Coming to America (1988) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Please Don't Come Again...

 

With the sequel coming to Amazon Prime one week from now, it's time that I talk about the beloved comedy classic starring Eddie Murphy. If you're wondering why I haven't decided to talk about the film far sooner, it's for two reasons. One is the aforementioned sequel being released, and the other is fairly simple. I don't like this movie at all. But hey, why don't I go in depth to explain why?

Positives:

• The acting as a whole. From Murphy's Akeem, Arsenio Hall's Semmi, James Earl Jones's King Jaffe, John Amos as Mr. McDowell, and the list goes on. Regardless of their characters and how likeable they are, the actors and actresses are doing the best they can, especially Murphy and Hall's impersonations and multiple roles with prosthetics.
• Some of the side characters. The characters I genuinely enjoy are Queen Aoleon, Patrice McDowell, Akeem's landlord, and Maurice the co-worker. They aren't in the film much, but that's honestly perfect given that too much exposure could hurt them as characters.
• John Landis's directing. Much like "Trading Places", I love how he tries to capture a sense of gritty reality for the otherwise lighthearted comedic narrative. It's actually a step-up from the film in the filmmaking department as he glorifies the country of Zamunda and the lavish rooms and suites that the characters inhabit. Even though the palace of Zamunda is portrayed as a matte-painting, it's charming and effective given the film's budget.
• The cinematography by Sol Negrin and Woody Omens. It's nothing amazing, but I do love the panning, tightly-spaced, and tracking shot that are used to exhibit Queens and the run-down feel of the neighbourhood. 
• The music by Nile Rodgers. It's honestly great all around in terms of the various songs and themes they use. From the African beats in Zamunda, the "Soul Glo" theme song, Sexual Chocolate's song in the church, the titular song that plays in the credits, and even the licensed soundtrack is great. It also works at giving the film an audio identity, much like the classical music was the audio identity for "Trading Places".

Negatives:

• The story. At first, the premise of the film doesn't seem too bad at all. Prince Akeem is looking for a worthy bride that is independent herself, compared to the groomed brides that are obedient. However, Akeem doesn't want to have his wealth and royal status be all that he is to win over said women, so he travels to New York with his friend and servant, Semmi, pretending to be foreign exchange students. While Akeem does find his potential wife-to-be in the form of Lisa McDowell, he has to slowly win her over by working under her father while finding a way to get her current boyfriend out of the picture. So, it's basically a gender-swap "Aladdin" but without genies and magic. What's the issue with the story? Well, aside from various nitpicks such as Akeem's knowledge and motivation about what type of women he would settle with, the ending is just all over the place in its motivation. When Lisa learns about Akeem's true position, she feels betrayed and emotional for literally no reason other than to stick with the cliched "liar revealed" story. Why would she react so strongly to her boyfriend being extremely rich? On top of that, the ending has her marry Akeem with the added bonus of her being a queen and royal member of the family. If the ending had Akeem stay in Queens to marry her or just had Lisa immediately accept Akeem's status, it would be far more satisfying rather than being a knee-jerk ending.
• The comedy. This is the film's biggest problem. It's extremely weak that it rarely stays charming. The issue is that the jokes go for way too long. Whether it's the barbershop workers, Akeem's submissive bride, the over-the-top Zamunda celebration, or the McDowell restaurant and how illegal it is, the comedy feels like a bunch of SNL sketches that are edited together to be a movie. The only times I manage to chuckle was the cameo by the villains from "Trading Places" along with a few moments from the characters I like. Speaking of which...
• The characters. A lot of the characters are just complete assholes and the film really wants you to root for them for some reason. First, there's Akeem, who lies to Lisa about his wealth and status for really no reason. I also felt that Akeem should have found a love interest who was actually poor herself rather than middle-class, similar to the romance between Louis and Ophelia in "Trading Places". Semmi is a bit understanding, but he's a complete stick in the mud for always being moody and arguing over Akeem's plans and image. Next there's King Jaffe, who wants his son to have sex with many women and, at first, dismissed Lisa as his son's bride. Mr. McDowell is probably the biggest douchebag in the film as he owns a McDonald's rip-off and treats Akeem and Semmi like low-life employees for majority of the film. Even though he owns a nice house and earned his living, he becomes Eugene Krabs upon learning of Akeem's true identity. Then, there's Darly, Lisa's boyfriend who lives off his parent's wealth and constantly ridicules Akeem's nationality despite the two being the same damn colour. Lastly, there are the minor characters such as the Duke brothers from "Trading Places" getting their wealth back as well as Reverend Brown amongst a few others. I understand that the film wants you to like these despicable characters, akin to the characters in "Trading Places". But the reason why this doesn't work is explained in the last point.
• Everyone gets their happy ending. Seriously, when I mean everyone, I god damn mean everyone. Akeem and Lisa get married after the cliched third act break-up, Semmi gets a hot chick, Akeem's father and mother agree with each other, Mr. McDowell gets to be apart of a royal family and earn more cash, Patrice hooks up with Darly after Lisa breaks up with him, the pissed-off landlord gets an awesome crib, and the cameo by the greedy Duke brothers has them receive a pile of cash from Akeem. If this comedy was far more lighthearted or animated, I can accept the lunacy that everyone lives happily ever after, but the film is meant to be taken in a somewhat realistic world. "Trading Places" does have happy endings for the lead characters, but the villains suffer their cruel fates. Here, everyone is a complete jerk-ass that all manage to receive good fortune at the end of the movie. Like, I get that the story feels like a fairy-tale, but not even Disney films end as happily as this!

"Coming to America" feels like a ruined vacation rather than a well-deserved one. While the acting is great all around, there were a few characters I managed to like personally, the cinematography and musical efforts offer nice results, and the directing by Landis again offers the sense of gritty realism in the film's setting that contrasts with the lighthearted narrative, these alone can't save the core issues of the movie. The story offers one of the worst "liar revealed" third act sequences in the genre with the mismatched motivation of the characters, the comedy is pathetic as jokes stretch way too long for anyone's liking, the majority of characters are just assholes regardless of the charismatic performances attached, and the film literally gives everyone a happy ending. It feels so disappointing that Landis can direct a comedic masterpiece like "Trading Places" and his most recognizable film is not only inferior, but even embarrassing at times. I'm extremely weary of the sequel, but we will see when it comes out next week.

Verdict: 4/10. Just a bad comedy that is well-made and acted, but very poorly written. Sets up some low expectations for the upcoming sequel...

 

Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977) Film Review: Try To Distance Yourself From These Aliens A Bit.

 

After the success that was "Jaws", many eyes were on Steven Spielberg on what his next project would be and if it can make insane amounts of money as his breakout blockbuster. This type of pressure would cause plenty of stress for any filmmaker, which Spielberg was no exception. While his second blockbuster was indeed a success critically and financially, his first sci-fi venture seems to have fallen into a bit of obscurity as the filmmaker's library expands after hit after hit. The story at first seems excellent. After the infamous Flight 19 aircraft suddenly appear in Mexico despite disappearing in 1945, a handful of citizens witness UFO's flying around their rural home as it interferes with electronics and metal objects. Despite the government trying to keep the alien ships out of public eye as they plan to make contact in Wyoming, people such as Roy and Jillian are hopelessly obsessed with both the UFO's and the mountain known as Devils Tower, causing them to travel to the destination to get answers for why they have been fixated on the mountain and the UFO's. The best thing about the story is the sense of mystery and dread, which is well-exemplified by the first two acts of the film. The tone for this long section of the film is almost like a horror/thriller film as the UFO's fly around with no rhyme and reason and abduct Jillian's infant son. It's almost as if audiences were going to get another "Jaws", but with aliens being the horror rather than a killer shark. However, all of this is deflated by the ending as the aliens make contact. The tone suddenly shifts to being whimsical and lighthearted as the mothership continues to play its symphony and the aliens not only reveal themselves, but also release all of the people they abducted as well as taking human volunteers to travel with them. The problem with the ending is that the film doesn't even bother to explain what's happening and how the large group of scientists suddenly know what to do when seeing these aliens. I'm not saying that you need hostile alien invaders or something, but make it far more ambiguous or reasonable. Perhaps the humans trade out their alien prisoners for the abducted humans or something, because the ending is just plain disappointing.

Roy Neary, played by Richard Dreyfuss, is the main human protagonist and one who isn't deserving of being the core relatable character. While Dreyfuss is a great actor at playing this crazed man who is pained to have his world turned upside down from the UFO's, the character makes these awful decisions to not win any sympathy for the viewer as he not only gets his wife and kids to leave him as he trashes the house upon realizing the shape that is Devil's Tower, but he decides to go with the aliens at the end. On top of being irresponsible for leaving his children and wife behind for a potential downwards spiral, he's also inconsistent as he clearly falls in love with the single mother that is Jillian, as he even shares a kiss with her, but still goes with the aliens. You can say that it's not his fault that the aliens have basically put him in a trance and that he's not to blame for losing his family, but it still doesn't make him enjoyable as a character. The odd thing is that the other major character is far more interesting to take Roy's spot as protagonist. Francios Truffaut as Claude Lacombe is enjoyable as the French scientist leading the expedition of making contact with the aliens and offers condolences to the people that were "touched" by the UFO's. It's bizarre seeing the renowned French director in an American production, but he's a talented actor on top of being a fantastic filmmaker. Melinda Dillon as Jillian is perhaps the sympathetic character in the film as she's a single mother who is attempting to protect her infant son from the UFO's. While her personality is on the shallow side, Dillon's performance works at being emotionally invested. There are plenty of side characters such as Lacombe's translator, Jillian's infant son, a crazy farmer who has seen Bigfoot, and Roy's wife and children who are in the right for leaving the crazed Roy behind, but they are minor roles that have not much focus aside from Jillian's son who gets abducted by the aliens for no reason. I could talk about the aliens, but their lack of motives or morality makes it hard to distinguish them as characters. The cast is pretty good with lots of well-acted performances, but Roy as the protagonist tends to be unlikeable and uneven at times.

If there's one thing that's undeniable about the film, it's that Spielberg knows how to direct a film. Referring back to the first two acts of the film, I love the dreary atmosphere he creates by making the alien encounters more suspenseful and horror-like rather than a miracle. Even though he does drop the ball by the end, these sequences and the use of the darkness of night and the ranging colours of the UFO's is riveting. The Oscar-winning cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond is more than well-deserved. From the long takes to the low angles to the sweeping landscape shots of rural America as well as the standout scene in India, Zsigmond makes this film carry the most iconic shots of Spielberg's films. The score by John Williams is a bit of a letdown in regards to the legendary composer as nothing really stands out as a memorable track, aside from the five-note motif that is crucial to communicate with the aliens. Honestly, the best parts of the film audio-wise is when there isn't music as, unlike his collaborations in "Jaws", the lack of a score makes the suspense far more effective. The visual effects still hold up exceptionally well as the miniature models and optical effects really look great in a pre-CGI-infested industry. The aliens however are a mixed bag for various reasons. For one, we didn't need to see the aliens at all in the film as it would hold a sense of mystery about what they look like. Secondly, most of them look really goofy. I love the design of the first alien, but the second and third aliens we see are just completely ridiculous as they are just the typical little green martian design. The group of the small aliens are clearly costumes with freaky faces and the alien that communicates with Lacombe is just so cheesy in how it smiles and befriends Lacombe. Let's just say that "E.T" worked far better in both an alien design, effects and friendly nature. Despite the appearances of the aliens and their designs, the filmmaking is generally as excellent as Spielberg can get. 

"Close Encounters Of The Third Kind" is a film that almost reaches its full potential as a sci-fi masterpiece. The premise is great, the tone for the first two acts of the film works at being eerie and suspenseful, all of the acting is pretty good with Dreyfuss, Dillon and Truffaut being stand-outs, Zsigmond's cinematography is fantastic to look upon, the visual effects look good more than forty years later, and Spielberg continues to flex his talent on making suspenseful/horror-esque sequences, especially with the lack of a musical score. However, despite a ton of positives, the film is nowhere near the filmmaker's best works as things start to fall apart by the ending. From the various unanswered questions about what the aliens want and how the scientists are completely understanding of the situation, to the ruined sense of mystery, Roy's character being both unlikeable and inconsistent as a protagonist, William's underwhelming musical score, and the appearance of the aliens being both unnecessary and silly, the film takes a turn for the worst by the ending. Regardless, that doesn't mean that the film itself is bad. In fact, it's still pretty good as an overall film. It's just that the ending holds back the film's true greatness.

Verdict: 7/10. Good film, but the ending keeps it from being one of Spielberg's best. Still worth a watch for excellent filmmaking and amazing sequences of suspense. 

School of Rock (2003) Film Review: Linklater's Most "Hollywood" Film And His Best Because Of It...

 

Earlier this year, I reviewed "Dazed and Confused", which I couldn't stand to watch. It was made by Richard Linklater, a filmmaker known for his coming-of-age films and surrealist animated features. He tends to really aim for critical praise rather than box office success or audience attention. So, it came as a surprise when I learned that he not only directed one of the most beloved comedies to date, but also the film that truly put its comic star on the map. Dewey Finn is a rock-and-roll fanatic who is seen as a loser by his former band and his friend's girlfriend for tending to get carried away on his performances, regardless if he's talented on guitar or not. As he needs to pay rent soon, he gets the idea to impersonate his friend to be a substitute teacher at a prestigious prep school. While being lazy at his job in order to just get the money, he notices how the kids have musical talent. So, Dewey decides to teach the kids rock-and-roll and get them prepared to play in a band competition for a grand prize of $20,000. The story is the typical liar reveal narrative where the good-hearted protagonist has to lie to others, despite having bonded with other characters and wanting to tell the truth earlier before the big reveal. While the story template is familiar, the ending isn't as it subverts in order to have the message front and centre. I won't spoil the ending here, but it does ditch realism of the situation just so the message of the film and the coming-of-age themes are delivered. The ending can be a mixed bag as a result for those invested into the characters, but it's effective for the overall story. The tone is very reminiscent of coming-of-age films in regards to its grounded realism despite its comedic nature. Yes, there are some goofy antics and wordplay, but there's a lot of attempts to make the film charming in its character-building moments, particularly when Dewey is helping the kids out.

Jack Black as Dewey is the role that defines the actor's range and motifs, which is being a fool with a heart of gold that is both relatable in his believable morality. Black is obviously having plenty of fun being over-the-top, but it's his sincere moments that really show how effective he is as an actor. It's not super dramatic, but he carries a charm that I find difficult for people to dislike. Joan Cusack as the uptight principal, Roz, is very good as the film never forces the character too much into the story. You'd think that there would be a romantic subplot with her and Dewey, but the film is clever to not go in that direction. Mike White as Ned Schneebly, Dewey's best friend who works as a substitute teacher, is also good in this dry, awkward character who rarely seems to stand up to himself. Sarah Silverman plays Patty, Ned's girlfriend who is very demeaning to Dewey and controls Ned in a one-sided relationship. Silverman acts so well as this realistic yet bitchy character that it makes the viewer hate her for just the right reasons. Then, there are the kids. Honestly, I'm not even going to bother naming them or their actors, as the majority of them are either minor or the child actors haven't went off to recognizable projects, aside from Miranda Cosgrove's Summer. All of the kids are enjoyable to watch from the Asian kid on the keyboard, the angsty kid who loves to drum, the talented lead guitarist, the clearly gay stereotype, etc. It's also nice to see all of the child actors be invested in their roles as none of them act wooden. There are minor characters such as Dewey's former band members and the parents of some of the kids, but they barely do much or have much time to form actual character. Regardless, the cast is really solid with Black doing a great job in his comedy and drama as well as the talented child actors that are best known for this film alone.

Linklater is a director that I couldn't really care much for. Aside from the unique animated films, I'm not the biggest fan of the coming-of-age films as they are either too brainless to be taken seriously ("Dazed and Confused") or just too heavy-handed in the drama with a lack of levity ("Boyhood"). He's a very visionary director in an independent landscape, but they don't tend to pan out well for the most part. However, much like his other films, Linklater at least knows how to direct a film well. Despite the "High School Musical"-looking poster, the film itself doesn't have too much colour used throughout. Not only as it shows the zapped-out autumn setting and the cold, almost hostile setting of the prep school, but it's also to heavily ground itself in reality in contrast to most comedies. Any use of eye-popping colour is saved for the grand finale as the band finally plays. The cinematography by Rogier Stoffers is quite good as he tries to use plenty of one-shot takes from the film's introduction to Dewey's improvised song. Otherwise, it's fairly average for the typical comedy film. While Craig Wedren is credited as the composer, I can't recall any original tracks in the film or know if he wrote the original songs provided by the fictional bands in the film. Regardless, the original songs provided by "No Vacancy" and "The School of Rock" are actually nice to listen to by themselves. They are so good that they really fit alongside the various iconic rock songs used throughout the film that I'm going to bother to mention due to the sheer quantity from AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and so many others.

"School of Rock" is probably Linklater's best film to date in his career despite how simple it seems. Aside from the ending being a bit hit-or-miss and the story has its fair share of tropes with the liar reveal storyline, it's simply fantastic on how the final product performs. The story is enjoyable regardless of the ending or cliches, the tone is perfectly balanced to have comedy and drama in a grounded realistic world, Black makes his world-defining entrance as a lead actor for both his comic and charming talent, the side characters were well acted and portrayed to be either really likeable or despicable, the children characters are both performed well by mostly unknown child actors and are very enjoyable in their distinct personalities, the cinematography by Stoffers attempts to be ambitious at times with the long takes, the original rock songs are really catchy to listen to, the soundtrack is overkill in terms of satisfying rock fans, and Linklater's direction knows how to fit a coming-of-age narrative and themes into a Hollywood comedy. It's almost as if Linklater improved on the mountain of issues that were in "Dazed and Confused" and not only incorporates great direction and soundtrack like before, but ensures that the story, comedy, drama and characters are satisfying by feeling coherent and natural.

Verdict: 9/10. One of the best modern comedies by both Black and Linklater. Watch if you love Black, rock and roll, and just well-made comedies with charming characters and heartwarming moments.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Film Review: How To Do a Great Prequel/Reboot.

 

The "Planet of the Apes" franchise was extremely prominent in the late 60's and early 70's, spanning five films and two television shows. Tim Burton did a remake in the early 2000's, but it has since been universally panned. It appears that the franchise about intelligent primates was becoming dated rather fast. So, it seems shocking that a modernized reboot would have managed to not only resurrect said franchise, but evolve it far more than it ever was. The first installment in the reboot trilogy follows Will Rodman, a scientist who hopes to find the cure for Alzheimer's Disease by experimenting on chimpanzees. When one of the experimented apes is killed and leaves behind a infant baby, Will takes him in and names it Caesar, marvelling at how the experimental drug has managed to vastly improve the intelligence of the aging chimp. Years later, a mature Caesar is taken away to a primate sanctuary following an incident. Will fails to get him back while working on a stronger version of the cure that is unknowingly fatal to humans. As Caesar witnesses the injustice towards his kind and their lack of intelligence, the ape plans to begin a revolution that will impact the rest of the world. Compared to its sequels and previous films of the franchise, the story manages to focus very well on the drama with Will and Caesar. While the climax becomes action-packed, the majority of the film is set up as a medical/boy-and-his-dog drama which really works at giving this film identity compared to other films of the franchise. However, the issue with the story is that it carries a huge plot hole. Will, in the first third of the film, gives his father the experimental cure in order to test the effects. The cure manages to work as his father acts perfectly normal for five years. However, after said five years, the effects of the cure begin to wear off, so Will goes to his superiors to help make a stronger version of the drug. Here's the problem. Will is only telling his boss NOW?! He has kept the results of his cure secret for five years and only when the drug is wearing off does he NOW bring this up? Worst yet, it's the fact that they think that making the cure stronger is the next stop of approach, which would of course cause the Simian Flu. I know that five years isn't life-long results, but that's actually very good and would actually make more money in a business perspective. But no, the forced nature of creating the Simian Flu has to make Will stupid as a result.

James Franco as Will does a good job in playing this sincere scientist who wants to help people, especially the ones he cares for. Aside from the aforementioned plot hole and questionable common sense, he actually manages to be the most likeable human character of the franchise because the film makes the chemistry between him, Caesar, and his father so grounded and wholesome. Andy Serkis as Caesar is brilliant to say the least, especially in this film. Caesar, for the most part, only communicates in sign language and only utters four words in the entire film, so a lot of the character and drama has to be captured by the facial and body movements. It's also perhaps the film where the character has the most range of emotions in the trilogy. Jon Lithgow as Charles, Will's father, almost outperforms Serkis in this film. The scenes of him burdened by Alzheimer's and the bond he holds Will and Caesar can be powerful at times, which is just thanks to Lithgow's determination to the role. While you got the main three actors that hold the movie, the rest of the side characters kind of fit generic or forgettable roles. Freida Pinto as Caroline Aranha, Will's girlfriend, is really pointless despite his affiliation with primates. David Oyelowo as Steven Jacobs, Will's boss, is good, but plays the typical evil capitalist who doesn't care for the safety of the apes. Brian Cox plays John Landon, the owner of the primate sanctuary and who's clearly a poor supervisor of taking care of the primates. Lastly, there's Tom Felton's Dodge Landon, the son of John and a caretaker of the apes who constantly abuses them out of enjoyment. There are other minor characters such as Will's douchebag neighbour, the other caretaker of the apes who hates Dodge, and the guy who will become Patient Zero, but their roles don't really add much to the story or conflict. I could talk about the other primate characters, but I will only touch upon them in the effects as their personalities haven't truly developed in this first outing. The cast is fairly good and there wasn't an awful performance whatsoever, but because the characters of Will, Caesar, and Charles were well-acted and compelling, it makes the side characters suffer as they don't feel like fleshed-out people, but rather pawns in order for the story and ending to happen.

This was the only film in the reboot-trilogy to be made by Rupert Wyatt as he believed that he needed more time to make the sequel rather than his replacement director, Matt Reeves. It's unfortunate as this was not only Wyatt's best film in his career, but it begs the question of what if he handled the entire trilogy. Rather than the more epic or western approach that Reeves uses in the sequels, Wyatt instead makes every act feel like a different type of genre. The first act is a wholesome drama, the second act is a prison-break film, and the third act becomes a riot-esque standoff with the police. While the other sequels make the racial prejudice element more explicit, I love how the tone and mood changes as the film progresses, making it an effective, emotional roller-coaster. The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie adds to the genre progression as the camerawork becomes more and more ambitious and sweeping the more the film progresses. The score by Patrick Doyle is decent, but not particularly powerful compared to tracks heard in the sequels. It's akin to family-adventure or fantasy and while there are some nice musical moments, it tends to fall below in the generic side of things, especially compared to Micheal Giacchino's contributions in the sequels. The visual effects are outstanding to say the least. Sure, it does depend on the quantity of how many apes are onscreen in order for them to be life-like, but the motion-capture effects are still really good regardless of the polish. The other chimps, gorillas, and Maurice the orangutan all have defined personalities by their body language and faces and it's fascinating that the CG monkeys can feel and act more human than the majority of the human characters in the trilogy. The last thing to mention will be the climatic action sequence on the Golden Gate Bridge. While there are some silly or over-the-top elements such as policemen on horses with batons and a giant gorilla taking enough bullets to leap onto a helicopter, it's just so satisfying to watch and the use of the bridge is very clever to showcase the advantages of the fog and the agility of the primates. Overall, Wyatt did the best job he could on the film and made his only entry into the franchise perhaps the most unique out of the franchise.

"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is a great starting point to a fantastic reboot trilogy, despite having some glaring issues. The plot hole regarding Will not bringing up or just using the same formula for the drug is head-pounding inducing and the majority of the human side characters are either generic or cliche bad guys to motivate the narrative. Aside from these two issues and the fact that this is generally considered as the weakest of the trilogy, that doesn't mean that the film itself is bad. The story is greatly executed, the tone is unique to said trilogy, the trio of Will, Caesar, and Francis offer some of the best characters in the franchise, the acting across the board is really good regardless of the cliched roles, the cinematography by Lesnie is characteristic, the score by Doyle has its highlights, the visual effects deserved to have won the Oscar that year, the action at the end is awesome to watch and is the second-best set-piece of the trilogy, and Wyatt's directing manages to offer plenty of genre-bending that allows the film to be timeless in its identity. If the writing was tighter, it could have been the best of the trilogy. As it is though, it's a fun and important building block for the franchise.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good, but has its fair share of problems. Still an entertaining and fascinating watch for both fans and newcomers. 

The Nutty Professor (1996) Film Review: A Great Comedy Remake That Overcomes The Lame Toilet Humour.

 

There have been plenty of remakes that have received critical acclaim that can match or even excel that of the original film. From "Scarface" to "The Thing", there are modernized remakes that are beloved either due to improvements of the originals or just being a more polished experience in regards to effects or filmmaking. One of these films is the remake of the 1963 comedy classic, "The Nutty Professor". Professor Sherman Klump is a kind-hearted scientist who is ridiculed by his employer and others for his obese state. When Klump falls in love with a chemistry grad student, he decides that he should finally put effort in losing weight. Despite trying his best, he gets humiliated on his date and finally decides to use an experimental formula that could reduce one's weight by altering the testosterone levels in the DNA. The formula manages to work, albeit it wears off from time to time. Regardless, Klump can't help himself to use the formula as being the alter ego named Buddy Love gives him confidence and a sexual-pleasing advantage, despite how Love is becoming more independent as a persona and plans to be rid of Klump forever. Despite the story both being carried over from the original and the film itself being comedic in nature, the premise works well on both the dramatic and comedic potential. The change to make Klump from a geeky nerd to an overweight professor is practically genius in regards to how they handle the issues of being fat-shamed and how those who are overweight try to cope or better themselves. However, the film is still a comedy at the end of the day and it's one that is a bit lost in terms of the demographic they want to please. On one hand, the remake offers an abundance of toilet humour and fat gags mainly consisting of fart jokes in regards to the Klump family. On the other hand though, there's a lot of sexual innuendos and a mean-spirited energy that hovers around the film whenever it shifts to Buddy Love. It just barely borders the line of family-friendly, but any age demographic can laugh either way as the jokes can actually be pretty funny or clever depending on the material.

Eddie Murphy as Sherman Klump/Buddy Love is just excellent as the duel protagonist and antagonist. While Lewis's performance in the original is memorable, he's not the most relatable character in regards to his conflict and romantic interest. Murphy however manages to make Sherman be so wholesome and loveable because he feels so grounded and restrained in regards to charisma. It contrasts perfectly with Buddy Love's over-the-top nature and scumbag personality who wants to be the centre of attention. Jada Pinkett Smith as Carta, Sherman's love interest, is decent and likeable for caring so much about Sherman, but because of the short runtime of an hour and a half, their chemistry feels really rushed and her flip-flopping between Sherman and Buddy doesn't seem realistic. Larry Miller as Dean Richmond is hilarious in his unnecessary belittlement towards Sherman and Miller just chewing up the scenery every single time he's onscreen. John Ales as Jason, Sherman's lab assistant, is actually really good as Sherman's only real friend and ally in regards to him being the only one aware of Sherman's experiment and duel identity. Dave Chappelle as Reggie Washington is just the legendary stand-up comic doing a no-holds bar act as he roasts guests and Sherman in the comedy diner who steals the show in the two scenes he shares with Murphy. The last characters to mention would be the Klump family, all of whom played by Murphy aside from the kid. While they can clearly overstay their welcome in regards to the fart and fat humour surrounding them, they manage to be charming due to their distinct personalites with Klump's mother being the most supportive, his father being negligent in his support, Ernie being the show-off brother, and his grandmother being the most vulgar of the family. It's very much Murphy flexing his acting and impersonation skills rather than having developed characters, but it still really works. The cast is great and despite some minor flaws with Carta as the fairly standard love interest, all of the characters are both enjoyable and engaging, with Murphy being the obvious stand-out along with Miller and Chappelle.

Tom Shadyac is best known for directing various comedy films, both famous or infamous. While Shadyac's directing doesn't feel particularly stylish or ambitious, he manages to do a good job in regards to comedic delivery and pacing for sequences which is aided by the editing from Don Zimmerman. The film is overly bright and polished though as every scene, aside from the university campus, feels like it was made on a set. The cinematography by Julio Macat is also known for his lengthy work on plenty of comedy films and it's as good as you can get. Most scenes are standardly shot, but I like the great panning or zoom shots in regards to comedic potential. The music by David Newman is actually fairly decent. While some of the tracks can be pretty generic, I love the soft and dramatic piano themes used throughout the film. On top of that, the soundtrack is fairly underrated with great uses of contemporary R&B songs from the 1970's to 1990's, ranging from James Brown's "I Feel Good" to Montell Jordan's "This Is How We Do It". The last thing to note will be the visual effects. The fat suits and prosthetics worn by Murphy when portraying the Klumps were made by legendary make-up special effects designer, Rick Baker, and it shows how excellent the effect is on screen. Add Murphy's amazing performance and range and you actually start double-guessing on if Sherman is played by a different actor as Baker makes the rather well-built Murphy look so obese. Not only that, but the optical effects are also great in regards to the Klump family and the green-screen regarding them. The "Back to the Future" sequels were impressive in trying to have the same actor share the same space with two different characters, but this film practically blows it out of the water in regards to how Murphy interacts with himself. While the CGI effects in regards to Buddy transforming back to Sherman are pretty cartoonish, it's kind of meant to be exaggerated in regards to the type of film it is. It just shows how much effort was put into the film, both for the effects and the comedic/dramatic elements.

"The Nutty Professor" is, for the most part, a clever upgrade to the original film that stands on its own in so many ways. It's not a comedic masterpiece for sure, as the fart jokes can be juvenile at times, Carta is a weak love interest in regards to the pacing of the film despite Pinkett's performance being solid, the Klump family antics can be pretty annoying, and the film itself can feel really artificial for the majority of the runtime in regards to the set design and lighting. Despite this, it shines as a great remake for a list of positives. The story is smartly updated to have the protagonist be fat rather than a geek, the dramatic potential for Sherman's dilemma is well established and explored, the tone is almost designed to have any age demographic laugh their heads off, Murphy's dual performance as Sherman and Buddy contrast perfectly off one another and represent the grounded drama and goofball comedy pairing, all of the side characters can be memorable, likeable or downright hilarious depending on the actor, the score by Newman is above-average with his piano themes being really good in the dramatic parts of the film, the soundtrack itself is great to listen to if you love contemporary R&B, the visual effects are simply fantastic in both the prosthetic and digital department and never come across as bad or out-of-place, and the efforts of Shadyac, Zimmerman, and Macat offer up their skills to create effective comedy and drama even if there's a lack of flair to it all. While it's no "Trading Places" or "Spy", it's very close at being a comedic classic. However, it's for sure one of Murphy's best films to date.

Verdict: 8/10. A great comedy that can be outstanding if a bit of humour and runtime balance was added. Watch for the drama, laughs, performances and outstanding, Oscar-winning effects.

Ghost Rider (2007) Film Review: Riding Makes Me Feel Good?

 

The mid-2000's were a weird time for superhero films. While there were some fantastic franchises being established such as "X-Men" and "Spider-Man", there were so many characters, both popular or lesser-known, being given films from the major studios that mostly tend to fall under the same pile of mediocrity. Ghost Rider is seen as one of the most iconic characters in comics just purely by design alone, so you'd think a film adaptation would lead to an iconic film, right? Well, sort of? Jonny Blaze was in love with Roxanne Simpson as a young adult, but when his father got sick with cancer, he makes a deal with the devil/Mephisto to save his father while allowing him to run away with Roxanne. However, when his father dies in a freak accident, he learns that he's forced to act as the enforcer for Mephisto upon selling his soul, having to leave his girlfriend behind to not rope her into his life. Years later, and Johnny is a successful motorcycle stunt rider who seems to always come out okay. When he reunites with Roxanne, he hopes to salvage the relationship he left behind. This is bad timing as Mephisto needs Johnny to take care of his son, Blackheart, in order to stop him from seeking a contract that holds a thousand corrupt souls that can empower the demon heir. Johnny is now transformed into the Ghost Rider, a flaming skeleton who can only appear at night and has the power of hellfire to send demons back to where they came from. The story works well for being an origin story and offers enough lore and detail to the type of world the characters reside in and despite not adapting any particular story arc, it works as a movie for this character. The tone is where things start to get weird. While the film has some dark elements such as the body count and dealing with demons and Mephisto and such, the tone can bounce around to be over-the-top and sort of silly. Whether it's Nicholas Cage's antics or the bizarre behaviour of the villain, the film can be quite goofy at times, but in a tolerable way. For one, the comedy revolving Cage and Johnny Blaze actually works for fans and Cage's beliefs for his behaviour. And two, it's still a movie about a flaming skeleton riding a motorcycle. I don't think the film will have been that grounded because of it. Still, some jokes do kind of work, whether intentionally or not.

Cage as Johnny seems like a strange casting decision as his acting and looks don't really match on paper for the ordinary superhero film. However, it's Cage love of the character that manages to make his performance work in a way. He doesn't act over-the-top all the time and mainly has this tired, chilled, awkward demeanor. Like, if you knew you sold your soul to the devil, you would become a character like this. It also helps that Cage does manage to do some good subtle moments for Johnny. Eva Mendes as Roxanne also does a decent job at playing the love interest who wants to get back together with Johnny, but isn't able to understand why he's shutting her way into his life. Aside from the odd aspects of her character such as the whole Magic 8 ball thing, Mendes works at having an otherwise grounded character and understandable relationship. Wes Bentley as Blackheart is similar in personality to Deacon Frost from "Blade", but instead of being formidable, Bentley is more over-the-top in design and outbursts. Sam Elliot as the Caretaker is the best casting of the film as he works both as a mentor figure and a former Ghost Rider who seeks redemption. The late Peter Fonda as Mephisto is also pretty good as the Prince of Darkness who is tricky with deals and conditions. I love the idea that despite not having too much power on Earth, he has this charisma that shows that he doesn't care and only wants his status quo. Lastly, there's Brett Cullen as Barton Blaze, the father to Johnny who dies by Mephisto's manipulation. Even though he's only in five minutes tops of the film, Cullen does a fantastic job as the father who loves his son, even if they don't have the same ideas of what they want in life. There are some side characters such as Johnny's manager, the police chief or the Fallen Angels that work for Blackheart, but they don't really offer much to the film due to their limited prescence and lack of development. The cast is solid with some good actors and performances, but it does tend to be a bit hammy at times which can divide fans.

Mark Steven Johnson is a director who hasn't had the best luck in the industry as a writer and director. His biggest films were his superhero ventures and even those happened to have mixed results in the box office and critics. However, if you just manage to watch commentaries for either of these films, you can tell that Johnson is very much passionate in his work. His approach for "Ghost Rider" was a homage to the Western genre with the setting, camerawork and motifs. While it can cause some silly ideas such as the isolated biker bar or a man using a lantern, it was at least designed to be like a Western film in concept. The cinematography by Russell Boyd is really good during both action set-pieces or the smaller dramatic moments. You can see some of the Western genre influences with the close-ups and wide landscapes of the desert. The action sequences also have some nice spectacle to them with the camerawork and it both synergize well off one another. The music by Christopher Young is also pretty solid. While I don't particularly like the Western-inspired music due to it being cliched, the gothic themes are awesome to listen to when the film shifts to Ghost Rider. The soundtrack also uses some great rock songs such as "Crazy Train" by Ozzy Osbourne. The visual effects are decent as well. While some of the green-screen effects and the demon faces can be pretty bad, the look of Ghost Rider and the effects involved in the action sequences are well executed. While there are only three action sequences in the film, they do manage to work in regards to the pacing and position at the film. The birth of Ghost Rider is built up as a slow-paced horror kill in regards to the transformation and the death of one of the Fallen Angels, the police chase sequence offers the biggest spectacle of the film to keep the viewer engaged, and the fight between Johnny and Blackheart works decently as a Western stand-off and horror movie climax. It's not the best action seen in the genre, but it's decent to watch. The only issue that is really going against Johnson's direction is the editing by Richard Francis-Bruce. While some editing decisions such as the cut scenes in the theatrical cut and Johnny's initial transformation needing to be edited to avoid an R rating are acceptable, the editing can be both pointlessly flashy with odd filters and rapid cuts or harmful in cut footage and moments. It's strange as Bruce was nominated for best editing three times in his career, but seems to appear amateur for this film. Regardless of executive meddling or Johnson's vision, the editing as well as some of the awkward effects can make the film appear more bad than it truly is.

"Ghost Rider" is one of the better stand-alone superhero films in the 2000's decade surprisingly. While the tone can be uneven by design, some jokes don't hit the landing, characters such as Johnny, Roxanne and Blackheart can be too goofy at times for certain viewers, some of the visual effects can be rather bad, and the editing by Bruce almost demolishes the good will the film offers, there's plenty to enjoy from the cheesy flick. The story for one works well as a origin story, the tone can add to the viewing experience for select fans, Cage's performance as Johnny is both fun and clever as the actor can offer, there are some great actors tied to some performances such as Elliot, Fonda and Cullen, Boyd's camerawork works well for the film, Young's gothic score is atmospheric as usual for the composer, the soundtrack is generally pretty good with the licensed rock songs, the CGI for Ghost Rider and the action sequences are solid, the action sequences themselves can be cool to watch at times, and Johnson's directing and goal to make a Western-inspired/gothic horror flick manages to pan out if you accept the oddball moments. At the end of the day, your enjoyment of the film comes down to if you can handle the poor editing and random tone of the film. Personally, I don't really mind if comic-book movies are serious or goofy, as long as they can be enjoyable, and "Ghost Rider", like it or not, has some entertainment value to spare.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Above-average superhero flick that is salvaged by passionate filmmaking and Cage's dedication to the character and antics. Here's hoping Johnson gets another shot in his career and the character of Ghost Rider gets an outing everyone can enjoy.

Monster House (2006) Film Review: Should Have Won Best Animated Feature That Year...

 

During the mid-2000's, the use of motion capture has been polarizing by the film industry with multiple actors and filmmakers proclaiming how it will one day be rid of live-action films due to the blending of live actors and animation. When Robert Zemeckis made his first fully motion-capture film with "The Polar Express" in 2004, the film was criticized for the way they handled the animation. While some of the characters look lifelike, others looked ugly and creepy. On top of that, the film was too cartoony at times to break the illusion of the realistic animation. So, when Zemeckis produced the next fully stop-motion animated film, they will make it both distinct and unique for the medium, even if the film itself failed to live up to box-office expectations. "Monster House" follows DJ, a 12-year old boy who spends his time hanging out with his immature friend, Chowder, and spying on the old, cranky neighbour across the street, Mr. Nebbercracker. After an incident where DJ seemingly killed Nebbercracker via a heart attack, DJ notices strange things soon after with calls from his house coming from across the street, people disappearing, and the house itself becoming alive and trying to eat anyone who approaches it. With the help of Chowder and a girl named Jenny, the three must learn how to stop this evil house before Halloween night to avoid having more people eaten. The story is very much like "Goosebumps" and "Stranger Things" blended together to have a family-friendly approach to a scary idea, which works for fans of those type of stories about adolescent kids fighting monster or ghosts as they learn to grow up or harbour the inner childhood in them. The film is not deep in regards to themes or character growth per se, but it does have some great lore in regards to Nebbercracker and the house. The tone is far more childish than a show like "Stranger Things". Aside from the backstory regarding the house, the story is actually quite tame as no one actually dies or carry a huge sense of dread or suspense, which also explains the lack of big character depth or growth. You could say that it's just trying to be like "Goosebumps" in a family-friendly approach, but even those books can get really dark and screwed up at times. At the very least, the story and tone tries to be creative in the silly concept and character interaction, which is explained by the approach of humour. Not all of the jokes work as Chowder can be a bit annoying when he makes weird noises or screams, but I like how the humour is mainly by the characters trying to work off each other as well as the ridiculous concept of a killer house.

DJ is the typical child protagonist who is a bit awkward in his age and struggles to convince those around him of the house because of it. The arc revolving how he wants to be seen as mature is here and there, but it's only to just add to the otherwise generic lead. Chowder is the immature best friend who is picked on by the adults and he's considered a scaredy cat and screwup. Even though I think his antics can get a bit annoying, I actually think he's the funniest character in the film. The chemistry between DJ and Chowder is very much like Greg and Rowley from "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". In fact, these characters debuted before those books came out, which is even stranger as the character designs and personalities are eerily the same. It also helps that the child actors they got to play as these characters work off so well with each other. Jenny is the witty, academic girl who is basically forced to team up with the boys after nearly being eaten by the house. Once again, the personality and voice actress really helps in the interactions and chemistry with DJ and Chowder as the two boys are competing with each other for her attention. Nebbercracker, played by Steve Buscemi, seems like the evil, grouchy neighbour who hates kids, but turns out to be a man who's lost his wife due to being so kindhearted and has to shut himself off to the world upon learning of the house's nature. I love the face-heel turn aspect of the character and how he has to suffer for decades with his reputation in order to protect people from being eaten. While the character's morality is well-handled and Buscemi does a fantastic vocal performance, the execution of DJ willing to save the neighbour he once feared becomes a bit weird as it almost makes him act as if he is in love with the skinny, old man. As for the side characters, they play off of the horror tropes with a comedic filter. Maggie Gyllenhaal as Zee, DJ's babysitter, is the typical mean teenaged caretaker who, despite being prominent for the first half of the film, never gets involved with the plot as the kids make her keep away from the house. Kevin James and Nick Cannon as the two police officers that prove unhelpful work great off each other with James as the bumbling police chief and Cannon as the rookie cop who wants to get into some action and instantly believes about what horror lies in the house. Jason Lee as Bones, Zee's boyfriend, is enjoyable for what little we see of him despite having the ugliest character model of the film. Jon Heder as Skull is perfect casting for the weird nerd who steals the one scene he's in as he offers advice for the kids on how to stop the house. Catherine O'Hara and the late Fred Willard work as DJ's parents who just think their son's puberty is to blame for his paranoid behaviour, who remain mostly absent for the movie. Lastly, there's Constance, played by Kathleen Turner, the deceased wife of Nebbercracker who hates children due to how they make fun of her obese state. For the most part, the characters tend to really work thanks to their personalities and the talent they got to play as them. The weakest character might have to be DJ, his parents, and Zee in regards to the former's generic personality and the latter characters being practically useless or unimportant in the narrative as neither get involved, help out the kids or get eaten by the house. Regardless, I'm actually surprised that all of the characters are quite likeable, even if they are mostly cliched.

The use of motion-capture in this film is by far the most strangest aspect of the animation. Instead of having the characters realistically rendered, they are designed as if they were stop-motion/claymation characters, similar to the films by Laika or Aardman. However, the characters themselves move in a far more realistic matter as usual for motion-capture animation. This choice in the animation may make or break the film for people. Personally, I think the animation works at not making the movie uncanny. After all, the film is a horror-comedy with over-the-top sequences. If the characters were realistic-looking, it would harm the film's aesthetic and can be prone to animation errors. While the character's hair and clothes can feel flat and plastic-like, they did try to add some additional detail on the skin that works in a subtle way. The animation in general is also well done in regards to both the gothic atmosphere and some of the surrealist moments such as DJ's nightmare and Nebbercracker's flashback. The film isn't filled with vibrant colours, but has effective mood colours and shadows to give off the creepy setting and Halloween cosmetic. The house itself looks very much like a creation from a Laika film in regards to the texture, design and animation. I love how the front of the face makes a face with various objects representing different body parts. The house manages to have legit character at times as it can be hostile or sad and the final form during the climax is extremely creative in making a destroyed house a creepy and dangerous  monster design. The only true issue of the animation is that the environment the kids live in feels extremely deserted. I'm not sure if it's a script issue or budget problem, but not only is there a lack of background characters in the film, but it seems the entire town is abandoned on Halloween night when the house uproots itself for the climax. It's a pretty big plot hole that can be pretty hard to overlook for the film. As for the music by Douglas Pipes, it's your over-the-top, dramatic, gothic haunted house music for the most part, which does fit the tone of the film. The best part of the score has to be the theme in regards to Constance and Nebbercracker's flashback. It does give off some Danny Elfman vibes, but I like the music that mixes sad, happy, and anxiety-driven beats to fit the depressing storyline of the couple's lives. Overall, despite its odd choice of animation aesthetic, "Monster House" manages to be the second best looking motion-capture film, only behind the flawless "The Adventures of Tintin".

"Monster House" is a strange film in the animated wasteland that was 2006. While it might be a bit childish in approach to the horror-comedy genre in regards to its themes and humour, some characters can be either generic or useless in the overall film, DJ's obsession with Nebbercracker can be quite weird and questionable, and the limitations of the animation or script forces the neighbourhood and town to be extremely barren and kind of unrealistically empty during the climax, the film offers so much energy, charm and quality that's fairly unique for its medium and genre. The story is effective as a creepy children's adventure, the humour can be enjoyable mainly thanks to the zany characters and the interactions between each other, the three kid characters are likeable and work really well off one another in regards to the chemistry and comedy, Buscemi as Nebbercracker gives off a great performance to the most interesting and dramatic character of the film, the side characters work in regards to the humour and cliched archetypes of the film, the claymation character designs help in making the motion-capture movements fluent, the animation as a whole offers a great sense of atmosphere and stop-motion aesthetic, the titular monster house is fantastically animated and imaginatively designed, and the music by Pipes plays off on the genre and mood of the film. Could it have far more potential to be one of the best horror-comedies, especially written by the guys that would later write "Rick & Morty"? For sure. But for what it is, it's a fun and interesting movie that is far better than the competition it had at the Oscars with"Cars" and "Happy Feet".

Verdict: 7.5/10. Really good family-friendly horror romp, but could have been more beloved by fixing some issue regarding the tone and animation. An undeserved snub from the Oscar akin to "Over the Hedge". 

Dazed and Confused (1993) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Skip This Party And Be Square...

 

Coming-of-age films are one of the best sub-genres to earn some emotional moments and a sense of nostalgia about childhood or the teenage years. These films don't tend to have a huge story, but try to show a character arc or realization that will make them far more mature in the end. I'm stating this right now, because "Dazed and Confused" is classified as such as well as a stoner comedy, yet it completely fails at both.

Positives:

• The soundtrack. This is probably the best thing in the movie, because it feels like 99% of the budget went into the songs played. I'm not even going to bother listing all of them, since they are all regarded as some of the most beloved rock songs of that era such as "Slow Ride" by Foghat and "School's Out" by Alice Cooper. I also think the soundtrack alone brainwashes people into thinking that it's a masterpiece because of the killer songs they have.
• Some of the side characters such as the younger kids, teachers and a few sympathetic teens. They aren't perfect due to the film barely spending time on them and focusing on the more braindead characters, but at least there are enjoyable characters to be found.
• The acting is decent for a lot of starting-up roles, but it's not salvaged when we later talk about the ADR.
• The direction by Richard Linklater, the cinematography by Lee Daniel, and the production design/replication of the 1970's works at bringing the viewer back to that time period. I'm bunching all of these things up as they all accomplish at the same goal. It works at being nostalgic and somewhat realistic depiction of Austin, Texas in 1976. Linklater clearly wanted to do an homage to that decade in a guerilla-style of filmmaking as if it was made on Super 8 cameras, even if the film itself is quite awful.

Negatives:

• The premise. It's all about the last day of school and all of the teenagers and tweens want to party for the first day of summer as well as going into the next chapter of their lives. While that sounds great for the type of genre, the film acts like it too is high on weed. There's no real protagonist as it just jumps from group to group, which I will go into during the character segment. Again, this wouldn't be bad on paper for this type of movie. However, it's the execution that's the problem. First off, there's barely any character arc or journey to be found, at least in the traditional sense. A character might have a stupid choice to make or a character wants to be in a party or date someone, but there's no actual payoff or consequence for anything. The other issue is that there are so many characters in the damn movie that the film itself is constantly going back and forth in which characters to focus on. It's disorientating and causes me to have narrative whiplash.
• The tone. The film is just a teen party movie at its core where characters of ranging age or intelligence get together and get into trouble or drink. So, it should be lighthearted and immature, right? Well, kind of. The tone itself is fine, though it means that you're really not going to get anything challenging in the film (except for the film itself). However, there are concepts that are either so screwed up or have weird underlaying parallels. The teens smacking minor's asses with a cricket bat is shot and set up like they are being gang-raped. Top it off with some sexual tension between a pedophile and a teen and you got yourself a wholesome family-friendly film that no one will fully enjoy.
• The humour or the lack thereof. For being praised as a comedy classic, I didn't laugh a single time at all. The comedy boils down to either goofy antics that are more immoral than amusing or just dumb lines being spoken by drunk or high characters. There are so many funny movies out there, but this film should barely be qualified as one.
• The characters. I said before that the film has too many characters for its own good and while they do have names and even some actors attached to them, I'm just going to bunch the majority of them into one word: Cliche. For being an accurate depiction of 70's youth, the characters act more like archetypes than fully fleshed out characters. From the stoners, to the divas, to the freshmens, to the bullies, to the social outcasts, to the adolescent boys entering high school, everything about these characters are so cliche. The adults are probably the only engaging characters in the movie as they seem to be the most relatable.
• Ben Affleck and Matthew McConaughey as Fred O'Bannon and David Wooderson. For these future A-listers, these roles are just embarrassing in retrospective. O'Bannon is just a bully who gets off at smacking little boy's butts with a cricket bat. Not only is the character way too over-the-top and unrealistic, but he completely disappears by the third act, never attending the party. But the worse has to got to be McConaughey's Wooderson. You know the famous quote "alright, alright, alright"? This is the movie where it comes from and do you know when it's used? When Wooderson sees a pretty teenage girl when he's speculated to be in his late 20's. Not only is that just nasty along with another quote about high school girls staying the same age, but said teenage girl actually gets into him and talk about meeting up the next day. Like, that's just nasty. The worst thing is that the characters hang out with him because he's a cool guy to party with and he never gets called out for his pedophile antics.
• The editing by Sandra Adair. While not the worst editing in the industry, the problem is that there are far too many scenes cut early along with pointless scenes added in. This is much more prevalent in the third act where Adair clearly had no idea what to do in order to "finish" everyone's arc. The film jumps to a scene where a group of characters get caught by the police, to a thirteen year old getting laid, then back to the same group of characters being yelled at by the coach. The editing is really amateur and feels just as confused as the film's title.
• The ADR and dubbing. Jesus Christ, this has got to be one of the worst dubbing I've seen in a film that's praised so highly. It's more prevalent in scenes involving cars, but there are legit moments where the dialogue is moving faster than the actor's mouth. The character, Mitch, has by far the worst case of dubbing in the movie where his lips move once and an entire sentence comes out. It's like Linklater just did one take for each scene and didn't bother doing more, so the audio department is forced to use ADR. People and fans can say that the movie had a low budget to defend the poor ADR or whatnot, but the movie had a pretty decent budget of nearly seven million dollars. "Friday the 13th" only had a budget of half a million and the audio/dialogue editing was far more professional! So, the budget isn't to blame, but rather those that were in charge of making the dialogue natural and fluent to the actor's performance
• The "climax" of the movie. This is the most critical aspect of a coming-to-age movie and this film botches it to a new level. You know what the emotional payoff of this movie is? The character, Pink, telling his coach that he would give up his football career instead of giving up beer and weed. I'm not kidding, that's the climax of the movie. Pink's arc is barely in full attention as the film kept jumping from character to character and he didn't have much time to consider what he did is completely stupid. As for the other characters, their arcs are either just them getting a girl, getting laid or getting home after enjoying the party. The final scene is Pink and his stoner friends riding off into the sunset. Not only is it such a unsatisfying ending, but critics try to make it seem far more brilliantly. Names like Robert Ebert and Quentin Tarantino say that the movie is trying to show how stupid or bad these characters are and how they are ruining their lives by the choices they make. However, the film itself doesn't take that side of the argument. It glorifies the stupidity of the characters and their antics rather than showing the damage they did. The final shot of the movie isn't Pink or Mitch realizing what they just did might effect them in the long run, but rather embraces the care-free and rebellious attitude of the characters. Cultural disconnect or not, I simply find the ending to be a waste of my time as the whole point of a coming-to-age film is that both you and the characters learn something about themselves and life at the end. Here, it's just screw authority and party on.

"Dazed and Confused" fails at both being a coming-of-age story and a goofy stoner comedy. While the soundtrack is awesome, a few side characters are decent, the acting could be far worse, and the directing, cinematography and production design perfectly captures the era and feel of the 70's thanks to Linklaster's passion for that period. However, it's a complete lightweight in regards to quality and substance. The premise of the story is unfocused or frantic, the tone is mostly drunk or high teenage hijinks with creepy pedophiles and exaggerated bullying to boot,  the comedy itself is a joke of how unfunny it is, the majority of the large cast of characters are just complete cliches for an otherwise "grounded" portrayal of the 70's, Affleck's O'Bannon is too over the top to take as a threat or fleshed-out character, McConaughey's Wooderson is a creepy pedophile and an unlikeable character the cast and film roots for, Adair's editing contains both filler additions or random transitions or cuts to scenes, the ADR and dubbing is so awful it nears the effort put in Dingo Pictures, and the ending not only feels unsatisfying or wasteful, but it fails at delivering on what makes a coming-of-age film. The film itself feels like it too got too drunk and high to resemble what good the movie could have been. If you think the coming-of-age handling or moral is on the same level as "Boyhood" or  if it's as funny in an immature light as "American Pie", I think you too might be dazed and confused.

Verdict: 3/10. Really poor attempt at both a comedy and coming-of-age story. If it only it was as good as its own soundtrack...