kevin projectile vomits on the windshield of the car without warning? Or when a truck driver named Ernst automatically help Nick without logic? No. It's like a zany cartoon. Again, that would be fine if the entire film was like this. But considering that the film both has a story about the lead trying to have sex with his love interest and the dramatic moments revolving about father figures and such, it's such a huge leap in contrast. On top of that, it's rarely funny. I only laughed three times in the movie. The first with the imaginary friend-zone announcer in the airport, the second when Nick and Kevin find a disgusting toilet in the men's bathroom, and the third with Ernst's introduction. Aside of that, the film is either really juvenile with the gross-out humour, overplaying the slapstick sequences, or even being stereotypical in regards to the Chinese mechanic or the Amish.
• The rest of the characters in terms of being likeable or logical. First, there are the kids. Lindsey is the typical smart girl with sass who doesn't know what a litre is, while Kevin is the brother with asthma, his fixation on a superhero toy, and seems to tolerate Nick a bit more than Lindsey. While the kids are acted fine for the most part, the issue is that they can be really unlikeable in the first half. They tend to screw over Nick and try to make him suffer either because they tend to be either really stupid or cruel such as getting off the train or trying to get help from a redneck truck driver. When Nick chews them out for the car being destroyed, their attempts at crying feels so forced and fake that it's almost comical. On top of that, we have seen this archetype done to death in so many shows and movies that it's not even funny. Despite this, they do start becoming more enjoyable by the end of the film.
• While Suzanne works well for being the single mother and Nick's love interest, the moment where she appears to not want anything to do with him at the end of the film is uncalled for. Yes, Nick is making a bad impression by fighting the police and snowman performers, but she still sees him taking care of Kevin and managed to get them to her by the end of the deadline. So, Nia Long and the character as a whole isn't bad, but just really confined into the cliched narrative.
• Jay Mohr as Marty, Nick's best friend who's both unfunny and unnecessary to the film. All he does is talk about how Nick is a simp and that's really it.
• M.C. Gainey as Al, the truck driver who "helps" Kevin and Lindsey after believing that Nick is a kidnapper. Al is just a terrible character. For one, rather than calling the police, he instead tries ramming Nick's car with the kids inside against the guard rail next to an edge of a bridge. What a hero, huh? Also, when he shows up back at the end and still believes to be saving the kids, he comes across as a creepy pedophile as he snatches Kevin.
• Tracey Morgan voicing the bobble head of Satchel Paige. Satch is the worst character of the film due to how random he is as a character, how painfully unfunny he is, and the CGI on him being just awful. Satch is supposed to be like Nick's conscience, but it doesn't make sense as to why it's represented by a CGI bobblehead rather than an actual person of his imagination. All Satch talks about is either bad jokes about his treatment as a bobblehead or reinforcing Nick's lust for Suzanne. I seriously don't understand why this character is in the movie and the fact that he was written out for the sequel shows that even the writers know how bad he was as a comic relief.
• The direction by Brian Levant. If the name doesn't strike a bell, it's because he was the same director behind "Jingle All The Way". It completely explains why this film feels so much like the former, but yet even less ambitious. Levant's creativity is completely dried for this film as all of the comedic situations feel typical of the genre or unnatural for the film. The part where Nick and the kids stop at a town during a New Year's party with crazy kids all around is just to have Nick being dog-piled by a bunch of kids just to checkmark the cliche. The scene where Nick fights a deer practically rips-off the moment where Arnold in "Jingle All The Way" fights a reindeer. The film has not one, but two train chases where Nick has to reunite with the kids. Even the film itself has to borrow from its own damn script to add more potential for comedy.
• The editing by Lawrence Jordan. While the film is only an hour and a half, it feels like it can be far shorter as scenes feels either cut short or needlessly added in. There's a minute-long montage where we have sped-up footage of Nick helping out Suzanne that shows the same action of him picking her up and taking her to work. The scenes with Marty and Satch can be completely removed as the two don't add anything to the story or comedy whatsoever.  There was a reaction shot with an old lady in a grocery store that wasn't necessary as we never see this old lady prior.The scene where Nick has to get Kevin to pee is cut short as an obese women starts attacking them and Kevin pees on her face. We don't see the women again or even the aftermath in the convenience store. Al is introduced not when he tries saving the kids, but reacting to Nick getting a fake axe in his groan for no reason. Jordan's editing is just really messy and feels as a desperate man trying to make a film reach to the ninety-minute mark by inserting pointless scenes with no rhyme and logic while trimming scenes that could have been funny.

"Are We There Yet?" is a below-average family film that almost manages to work in the tired genre and cliche environment. The premise works in terms of the few dramatic and character-building moments, Ice Cube as Nick is both the most likeable and relatable character in the film due to all of the suffering he has to endure, the cast as a whole act well, the cinematography by Ackerman can be decent at times, Newman's score offers some decent emotional tracks that are effective during the ending, the soundtrack as a whole is well put together and charmingly dated for the mid-2000's, and the car chase during the end is quite enjoyable. Regardless, it's not an easy film to sit and watch patiently. The tone feels completely off with the absurd situations with the sexually-charged backdrop, the comedy rarely earns laughs with overbearing uses of slapstick and gross-out jokes, Lindsey and Kevin are both cliched and unlikeable brats during the first half of the film for making Nick's life hell, Suzanne is just a typical love interest confined to the tropes of the story, Marty is a useless and unfunny comic relief, Al is a creepy and unlikeable antagonistic force in the film, Stach is a poor excuse for both comedy and CGI, Jordan's editing is painfully adding filler and lame jokes to pad the running time, and Levant's direction is both extremely generic and lazy to the point that he has to rip off comedic beats from both films of the genre and even the film itself. Despite all of these issues, I have seen and heard of worse films in the genre with "Dr. Dolittle" and "My Spy" being the top contenders of crappy family films. "Are We There Yet?" is like endurance, similar to Nick's journey. There's a lot of pain and boredom in the journey, but the destination manages to kind of make up for it by the end, even if it's for a brief moment.

Verdict: 4.5/10. Bad, but not terrible attempt at family entertainment. Still managed to laugh and be invested despite the poor craftsmanship. 

The Machinist (2004) Film Review: Christian Bale And Brad Anderson At Their Best?

 

If there is one actor well-known for his method acting, it would be Christian Bale. He's an actor that is so committed to a role that he would either gain a large amount of weight and muscle or even lose it all for a more skinny character. The most infamous role he took in regards to the raging debate about the extreme measures of method acting is his starring role in "The Machinist", a 2004 film that had Bale clock in at only 120 pounds to pull off the freakishly-looking character. Trevor Reznik is the aforementioned machinist, a young man working in a factory who hasn't slept in a full year, causing him to lose extreme amount of weight. He seeks comfort in life through a prostitute named Stevie and a diner waitress named Maria, as he constantly deals with fatigue from his condition. When an employee named Ivan distracts Trevor and causes a grisly accident to a co-worker, Trevor becomes obsessed in finding the elusive Ivan to let him admit in his interference as well as seemingly breaking into his apartment, while his insomnia starts to take a toll on his mind. Watching the film, it strangely bears a striking resemblance to another film released in 2004, "Secret Window" with similarities regarding a mysterious stranger who stalks the main character and the questioning of reality as a whole. "The Machinist" however has a more serious and dramatic tone compared to the more quirky, over-the-top Stephan King adaptation. There's barely moments of levity, even during scenes of content, as Trevor's physical appearance and state makes the viewer uncomfortable and worry about his declining health. However, the film also has a faint surrealist edge to it as despite the hardened reality Trevor lives in, characters and scenes seem somewhat illogical at times, perhaps blending in as a part of Trevor's uneven sense of reality. It really works at putting the viewer into the perspective of Trevor, making you want to just have a good night's sleep right after watching.

Christian Bale as Trevor might be his best performance to date. Even if one takes out the extreme weight loss he did, Bale still does his best at acting his heart out as the fragile, alienated, and guilt-carrying soul. You feel so terrible for him, but yet kind of want him to accept his mistakes instead of burning the bridges in his life. At times, the actor transcends so far into the role that you forget that it's the same guy who would play Batman a year later. Ivan, played by John Sharian, is a great reflection of the opposites of Trevor. Not only is his physical appearance the complete opposite of Trevor's state, but his personality and goal is distinctly unique to keep the symbology of the character secret until the very end. The side characters are also great, even if they have some odd quirks to them. Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stevie is great as the only comfort and moral support Trevor can really on, even considering to marry him and back out of her ways of work. Aitana Sanchez-Gijon as Maria is good, but his thick Spanish accent feels off in the setting of the story and her very white son. Micheal Ironside as Miller is interesting, but has some really odd reactions to his arm being torn off and how he holds very little anger towards Trevor. Lastly, there's Mrs. Shrike played by the late Anna Massey. She is probably the best actress in the film since she tends to feel so concerned and genuine towards Trevor, her tenant. There are other minor side characters such as some of Trevor's co-workers, his boss, Maria's son and a few police officers, but they barely do much in the film as a whole. The one issue I have with the side characters in general is that they tend to not act realistic at times. A lot of the side characters keep commenting on Trevor's wellbeing or what's going on in his head, despite Trevor himself clearly looking like he's extremely underweight or fatigued. The confrontation between Trevor and Stevie near the end is a bit strange as Trevor admitted to her that he has never slept in a whole year. Stevie is in the right to be angry, but wouldn't she be more questioning of his mental state for his unusual case of insomnia? The behaviour of some of the characters in select scenes feels unnatural which might be by design to create some surreal reality being in Trevor's perspective, but considering how grounded the film is for the most part and the ambiguity of what is real or fake, it can be bothersome at times. Still, it barely dents how good the actors are, especially Bale as Trevor. 

Brad Anderson has never really been considered a good director. From the various work of television shows to some terrible films such as "The Call", Anderson is not likely getting a resurgence in his career anytime soon. The saddest thing about this is that from watching this movie, you can tell he has the talent to be a great filmmaker. The film carries this grey, bleak, dirty, almost ugly aesthetic to it, as it represents the condition that Trevor is forcing himself to live as. It can feel a bit warmer or even gothic whether or not the scene is in Stevie's apartment or Trevor's apartment, but for the most part, the film carries this unpleasant art design. While it seems that the dull colour filter is the only thing the film is going for, there's occasionally some visual striking scenes and contrasts of colour, particularly when it focuses on Ivan's red car and the dark ride sequence. The cinematography by Xavi Gimenez is also great in fitting with the tone as it helps make the viewer uncomfortable. The close-ups in particular hold on to the subject, whether it's a post-it note or Trevor's tired face, just long enough to give the viewer chills. The score by Rosque Banos tends to be rather minimalistic or faint for the most part as for the typical unhinged psychological thriller. Whenever there is music, it sounds extremely stock. However, by the time the ending occurs, the score suddenly gets really good and even emotionally beautiful. As for the ending itself, I really don't want to give it away, since I feel not a lot of people were aware of the film or the twists and turns it contains. It's just really a shame that Anderson went from making a fantastic film to just dropping off from the face of the Earth.

"The Machinist" is a criminally underrated film that contains some of the best elements one can wish in a psychological thriller. From a tense-fuelled story, gritty tone that carries a brutal reality that is starting to blur into fantasy, Bale's overlooked Oscar-worthy performance as Trevor that demonstrates both the best of method acting determination as well as the actor's best dramatic efforts, Ivan as a fantastic metaphor who works as the film's mystery for the identity of the antagonist, the side characters are, for the most part, relatable with great actors filling out the roles with such talent and sincerity, Gimenez's nerve-wrecking cinematography,  Banos's score proves to be quite effective at the right parts despite some stock music on occasion, and Anderson's best film to date with the occasional flair that stands out from the grey aesthetic along with the great uses of symbology and themes that add to the unbalanced realism of the world-building. While all of this sounds like it's a masterpiece of the genre, there is one issue that holds it back from being truly excellent. The side or minor characters tend to feel a bit unrealistic in regards to their viewpoint or actions towards Trevor despite how he's clearly unwell. While it might be in design due to the fragmented mind of Trevor, scenes such as the break-up between him and Stevie, Miller's lose of an entire arm and his rather pleased condition, or Trevor outrunning two police officers after being run over earlier in his fragile body feel a bit over-the-top for what the tone, context and details of the characters make them out to be. Again, maybe everything I said is meant to be ambiguous due to the uneven reality, but too much of it happens that it personally makes me bothered at times. Regardless, this is still a fantastic psychological thriller with some great themes, filmmaking, atmosphere, and performance by the gift that is Christian Bale.

Verdict: 9/10. Almost perfect if scenes or characters feel a bit more true in nature, but a great film nonetheless. If you love Bale as an actor and never heard and/or seen this film, check it out to experience him as the best he ever was. 

Up (2009) Film Review: Up, Up, And Away From The Best Of The Best...

 

Back in 2009, Pixar's then-latest film, "Up", achieved critical and commercial acclaim. It even got the honour to be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars the following year. Some will even debate that "Up" is the best film from the studio to date. More than a decade later though, it appears that the film has somewhat aged and almost weakened compared to later works from Pixar, much like its protagonist is at a state of his life. I think it's best to dive into the story as that's where I feel the film has a challenge at comparing to better works from the studio. As a kid, Carl Fredricksen was a quiet and shy boy who bonded with a energetic tomboyish girl named Ellie over the two's love for acclaimed explorer, Charles Muntz, and to one day travel to Paradise Falls. The two get married and live a long life, despite never going to Paradise Falls nor ever having a child. When Ellie suddenly dies, the old and bitter Carl keeps an old childhood promise to take her to the falls by tying a million balloons to his house and flying it to South America. Along the way, Carl is bothered by a young Wilderness Explorer who gets stuck with him named Russell, a giant colourful bird who Russell calls Kevin, a dog who has a translating collar named Dug, and even a very old Charles Muntz, who has gone insane for his quest to capture the bird that cost him his legacy. The story is pretty original in the way that it constantly shifts focus and story beats, yet still feel fresh and engaging for the various twists and turns. The problem I have with the film though is the tone. This was during the age where Pixar still felt the need that an animated family film HAD to be a family film with kids in mind. It's not like today where the studio can put out much more mature films that don't try to dumb its concepts down for children too much like "Coco" or "Soul", it's when the studio tries to make a film with great themes that's in a silly adventure for kids. I of course love the moments of the film when it's just the human characters interacting with each other. When it focuses on the immature Russell and the talking dog's shenanigans, it really gets childish to the point of disinterest. The same case applies to the humour. I personally like some of the dark comedy and slapstick as well as Carl's bitterness to others before he opens up. As for the silly lines and bizarre scenarios surrounding the dogs, it really suffers at making anyone other than a kid laugh.

Carl, voiced by Ed Asner, is a very loveable and relatable character. At first, he just seems like the grouchy old-man archetype that's just bitter to anyone for personal reasons, but as he opens up, the themes and character journey start to reveal itself. Carl just wanted to take Ellie/his house to Paradise Falls as that was what the couple promised each other what they were going to do with their lives. However, upon reaching his destination, he doesn't really feel fulfilled nor happy. That's when he realizes that life isn't about achieving a single goal or dream. It's really about the relationships he has made over the years, which Ellie has already figured out before her death. The journey is not only great as a character arc, but Carl is just really entertaining as the old man who's out of his element and can't stand the absurdity he is seeing around, which is really thanks by Asner's great vocal performance. Russell is a necessary evil in the regards to the story and themes. As a character, he's kind of insufferable, which you might say it's because he's a kid, but he's extremely effective at making both Carl and the audience annoyed to death at first. However, much like Carl, the viewer begins to understand the purpose of Russell's character. Russell is mirrored as the child that Carl and Ellie never had, considering he harbours similar traits to the latter's personality as a kid. Russell is quirky, fast-talking, and obsessed with nature and his need to help out, much like Ellie. The scenes where both Carl and Russell bond as a father figure to the son he could never have are great in terms of the chemistry and themes around the film. Remove Carl out of the film though, Russell is pretty intolerable. Charles Muntz, voiced by Christopher Plummer, is a great late villain to the story, which is mainly due to how he represents a darker version of Carl. Charles never let go of his goal to capture the bird that Russell calls Kevin, which made him both extremely isolated by society and unhinged mentally. The obsession over achieving a goal can be toxic as it might not bring you fulfillment at all, which is what Carl learns. Even if Charles did regain his reputation by capturing the bird, it doesn't give him any excuse to kill innocent travellers who weren't out to get his bird. Plummer also does a great job in making both a despicable villain and a charming and excitable elder who was initially happy to see new people. While I would have preferred some of the original scrapped endings for his character, it doesn't diminish the purpose and execution of the character. While all of the three human characters are great in regards to their role in the story, the same can't be said for the animals. Kevin is a goofy bird that's just trying to get back home to her babies, which is fine for the characters of Carl and Russell to aid as they would help the animal in regards to their interests. Dug and the other dogs on the other hand really didn't need to be in the film. For one, they don't really offer a purpose to the themes, unless one says Dug is another relationship Carl has to accept. But the real problem is that whenever they show up onscreen, the film really gets childish. Dug is practically a goofy animal sidekick with the other dogs being bumbling goons for Charles, constantly using the squirrel line as comedy, or have a gag in relation to their chipmunk voice with Alpha. The dogs were just there to have kids laugh and be engaged, because they are looking at a cute, silly dog. Regardless, I still find the characters of Carl, Russell and Charles to be very good in terms of their representation to the story and themes, even if Russell can be annoying.

The animation is one of Pixar's more unique designs in their library since they have a more soft, cartoony approach. The textures aren't the most extremely polished, aside from the hair/fur/feathers on the characters, but considering the character designs, it's clearly not meant to be realistic. Carl has a great exaggerated appearance with his short, bent-over stature and his face that's just naturally meant to frown with gazes eyes with an almost cubical head. Russell is just a human-skin blob with small eyes, nose and mouth. In regards to the minor human characters that appear, they look like they came out of an Illumination film. I'm not super bothered by this, especially since the majority of the film only has two human characters. One thing that's very clear about the animation is that it's very vibrant and colourful. The film has a range of moods and hues to match the environments and scenes of emotional weight. Just looking at the design of Kevin alone exemplifies the use of colour in the film. The animation simply goes all out in the artistic department and foregoes realism and detail. On top of that, the music by Micheal Giacchino is one of the best the studio offers. The main theme/"Married Life" piece is one of the most memorable themes in relation to an animated film and it's a beautiful track on its own. The more extravagant/triumphant music such as Carl taking flight are also really good pieces of music that are simply overshadowed by the main theme. The use of classical music in select scenes such as Carl's morning routine is nicely implemented in terms of comedy and clever use of animation and music responding to one another. The only tracks from Giacchino's score that's not memorable are the action/comedic tracks as they tend to be quite generic. Despite this, "Up" might have Giacchino's best soundtrack to date.

"Up" is best described as an aged masterpiece. For its time, the strengths of the film managed to override the issues as the story proved to be original and engaging, the more mature aspects of the story and themes resonated with viewers, Carl is a fantastic protagonist in regards to story arc and entertainment value, Russell as a metaphor for the unborn child of Carl and Ellie makes the chemistry between him and Carl great to watch, Charles is a late, yet engaging, villain who mirrors the ideologies of obsessing over a goal, the animation is colourful and imaginatively designed by ditching any realism in textures and character design, and the music by Giacchino still proves to one of, if not, the best soundtrack the veteran composer worked on. However, as better films from the studio get released, the more the cracks begin to show on what was otherwise a no-doubt masterpiece. The tone and humour is extremely half-balanced with the studio trying to play more on the child-friendly side than the more mature one, Russell as a character by himself is pretty annoying, and the dogs in general completely ruin the film's chances to be the best from the studio as they were neither funny or representative of the film's themes. Despite these complaints, I still think that the film is a great entry from Pixar and is quality entertainment, but the more childish elements and absurdity hold it back from being exceptional.

Verdict: 8/10. Great movie, but could have been a masterpiece if it was a bit more mature. Still an achievement in regards to Pixar as a whole.

Let's Be Cops (2014) Film Review: N.A.C.A.B?

 

There are films out there that are meant to be made to earn some quick cash with no real plans afterward. "Let's Be Cops" is one of those films that made quite a lot of money for its low budget of $17 million and completely vanished soon after. It made enough money that should allow the studio to make a cash-grab sequel, but they never did. Was it because critics panned it to oblivion or maybe the filmmakers felt that their film had a definitive conclusion? Would it be a surprise if I tell you that it's a bit of both? Well, let's go over the story. Justin Miller and Ryan O'Malley are two long-time friends who believe they are losers as they have not managed to accomplish anything in the city of LA. One night, Ryan has the silly idea for the two to wear police costumes for a masquerade college reunion. Despite the two embarrassing themselves, they quickly learn that in public, people actually believe they are police officers and start to take advantage of the uniform. Justin is extremely hesitant, despite the gig finally getting the girl he's into dating him, and Ryan feels like he has found something he's actually good at in his life. Regardless of their viewpoints, the two don't realize how much trouble they are in as they caught themselves in the crosshairs of an Albanian gang with their leader, Mossi, planning to kill the two for getting involved in his operations. The story suffers from the tropes in regards to the liar reveal cliche, but it's honestly kind of engaging for the most part. I will go over it more in the character segment, but it's the characters of Justin and Ryan, specifically the latter, that really make the story beats work to be fresh despite being quite generic. The tone actually works as the two characters serve as the over-the-top elements in the otherwise grounded city of LA. I also felt that the emotional moments were pretty strong with Ryan being particularly sympathetic as he feels that he has no goals or purpose in life. The humour on the other hand is kind of hit-and-miss. When the comedy is centred on the two leads, it works decently well. When it's only one of the leads working off with someone else, it can be quite cringe.

Damon Wayans, Jr and Jake Johnson as Justin and Ryan practically save this movie from being just a below-average comedy. Wayans does a good job at being the awkward straight-man that has to learn to stand up for himself, but Johnson's Ryan is just great at bringing life to what should be an annoying character. I think it's mainly due to Johnson's performance and his almost child-like excitement in impersonating a police officer. Not only that, but the chemistry between the two is really solid. It's great that the leads hold this movie, but everyone else is pretty average. There's Nina Dobrev's Josie, the love interest of Justin and waitress at a local diner harassed by the gang. Dobrev is decent, but I never got much chemistry between the two and just felt that she only dug Justin for being a cop. James D'Arcy plays Mossi, the ruthless leader of the Albanian mafia who is just so generic as hell that it's not even funny. D'Arcy is doing the job he's given, but he's just not a good villain in terms of memorability or even threatening for the main characters. There's Rob Riggles as Segars, a LAPD officer who aids his "superior officer" Ryan. Segars is a decent character, but I felt Riggles's performance was a bit too silly at times which shouldn't gel well with the lead actors being over-the-top to begin with. Last worth mentioning is Keegan Micheal-Key as Pupa, a Spanish truck driver for Mossi who is interrogated by Justin and Ryan. Honestly, Pupa is the only side character that's actually good and that's mainly due to Key as a comic actor. Aside from that, that's about it. Everyone else is either playing it straight or quirky, which is typical comedy flair. If it wasn't for Wayans and Johnson, I think the film would have been far less enjoyable.

Luke Greenfield is a director who hasn't made much in his career with this film being the second last he has made as of 2021. How is that possible, especially given the fact that this film was the highest-grossing title in his resume? The simple answer is that Greenfield is just not a good director or at least one with style. Sure, you can point at the budget and say that it was so low that there was no room for improvement. But if "The Invisible Man" can have excellent directing and flair at nearly half the budget, it's quite clear that it's just due to Greenfield as a filmmaker. The film just reeks of this cheap, Youtube skit presentation. One can say that it helps at making the film feel a bit realistic, but it still doesn't defend the lack of effort involved. The cinematography by Daryn Okada is also safe and standard with the overuse of medium shots and occasional variety with handheld cameras or point-of-view shots. The score by Christophe Beck and Jake Monaco is so generic that it can almost pass as royalty-free music. With the exception of the police siren dubstep music, every track feels like average background comedy music. All of the effort in the audio department might have been just to grab all of the licensed songs. There are so many famous songs, some of which are dated, that it begs the question of how much money from the budget went to these songs alone. At least the songs they got are well-placed in their respective scenes and leave a lasting impression, even the crappy songs such as Miley Cyrus's "Wrecking Ball" and Martain Solveig's "Hello". As for the action sequences, they are actually fairly decent despite the overall laziness in the filmmaking. The fight with the bickering women was a good comedic set-piece, the chase between Ryan and the Albanian gang was intense, and the climatic shootout between Justin, Ryan and Mossi is effective due to the chemistry and characters of Justin and Ryan working off each other and sequence, even though the set-piece itself is quite generic in the police genre. I feel that Greenfield has the capabilities to be a good director, but considering his resume and lack of work since this film, it appears he's thrown in the towel.

"Let's Be Cops" is an average R-rated comedy that tends to work well for the most part. Its shortcomings involve some hit-and-miss comedy, the side characters are, for the most part, one-note or tonally off, Okada's cinematography is extremely bland aside from the action scenes, the original score by Beck and Monaco is forgettable and lazy, and the directing by Greenfield just shows how disinterested he is at his job in regards to having style or flair. Despite this, the story actually manages to work despite its cliched route, the tone is effective at being both silly and sincere, the comedy shines best when the leads are together, Wayans and Johnson as Justin and Ryan are doing their best at giving life to these characters and making each one relatable, the licensed soundtrack is pretty good and used throughout, and the few action sequences are actually well-put together despite amateur filmmaking. I honestly think that when the film focuses on Justin and Ryan, the story and comedy works, which is really thanks to Wayans and Johnson. Everything else though is pretty mediocre. I will still recommend it, especially if you love these actors or cop comedies in general, but it's not going to be a diamond in the rough.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Above average in part by some great leads and decent script, but hampered by poor filmmaking and an overall sense of laziness. Still worth a single viewing.

Tangled (2010) Film Review: The Film That Killed 2D Animation...

 The Disney Revival period technically began with films such as "Bolt" and "The Princess and the Frog" being modest hits for the studio. However, it was Disney's first 3D-animated fairy tale film that truly kicked off the hot streak that is the Disney Revival period. Despite having a massive budget, "Tangled" made nearly $600 million during its initial release, not only making a profit, but giving the impression that 3D animation is where the money is at compared to hand-drawn animation. Regardless of that consequence, is the film good enough to be on par with the best of Disney's hand-drawn work? Well, for the most part, yes. The story follows Rapunzel, a young women with extremely long blonde hair who is kept locked up in a tower by her adoptive mother known at Gothel. Gothel refuses to allow Rapunzel to step foot outside the tower as she claims that the world is a dangerous place for her daughter. In reality, it's to keep the truth hidden that Rapunzel is in fact a princess that Gothel kidnapped to take advantage of her magic hair, said magic allowing Gothel to stay youthful and alive after years and years. When a young thief seeks refuge in the tower, Rapunzel takes the opportunity to have the thief, Flynn Rider, to be her guide to the outside world and experience a festival that occurs on her birthday in the kingdom of Corona (yes, that's the name of the kingdom...). Obviously based off the fairy tale popularized by the Brothers Grimm, the story recaptures the magic and creativity in regards to Disney adaptations, similar to the films during the Disney Renaissance. It's the familiar Disney musical/romance with comedy throughout to keep viewers of all ranges entertained. There can be a plot hole or issue, but the emotions of the film can overlook these details. It's a really charming, even cute, movie that's great at making you root for the leads and their blooming romance. The comedy on the other hand is a mixed bag. While Flynn is a funny character and Rapunzel can be goofy in her awkwardness, it's the side characters and animal sidekicks that are very hit-and-miss. It's not the most comedic Disney film, but it does get a chuckle here and there.

Rapunzel, voiced by Mandy Moore, is one of the better female leads in Disney animation. Not only is the viewer always rooting for her as she never makes a questionable choice due to her strong motivations and desires, but both Moore and the character animation give her so much personality and quirks that make her one of the most likeable princesses in the Disney line-up. She is really only matched by her love interest, Flynn, voiced by Zachary Levi. Flynn is a great foil/pawn to the determined yet innocent Rapunzel that their chemistry of playing off each other and bonding makes him perhaps the best male lead in Disney animation. He's funny, charming, and Levi's vocal performance is underrated in how genuine it can be. Not only are the two leads great, but the villain is too. Mother Gothel, voiced by Donna Murphy, is seen as the last great Disney Villain and it's not hard to see why. The character is so well-written in how she manipulates Rapunzel and the audience into giving the illusion that she actually cares for her adoptive daughter. Whether it's all an act or not, she's one of the best villains in the animated line-up as she doesn't need magic powers or an army of henchman to carry out her deeds, but because of her intellect and psychological warfare in terms of keeping Rapunzel under her wing. So, both the heroes and villains prove to be some of the best the studio has offered in recent years, yet the side characters are where things get a bit fuzzy. With the case of the king and queen of the kingdom, they are so great in regards that the film never lets them utter a single line yet they prove to be so distressed about the whereabouts of their long-lost daughter. The animal sidekicks, Pascal and Maximus, are just too juvenile for my liking and offer some of the lesser comedic potential, despite an occasional laugh. The Stabbington brothers, only one of them is voiced by Ron Perlman, are just typical thugs who are after Flynn due to the latter betraying them, and the bandits residing in the pub called the Snuggly Duckling are the brief comedic relief that never make me laugh at all. Perhaps other could like the side characters, but they weren't as likeable or entertaining compared to others in the Disney catalogue.

While not the first 3D animated film produced by the studio, this was the first fairy-tale that got the treatment with good, yet interesting, results. Because the filmmakers and animators were initially hesitant to have this film be computer-animated, they tried to have the CG animation to be in style/nature to that of a traditional hand-drawn film. While the animators did accomplish this goal, the animation has sort of aged a decade later. The hair animation is perhaps the best and most polished element of the film with Rapunzel's long hair feeling natural and having independent strands along with Gothel's distinct hairstyle and the use of grey during her stages of aging. The other characters also benefit from the hair tech and the lush colours make the forest location and the lantern festival sequence pretty to look at and represents the inspirations from certain paintings the animators went off from. However, the downside is that the textures and physics of most elements aren't very polished. Skin texture is mostly smooth like clay with an occasional touch of detail such as Rapunzel's freckles. The articles of clothing and certain textures of material such as rocks or minerals also have this simplistic design. The background characters in the town look like they came out of a video game at times. The water, aside from the chase sequence in the middle of the film, has questionable physics and almost looks like gelatin at times. While this does make it seem like the animation is completely flawed, this might just be how the animators designed the aesthetic of the film. Hand-drawn animation isn't supposed to be extremely detailed, but fluent and energetic, which the film does do right. So, the animation is good, especially with the hair element, but you just have to accept the decision to not make things hyperrealistic. Alan Menken provides his last original music for a Disney film with four new songs and it's fairly decent. "Mother Knows Best" is a great villain song as it fits the personality and devious nature of the seemingly sweet Gothel. "I See the Light" is probably the best love ballad with Moore and Levi doing fantastic jobs singing. While these two songs are great by themselves, the other two are a bit underwhelming. "I've Got a Dream" has a catchy chorus, but is otherwise a generic comic relief song. "When Will My Life Begin?" sounds nice mainly due to Moore's performance, but is a pretty average "I Want" song. Regardless, Menken does at least offer some memorable songs and even nice lyric-less music with the scenes of the king and queen and the town square celebration.

"Tangled" is perhaps going to be the last good Disney fairy-tale/princess movie we will have for a while. Although the comedy, side characters, and select songs can be hit-and-miss along with a distinct animation style that isn't the most polished in regards to 3D animation a decade later or even during its release, the film is still one that's going to be remembered for a long time. With a great retelling of a beloved fairy tale Disney is tend to be known for, great emotional and romantic moments, Rapunzel being a loveable female protagonist, Flynn being a enjoyable love interest with the witty and good-hearted nature of his character and Levi's vocal performance, Gothel proves to be the last great Disney villain with her unique role and actions, the animation can be pretty impressive and gorgeous at times in regards to the lush colours and hair physics/detailing, and the few songs and musical tracks by the always great Menken manage to be memorable and wonderfully performed by the voice actors. I feel that "Tangled" is a film that I tend to respect rather than love. It's a bit hard to love something that killed hand-drawn animation along with carrying some mediocre elements. However, the stuff that's good is really good and is the height of the studio's creativity and effectiveness in crafting a great classic.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Really good film, but is not exactly the best of the best that Disney can offer. Still a nice film to watch from time to time. 

Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Film Review: Should've Just Skipped The Dance...

 

When it comes to the live-action Spider-Man films and the actors portraying the titular character, one can quickly pick up how the majority of fans feel about these films and portrayals. The Tobey Maguire films are generally beloved by many, despite some cheesy and outdated elements. The Andrew Garfield films are generally hated by many, despite some diehards loving Garfield as an actor and the love story between him and Gwen Stacy. Then, there's the Tom Holland portrayal in the MCU. This is perhaps the most divisive of the portrayals and for good reason. Either you love the youthful energy of Holland and the use of the wider Marvel Universe to support him or despise the various changes to the depth of the character and how the producers feel insecure about Holland holding a film to himself. I reside on the latter half, but I will try my best on offering some good and bad points of the film. The story offers good potential for the introduction to this version of the web-slinger. After the events of "Captain America: Civil War", Peter Parker is getting tired of solving petty crimes and wants to do a big venture with the Avengers, specifically Iron Man. When he discovers a group of criminals who are dealing powerful weapons to various clients, he attempts to track them down and bring them to justice himself, despite Tony Stark's warnings not to. Now, Peter has to juggle his school life, a crush with a student named Liz, and the criminal group led by the determined Vulture. The story as a whole sounds and is very small-scale in nature, but that works for the inexperienced Spider-Man in this current stage of his life. It also helps to allow Peter to have human connections with his friends, family, and rivals at school, which previous films failed to really capture, aside from the family relationships. The basis of the story works well, but there are two issues with it. One is the reliance on Stark's suit, which not only has an A.I named Karen, but also a variety of gadgets and features that Peter has to learn to use. The suit and the connections between him and Tony kind of ruin the grounded nature of the character and sense of danger, as the suit can just magically have or tell Peter what he needs to do. The suit gets taken away by the end of the second act, but its usage through most of the film still leaves a sour note in the identity of the film. The second problem is the tone. Unlike the previous Spider-Man films, the tone is far more light-hearted to take advantage of the youthful performance by Holland and the high school setting. While that's not a bad thing in general, the issue is that any sense of drama is thrown out or ineffective. I will get into more depth when I talk about the climax, but the big dramatic moments are just weak in my opinion. With that said, the comedy is really good thanks to the tone. Honestly, I think that this is the second funniest Spider-Man film, with "Spiderverse" being the funniest out of all of them. Scenes such as Spider-Man trying to quip with bad guys or interrogate Davis are the highlights along with the inexperience of him swinging around in inconvenient areas.

I will admit it, Tom Holland is the best Spider-Man actor we got, despite me loving Maguire's performance more. Holland gets the more playful nature of the hero while having a more relatable sense of unpopularity and geekiness. He's not a flat-out nerd or some bad-boy outcast, he's just a smart kid who can't seem to have a backbone for himself in high school. Even though I feel that the dramatic moments are extremely weak, I still think that Holland is a great actor who has to work with the strengths and weaknesses of the script. However, it's Micheal Keaton's performance as Adrian Toomes/The Vulture that steals the spotlight in the film. Not only did the writers find a clever way to modernize and fit the character into the MCU, but Keaton's portrayal gives him a more sympathetic if ruthless personality and motive. He's not trying to end the world or kill many people directly, he's just trying to make a living by selling dangerous weapons to others. The scene where Spider-Man learns that he's actually Liz's father has Keaton do a great job in being this likeable, if goofy, guy, that you wish that he wasn't this bad guy. Still, the motivation and performance by Keaton makes him one of the best Spider-Man villains on screen. While the protagonist and antagonist are done really well, the side characters are a mixed bag. Ned, played by Jacob Batalon, is a fun character that works as Peter's only friend with his geeky and popularity-seeking nature, Flash Thompson, played by Tony Revolori, is a enjoyable, if different, portrayal of the school bully, and Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark/Iron Man doesn't take much screen-time as much as the marketing wanted him to have, making sure that it's Spider-Man's film with Tony being a good yet questionable mentor figure. With that said, not all of the side characters are on the same level. First there's Michelle/MJ, played by Zendaya, a snarky and observant classmate of Peter who tends to have a dark sense of humour. While Zendaya and the character of Michelle get to be far more likeable in the sequel, the first film has her like a random background character that's attempting to foreshadow that she's actually the love interest for Peter, despite the two not really having that much attraction to each other at first. The love interest for the film is Liz, a senior student played by Laura Harrier. Harrier is a good actress, but Liz doesn't really do much other than support Peter with the limited chemistry they have and get dumped by him at the end of the movie because of what's going on with her father. There's really not much to say about Liz, since the film doesn't really care for Liz as a character and is only involved as a type of motivation for Peter during the first half of the film. Marisa Tomei as Aunt May offers the worst portrayal of the character by far, which is not even because Tomei is a bad actress at all. All the writers can do with this interpretation is have a bunch of dudes tell her how hot she is and just play up on how young she is compared to the previous portrayals. I don't mind making her age to be realistic, but give her a big emotional moment like the other films rather than jokes on her attractiveness or her reaction to Peter being Spider-Man at the end. Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is good, but he's just a complete stick-in-the-mud throughout the entire film rather than being a supportive guy like in other films. Lastly, there are the side villains to note. There's Donald Glover as Aaron Davis/The Prowler, who is never seen as his alter ego and is only there to have a few jokes and be a meta joke as a whole. There's Micheal Chernus as the Tinkerer, who is a more goofy version of the obscure comic-book villain, and lastly there's Bokeem Woodbine as a deadpan and extremely comic-inaccurate Shocker. Aside from all of these side characters, there are some minor students and teachers as well as the A.I known as Karen, but their roles are just so Disney Channel sitcom-esque that there's practically no point in talking about them. As a whole, Holland and Keaton are fantastic as well as a few side performances, but the majority of side characters are either poorly handled or completely generic and forgettable.

Jon Watts was a filmmaker with two independent films under his belt before becoming a Disney go-to director as he has not only covered the Spider-Man films, but is also seated to be the director of Fantastic Four. Here's the issue with all of this. Watts is not a good director or at least a director that leaves any sort of impact. With the case of "Homecoming", Watts said that he wanted to emulate John Hughes's style and energy, leading to the high school backdrop and some homages to a few of the late filmmaker's work. While that's not a bad thing, the issue is that Watts clearly just wanted to emulate only one of Hughes's work, that being "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", which is the filmmaker's least dramatic works. I say this because Hughes, for the most part, doesn't have his films constantly full of youthful energy and teens having fun. Hughes does allow some heavy moments and even slower character scenes that don't really feel kid-friendly. Watts however just stuck to one of his works as inspiration and it shows with the lack of drama or slow moments. There are "slow" scenes, but they end up moving the plot rather than giving a sense of depth to the character. There is an actual slow scene during the third act where Peter just focuses on school, but it's really just for a single day rather than an extended period and Peter was never shown to be a troubled student in regards to his grades or relationships. On top of all of that, Watts simply has no style to his directing compared to the exaggerated filmmaking of Raimi or the balance of cinematic and indie filmmaking of Webb. The cinematography by Salvatore Totino does try to give a sense of visual flair and style to Watts, but it's only a couple of exceptions. Totino does do a fantastic job at using long, wide shots for scale and comedy potential, and the smartphone film made by Peter in-universe was well done by Totino to feel amateur and one-take, but aside of those moments, it's pretty standard stuff. The music by Michael Giacchino is also very safe and standard. While the composed 60's theme in the opening is nice and the original Spider-Man theme they came up with is decent and fits the character and universe, that's all I can remember from Giacchino's offerings which is kind of lame considering how other Spider-Man films managed to have far more dynamic and memorable music, even in the bad films. The licensed songs though do help at setting up the tone and identity of the film, with Blitzkrieg Bop by The Ramones being tied to the montage where Peter as Spider-Man has an mundane day trying to find things to do. The CGI is pretty good, though does have some awkward moments at times with the conversation between Peter and Tony during sunset being the worst effect of the film. It also doesn't help that the film overuses the digital effects too much, which tends to not make the effects look great or work well as an illusion as time goes on. The last thing to note are the action scenes, which the film itself is fairly weak with. While the fight with the ATM robbers was cool and the highlight of the film being the Washington Monument sequence, the action is generally underwhelming with too much use of CGI or just a lack of creativity. The climax in general is perhaps one of the weakest I've seen in a Spider-Man film. Not only does the set-piece of a invisible jet with no security and the battle going to the beach of an abandoned Coney Island offers nothing exceptional or riveting, but the dramatic moments are poorly done due to previous scenes of the film. The scene where Peter is underneath the debris of Vulture's destroyed base isn't dramatic or filled with tension because we literally seen Peter try to hold a ship together, which seems far more tougher than a pile of concrete. The moment where Peter manages to save Toomes from his destroyed suit is clearly reflecting the moment at the beginning where Peter saves the owner of a deli ship, but there's no dramatic impact because Peter saved the owner in the beginning anyway. If the owner died in the beginning due to Peter being too afraid or too late to save him, that would make the moment where he saves Vulture far more powerful. Without this dramatic edge, it just feels awkward. And that word is best to describe Watts's direction skill: capable, but really awkward in execution.

"Spider-Man: Homecoming" is by no means a bad film, but it's not an spectacular one either. From the story elements of Stark's suit as well as some odd plot conveniences, the unbearably lighthearted tone, the majority of side characters being poorly implemented or unmemorable, Giacchino's score being mostly generic, the overuse of CGI harms the quality of the effects and the action sequences, the majority of action sequences are uncreative and standard with a few exceptions, the climax offers both poorly-handled dramatic payoffs and a boring action setpiece, and Watts's directing never pays proper tribute to Hughes's work as the filmmaker just focuses on teenage fun rather than any sense of drama or character moments. Despite all of these issues, there's still good things that a lot of people can get out of. The story as a whole is effective in regards to Peter's journey and the small-scale nature, the humour makes it one of the funniest films that the character has starred in, Holland shows off how great he is as Peter/Spider-Man and as an actor in general in both the comedic and "dramatic" moments, Keaton as Toomes/Vulture offers one of the best villains in the franchise in regards to his likeable personality and motivations, the side characters of Flash, Ned, and Tony are well-handled in terms of how they are used and offer a unique portrayal in the film, the cinematography by Totino does its best with the landscape shots being excellently used for both scale and comedy, Giacchino does offer a nice theme for this portrayal of Spider-Man, the soundtrack is great in reflecting the tone and attitude that previous Spider-Man films were lacking, and the action sequence involving the Washington Monument and the ATM robbers are really good at tension, creativity, and staying in nature to the wall-crawler's capabilities. The shame is that the film is so close to being a good  movie if things such as the tone and directing have been improved. All the elements to have a great Spider-Man movie were here, but the filmmakers and writers simply failed to utilize it all, much like Peter not being able to master the Stark suit.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Above-average superhero film that should have been one of the best Spider-Man films. At least they weren't the Mark Webb films...

Predators (2010) Film Review: Three Predators Equal Great Movie?

 

Happy New Year, everyone! To kick off 2021, I'm going to be reviewing the last film I watched last year on New Year's Eve. "Predators" is the third film in the titular franchise after a 20-year gap between this and "Predator 2". Since its release, there's been a cult following and a debate amongst the community regarding which is the better sequel in the series or even if the film as a whole is actually good. Well, it's time that I take a look for myself. The story starts fairly strong as a group of various mercenaries, assassins, soldiers, and killers find themselves stranded in an unknown jungle. As they group together, they start to realize that where they are isn't even on Earth and they are in fact on a intergalactic game reserve where they are being hunted by a trio of Predators. The group now has to quickly learn to work together and find a way to get off the planet before being picked off by the deadly aliens. The premise actually works, despite the film going a bit far out in regards to having a games reserve for various people and species. I think the story works out fine because the characters, for the most part, work in regards that you want to see them work together and beat the aliens. The problems with the story though are all over the place. For one, this film starts the storyline that there's a struggle between two viewpoints of the Predator race and in regards to how they hunt. Not only was this an unnecessary addition to the franchise and one that's even brought back in the later film, but they don't go anywhere with this concept other than there's a rebel Predator that hates the alpha leader of the hunting group. The story in general is a template of the first film, with pointless call-backs and references in the hopes that it can somehow be on part with it. On top of this, the ending of the film is pretty bad, as it features the unlikeable characters surviving and saying that they will need to try to get off the planet despite a new hunting season has begun. Not only is it an ending that feels completely unanswered, but the characters just became complete scumbags in ditching the people being forced onto the planet. I feel that the story has a great premise, but has missed potential in regards to playing up the alliances of the prey versus the Predators. The tone is much more serious compared to previous films and it's a welcome change. It's kind of odd, especially considering the story and setting itself, but the tone allows the mystery and dread to really take effect and makes the first two acts engaging. There's not much laughs as a result, but the chemistry between the side characters manage to create some charm and chuckles.

The weakest link of the film are the main characters, which manage to reduce some of the enjoyment that can be had since the film makes it so obvious they will be the ones to survive the entire film. Adrien Brody as Royce is a boring and unlikeable protagonist. He's just a typical U.S mercenary who only cares for himself and the only woman in the group, Isabelle, an Israeli sniper unit who tries looking out for others, played by Alice Braga. The problem with these two characters are lengthy. For one, these actors feel miscast and don't act very badass in this action movie despite the film and performances trying so hard to make you believe them as these action heroes. Second, they have no enjoyable quirks and personality as they are just stick-in-the-muds with butting ideologies. Third, it's just so obvious that these two will be the survivors, especially when you realize that all of the "Predator" films need to have the male and female lead of the respective title survive. With the first two films, you at least enjoy those two leads, so you want them to survive. But Royce and Isabelle are just so bland and unlikeable that not only does any scene with the two of them drag, but the ending is just not satisfying as a result. What makes it so much worse is that the side characters outshine these main characters in every conceivable way. I love the variety of characters involved from Danny Trejo's Cuchillo, Topher Grace's Edwin, Walton Goggin's Stans, Mahershala Ali's Mombasa, Oleg Takatarov's Nikoli, Louis Ozawa Changchien's Hanzo, and Laurence Fishburne's Roland. All of these actors are so good in that you want them to survive so badly, despite revealing that they are actually bad people back home in regards to what they do for a living. It's really thanks to the chemistry and comradery of the actors on top of their enjoyable, albeit generic, personalities and backgrounds. I think what would have vastly improved the film would have been to remove the characters of Royce and Isabelle and let these characters take over for the story. Not only will it be more interesting to see who would have lived or died, but it will also help in making the ideologies of Royce and Isabelle blend in with the side characters as it will make them even more human and filled with moral depth. So, at the end of the day, the main characters are garbage, but the side characters are the real attractions.

While Robert Rodriguez's name is plastered all over the film, he only produced the film. The actual name sitting on the director's chair is Nimrod Antal. While Antal hasn't made anything nearly as notable to this project before or after its release, Antal shows that he's actually a very competent director. The game reserve was shot in both Hawaii and in Texas and the environment is brilliantly mixed together to be a beautiful yet unique world. The reserve itself is still shrouded in mystery by the end of the film in regards to the borders, the size, the various people and aliens that can inhabit it, and if the reserve itself has native elements to it. Antal knows how to have some visual suspense and mystery play out and that's all due to how it doesn't explain everything to the viewer and leave some aspects to the viewer's imagination. Antel also utilizes some nice uses of colour from the extreme blues, blacks, and reds. The cinematography by Gyula Pados is simply amazing. The abundance of wide, landscape and aerial shots are gorgeous to look upon and show a sense of scope and scale to the game reserve. There's also a neat one-track shot when we first see the Predators uncloak, which is one of the best moments of the film. The music by John Debney however is pretty weak as it heavily relies on the first film's score by Alan Silvestri. While using the iconic music from the first film isn't bad, Debney doesn't offer anything new that can stand up to Silvestri's offerings. Even Silvestri offered more original tracks for "Predator 2" and some of those musical moments are on their own level of identity. The practical effects, costumes and make-up are great to say the least. The Predators look the best they ever were and some of the gory kills such as the homage where Stans's spinal cord and skull is ripped out look so brutal and grotesque due to the amazing gore effects. What's not so great though is the CGI. While I don't mind the alien tracking dogs as they have a neat design and look fairly decent, everything else feels rather janky. The moment where the characters realize that they are on an alien planet by looking at the horizon looks really awkward. The ship Roland is hiding away on looks like a bad matte painting. And lastly, there's the thermal vision of the Predators. The thermal vision is almost unwatchable as it's all of this digital imagery that is never clear on what you're looking at. The blues are just way too sharp during these sequences and it looks much worse than the earlier films. The last thing to note would be the action, which is a bit of a mixed bag. Most of it is typical, over-the-top shootouts, and the climax is very underwhelming as Royce feels like he constantly dominates the Predator every time while Dutch from the original film had to avoid being up close to him to avoid being killed and only won by outsmarting him, whereas Royce won by dumb luck. The only action scene that's noteworthy is the fight between Hanzo and one of the Predators. From the homage to both samurai showdowns (as well as an offscreen sacrifice in the first film), to the beautiful shots and scenery, this is perhaps the best action sequence of the franchise in regards to intensity and emotional impact, despite it being a bit cliched. Antel may never return to work on an Hollywood project again, but his efforts on this film managed to capture some fans of the series.

"Predators" is a very conflicting film for me. On the one hand, it offers some of the best things in the franchise with a great premise, more serious tone, fantastic cast of side characters, amazing cinematography by Pados, top-notch practical effects, the best action sequence of the series with Hanzo's standoff with a Predator, and Antel's polished directing and world-building. However, it's a film that carries some terrible sins. The story never reaches its full potential, the film itself feels like it's copying from the first Predator painfully beat-to-beat, the ending is pretty awful in regards to being satisfying or earned, Royce and Isabelle as the leads are boring characters that are forcing the viewer to care for their obvious survival, Debney's score just recycles Sivestri's themes from the first film without adding much that's original, some of the CGI is pretty bad, and the majority of the action sequences are either generic or underwhelming compared to previous films. I clearly prefer the first two films more so than this one, but it's far from being near as bad as "The Predator". Overall, the third film in this franchise is one that feels conflicted on its identity and direction. If they just rewrote the script once more and removed Royce and Isabelle completely, I think this would be not only a better movie, but probably the best film of the series. As it is though, it's above average with issues that keep it from reaching greatness.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Solid entry, but not one I can rewatch with a smile on my face. At least it's not "The Predator"...