American Psycho (2000) Film Review: A Thought-Provoking Satire About The Inner Darkness That Lays In Everyone...

 

Patrick Bateman seems to have it all. A well-paid job, beautiful fiancee, and a lifestyle that only the upper elite can love. However, Bateman isn't satisfied whatsoever. He despises his co-workers, his fiancee, and anyone that appears to be below him socially all because it ruins his own self-image. In fact, whenever something is done to embarrass him or put him down compared to others, he needs to take his anger out by inflicting harm on others. Based on the 1991 novel by Bret Easton Ellis, the film adaptation to one of the most controversial books ever made had a polarizing response back when it was released, but has managed to achieve a growing fanbase. While the story, for the most part until the end, is fairly typical in the psychological thriller genre in regards to following a psychopathic killer with the viewer wondering when he will get caught, it's the tone of the film that really makes it unique. The mixture of black comedy, psychological thriller and horror allows the satirical elements to shine in the surrealist moments while the narrative serves as a character study for Bateman as well as dissecting some cliches of the genre that is meant to overly confuse the viewer. The humour as a whole is really strong, mainly thanks to Bateman's eccentric personality, quirks, and trying to hold this higher status by analyzing music or the petty grudges he holds to others.

Christain Bale as Patrick Bateman is simply iconic. Bale both hams it up while also taking the role seriously at the same time, much like the mentally unstable Bateman, who he himself is confused on whether or not he enjoys harming others or not. At times, he tends to sound a bit like Jim Carrey, but it honestly works for the character. Bateman is interesting as he surprisingly represents the everyman and their mental thought process regarding their desires and ego, despite the character's social status and psychopathic tendencies. Bale practically steals the film, which is quite noticeable considering how minor the side cast is. Willam Dafoe as Detective Kimball is only in three scenes, but so well done thanks to Dafoe's skills as an actor and the use of multiple takes where the character has conflicting opinions on Bateman interspaced in his scenes is great. Jared Leto as Paul Allen, Bateman's rival, is also barely in the film due to the plot revolving around the mystery of his death and whether or not Bateman really did kill him. Chloe Sevigny as Jean is really good as the timid secretary who falls for Bateman's charisma, but isn't relevant to the plot much. Reese Witherspoon as Evelyn, Bateman's fiancee, is also good as the oblivious and emotional girlfriend that is sort of the dumb blonde stereotype that Bateman can't stand. Lastly, there's Cara Seymour as "Christie", a prostitute that Bateman uses for both pleasure and abuse with Seymour being so sympathetic and awkwardly funny in every minute. There are other characters such as Bateman's co-workers and his fling, Courtney, but they aren't really necessary to the plot or even that memorable, aside from a hilarious moment with the gay co-worker. The cast and characters are both a huge win and a small loss in a way. All of the performances are good in some capacity, with Bale being a good example of a snubbed nomination for Best Actor, but the side characters as a whole aren't that engaging either due to how they are barely used in the film or just not being very likeable or engaging. Bale as Bateman is the highlight as he's practically in every scene and he's a fantastic character to boot, but it comes at a cost to having the side characters being quite meaningless as a result.

Mary Harron is perhaps best known for this film on her resume along with her being a feminist, which is funny given the film's extreme violence towards women. The setting of 1987 is actually done in a way that feels like the film is timeless to an extent. Yes, the references to videotapes and Bateman's giant cell-phone are dead giveaways, but the nature of the upper-class lifestyle and the representation of Wall-Street brokers essentially doing anything but work is brilliantly captured in a way that it's universal and aged perfectly well. I also love the opening credits where it tricks the viewer into thinking that they are seeing blood, but is revealed to be fine dining. Speaking of dining, the food and menus of the upper-class restaurants are also a nice piece of character Harron showcases as she makes the idea that the elite lifestyle is so snooty that even some of the food we are described sounds quite nasty or implausible. The cinematography by Andrzej Sekula is very much like his work on "Reservoir Dogs". The camerawork can feel amateur, but it's meant to be grounded and gritty in the lack of style and flair. On top of that, there are some great one-shots, pans, and tracking shots, specifically whenever the scene is set in a sense of luxury. The close-ups of Bateman's face though is iconography at its simplicity, regardless if it's clean, sweaty, coated in make-up, or covered in blood. The score by John Cale is all over the place, but in a good way. Because of the clash of genre and tone, Cale manages to provide various themes for various circumstances. From the peaceful, yet, haunting instrumentals, the suspenseful horror/slasher music, the more awkward comedic upbeat tracks, Cale is known for his experimentation as a musician and although it's by no means the best of the genre, the original score fits the film's nature. The licensed soundtrack though is extremely memorable by using some great tracks from the time period such as New Order's "True Faith", Huey Lewis and the News's "Hip to be Square", Phil Collins's "Sussudio", and Whitney Houston's "Greatest Love of All". The last thing to mention about the film itself is the level of violence and sex. The novel is far more explicit to Bateman's crimes and actions, while the film is not only lighter on, but tame in regards to portraying the violence and sex. I know it's strange saying this as the film not only has Bateman partake in threesomes and kill victims with axes and chainsaws, but it never gets overly gory or even sexually graphic by showing a penis or vagina. Despite not being overly strong on these elements, the sequences themselves feel explicit in nature mainly thanks to both the performances and direction of said sequences.

"American Psycho" is such a unique film in both its existence and execution. While the plot is fairly typical of the genre and the side characters are extremely overshadowed by the lead, those are necessary flaws to make the rest of the film stand out in its quality. From the tone and blending of humour, psychological thrillers and slashers, Bale as Bateman is undeniably one of his crowning achievements of his career, the performances from all of the characters are generally pretty good despite said characters being underused, Sekula's cinematography reflects both the upper-class nature via his camera tricks while the simple close-ups of Bateman ensure instant iconography thanks to the framing and performance, Cale's score has plenty of range and experimentation with various genres, the licensed soundtrack is a great collection of the underrated 80's hits, and Harron's directing does a wonderful job at not only having the 1987 setting and upper-class lifestyle still feel timeless in a way, but having a tamer approach to the violence and sex that still feels effectively uncomfortable. There's simply so much to analyze in the film along with some memorable sequences that I don't want to give everything away, especially in regards to the film's biggest questions and theories. It's something to be experienced rather than ruined.

Verdict: 9/10. One of the best psychological thrillers in the genre as well as a clever satire regarding said genre, the elite, and the people we are capable of being. Check it out if you can easily stomach some of the intense sequences and be captivated by Bale's performance as the infamous Patrick Bateman.

Deadpool 2 (2018) Film Review: Both Better And Worse Than The First...

 

With "Deadpool" being a box office smash hit, it was no question that Fox wanted to green-light a sequel as fast as possible with a bigger budget that will complement the more zany nature of the comics and character. Although the sequel managed to make around the same amount as the original in the box office, the response from fans and critics was a bit more divisive in regards to if the sequel was an improvement or a downgrade. The story does lean towards the latter in ways. As Wade Wilson continues to be a hired mercenary, his fiancee, Vanessa, tragically dies after he fails to kill a target earlier in the day. Going though a heavy depression, Wade is forced to work with the X-Men in an attempt to turn a new leaf and find a way to heaven. His calling is found when he meets a young mutant named Russell and tries to help the kid before he gets to kill an abusive headmaster as well as protecting him from a vengeful cyborg from the future named Cable. While the story does indeed get bigger and crazier thanks to the increased budget and various new characters, the choice to kill off Vanessa and the focus on Wade trying to help Russell tends to leave audiences in a bit of a sour taste in their mouth. Vanessa's death feels practically unnecessary as they could have revealed her mutant status, while the plotline surrounding Russell feels a bit lacking as Wade and Russell didn't really show a strong bond and it would have been far more satisfying to just have the plot be about Wade stopping a notable villain from the comics or something. Regardless of the story direction, the tone and humour has actually managed to improve. Since the film isn't bogged down by the typical origin story and flashbacks, it allows the tone to be far more over-the-top and the humour to be plentiful throughout with the same vulgar, fourth-wall breaking and meta jokes the first film is beloved for. Not every joke or dramatic moment lands of course, but it still delivers on all fronts effectively, perhaps even a bit more than the first film.

The characters are also divisive in a way in regards to their representation or usage throughout the film. Starting with the positives, Reynolds as Wade/Deadpool still knocks it out of the park as he goes all in on the goofiness of the character. While some may feel that it's not as natural or balanced compared to his first outing, I think it makes sense in regards to the passage of time and how Wade has gotten use to his powers and zany nature. Julian Dennison as Russell/Firefist is a nice addition regardless of the lack of chemistry he shares with Wade. Dennison is just having a blast in being a wannabe punk and gangster who wants to take his rivals down. Stefan Kapicic as Colossus is great as usual for the polite giant chrome mutant who is beginning to lose patience and tolerance for Wade's violent ways. Zazie Beetz is wonderful as Domino, the mutant with luck on her side who knows how to counter the cynical Deadpool. Reynolds also voices a more comic-accurate and meat-headed Juggernaut who steals the final act of the film in regards to the surprise appearance. The returning comic relief such as T.J Miller's Weasel, Leslie Uggams's Blind Al, Karan Soni's Dopinder, and Brianna Hildebrand's Negasonic Teenage Warhead are also as good as before with Soni's Dopinder managing to have some of the funniest moments of the film. Despite a large portion of the cast and characters being enjoyable, there are also some mediocre characters involved. Of course, there's the aforementioned Vanessa, played by Morena Baccarin, who gets killed and appears as a spirit in the afterlife. Josh Brolin as Cable does do his best in regards to the performance and the humour, but the personality and depth of the character is practically removed and the chemistry between him and Wade is extremely minimal and forced. The character could have been far more benefitted if the story was centred more around him and Wade. Jack Kesy as Black Tom Cassidy was a pointless addition as he was supposed to be the original antagonist before budget concerns were addressed, so he's just used as a race joke. The abusive headmaster played by Eddie Marsan is pretty one-note and generic evil with no real personality to him. Aside from Juggernaut, the villains are pretty weak because of the narrative decisions the sequel offers. Shiori Kutsana as Yukio is just there to serve as NTW's girlfriend with a bubbly personality and barely shows up during the film. The last group of characters to address are the X-Force members assembled by Wade including Terry Crew's Bedlam, Brad Pitt's Vanisher, Lewis Tan as Shatterstar, Bill Skarsgard as Zeitgiest, and Rob Delaney as Peter. Despite the charisma and bizarre nature of the characters and performances, they are only used to be essentially killed off as a joke during the second act. While the joke itself is actually pretty funny in the film, it's a bit disappointing that the characters might never show up in a future X-Force film or even just share more screen-time in the film in general. Overall, there's a fair share of enjoyable and likeable characters, but the antagonists and side characters are fairly one-note or just underutilize throughout the film, something that the first film did far better due to the smaller cast.

Tim Miller didn't return due to creative differences in the approach for the sequel, so David Leitch replaces him and offers a new direction for the franchise. Because of the $110 million dollar budget along with the various comic elements used throughout, Leitch has the sequel to be far more vivid in the aesthetic and colour department than ever before. The first film always carried this industrial, grey look that works with the small-scale nature of the story and characters. The sequel has a more varied colour palette that reflects in the various scenes, set-pieces and locations. Much like the first film, the interior locales are well-designed and characterized such as Wade's apartment, the Ice Box, the Essex Mutant Re-education centre, etc. The cinematography by Micheal Sela manages to improve over Ken Seng's work as he tries to incorporate long takes and shots in various set-pieces, while also utilizing the slow-motion, close-ups, wide shots and sense of enclosement that Seng mastered in the first film. What's not an improvement is Tyler Bates's score. While Junkie XL's offerings were standard as the action sequences used a lot of synthesizers that get old real fast, I can't recall anything Bates composed for the film, aside from the softer, instrumental themes from the original song Celine Dion provided, "Ashes", as well as Juggernaut's menacing choir theme. Speaking of the songs, the licensed soundtrack is just overwhelming with memorable hits in both the theatrical and extended cuts. The extended cut does have some questionable changes to the music beats in certain action sequences, but both versions of the film offer great tracks from the pop genre such as "9 to 5", "All Out of Love", "We Belong", etc. The visual effects are good yet again with Colossus and Juggernaut and the action visuals being the highlights, even if it's fairly standard given the average budget. The action sequences go for a more stylized approach with the violence and set-pieces rather than the grittier beatdowns and shootouts from the first. Every sequence has a grand, comic-book esque feel to it. From the montage of Deadpool killing various gangsters (the extended cut offers a fantastic one-track, wrap-around shot in the Japan scene that should have been in the theatrical version) to the quick apartment ambush, Cable's attack in the Ice Box,  the convoy hijack, and the final showdown with Juggernaut and the orderlies. The action is not much of an improvement, rather than a spectacle in ways. As much as I do wish and wonder what Miller's film would have been like, Leitch did a great job in covering the sequel and giving it a distinct flair compared to the first film.

"Deadpool 2" is a weaker, yet, effective follow-up from the first film. The flaws include the questionable narrative decisions with Vanessa, the lack of chemistry given to Wade, Russell, and Brolin, the antagonists, aside from Juggernaut, are really one-note and boring due to the frantic narrative, some side characters feel pointless or underused in their inclusion, and the score by Bates is fairly forgettable aside from a few original songs. Despite these problems, the sequel does actually offer not only positives akin to the first, but even some improvements. The story does feel like an escalation for stakes and world-building despite how messy it is, the tone and humour gets far more moments to shine because of said narrative, the returning cast of characters are just as great as before with Reynolds, Soni and Kapicic working off with the lead so naturally, the newcomers of Russell, Domino and Juggernaut are great additions in regards to the performances and their usage during the film, Brolin still offers an awesome performance for the otherwise underdeveloped Cable, Sela's cinematography only improves from Seng by having tracking shots, the licensed soundtrack offers excellent songs throughout both cuts of the film, the action sequences have a larger scale and sense of style with some memorable highlights, and Leitch's directing has a distinct approach in regards to the aesthetic and feel to the film in contrast to Miller's directorial debut. Overall, I can see how some might see this as a downgrade, but I can also see some saying it's better. Regardless, both films are a blast to watch, though the first one just feels more tight and contained compared to the sequel's bloated comic-book nature.

Verdict: 7/10. Good sequel, but probably needed more time in the writing department rather than a two-year write-up. Still funny and entertaining regardless if being compared to the first film.

Zack Snyder's Justice League (2017/2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Hallelujah!

 

After three and a half years of fan outrage, support and unification, "Zack Snyder's Justice League" or the "Snyder Cut" is finally out for everyone to watch, practically destroying whatever sympathy people had for the gross, dishonest product that was the theatrical cut of "Josstice League". At first, the story seems like it's still the same narrative with Batman and Wonder Woman forming a team of super-powered beings in order to stop an invasion led by Steppenwolf and his quest to find and unite the three Mother Boxes. However, considering the film has double the original cut's runtime, it's clear that the story will have differences. I won't touch upon spoilers or huge changes, but the four-hour runtime is practically perfect at giving what is otherwise a typical superhero adventure as much depth, heart, character and personality to it. The story is just vastly improved with a larger sense of mythos, continuity from previous films, explorations for the characters, and incorporating the established themes and morals from the previous two films. The tone is also a perfect balance in regards to hope, dread, drama and comedy. Even though I enjoyed the previous Snyder films, I can understand why people can't get into how brooding and serious they can be. Here, the characters act serious, but the story itself knows that it's not thought-provoking or methodical. As for the humour, there's actually quite a bit of levity and laughs that people can get behind. It's not overkill to the point of cringe like in the theatrical version because everyone made jokes, but it's appropriate as the characters who have jokes are the ones that would be in nature to make them such as Flash and Alfred.

Much like "BvS", there's a full ensemble of characters that all manage to feel fleshed out as characters. However, due to the sheer amount of characters and newcomers, it can be granted that few aren't as interesting as they could be. Henry Cavill's Superman, Ben Affleck's Batman, and Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman don't have much of a character arc given their previous films and it does make them a bit bland. Even though these three all have their heroic and awesome moments as well as Diana having an interesting rivalry to Steppenwolf, they clearly grown too much that they can't really learn much as characters. Jason Mamoa's Aquaman has a bit more depth as this was made prior to his solo film and it does make his involvement interesting in retrospective, but he doesn't really blow the audience away in his action scenes or character moments. Ezra Miller's The Flash is dramatically improved as he's no longer the comic relief that's the butt of the joke in his heroism. He still makes jokes, but the film gives him some of the best heroic moments in the DCEU. The best performance and character by far in this film is Ray Fisher's Cyborg as he practically has a solo film's worth of story and growth in this ensemble event with his bond between his father and his importance to the story compared to the bare-bones portrayal in the theatrical cut. Ciaran Hinds's Steppenwolf is also greatly redesigned and expanded upon as a villain in regards to his motivation and what he represents to the world as a New God. Ray Porter's Darkseid is not in the film much, but his voice and demeanor captures the threat and limitless power that the iconic villain is capable of. In regards to the side characters, there are too many to list, but I will try and point out the most notable. Amy Adams as Lois Lane is actually likeable now in her scenes of grief, Jeremy Irons as Alfred is fantastic as usual, Joe Morton as Silas Stone is extremely engrossing, Zheng Kai as Ryan Choi was nice and more than just a wink to the fans, Billy Crudup as Barry's father is so good despite being in two small scenes, and the list goes on. Even minor roles are acted with so much heart and soul, particularly an actress involved in Cyborg's heroism. There's not a single performance I can point out as bad. Not everyone is fully utilized from some of the main characters to minor fan-favourites, but I find it acceptable given the vast development given to the other characters, especially for Flash and Cyborg.

Snyder takes his rightful spot as director and goes full-in on his vision and filmmaking, even if it can be too much at times. While the zoom-ins and dark aesthetic of the previous films have been removed or improved in this film, with the latter having far more visual clarity to the action, the polarizing director still tends to overuse a bit of the slow-mo at times. While I don't mind it, it can be a bit annoying for those who aren't fans of the film being four hours long. The cinematography by Fabian Wagner is great with how everything is captured on-screen in such a pristine look and some nice flair with the camera movement with the panning, wrap-arounds, tracking, and one-takes. It just screams Snyder and cinematic event. The 4:3 aspect ratio is no issue for me as you can tell that Snyder and Wagner wanted the IMAX-filmed motion picture to be viewed with no real compromise whatsoever, despite how ignorant haters want to claim. The score by Tom Holkenburg/Junkie XL might be his best work to date. Not only does he reutilize some of the older themes in the other Snyder films, but the original music and revamped themes for characters such as Batman, Wonder Woman, Cyborg and the Flash are just fantastic and offer so much personality and identity to the music and film. Wonder Woman's theme does get overplayed too much, but it's such a great piece that I don't get tired of it that much. The licensed songs/covers are also inspired choices with the most notable being Hallelujah by Allison Crowe and Song of the Siren by Rose Betts. The visual effects are pretty good with some nice polished textures on Steppenwolf, Darkseid, and Cyborg. However, there are times where the CGI is pretty obvious and awkward, particularly in reshot scenes. The scene in the beginning with Lex contacting Steppenwolf as a refresher of "BvS" has him in CGI water compared to real water in the previous film. The use of echolocation as the language for the Atlanteans and the use of the air bubbles to talk is pretty awkward and laughable, but it was clearly done to avoid spending a lot of money on the underwater effects. The action sequences are practically the same from the theatrical cut, but they are not only better directed and edited, but are extended to have far more engaging moments and tension. The R-rating complements the action as it's not gratuitous whatsoever and only uses the violence when appropriate for the mood and tension of the scene. Love him or hate him, you can't deny that he made a far better film than what was offered from before. 

Overall, Snyder has not only redeemed his original film, but also won over the critics and fans. Not everything is perfect as some characters don't feel as developed or engaging as others and there's an occasional awkward edit or effect along with a few minutes that can be cut for time. However, the fact that these are the only issues is an achievement given the disaster that was the theatrical cut. From an expanded-upon narrative, a perfectly-balanced tone of dark and light, humour that's well restrained yet welcoming, great development for characters such as the Flash, Steppenwolf, Cyborg and Silas Stone, the entire cast, major, side or minor, all act their heart out and take their jobs seriously, Wagner's cinematography is cinematic and epic with wonderful use of the 4:3 aspect ratio, Holkenburg's score and soundtrack is perhaps his crowning achievement in the industry, massively improved visuals contrasted to the theatrical cut, action sequences that are more professionally-paced, shot and played-out, and Snyder's direction shows that he's able to not only improve on himself in his work, but give back to both fans of his films as well as those who didn't like his previous efforts. "Justice League" is nearly on par with his work on "Man of Steel", even if that aforementioned film is slightly better. Regardless, all three films are a blast to watch, despite the overbearing runtime.

Verdict: 8.5/10. An improvement from "BvS" and almost on the same level of quality as "MoS" if Snyder could iron out a few issues. Please take some time to watch this and support Snyder's vision. #RestoretheSnyderverse

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: Ultimate Edition (2016) Film Review: The Film That Broke DC And WB...

 

After the success that was "Man of Steel", Warner Bros continued on with Snyder's five-film plan with the second film being one of the most hyped-up releases of that year with the promise of Superman finally fighting Batman on screen as well as add pieces to set-up the Justice League film. While the film still managed to perform well in the box office despite the studio's disappointment, the critics and fans were even more negative than before, which will cause a massive shift in the DCEU's plan and the films that will come after. Were fans and critics still wrong about the film as they were with "Man of Steel" or were they completely justified? Well, I will say that the story is as unbalanced as the critical praise and slander. Two years after Superman saved the world from Zod, the general public is still unsure of Superman as a super-powered being who acts above the law. Two men are in this category: Lex Luthor, a young tech billionaire who is fearful of Superman's status and power, and Bruce Wayne/Batman, a seasoned vigilante who is beginning to lose his humanity and morals after many years of his duty. Luthor, knowing Batman's violent methods and hate towards the Kryptonian, plans to fuel the fire between the two with a failsafe plan while Lois Lane tries to take the maniacal villain down. Along the way, Bruce learns of other super-powered beings including the mysterious Wonder Woman. If you can't tell, there's a lot happening in this movie as it tries to continue the story of "Man of Steel" while setting up "Justice League" while adapting several popular storylines from the comics as a result. While it manages to keep me hooked by the sheer amount of events and plot turns and payoffs, it's beyond understandable why people can just not get invested easily when so many narrative threads are interweaving with each other, regardless if it works or not. The tone is once again carried over from the previous film and, yet again, people complained that there were no jokes and it was devoid of hope and levity. Again, that's the point as Snyder wanted Superman as a character to become more and more like the comic counterpart in every continuation. Considering that the world is afraid and critical of his actions, it makes sense that this isn't going to be a film that the whole family will enjoy as it, again, grounds the setting to be extremely realistic.

Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/Superman is still good as the last son of Krypton and he does have some depth when he begins to question his reputation and whether or not being Superman was even worth it. However, I do think that he had a much better performance in the first film as he had far more emotional range and scenes, considering the nature of that story. Ben Affleck is legendary as Bruce Wayne/Batman as he portrays the character who is losing his humanity and morals after decades of misery and the recent encounter with Superman that has caused extreme collateral damage. Fans complain that this Batman shouldn't kill or use guns, but that's the point of this interpretation as well as homaging some of Frank Miller's stories. This Batman is so disillusioned that he won't mind if he kills in proxy, so it will need someone like Superman to challenge him and one day inspire him to do better. Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor is the butt of the joke when it comes to this film. From his over-the-top performance to his complicated plan, people just question why he's nothing like the comics at all. Well, that's because Snyder was going for a more realistic approach to the character. Lex Luthor today will be a young, tech billionaire figure who wants to hold as much power and status as possible while using his eccentric quirks and personality to basically ridicule others. It's basically Eisenberg playing an evil Mark Zuckerberg. I will admit that perhaps a more comic-accurate Luthor would have been better and beloved, but I appreciate that Snyder wanted to do different things for his adaptations. From then on, there's an all-star of supporting characters, both returning and brand-new. From Amy Adam's Lois Lane, Diane Lane's Martha Kent, Laurence Fishbourne's Perry White, to Jeremy Irons's Alfred Pennyworth, Holly Hunter's June Finch, Scoot McNairy's Wallace Keefe, and Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, the list goes on. Much like the first film, the vast number of characters do lead to some that aren't as developed or interesting. From the multiple side villains, the witness that lies about Superman's morality, Finch, and even Lois, these characters do tend to get the short end of the stick. But the characters that do have the longer end manage to make the most out of their characters such as Alfred, Wonder Woman, Martha, Perry, etc. However, the real star of the film is very much Affleck's performance as Batman as he not only has the most character development and exploration, but it made a lasting impact for being perhaps the best Batman onscreen.

Zack Snyder returns with a far more different approach for the sequel. Rather than having the film feel somewhat grounded and feel in perspective of the viewer as an ordinary person, Snyder goes much more on his slick, visual style while reducing that visual perspective to have a more comic-book epic feel to it. While it mostly works, Snyder tends to overuse a lot of nighttime scenes in this film that makes things a bit hard to see unless it's illuminated by lasers, lens flares or fire. I get that he's trying to focus the film more on Batman and make it feel like a Batman film for the most part, but it's a bit jarring going from the well-lit daylight settings from "Man of Steel" to this. The cinematography by Larry Fong still offers some of the handheld camera movements, but in a far more different way. Instead of the entire film having that camera movement, only the scenes involving Batman and Luthor offer this aesthetic to visualize their humanity and scattered mind, while action sequences and scenes with Superman are shot with far more flair, stableness and spectacle with pans, angles, etc. Hans Zimmer returns to score alongside Junkie XL as Zimmer's orchestrated themes clash with XL's energetic and intense beats to emphasize the expanding world of the DCEU as Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman get introduced. Personally, Zimmer's offerings by himself during "Man of Steel" is far better than the tracks played here despite some good dramatic tracks. The visual effects aren't as polished as Superman's solo outing, but considering the higher use of action in the film, it's forgivable. The only effect that I'm not a fan of is just the design of Doomsday, but that's explained by Snyder to a clone of the creature rather than the original. The action sequences however rival the previous film and even surpasses it in some regards. While the action in "Man of Steel" is fantastic, the issue is that it only really begins during the third act and they feel similar to one another, despite how awesome they can be. Here, the action sequences are a bit better paced and they all have a different flair to each of them. From Bruce's perspective of the destruction of Metropolis, to the Batmobile chase, the one-track Knightmare sequence, the titular fight itself, the warehouse brawl and the climatic battle with Doomsday, the action sequences are riveting to the senses with great use of camerawork, sound and motifs to have each one distinct themselves from one another. Overall, Snyder takes a different and welcome approach to the follow-up, despite a bit of a downgrade in areas.

"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is a very good continuation and stepping stone of the DCEU as a second film, despite having to deal with some drawbacks as a result. The story can get too hectic at times regarding the various narratives and characters, some side characters tend to feel pointless or unmemorable, and Snyder's overuse of the dark aesthetic and nighttime scenes can be overkill and hard to see at times. Aside from these criticisms though, there aren't any huge problems I can find, unless you want to include countless silly nitpicks from haters. The story, despite its bloated nature, still offers engaging and satisfying moments, the tone is appropriate and continues the gritty realism that was established in the previous film, Cavill is still good as Superman, Affleck is brilliant as a unique take on Batman, Eisenberg is having fun with his version of Luthor, the large side cast is filled with memorable characters and fantastic performances, Fong's cinematography feels more in character for the director's vision and being in nature to some of the onscreen characters, the score by Zimmer and XL is a unique collaboration that offers some decent tracks, the CGI is still solid even as things get hectic onscreen, the action sequences are extremely unique and visceral in regards to their identity and structure, and Snyder's directing is still very competent as he blends both the established realism of the first film with his famous cinematic style and scope. It's not a film for everyone, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would find this boring or unwatchable.

Verdict: 8/10. Great film, but has a few issues that allow many to overexpose. Still worth a watch as "Zack Snyder's Justice League" comes out this week! 

Man of Steel (2013) Film Review: From Bad To Misunderstood...

 

With "Zack Snyder's Justice League" coming out next week, it's time I review the two previous films of his proposed five-film saga that hopefully has a chance to be resurrected. Although the first film to the DCEU made plenty of money during its run and on home media, it was a very polarizing film for both fans and critics with some thinking Snyder's vision is brilliant while others thinking that it ruined the idea of Superman. Which side is the correct one? Well, let's start off at the story. As Krypton meets its impending doom as its core explodes, Jor-El send his newborn son and the key to save his people onto Earth so he can make his own choices and freedom. Years and years pass as Kal-El/Clark Kent is struggling to learn who he is and whether or not he should reveal his gifts and abilities to the planet. Despite a nosy reporter named Lois Lane almost catching his story, the world learns of alien life as fellow Krptonians, General Zod and his followers demand that Kal-El surrender himself to them as he seeks the key that can repopulate their people, while also planning to turn Earth into the new Krypton, despite Clark's love for Earth and their people. I think the story itself is quite good for being both the origin for Superman and a stand-alone introduction to the DCEU as it mostly focuses on Clark's humanity and self-discovery with not much action being shown until the third act. While the film itself is criticized for being way too long, I wasn't bored at all as I felt that things were quite well paced. It also helps that the film offers some nice themes of freedom and choice vs. destiny and duty. The tone is where things get complicated as a lot of people hated the lack of fun, hope, or humour involved in the film. True, this isn't the typical Marvel movie with countless one-liners and charismatic characters, but that was the point. This film doesn't depict the Superman we know from the comics yet, but rather one who is inexperienced and growing as a hero and a person. It's a great breath of fresh air for the character and story as it's not just a perfect boy scout who knows the right thing to do. 

Henry Cavill as Superman is great casting for this depiction of the comic character. Yes, he's not acting super cheerful and optimistic in the film, but Cavill really works at bringing this larger-than-life character down to earth as he questions when he should reveal himself to the world or what is the right thing to do. However, Micheal Shannon as Zod outshines Cavill as the compelling antagonist. While he can be over-the-top at times, Shannon knows how to both make a threatening aura and a man who's sole creation is to protect his people and planet, even if it means destroying Earth to succeed in it. Amy Adams as Lois Lane is underwhelming as the love interest. They did the best they can in updating the character for the modern era and Adams does do the part fine, but I just can't get compelled by her, perhaps due to how the story has her be involved quite heavily in the third act. The side characters on the other hand are fantastically performed. From Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent, Diane Lane's Martha Kent, Laurence Fishbourne as Perry White, Ayetlet Zurer as Faora, Harry Lennix as General Swanwick, and Kurt Russell as Jor-El, the side cast is stunning in their performances and characters. There are minor characters such as the military figures and scientists from both Earth and Krypton, the Daily Planet employees, Pete Ross, as well as Kal-El's mother, but their roles are so minor and forgettable that they should have cut out to improve the runtime for the majority of viewers. Regardless, all of the actors are great and while there are a few characters I can't get into, they are overshadowed by the ones I do like, with Cavill and Shannon offering the best performances of the film.

Zack Snyder is a divisive director as many critics claim that he only cares for action and visuals rather than actual stories and characters with depth. However, as I just went over with the story and characters, Snyder clearly cares for the story and characters and his trademark visuals and action only enhances the film to its highest potential. While it's not his most colourful film in his catalogue or one that has his most exaggerated direction, Snyder does a good job at trying to portray a realistic world having their encounters with Superman and Zod. The cinematography by Amir Mokri is good, but is a double-edged sword in execution. What works about it is that it really tries at making this film feel so realistic with its use of handheld camera movements and zoom-ins and outs, as if an outsider is witnessing these events firsthand. However, it can be pretty silly and annoying at times to see these zoom lens shots and lens flairs when the scene feels like no person could truly film it, with examples being the Krypton sequence or Clark entering Zod's ship. Despite this issue, Mokri's work is effective for the direction Snyder is going for. The score by Hans Zimmer might be his best contributions to the superhero genre with the music attached to Clark's first flight being both awesome and beautiful. Zimmer hits the dramatic and epic feel that the film is going for with both instrumental and choir tracks setting the mood and atmosphere for each scene. The visual effects still hold up great, even almost a decade later. While the final fight between Superman and Zod can get hectic with the effects, the CGI is extremely polished, which makes sense given the film's budget and Snyder's calculative direction. The action sequences are both the film's highlights and its source of controversy. While the film is light on action for the first two acts, the third act pays off your patience with some of the most kinetic and epic brawls of the DCEU. Yeah, it's mainly just people punching and throwing each other into buildings and stuff, but you can just feel the impact of each hit and it's just cool seeing people on the same level of power being at odds with one another. However, there are criticisms with the third act action sequences. For one, people hate that Superman costs so much destruction in both Smallville and Metropolis and that he wouldn't be so reckless in these fights. Not only is this complaint invalid due to how the comics and animated films depict his fights to be similar in scale, but it's not Superman's fault when aliens of equal strength are throwing him all over the place. The other and most divisive complaint is the moment where Superman is forced to kill Zod. People will try to complain about how there were different options or methods, but the film makes it clear that Zod was going to kill more and more people if Superman won't stop him. On top of this, this film isn't supposed to be the end of Clark's arc to become the hopeful and justice-fuelled hero from the comics. This was a first step in a multi-film journey that, yes, ends poorly with Zod's death, but it's the idea that he will enforce the no-killing rule from now on (save for that terrorist in the beginning of "BVS").

"Man of Steel" is retroactively not only a great Superman film, but probably the best DCEU film to date. While I'm not a fan of Lois and a few other characters, along with the awkward zoom-ins and lens flairs, that's honestly all the issues the film has. The story is an interesting and different approach to the Superman mythos, the tone is appropriate for the story and character journey, Cavill as Superman offers a humble performance that humanizes the indestructible figure, Shannon kills it as the violent and determined Zod, the side characters are enjoyable and very well-acted in their respective scenes, Mokri's cinematography works at having a grounded yet cinematic approach as if scenes were live footage, Zimmer's score is one of the best and memorable he has composed, the visual effects are still extremely good and barely come across as dated or bad, the action sequences are fun to watch that truly capture the nature of Superman as a combatant, and Snyder's direction is brilliantly captured by his vision to make the most legendary comic-book character modernized into the real world and having said world be bystanders to what is to come. Love him or hate him, Snyder knew exactly what he was doing for this film and it remains as his best film to date as a result.

Verdict: 9/10. Nearly one of the best superhero films, if some characters or Snyder motifs can be tuned down or cut down. Otherwise, it's frankly the best Superman film, besting out the 1978 classic. 

Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) Film Review: The Best Film Of 2020?

 

As award ceremonies and events extend the deadlines for submitted films until the end of February, some of these early 2021 releases are technically viewed as 2020 entries, mainly due to how they are delayed or released. If there was a film that would be a strong contender during the upcoming Oscar season, it would be this biopic feature. Based on true events, the film chronicles William O'Neal, a former car thief turned FBI informant who is tasked to be undercover in the Black Panther Party to take down Fred Hampton, the chairman of the Illinois branch who is proven to be an inspiration to the masses, which J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI is extremely on edge with. As William spends more time in the movement and even gets higher positions of respect and power, he starts to question whether or not he can go forth with the FBI's orders, a choice that comes down to life or death. The film deals with a lot of heavy themes and subject matter, particularly the corrupt nature of the government during the era and the racist agenda of Hoover who orders Hampton dead as he believes prison isn't good enough for him. Considering the time we live in where black people are still under threat of higher jurisdiction and police brutality, it's a very relevant film that should be watched to better understand the struggle these people have gone through. It's a bleak, almost depressing, movie at times, but it's meant to be for the overall story, background, and themes surrounding it.

Daniel Kaluuya is getting a lot of praise, nominations and even awards for his performance as Fred Hampton and it's clear as to why. Kaluuya gets both the physique and mannerisms of the late revolutionary who tends to choose words over violence in order to get people to join the cause. While Kaluuya gets the most attention from the critics, the rest of the cast is frankly on par with the actor's skills. Lakeith Stanfield as William O'Neal is excellent as he plays the part as the most honest and sympathetic for the tragic figure. Stanfield, through his effortless performance, shows that he believes in Hampton and the movement, but as his handler continues to threaten the young man with jail time and even death, he gets himself between a rock and a hard place.  I also like the decision to not have Hampton and O'Neal be depicted as the best of friends or something along those lines. Not only is it not accurate to real-life, but it would have made the narrative a bit more manipulative and fabricated in nature.The side cast is also spot-on in their performances and portrayals of the real-world people and figures. Jesse Plemons as Roy Mitchell, O'Neal's handler, works so well in manipulating the mole and hiding his emotions regarding what he wants O'Neal to do, despite his disagreement in his superior's orders. Dominique Fishback as Deborah Johnson, Hampton's girlfriend, is very good in the dramatic and tender moments of the film, which is thanks to the real-life person helping Fishback with her performance. Martin Sheen as J. Edgar Hoover is so despicable and slimy with his deep hatred for the Black Panther Party that you want to see him get shot in the face. However, in the real world, some bad people can get away with their crimes. There are also a variety of side characters such as the various BPP members, police and FBI members, but there are too many to list along with the fact that they don't really interact with the overall narrative. Regardless, all of the cast do their best jobs with Kaluuya and Stanfield being the highlights of the otherwise excellent selection of actors.

Shaka King is a fairly new name in the industry with only a few credits in television shows, short films, and a previous directorial debut on an obscure stoner comedy. Despite this only being his second feature film amidst his limited career, King is on the path to be a great director. The recreation of a late 60's Illinois is great in regards to the setting and time. During the day, there's barely any sun or sense of hope as everything is cloudy or grey to emphasize the doomed nature of the story. The nighttime scenes are visually interesting with the uses of shadows and natural lighting, but it also carries a heavy amount of dread as the nighttime scenes tend to offer a higher chance of violence or misfortune. The cinematography by Sean Bobbitt is really good with the use of tracking shots, close-ups and long takes to ensure the biggest amount of visual suspense and drama. The only thing that's truly holding back Bobbitt's camerawork is that some of the tracking shots gets cut short. Even then, the editing by Kristan Sprague is fairy competent for the majority of the film and cut tracking shots might have to be due to pacing issues. The score by Mark Isham and Craig Harris is riveting to say the least with lots of jazz and instrumental inspirations that fit the 60's backdrop compared to an orchestra. This is also topped off by the various songs from the era and the various chants and poems that the party sings to speak their message and rights. Overall, there's nothing to point out about King's filmmaking other than that it's practically flawless.

"Judas and the Black Messiah" might be my favourite film of the 2020 award season contenders and is the one that I'm cheering on the most during the Academy Awards. From the excellent story behind the true events of Hampton's assassination, the gritty and bleak tone that mirrors the relevant themes and message, the entire cast of actors and actresses doing their all with Kaluuya and Stanfield being the best of the best, the nice efforts from Bobbitt's cinematography, Sprague's editing that matches the onscreen intensity, the musical collaborations by Isham and Harris alongside the existing songs and poems from the era, and King's directing not only captures the dreadful atmosphere of the era and setting, but screams tons of quality in every sequence and moment. There are practically no flaws, say for some tracking shots being cut short. It's a film that marks as important viewing for the time we live in post-2020 and I really hope more of you can get to watch it in theatres or on HBO Max.

Verdict: 10/10. A fantastic biopic that joins the ranks of the acclaimed titles of the genre. Here's hoping that it can sweep the Academy Awards next month. 

Ready Player One (2018) Film Review: The Ultimate Crossover That No One Wanted?

 

The book, "Ready Player One", is considered to be a very divisive story for fans and critics. Some people think it's a great throwback adventure for pop-culture while others think it's just fan-service for the sake of weak substance. The mixed reception will pour onto the movie adaptation as prior to the film's release, a lot of disgruntlement was thrown on the film for just using fan-service and references as the hook for a viewer rather than offer something substantial or engaging. Despite the rocky journey, the film managed to be a success at the box office and a sequel based of "Ready Player Two" has now entered development. So, here's the burning question. Was this movie really deserving of the backlash or disinterest? Well, let's jump into the story. It's 2045 and it seems that the general population is all hooked into the OASIS, an ultra VR platform that acts as a video game for both leisure and profit. It just seems far better to be in the virtual world than in the decaying reality that is our world. Wade Watts, a poor yet passioned player, manages to be the first one to receive a key to the easter egg left behind by the deceased creator of the game, James Halliday. Finding the easter egg itself will allow the winner to inherit $500 billion and the ownership of Halliday's company, something that rival CEO of IOI, Nolan Sorrento, wants in order to add more monetization in the OASIS. While Wade gets more popular in the OASIS and develops an interest with a player named Artemis, things start becoming more dangerous as Sorrento is hell-bent on winning the easter egg, even if it means killing Wade himself. The story is essentially a fun, over-the-top adventure and really is all you need. The film tries to offer some sort of depth into the moral or themes of the story by contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of reality and fiction, but the problem is that it's pretty half-assed in that aspect. When it focuses on the tragedy of Halliday, it works. Everyone else though doesn't seem like they earned the moral of the story in regards to why your reality is crucial rather than the online world. It also doesn't help that the movie is almost two-and-a-half hours long. The scenes of "dramatic weight or moral lessons" should just be cut down and just have the film be constantly engaging and fun.The tone reflects the over-the-top story with little to no drama, which sort of works considering the nature of the story and source material. It knows that it's nothing deep or serious and it tries to have fun when it doesn't push some big message of the story.

Wade, played by Tye Sheridan, feels like a mixed-bag of a protagonist. On the one hand, I do think that the ideas of her economic background and his knowledge of pop culture being told more like a academic student rather than a geeked-out nerd sort of works for the world they set up and having him be somewhat capable as the lead character. The problem with Wade though is that not only does the viewer not really gain sympathy for him, but Wade himself makes some questionable and stupid decisions. From telling his name to Artemis to having a weird hate-boner for IOI despite buying their merchandise anyways, it just seems really inconsistent for someone who has been involved in the game for many years. I understand that flawed protagonists can work to be human, but a protagonist having this many flaws just makes him kind of unlikeable in a way. Artemis or Samantha in the real world, played by Olivia Cooke, is a good character harmed by terrible casting. Cooke is by no means a bad actor, but I don't buy how someone like herself be considered an outcast or ugly. If Samantha looked more geeky or average-looking, I think it would be great contrast for the bad-ass, headstrong avatar she created for herself. Ben Mendelsohn as Nolan is just great as he hams up both the stern businessman who is basically EA if the company was a human, and a guy so out of touch with pop culture he has to rely on his co-workers to send him info. I also like his overall idolization with Halliday as he both loathes his former superior and somewhat takes interest in him in trying to solve the easter egg and witnessing Wade achieve said egg. Halliday, played by Mark Rylance, is such a great character in this autistic, socially awkward man who has essentially regretted the choices he's made in real life in regards to his relationships, which is aided by Rylance's fantastic performance. The side characters are pretty good, albeit not super developed. From Lena Withe's Aoch/Helen, T.J Miller's i-R0k, Simon Pegg's Morrow/Curator, to the brothers, Daito/Toshiro and Sho/Zhou, the side cast act as the comic relief that acts as allies for both the heroes and villain who also carry some nice subtlety of their characters or personalities in their performances. While we are on the subject of characters, I will just add all of the cameos and pop-culture references in this area. Despite the marketing and critics acting like the film is nothing but cameos, it's not exactly as distracting or in your face, considering the future setting it takes place in and how so much time has passed that they don't see a select franchise as super relevant to be shoving down your throat. Whatever does take up a bunch of screen-time as a cameo just enhances the movie in a natural way, despite the absurdity of the situation. Overall, I think that the majority of the characters and cameos actually work, aside from Wade's character and role as a protagonist and Samantha being miscast.

Stephen Spielberg makes a grand return to crazy and imaginative filmmaking and world-building after years of polarizing projects and grounded biopics. While the future world of 2045 is a bit uninspired in design, aside from the ghetto neighbourhood known as the Stacks, it's the depiction of the OASIS that really shines in the various roles, activities and portrayals of certain challenges or locations in the virtual world. Regardless of the film being consisted mostly of CGI, you can tell that Spielberg was involved with the film all the way in regards of the visuals, transitions and the sweeping, one-take camerawork by Janusz Kaminski. While the cinematography in the real world feels uninspired compared to that of the OASIS, I think it's completely by Kaminski's design to make the real world feel almost boring and mundane in its ambition compared to the crazy shots and scope of the OASIS. Alan Silvestri pulls off a decent score that, while not "Back to the Future" iconic, still works effectively for the vibe of the movie, especially as he incorporates various tones and themes for certain scenes and callbacks. The soundtrack though is fire with the various 70's/80's hits such as "Blue Monday", "Staying Alive", "We're Not Gonna Take It", etc.  The visual effects are fantastic, albeit in a different matter compared to most films. The CGI used to depict the OASIS isn't realistic by any means, but it's a great design to allow characters and objects of various aesthetics to co-exist with one another. It can't be too realistic for the cartoon characters to look out of place, but it can't be too colourful and exaggerated to have realistic models be out of place. The effects and the design of the OASIS just really works in selling this digital world with a semi-realistic/animated look that can allow characters of any design or creation fit in. As for the action sequences, they can be breath-taking and energizing. The race sequence is a highlight with the lack of music and one-take shots with insanity flowing the streets and track. Gunfights are interesting in the OASIS game design, the hunt for the second key in an iconic film is memorizing, and the final battle is just over-sensory galore. Even the truck chase in the real world works in how it can be high-octane in a different film or tone compared to the vivid insanity offered by the OASIS. Spielberg might be losing his touch in recent years, but this film proves that the master of filmmaking and creativity is still one of the best in the industry.

"Ready Player One" is just a great joyride of fandoms and sci-fi action-adventure lovers. It's not perfect with the weak morals, pacing, Wade being an unlikeable protagonist, and Samantha being poorly cast by Cooke. Despite these issues, the adaptation shines with a fun story and tone, solid performances by Mendelsohn and Rylance, fun group of side characters, cameos and references that are just the right amount of eye-popping distracting, Kaminski's excellent cinematography that sweeps across the OASIS, Silvestri's decent score, the amazing soundtrack of nostalgic pop and rock songs, the CGI being very effective for bringing the OASIS to life, the action sequences being extremely chaotic and engaging, and Spielberg's direction still carrying that whimsy and imaginative way of making films through his world-building and visual storytelling. It's not a deep movie or one that can truly age well in regards to the various pop culture references, but it's impossible not to smile when you're watching throughout the majority of the film.

Verdict: 8/10. Great film to just sit back and have fun, flaws and all. Even if you were a disgruntled critic, you can't deny that there weren't a handful of moments that you enjoyed. 

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) Film Review: Both Fresh And Dated As The 80's In A Good Way...

After many months of lockdowns, the theatres in my city have opened up again since the summer. So, what was the first film I watch in theatres for 2021? Well, it ain't "Tom & Jerry", that's for sure. No, instead I decided to finally watch the long-awaited and polarized sequel to the 2017 blockbuster, "Wonder Woman". I didn't care if it was great or awful, I just wanted to watch a big movie on the big screen and it was a very satisfying experience. More than sixty years has passed since WWI and Diana Prince continues to hide from the world both as Wonder Woman and as herself. When the Smithsonian comes across a mystical artifact known as the Dreamstone, a cursed gem that can grant wishes with a heavy cost, Diana secretly wishes for her deceased lover, Steve Trevor, to come back. While the wish does work, she has become weaker as a result, which is poor timing when a co-worker of hers and a con-man both used the stone to achieve power and potential catastrophic destruction while doing so. The story itself is honestly not that bad as I was kept engaged by the character interactions and rising stakes, despite the lack of action. Yeah, the Dreamstone is an odd plot device and the powers are a bit weird, but it's not that hard to grasp compared to many other elements in notable films or television series. One thing that people have taken note with is the tone. The first film was gritty in its setting and the action set-pieces with the WWI backdrop and the equipment Diana uses in that story. Here, the sequel is not only more lighthearted, but somewhat goofy at times. It's clearly paying homage to both the golden era of the character and the Richard Donner "Superman" films, which does really work for this character and 80's setting. However, I can see how people can be turned off by the sudden shift in tone, which is understandable if one wanted a far more realistic approach to the character. 

Gal Gadot as Diana manages to improve in every appearance as she gets more comfortable in the role. Her accent is not as distracting and I also like the arc she is given to show how she's both flawed and imperfect as a hero and individual. Chris Pine as Steve is fun and wholesome as he gets reintroduced into the modern era. While the circumstances of the character's return is questionable in approach, it does work for the overall moral of the film, which is that life is hard and you just have to move on and be true to yourself. Kristen Wiig as Barbara Minerva/The Cheetah is criticized for her arc being the cliched geek-turned-supervillain due to her rival status with the hero seen in films like "Batman Forever" and "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". However, I actually enjoyed Wiig's performance and character for the most part as she convincingly plays the outcast and the strong, sexy diva who becomes a bit self-absorbed. It's only when she turns into Cheetah that the character is diminished, even though it's only for the third act. The best performance though has got to be Pedro Pascal as Maxwell Lord, a failing business tycoon who uses the Dreamstone's power to bring him good fortune in the hopes to be a good example to his son. Pascal plays the part with so much charisma and sincerity that it's hard not to smile when he is onscreen. While some have complained about his heel-shift turn moment in the end, I personally think it works for the overall theme of the film and is far different from just straight up killing the villain, akin to most superhero films. There aren't really any side characters to bring up, aside from the established Amazon mentors from Diana's past in the opening scene and Maxwell's son, but the whole cast either act really good or ham it up when they need to.

Patty Jenkins continues to shine as a prominent director with her sense of scale and vision. While the first film is effective at showing the beauty and uniqueness of the Amazons and Themyscira contrast to war-torn Europe and the violent bloodshed WWI has created, she allows the sequel to be both light-hearted and dire in the 80's setting with the Cold War still being a looming threat. Unlike "Stranger Things", the film doesn't glorify in the 80's pop culture much and only uses the setting to poke fun, admire and cleverly use the Cold War tension in the story. While the aesthetic and hue is far brighter and vivid compared to the first film with Diana's colourful costume and the bright exterior and interior environments in contrast to the overuse of grey and dirt in WWI, it's not overkill in my opinion and it perfectly reflects the tone and era it's set in. Colours do get muted as the situation in Washington gets more dire, so it doesn't leave out too much of the established hue. The cinematography by Matthew Jensen is just as great from the first film, but is more experimental in placing and spacing, especially in the varied settings of Themyscira, Washington D.C, and Cairo. It can be both grand and cinematic, but also indie and small-scale at the same time. The music by Hans Zimmer is great with the action and dramatic music cues being energizing and powerful. While it's not one of his strongest or most memorable contributions in film, it's still a solid demonstration from the talented composer. The visual effects isn't the most polished, considering the film's inspirations of the Donner films and the overall tonal shift, but it's not awful CGI. It just makes certain scenes and shots goofy in execution such as Diana running or the exaggerated lasso movements. The action sequences are pretty fun for the most part as Diana uses her tiana and lasso rather than a sword and shield in combat. Some people might prefer the more gritty and brutal aspect of her abilities, particularly in the first film, but I find the action scenes to be good, regardless if it's just tossing people around. While the action sequences seem to get better and better as the film progresses, the final battle between Diana and Cheetah is extremely underwhelming. From the goofy design of the feline villain, to the lowered sense of scale, to the very dark environment, it makes the climax of "Venom" look like the "Battle of Wakanda" from "Avengers: Infinity War". Despite the underwhelming final battle, it doesn't mean that Jenkins and the overall filmmaking is extremely competent.

"Wonder Woman 1984" is frankly a really good follow-up and entry for the iconic female superhero. While there are some issues in relation to the shift of tone, the Dreamstone as a plot device, the effects, and the final battle with Cheetah being problematic at times, I actually managed to stay invested in the film. This is mainly from the riveting story and moral, the tone being enjoyable regardless of how different it is, Gadot and Pine are wholesome as a onscreen duo, Wiig and Pascal are great as individual villains with understandable motives and personalities, Jensen's cinematography is gorgeous at times much like the previous film, Zimmer's score seems effortless in its execution, the actions sequences are hectic and creative for the most part, and Jenkin's directing uses the 80's setting to both have a pleasant yet grounded aesthetic with the advancement of society and the Cold War along with the downplaying elements of the pop culture references that take over majority of films and shows set during that decade. Could the film have been far better? Of course. But, is it really as bad as disgruntled fans make it out to be? Obviously no.

Verdict: 7.5/10. A pretty good superhero adventure, but one that could have been more balanced for various fans and viewers. Check it out in theatres if possible or on streaming services!