Zootopia (2016) Film Review: More Than Just Furry Bait...

 

I haven't exactly been enjoying Disney as of late. From "Star Wars" to Marvel and their live-action remakes, the company has been releasing some pretty mediocre films or even bad ones as of late, with Pixar still being the only studio that has made mostly fantastic films for the past few years. Even their own animation studios has slumped into a stage of laziness with bad sequels and underwhelming new IPs. With all of that said, there's still potential for the studio to win me back as their last great film was only released five years ago. Said film just so happens to become a cultural phenomenon and launched a new wave a furries at the same time. Judy Hopps has always dreamed of becoming a police officer in the mega-metropolis known as Zootopia, a city known for the wide diversity of animals of all shapes and sizes living together in one community. While she has achieved her dream job, she is disappointed for being forced as a meter maid because she's the first bunny cop in the force. When various cases of missing predators begin to pile, Judy puts her job on the line to prove that she can solve at least one of the cases with the help of a con-artist fox named Nick Wilde. Little do the two know that the case will dive into a larger conspiracy that is tied into the division of predator and prey. In terms of the detective storyline, the film actually does a reasonable job in keeping things a mystery with twists and turns for both kids and adults. However, the film didn't get its praise for just being a good detective story as it's the themes of racism and prejudice that really speaks for itself. It may seem a bit too heavy-handed and preachy, but considering how ignorant a ton of people can be, the movie does, for the most part, a fantastic job on depicting prejudice in a realistic matter. The only issue with tackling this heavy subject matter is that the ending feels a bit too happy and anti-climatic when it comes to making things go back to the status quo. The movie isn't all about the deep message and drama, as it's also an energetic comedy where the jokes land quite a bit thanks to the personality and animation of the characters. The only problem with the humour is that there's way too many puns involving animals for my liking and some of them don't even make sense half the time like the "Zuber" ad.

Judy, voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin, is one of Disney's best animated protagonists to date, which is thanks to the loveable personality and growth of the character. Quirks such as her range of expressions, taking pride in her meter maid position, fast-planning, and selflessness actually makes Judy a great animated role model of sorts along with Goodwin's perfect vocal performance. Nick, voiced by Jason Bateman, almost rivals Judy in the same department. From his snarky comebacks, his underestimation of Judy as a cop, and his usefulness in solving the case, Nick is just as prominent and loveable as Judy. The chemistry between Judy and Nick is also just perfect with the two constantly upping one another and growing to care for each other as friends, so much so that many fans would ship them(I'm not one of them). Aside from Judy and Nick, the rest of the film offers a large cast of side characters, both reoccurring and one-scene wonders. From Chief Bogo, Judy's brutish police captain, Benjamin Clawhauser, the fat, upbeat desk sergeant, Stu and Bonnie Hopps, the "supportive" parents of Judy, Lionheart, the mayor of Zootopia, Mr. Big, a mobster shrew who parodies "The Godfather", Flash, Nick's sloth friend who works at the DMV, and Gazelle, who is just Shakira as a gazelle. These characters alone barely scratch the surface of how many side characters there are. The only character to really go in depth about aside of Nick and Judy is Dawn Bellwether, the assistant mayor to Lionheart and the film's twist villain, voiced by Jenny Slate. While I do think Bellwether works fine as a villain in terms of the film's themes, the really late reveal makes her a bit hard to take seriously as a threat. Despite the lackluster twist villain, the large cast of memorable side characters and the fantastic lead duo of Judy and Nick gives the film, well, a lot of character.

Disney typically has two different types of animation in their movies. Depending on the film and tone, they are either more realistic in textures and character movement with a set colour palette or they are more cartoonish in design and movement while offering a more vivid colour palette. "Zootopia" is one of the more unique entries as even though the film is more on the comedic side and the characters are all anthropomorphic animals, the strong message and relatable characters offer a blend of both cartoony fun and maturity. This blend is also present in the animation. The first thing that grabs your attention is the city of Zootopia itself, which is both widely creative in design yet looks like a functioning world despite the various ecosystems and sizes of the various inhabitants. The designs are also a mix of hyper-realism and simplistic as the textures of each animal feels life-like withe the individual fur and cloth threads, yet the animals themselves are designed in a cartoonish way that makes them feel just enough like their real-life counterparts. The character animation switches back and forth on realistic and silly, depending if there's action involved. So, all of the characters have far more relaxed and somber movements, but can become zany and over-the-top if need be. The use of colours is also breath-taking as the world just glows with colour. Daytime is bright and yellow, while nighttime is atmospheric and somber. The colour also affects the mood of the characters as the light-hearted and comedic sequences are full of life while the slower and dramatic moments are subdued of colour or overcome with darkness. The score by Micheal Giacchino is by no means his best, but it's quite upbeat and loose. It's pretty good for the movie as a whole, it's just that Giacchino has made more recognizable music in the past. The original song by Shakira, "Try Everything", is honestly pretty nice to listen to. It fits both the artist and the film's identity nicely to a fault, even if it's no classic from the legendary artist. Overall, the animation is simply the perfect blend of fast-paced, cartoony animation and grounded, hyper-realism.

"Zootopia" manages to be one of my favourites from Disney for a large list of reasons. The story is engaging as a detective mystery, the boldness to tackle race and prejudice in a mature and accessible way, the charm and humour, Judy is one of, if not, the best protagonist in a Disney movie for various reasons, Nick is just as great as the rabbit's foil and partner, the chemistry between Judy and Nick is wholesome and hilarious, the large side cast are capable of stealing entire scenes due to their comedy or vocal performance, the vivid animation is brilliant with the blend of cartoonish and realism in terms of character animation and textures, and the score by Giacchino is good right alongside Shakira's single. The only issues the film carries is that the multitude of puns can be too much at times, Bellwether as the twist villain serves as a mixed bag in regards to the impact of the character in exchange for the message of the film, and the ending of the film in general eliminates the tension raised unrealistically quickly due to the majority of Disney films needing a super-happy ending. Despite the few missteps, this is as close to a masterpiece you can get from modern Disney and I just hope that the studio can just continue to make films on the same par rather than lazy sequels and uneven stand-alone features.

Verdict: 9/10. Almost perfection if the powerful themes resulted in a powerful ending. Still destined to be a modern classic in the medium.   

Iron Man (2008) Film Review: The Film That Crafted An Empire...

 

The MCU is a juggernaut in the film industry with more than twenty-three films and counting with no signs of slow-down. As much as I had my issues and concerns with the franchise, I will admit that there are a few films I do tend to go back to rewatch. One of these is the film that started it all. Tony Stark is the CEO of Stark Industries, a weapons contractor inherited from his deceased father. While Tony is a gifted inventor, he spends more time as a playboy celebrity than a responsible leader. When he gets kidnapped and threatened by a terrorist group known as the Ten Rings who demand for him to make a deadly missile, Tony builds a protective armoured suit to escape the facility and reach back to civilization. After the realization of Stark weapons being used by enemy forces across the world, Tony ceases all weapons development much to the dismay of his manager, Obadiah Stane. However, despite the executive decision, Tony continues to improve on his brand new invention in secret for his quest to save the people. The story is pretty good for an origin-centric film based on the character as plenty of things happen during the film in a reasonable pace. Aside from S.H.I.E.L.D, there's barely any plug-ins for future films and the stand-alone nature feels like a huge breath of fresh air in contrast to the franchise it would spawn. The tone establishes the "MCU formula" with a mix of seriousness and heavy doses of comedy. Although the comedy isn't as effective when compared to other films of the franchise, it works decently enough along with the more intense sequences of Tony's imprisonment by the terrorists.

Robert Downey Jr literally is Iron Man in every sense of the world. The washed-up actor became a A-list overnight thanks to his improve and characterization of Tony Stark by making him a snarky philanthropist who is a larger-than-life character and womanizer. He's the definition of a loveable asshole thanks both to Downey's performance and the arc given to the character. Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts is also really likeable as the personal assistant and love interest for Tony. Their chemistry is perfect in that they don't make it overly-romantic or cliched in that they make the two kiss or get together as their roles make the blossoming romance hard to achieve. Terence Howard as James Rhodes in his only film in the franchise is honestly pretty good as Tony's best friend. While I like Don Cheadle in the later films, he never felt natural in regards to Howard's laid-back performance. Jeff Bridges does a great job as Obadiah Stane, Tony's manager and father figure who wants to replicate Tony's suit. While Bridges is a talented actor and makes Obadiah a natural mentor and rival of Tony, the character itself gets hijacked to be more evil and over-the-top by the end of the film, which avoids the character from going down as one of the best villains of the franchise. The side cast is fairly minimal surprisingly. Shaun Toub as Yinsen is a nice dramatic role in the first act of the film, Paul Bettany is enjoyable as the A.I known as J.A.R.V.I.S and Clark Gregg makes his iconic debut as Agent Phil Coulson. Leslie Bibb's Christine Everhart is a pretty obnoxious character as the film continues to make her relevant after the scene she and Tony smashed. And then there's the Ten Rings terrorist organization. Completely unrelated to the Mandarin from the comics, the Ten Rings are now just basic Arabic terrorists that reflect the War on Terror era. While it works fair enough for the origin, it really dates the movie in depicting these people as evil bad guys. Overall, the cast is fairly strong with great performances all around with Downey clearly making his most defining role of his career in this debut.

Jon Favreau is one of Disney's most prized directors and from his various works, you can see why. His job on "Iron Man" however might be not only be his best, but his most unique to date. While a large majority of the MCU films will look and act more cinematic or polished, Favreau embraces the era the film was made in. The film feels fairly independent rather than a big-budget superhero film, instead looking like a spruced-up television series aesthetically. The film almost feels as if Tony was behind the camera in its presentation and mid-2000's angst. While the editing by Dan Lebenthal is pretty solid for the majority of the film, there are some questionable choices throughout the film. The movie begins with Tony being captured by the terrorists only to show what happened a few days ago anyway, almost as if they believe audiences aren't patient to see an explosion anymore then two minutes in the film. There are also some uncalled cuts and transitions, particularly the scene where Pepper first finds out about Tony's invention. The cinematography by Matthew Libatique fits accordingly to Favreau's aesthetic of the film by having this digital look and almost handheld aesthetic to the scenes where it feels like we are with Tony throughout the film. The music by Ramin Djawadi is all rock music and guitar strings to make Tony feel like a rock star. While a superhero theme attached to the character could have been appreciated, it's still a good choice for the movie along with various songs used throughout such as "Back in Black" by AC/DC and "Iron Man" by Black Sabbath. The visual effects hold up extremely well almost fifteen years later. Not only is it because the CGI is polished and detailed, but the suits presented were sometimes there. This was actually one of the last films Stan Winston worked on before he died, gifting the film to have physical suits Downey can wear in contrast to the CGI creations in later films. The action sequences are also pretty solid with the escape from the terrorists being a horror-esque scene of the terrorists unable to kill the armoured Tony, the use of the MKIII suit on the terrorists and aerial dogfight, and the climatic showdown between Tony and Obadiah in their respective suits. While the effects and action are engaging, the only issue is that they feel kind of short in regards to the runtime and pace. The action sequences lack a sense of adrenaline or momentum in a way in that they leave the viewer breathless in a way. So, although the action is enjoyable, it doesn't carry that wow factor future films or even previous superhero films have achieved. Then again, this could be all due to Favreau's direction of keeping things grounded and minimal by focusing on Tony as a character rather than the superhero spectacle. 

"Iron Man" is a fairly strong start to the juggernaut that is the MCU. While it has a few issues here and there from Obadiah's progression as the villain, some odd decisions given for Christine and the Ten Rings, the editing by Lebenthal and the action sequences lacking momentum, they barely dent the impervious quality of the film. The story is extremely well-paced for the most part, the tone is just a nice blend of comedy and the serious narrative, Downey is perfect as Tony, the chemistry between Tony and Pepper is very charming and fresh, the side cast is performed greatly by their respective actors, the camerawork by Libatique makes you feel up close and personal with the characters, the score by Djawadi is completely characteristic of the titular character, the CGI holds up like aged wine, the practical effects for the suits and arc reactor from Winston is a nice touch of old-style filmmaking in this franchise, the action sequences are still entertaining when put in a vacuum, and Favreau's directing style makes the unique choice of having the film feel like a product of its time and having a television show approach to the narrative and aesthetic. It's not the best from the respective franchise, but if given a rewrite and tone-up, it would almost be. I'm still surprised to enjoy the film as much as I did, even when I'm not a huge fan of the MCU.

Verdict: 8/10. Great superhero film by itself and one of the best in the MCU personally. Give it a rewatch and see how things were both simple and different back then for this franchise.

Freaky (2020) Film Review: Funny Is More Like It...

 

Blumhouse Productions usually puts out two types of horror films. The serious ones with tons of crappy jump-scares or the goofy concepts taken with some seriousness while putting comedy alongside. Horror-comedies as a whole aren't common with the studio, except for the ones made by Christopher Landon, a longtime writer and director who has made the"Happy Death Day" films. Although the sequel did stumble in places, Landon got back up on his feet by trying the same horror twist on another comedy classic. Millie Kessler is the typical outcast in high school due to her reclusive nature that was caused by her father's death a year ago. When a notorious serial killer known as "The Blissfield Butcher" tries to kill her the night before homecoming, the two swap bodies the following day. Millie now has to deal with the killer's reputation and get her friends to trust her while the Butcher is enjoying the ability to kill others without raising suspicion. Much like Landon's previous works, the premise is more or less the real hook of the movie rather than the overall narrative. The story has plenty of issues to make fun of, with a key example being the Aztec dagger that swaps the character's bodies being translated by someone speaking Spanish. However, the film is aware that there's a lot of nonsensical aspects to the story and it's really hoping viewers just look past it and have fun, which it manages to succeed in for the most part. The tone is obviously more on the comedic side with the various references to popular horror films as well as the chemistry between the characters. While not all of the jokes work, a good portion do.

Vince Vaughn is hands-down the best actor in the movie. His sheer height and menace makes him a pretty threatening villain, but his transformation to the insecure Millie is simply excellent and allows him to offer his comedic talents and energy to the film. Kathryn Newton is good as the cliched role of Millie, but her transformation to the Butcher is really good as Newton has to rely on her body language and facial expressions rather than relaying on dialogue much. The side characters are also enjoyable for the most part. Celeste O'Conner's Nyla is good as Millie's supportive friend, while Misha Osherovich's Josh is fantastic as the very gay and horny best friend of Millie. Katie Finneran as Millie's depressed mother is great given her limited appearance, and Uriah Shelton's Booker makes for a decent love interest for Millie with an interesting turn in his character. While there are plenty of enjoyable characters, there are also a fair share of unlikeable ones. Char, Millie's cop sister, is pretty annoying as she barely acts like a good officer and the chemistry with her and Millie is not as strong compared to Millie and her mother. There's also the various bullies and victims of the Butcher that get killed off during the film. While the actors and actresses are doing a good job, those characters are written to be complete assholes to cheer on their deaths. Even though their writing works fine for the result, some like Millie's wood-shop teacher and the jocks go overboard in how overly despicable they are. Regardless, the main cast of characters are pretty entertaining with Vaughn stealing the entire film as his role of Millie in the Butcher's body.

Landon's directing is not overly ambitious or stylized, but it's completely serviceable for the type of movies he makes. The fictional town of Blissfield is well-established as a feasible location that feels natural and homey for both the characters and viewers. Landon knows how to have this sense of warmth and glow in the daytime scenes and heavy use of shadows and natural lighting in the nighttime scenes. The standout locations have got to be the haunted-themed mini-putt course and the rave in the old mill with the use of vivid colours. The cinematography by Laurie Rose is pretty standard for the most part, although there are some nice use of angles and zoom-outs every now and then. The music by Bear McCreary offers a decent score that borders on traditional horror music one would come to expect, but the dramatic music that plays whenever Millie is feeling happy or sad is way too sappy, even for me. The practical effects and gore is great with some creative kills and very low uses of CGI, aside from a weird moment during the initial stab between Millie and the Butcher. Considering that this is Landon's first R-rated film, I hope he continues to make more to have more outlandish kills and effects. Overall, Landon's directing isn't mind-blowing stuff for the genre, but it's pretty good overall.

"Freaky" is a decent horror-comedy that might have even been one of the best if more things were tweaked. The story has its fair share of issues, not every joke lands, Char and the victims are pretty unlikeable, and the camerawork and score from Rose and McCreary are decent, but could have been improved on. Despite this, I won't lie that I had a lot of fun with the movie. The premise is as entertaining as it could get, the tone is wonderfully light-hearted and comedic while also serving as a love letter to the horror genre, Vaughn is amazing as Millie in the Butcher's body, Newton is great as the silent and intimidating Butcher in Millie's body, the side characters are memorable with good performances all around, the gore and kills are both well-made and creative by the use of prosthetics and witty writing, and Landon's direction is great at creating otherwise homey environments that are overcome by a sense of dread and use of colour/lighting. Even though a rewrite or a touch more creativity on certain elements could be appreciated, I think Landon is on the right track in his vision and career. 

Verdict: 7.5/10. Pretty good, but had potential to be even better than it already is. Hopefully the proposed sequel could still happen with Landon on board. 

Jurassic Park (1993) Film Review: A Classic Nearly Thirty Years In The Making...

 

Steven Spielberg has made hit after hit and fans constantly debate what is his best film to date. While "Jaws", "Indiana Jones" and "Schindler's List" get thrown around a lot, it's his 1993 blockbuster that is mostly bought up as the best of the best. Based on the best-selling novel, the film follows palaeontologist Dr. Alan Grant and his girlfriend, Dr. Ellie Sattler, are approached by John Hammond, an eccentric industrialist who invites the couple to endorse his brand new theme park while providing them three additional years of finances for their research. As the three, alongside mathematician Dr. Ian Malcom, lawyer Donald Gennaro and Hammond's own grandkids, the group travel to Isla Numbar, a remote island in the pacific that is home to Jurassic Park, a theme park that utilizes living dinosaurs thanks to cloning and scientific breakdowns. While Hammond is thrilled to soon launch the park to open for the public, the group is conflicted on the ethics and potential dangers of bringing dinosaurs back to life. Their concerns are made apparent when the safety measures are sabotaged during their tour and deadly raptors and a T-Rex are on the loose. While the story is for the most part really engaging with the world-building, the nonsense science, and the characters being fairly realistic in their reactions and concerns, the film has plenty of odd plot holes and concerns. From the massive pit that appears in the T-Rex habitat, the majority of the crew going off the island for no reason, raptors being smart to open doors, T-Rex's can't see non-moving targets, shotguns being loaded with slugs, and Sattler being separated from the tour due to an unresolved plot point of the sick triceratops, there are a lot of weird plot elements or conveniences in the story that prevents it from being perfect. Some might say that these oddities help aid the film in its charm or necessity for certain sequences, but it does feel scatter-minded at times. With that said though, the film has the excellent tone Spielberg's family films are known for. It's filled with wonder, amazement, adventure and light-hearted fun, but it also contains raw intense thrills, horror-esque visuals and jumpscares, haunting deaths that you can get away for the PG rating, and the overall ideological warfare and commentary the characters are engaged in with the idea of bringing dinosaurs back to life. 

Sam Neill as Alan Grant is his best role to date thanks to his performance and how much range he has. He has the wonder of a child upon seeing dinosaurs, but he doesn't like children. He's pretty serious in regards to his work and studies, but likes to joke around on occasion. It's just a charming character all around. Speaking of charm, Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcom is practically oozing charisma in every scene. Goldblum nails down this cool, swab cynical theorist that offers both great bits of humour and interesting themes in regards to his occupation and viewpoints. The late Richard Attenborough is iconic as John Hammond, who is eccentric in his dream project that it blinds his judgement on the ethics and morality of the situation. Laura Dern as Ellie Sattler is a mixed bag. While I do like her chemistry with the main cast and her caring nature for the dinosaurs, the film tries a bit too hard in making her some prevalent action girl and harms the character by her constant screaming and a weird moment where she calls Hammond sexist for wanting to turn the power on. The side cast on the other hand is just as prevalent as the main stars in their performances and memorability. Bob Peck is fun as Muldoon, the English game hunter who fears the intelligence of the raptors, Samuel L. Jackson as Arnold, the chief engineer who is trying to fix the power and security of the park, Wayne Knight plays both a comical and villainous role as Nedry, the computer programer who sabotages Jurassic Park in an attempt to make millions off of frozen embryos and leave the island undetected, and Martin Ferrero as Gennaro, the stick-in-the-mud lawyer who is excited for the massive profits the park will create. The last characters to mention are Hammond's grandchildren, Tim and Lex Murphy. While I do like the kids being involved to aid Grant's arc of overcoming his hatred for kids and Tim is enjoyable as wanting to talk to and be like his idol, Lex is a bit problematic. She screams too much, is constantly bullied by everyone, makes the dumb decision to use a flashlight on a T-rex, and her computer hacking skills are only brought up to use by the end in such a silly visualization in making the task to turn on the power of the island look like a video game. Overall, the majority of the cast is great with their memorable performances and characterizations, with the female characters taking the short stick of being on par with the males.

Spielberg's talent as a director reached his peak with this film. Aside of some odd editing by Micheal Khan that cuts scenes short, Spielberg excels in every level. The film offers both gorgeous daylight sequences with lush greens and blues, while also having horrific imagery of a stormy night with a T-Rex stomping about. The titular park itself looks and functions very much as if it can be a real theme park aside from the dinosaurs. The PG-rating does feel like it restricts some bloody deaths, but Spielberg knows how to create horror scenes from limited uses of gore and perfect use of the unknown, where the inability to see the threat is more scary than seeing it. The cinematography by Dean Cundey is great stuff from the aerial shots, pans, and building suspense little by little. The score by John Williams is simply iconic. While I personally like his work on the sequel, I love how he enforces the more majestic and wonder aspects of the film in the main theme, while smaller beats are used for action moments and horror scenes use literally no music to maximize on the terror. The ground-breaking CGI still holds up for the most part, with only a few fuzzy shots every now and then. It's the animatronics by the late Stan Winston however that really make the dinosaurs stand out. While the CGI helps in the more expressive sequences, it's the ambition of Winston to try and prioritize on animatronic dinosaurs that look life-like with the T-Rex being his biggest achievement in his lifelong career. As for the thrilling and suspenseful sequences, they all hit around the park for the most part. Aside from the screaming and weird contrived aspects such as the pit, door handles and hacking, the sequences themselves are still effective due to the effort put into the effects, performances and directing by the talented Spielberg.

"Jurassic Park" is not a perfect movie or even Spielberg's best film overall. The story does contains a ton of weird elements and questions and the female characters are not really well-written and manage to just make them annoying or weak. With that said, everything else about the film is excellent. The story is engaging despite the weird writing, the tone is the perfect balance of child-friendly and mature, the male leads are extremely likeable and charismatic, the side cast make just as strong of an impression as the leads, Cundey's camerawork is on sync with his director's key vision, the score by Williams is beautiful in its somber and upbeat renditions of the main theme, the CGI is still really good to this day, the animatronics are masterfully engineered by Winston, the action/suspense scenes are still thrilling, and Spielberg's direction allows both a visually endearing film that brings the park and the horrors it contains to life. I know some people might be upset that I didn't think this is a flawless masterpiece, but a film doesn't have to be perfect to be a classic. 

Verdict: 8.5/10. A great film from the talented Spielberg that will continue to go down in history, flaws and all.

The Croods (2013) Film Review: When Heavy-Fisted Drama Harms An Otherwise Hilarious Family Flick...

 

Dreamworks Animation has quite a few franchises under their belts that have achieved a multitude of fans. From "Shrek", "Kung Fu Panda", "How To Train Your Dragon", "Madagascar", to "Trolls", there's a ton of love given to these franchises. However, there is one that doesn't receive as much attention or praise, which is "The Croods". In fact, the first film alone is one of the most slept-upon entries of the entire studio filmography. But, why is that? Well, let's first go over the story. It's the Stone Age and one family is out in the barren desert scavenging for food and surviving the various animals and inhabitants. Eep, a teenaged girl, is tired of her father, Grug, being overprotective for her and the rest of the family. After finding a teenaged survivalist named Guy, she and her family learn of an apocalyptic event known as "The End" that will destroy their home as they know it. As the group venture into a vibrant world filled with never-before-seen creatures, Eep and Guy start getting closer, much to Grug's disapproval. While the story is pretty predictable and does go through plenty of familiar paths and outcomes, I wouldn't mind so much if the tone was pitch-perfect. However, the film tries too hard to deliver on the dramatic moments rather than go full-out on a comedic adventure. This was co-directed by Chris Sanders, who is best known for "Lilo & Stitch" and "How To Train Your Dragon", animated films with lots of comedy, but good dramatic narratives. What makes these films work is that the former has a rather unique dramatic thread that is evenly spaced-out in a fun sci-fi romp, while the latter has a fairly typical coming-of-age story tied to the unique world established in the film. The problem with "The Croods" is not because the dramatic thread is generic per se, but it doesn't feel fresh for the setting and overarching narrative in comparison. On top of that, the dramatic sequences are so stretched-out that it slows down the pace and kills a comedic rise from the viewer. Speaking of which, the comedy is practically what's holding the film high-up from the average Dreamworks film. From the slapstick gags, character interaction, visual humour, and a slight dark edge overall, the comedy is effective both for kids and adults and is what the film should have really pushed in the long run. Some people don't like modern caveman technology humour, but I think it's cute. Again, the dramatic weight isn't awful, but it shifts away from how great the comedy can be due to how stretched-out it is.

When it comes to the protagonist, Grug, voiced by Nicholas Cage, is the one who has a ton of growth and screentime in regards to the rest of the cast. Even though the character is the typical overprotective father who hates danger and Guy's advancements on Eep, Cage has such great charisma that it makes Grug an enjoyable sight. It also helps that the character does manage to grow and evolve as the film progresses. Eep, voiced by Emma Stone, is kind of the secondary protagonist and is the rebellious teenage daughter who wants to live her life to the fullest. What keeps her from being a bad trope is both Stone's performance and the chemistry she shares between Grug and Guy. Guy, voiced by Ryan Reynolds, is the inventive leader who Grug become envious of while having a cute romance with Eep. Guy probably has the most character in the film since he has a range of personality from being the comic relief, the outsider witnessing the Croods as a family, the smartest in the group, and the piece that connects Eep and Grug back together. The rest of the family unit is where the characters begin to fall more on the generic side. Ugga, voiced by Catherine Keener, is the supportive wife and mother, Thunk, voiced by Clark Duke, is the dumb younger brother of Eep, Sandy is the feral toddler who acts more like a dog than a kid, and Gran, voiced by the late Cloris Leachman, is Grug's mother-in-law that he wants to die one day due to how sarcastic and demeaning she can be. These characters do manage to work when the comedy is in the forefront, but they don't really have a role in the story aside of just filling in the family unit. I could touch upon the animal characters such as Belt and Chunky the Death Cat, but they mainly serve as comic relief or world-building as almost all of the animals aside from Belt are a blend of two random animals that add to the vibrant and creativity of the world. Overall, the characters are well-voiced and serve really well for the comedic nature of the film, but aside from Grug, Eep, and Guy, the rest of the family are just archetypes hanging around to not contribute much to the story.

The animation is where things get a bit interesting as it's both really good and uncanny. In regards to the backgrounds and setting of the world, it's fantastic. I love how the colour is nonexistent in the first act aside from a few varied animals that pop out in the grey, barren desert. But once the jungle is introduced, the colour becomes extremely vibrant, almost as if you're starting to watch a different movie. The animation really plays around with both the unique range of colours to reflect the mood and atmosphere, while also offering great amounts of detail and textures that makes the world feel almost real at times. The wildlife that roams in the world is sort of like a child's imagination come to life, but allow each animal, no matter how weirdly designed, have specific movements and behaviour. But then there's the character animation for the humans. Because of the heavy-fisted drama that's present in the film, they decided to use motion-capture to record the movement and actions of the human characters to make them feel real in the otherwise fantasy world. The problem with this decision is that their designs don't gel with their movement. The characters have exaggerated features on their face and body and the realistic actions feel out-of-place for these designs. On top of that, they try to push a bit of these realistic textures on the character's skin. Again, this wouldn't be so bad if the character designs were completely different to suit the sense of realism. The score by Alan Silvestri is at least fairly decent. There are some decent tracks that taps into the upbeat antics or dramatic sequences that manage to sound distinct from Silvestri's usual works.

"The Croods" is probably the most divisive of the Dreamworks library, because there's so much good elements that has awkward execution. The premise works fine comedically, the comedy in general is really good when prevalent, Grug, Eep, and Guy are well-established and developed as characters, the voice cast as a whole is really charismatic and funny, the animation aside from the characters is generally fantastic from the vivid use of colours, mood and unique world-building with the various animals, and Silvestri's score is memorable at times. However, the story itself is fairly generic as an adventure/disaster movie goes, the overbearing amount of dramatic scenes that go on for too long slows the film and comedy momentum to a halt, the rest of the Crood family don't really grow much as archetypes and mainly serve as comic relief and follow the leader, and the character movements and polish don't gel at all with the cartoony aesthetic of the character designs. Overall, your enjoyment of the film depends on how much patience or acceptance you have towards the pace and overuse of a generic drama story thrown into an otherwise entertaining movie. If you want a great animated movie with a balance of wonderful storytelling and drama, this will appear too generic for you. If you do want a movie that has plenty of comedy and colourful animation, this will really work if you can accept the weird character animation. 

Verdict: 6/10. Above average for Dreamworks standards, but it will heavily depend on what type of film you want out of it.

Bon Cop, Bad Cop (2006) Film Review: Could've Been Better, Eh?

 

Canadian films always seem to have one great flaw in their identity, which is their lack of one. For one reason or another, Canadian films never embrace their own country or culture, instead going for stories that feel universal by not making Canada stand out in the background. Very few films try to break the mold and this buddy-cop, action flick seemed to have done it, being the most lucrative film in the Canadian box-office, which isn't saying much given the population of the country. When a murder victim is laid on the Ontario-Quebec border, two detectives from both provinces are forced to work on the case. Both officers can't stand each other as the Quebecious, David Bouchard, is too reckless and a loose cannon compared to the Ontarian, Martin Ward. The two have to work together though in order to stop a killing spree that has to deal with the most beloved Canadian past-time, hockey. Despite the large Canadian influence on the setting and narrative, it's your typical buddy-cop formula where the two leads hate each other, but grow to accept one another as partners. It doesn't help that the villain's motivation, which I will get into later, is too weak and silly to take seriously in contrast to the grounded reality and better films of the genre. The story and set-up feels more akin to a television show rather than a two-hour movie due to its poor pacing. Well, as long as the film delivers on the laughs, it can make up for the lackluster narrative, right? Not really. While there are a few laughs to be had, there's not enough momentum with the comedy and it all depends on the subject matter of the jokes. When it focuses on the Ontario-Quebec language banter, it works, but only Canadians or those who understand their history and politics would understand the humour. Remove that out, it really relies on awkward humour or misplaced delivery. 

The characters in buddy-cop films tend to save their respective films, aside from the action, comedy and filmmaking. Thankfully, the protagonists are likeable enough to see them together on screen, but that's all you can really say about the cast. David Bouchard, played by Patrick Huard, is the hot-headed Montreal resident who tends to break the rules while trying to be a good father to his daughter. Martin Ward, played by Colm Feroe, is the straight-collar Toronto officer who follows the rules and lives with his teenaged son and attractive sister. Again, these roles are pretty generic for this type of movie, but it's Huard and Feroe's performances that manage to offer some believable chemistry and banter while fitting their respective characters quite well. It's a bit weird that both characters are bilingual despite the satirical concept of the film, but it makes perfect sense for officers in both provinces to know both English and French. For the villains, there's Sylvain Marcel as Luc Therrin, a disgruntled former hockey player who seeks revenge against his employers while wearing horror-esque hockey masks. While Marcel works well for the side-villain as his motivation and comedic offerings flow naturally, it's Patrice Belanger's Tattoo Killer that really sinks the overall murder mystery and plot as a whole. The Tattoo Killer is revealed to be some geeky loser who hates how the not-NHL is selling off great players and teams to the U.S as it's ruining the great game and Canadian nature of hockey. While the character is meant to be satirical and one that can be viewed in a meta lens, he's still not a good villain as his motivations seem too goofy for the otherwise grounded reality the film sets itself in. Aside from that, the side characters offer the bare minimum. The two captains of the respective provinces as well as the coroner are just here for comedy sake, Buttman is just a parody of an actual person and being a joke for his height and name, the teenaged daughter and son of the lead characters do absolutely nothing aside from the daughter being kidnapped during the climax, the ex-wife of Bouchard is just there to get angry at Bouchard for their daughter getting kidnapped, and Ward's sister is there to be hot and have a clever sex scene with Bouchard while Ward is fighting Luc downstairs. The only side character I think is actually well-done is Tom Berry, a parody of hockey commentator, Don Cherry, played by Rick Mercer. He's only in two scenes, but he does the comedic/angry rants to great effect and the scene with him and the lead characters while the Tattoo Killer calls in is pretty funny. Aside from that, the actors and actresses do their roles fine, but it's only Bouchard, Ward, Therrin, and Cherry that really grab your attention.

Erik Canuel may get himself credit for making a Canadian action film that's also bilingual, which is a rarity of the films produced from the country, but that's all you can really say about it. While not horrible, Canuel's directing is pretty amateur and feels TV-show quality at times. This is evident when you notice the limited budget onscreen. The NHL and its respective hockey teams are not represented by their real names or logos, but by these weird parodies and knock-off logos. The various news stations are also like this with one even having the IOI logo for some reason. While the film is proud to say it is set in both Toronto and Montreal, the film never feels like it's set in these cities. Aside from a few montages showing off the cityscape and the climax set on the Old Port in Montreal, the characters never explore their cities or walk around a notable neighbourhood or park. Once again, this might be due to budget constraints, but it leaves a sour taste in my mouth as I really want to see cities from my country properly represented and exposed. The cinematography by Bruce Chun also feels really cheap and bland as there's way too much panning or shaky cam involved. It also makes every scene, even if it's an exterior, feel like it's shot on a set. The music by Michel Corriveau is so generic-sounding it's pathetic. Whenever an action sequence begins, the score is trying way too hard to appear like it's really epic or awesome that what you're seeing onscreen. The soundtrack at least does offer some decent French rock songs, but it's strangely missing English songs. Budget issues or favouritism? The action sequences are fairly unimaginative in regards to the fights, shootouts and chases. Aside from a scene where Bouchard is evading a fire with a bathtub and the aforementioned sex/fight scene, the action is really underwhelming and uninspired. The worst thing about the filmmaking by far however is the editing by Jean-Francois Bergeron. Imagine the worst aspects of digital editing from the 2000's era from infamous movies and music videos and multiply it tenfold. While the sex/fight scene along with a few transitions are actually well edited, the rest of the movie is just awfully paced or feature abrupt scenes, transitions or movements. The movie literally ends right when the villain dies with no epilogue or resolution to the characters and family drama. Like, the editing is really that bad, and it really dates the movie along with the grungy, digital look the film carries. Again, I appreciate Canuel's efforts, but that's all I can appreciate from him.

"Bon Cop, Bad Cop" is such an unfortunate film to talk about. From the cookie-cutter buddy cop story, the jokes that miss more than they hit, the Tattoo Killer is a laughably stupid villain conceptually, the side cast are either pointlessly there or comic relief that are lucky to offer more than one good joke, Chun's camerawork makes the film look as cheap as it really is, Corriveau's score sounds like more like stock music you can rip out from Youtube, the majority of the action is boring and unimaginative, the editing by Bergeron harms the film more than it makes it cohesive, and the direction by Canuel really shows how cheap and restrictive the project has in contrast to such high potential. There are still some things to salvage though. The use of the Canadian and bilingual aesthetic overlaying on a typical buddy-cop movie does give it a huge edge in terms of being distinctively Canadian (regardless of budget limitation), the comedy does at least offer a few good laughs and chuckles when it prioritizes on the bilingual concept,  Bouchard and Ward are good leads with believable chemistry and quirks that is thanks to their performers, Marcel and Mercer are having a ball as Therrin and Berry, the soundtrack has really good French rock songs, and the sex/fight sequence is perhaps the stand-out scene of the film due to its concept and competent editing. Despite all of the negative qualities, the film is still important to Canadian cinema and culture because it does try to have Canada feel like the attention of the spotlight in contrast to more prestigious offerings. However, if one removes that impact, you get an extremely mediocre buddy-cop film with poor production values and hit and miss comedy and action potential.

Verdict: 4.5/10. Below-average buddy-cop action-comedy flick for the most part. Still an achievement for the barren identity of Canadian cinema, for better or worse.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019) Film Review: Far From Great Responsibility...

 

While I wasn't the biggest fan of "Spider-Man: Homecoming", I was quite excited for the sequel. After all, not only would Peter Parker go international to some European countries, but Mysterio, one of my favourite villains from the comics, would appear! I was so certain that this would be far better than the underwhelming "Homecoming". For a while, it actually was, but the more I watch it, the more I begin to realize how inferior it was. The story picks up months after "Avengers: Endgame" with Peter mourning the death of his mentor and idol, Tony Stark/Iron Man. All he wants to do this summer is enjoy a class trip and get together with his crush, MJ. However, "Nick Fury" begins to hijack his trip as Peter is apparently the only hero available that can aid him and a new ally named Quentin Beck to stop cosmic beings known as the Elementals. With Peter crashing from the stress and pressure from people wanting him to be the next "Iron Man", he passes the responsibility as well as Tony's final gift to Quentin, E.D.I.T.H, a pair of glasses that have access to a satellite filled with deadly drones, an action Quentin was prepared to take advantage of. I have so many mixed feelings on this story. On the one hand, the stakes have gotten much higher than before with the European vacation and Peter's insecurities and stress of being a teenaged hero who wants a short break. However, the overarching story surrounding Fury, Quentin, Stark's legacy, and the plot device that is the E.D.I.T.H glasses have so many holes and inconsistencies that it's headache inducing. The film really wants you to suspend so much disbelief no matter how big or small the plot point is and there's far too many to mindlessly ignore. The tone is about as light-hearted as before with the dramatic moments too few and not really investing as a whole, even though it's far better than the ones from "Homecoming". The drama could have worked if the movie wasn't so goofy and silly all the time. The first film was really funny, but that's because the comedy felt really in place for most of the time. The issue with the sequel isn't that it's not funny, because there are a few good jokes and situations. The problem is that the jokes miss more than they hit due to how forced it is as every character is trying to quip and make goofy reactions or comebacks, which makes the film feel like a cartoon or a really bad rom-com. But even the Spider-Man cartoons don't feel this comedic all the time and it makes the film feel the least "Spider-Man" of the Spider-Man films.

Tom Holland is still great as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, both charismatic and funny but grounded in his youth. I actually think he does a better job than from before, mainly thanks to the arc he is given for not wanting to step up to be a huge hero like Tony. Samuel L. Jackson as "Nick Fury" is great to see and does have some nice comedic delivery as always, but the character is just really unlikeable in this film. I don't get why "Fury" is being such a hard-ass on Parker for no real reason, especially when it's revealed that the laidback Talos was pretending to be him all along. Whether he's defending the endangerment of Parker's classmates or refusing to get any other hero to help out, it makes Fury's appearance in the film have a bad taste to the character. Jake Gyllenhaal as Quentin Beck/Mysterio is really good in playing what appears to be a noble and charming hero turned slimy scumbag who wants to get famous. The problem with Mysterio is that the motivation and plans are all over the place. Not only does his goal of pretending to be a hero have many potential drawbacks and issues in the long run, but it doesn't make sense why he needed E.D.I.T.H to have his plan work when he already has plenty of functional drones to begin with. It doesn't help that Quentin is yet another disgruntled Stark employee that Spider-Man has to fight because Tony is busy or dead. When it comes to the side characters, it's a giant mixed bag. For the positives, there's Zendaya's MJ, who is far more fleshed out in terms of personality and interests as well as being she and Holland having cute and believable chemistry. Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is far more supportive and comedic compared to his stick-in-the-mud mood in "Homecoming". Tony Revolori's Flash is more enjoyable due to being a bit less douchy and constantly live-streaming to people that tend to hate his guts. Lastly, there's the cameo by J.K Simmons who plays J. Jonah Jameson who calls out Spider-Man as a villain from Mysterio's edited footage, who is just so great to see after all of these years. However, the majority of the side cast is pretty bad. Jacob Batalon's Ned isn't as funny or useful as before and the running gag of the sudden romance between him and Betty is just pure cringe in both how stupid and unfunny it is. J.B Smoove and Martin Starr as Peter's teachers try way too hard to be zany and funny that they don't even seem human. Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill is bland as hell because she's the most serious character of the film that the script doesn't give towards. Marisa Tomei as Aunt May has far less screentime, but she's still used as a hot mom gag and her being fully supportive of Peter being Spider-Man just shows how painfully light-hearted these films are. Remy Hil as Brad, Peter's romantic rival who hates him for trying to get MJ feels really out of place, random, and utterly pointless in his inclusion, considering that he never appeared in the first film. Lastly, there's Tony Stark. How is he in the film? Well, he's not, but his impact is left all over the film with some nice visual tributes, but some awful comparisons in how the film tries making Spider-Man appear to be the next Iron Man or how Mysterio talks about Tony being a complete asshole. Because of the constant back and forth of Disney making Tony both good and bad in these movies, his "appearance" throughout the film is just annoying more than anything. Overall, the characters that I like tend to be both well-acted and charismatic, while the characters I don't like tend to both acting like a Looney Tune and poorly characterized in the context of the film and story.

Jon Watts returns as director and still leaves no impact at all for majority of the film. While Watts tried to poorly homage the direction of John Hughes in "Homecoming", he puts himself on auto-pilot in the sequel, resulting in the film to have this overproduced, studio look. Although Watts tries to offer some type of style by having the European backdrop have a handheld video-recording feel as if you too are on vacation. However, the style is pretty inconsistent considering the genre and production values the film has. It doesn't help Berlin, the Netherlands, and London feel really weirdly artificial at times in that it feels like they were shot on a set rather than on location compared to Venice and Prague. The cinematography by Matthew J. Lloyd is at least well-shot and choreographed for the action sequences and montage sequences as well as Watts's style, but it's fairly average with the editing shortening otherwise neat tracking shots and long takes. I also think Lloyd should have incorporated zoom-ins to fit the vacation-filming style more genuine. The score by Micheal Giacchino actually improves from before with the original theme being more bombastic and Mysterio's theme having a more techno vibe along with a unique soundtrack of European songs and tracks depending on the country the scene takes place in. The visual effects are still really good, but there are some pretty bad uses of green-screen and the climax gets way too CGI-heavy with all of the clutter onscreen. The action sequences manage to improve from the first film for the most part with the fights in Venice and Prague being fun and engaging and the hallucinatory sequence where Mysterio overpowers Spider-Man is one of the best sequences in any Spider-Man film thanks to the comic-like visuals and being perhaps the only tense moment that the Holland interpretation has encountered. However, the climax is a huge letdown once again as it's mainly just Spider-Man fighting off and destroying an army of drones. Not only does it feel mindless since Peter isn't fighting any humans, but it's weird that only small sections of the limitless drone army attack Peter one at a time rather than all at once. It also feels like a downgrade when comparing to the previous scene being one of the best in the franchise and the film clearly being able to afford or write in another sequence like it for the climax. Overall, the filmmaking does improve from the previous entry, but some of the big mistakes were left unscathed in the sequel.

"Spider-Man: Far From Home" is in a very awkward position. On the one hand, the film offers some of the best things of the franchise from a high-stakes premise, the comedy works whenever it lands, Holland, Jackson, and Gyllenhaal offering great performances as usual, the romance between MJ and Peter is cute thanks to Zendaya and Holland's chemistry, Lloyd's cinematography is good at times, Giacchino's score manages to be fairly decent from before, the soundtrack offers a unique track of European songs, the CGI is adequate, and the majority of the action sequences are not just good, but even some of the best in any Spider-Man movie. However, the film fumbles so much in plenty of areas. The story in general has so many holes and inconsistencies in regards to "Fury's" leadership, Quentin's motivation and plan as a villain, the oddity of making Peter appearing as the new Iron Man, and the existence of the E.D.I.T.H glasses in general. The comedy is also hit-and-miss with far more misses than hits in contrast to "Homecoming", the majority of side characters are too silly, useless and badly acted that it wastes the precious runtime of the film, Lloyd's camerawork fails to utilize the style Watts was attempting to use for the sequel, some effects and green-screen can be really bad and noticeable, the climax is so underwhelming that it's boring on occasion, and the direction by Watts tries to have a vacation-style aesthetic, but the huge production values and the lack of skill Watts has as a director leaves a lot to be desired. At the end of the day, the sequel just serves mostly as a mindless, above-average action-comedy romp. "Homecoming" may have its fair share of issues, but at least it had a tighter script and succeeds in being a small-scale film for the most part. "Far From Home" tries going big with the story, setting, action, and comedy, but it should have gone home and scaled down a bit in areas.

Verdict: 5.5/10. The most mid Spider-Man film to date. At least it's better than the The Amazing Spider-Man films...

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: Fall Of A Franchise...

 

The 2005 "Fantastic Four" film was mediocre at best with small bursts of entertainment value and good/bad casting decisions. So, it surprises me that many critics and fans debate about if the sequel is either better or worse. Not only because it was the film that stopped the franchise in its tracks, but also because it's quite clearly worse than the average blockbuster that was the first film.

Positives: 

• Again, the three male leads of Reed Richards, Johnny Storm, and Ben Grimm are still played well by Ioan Gruffard, Chris Evens, and Micheal Chiklis. While the first film had Chiklis steal the show as the Thing, I actually think Evens manages to overtake him as Johnny considering his increased screen-time and role.
• The Silver Surfer is done and visualized extremely well, both thanks to the special effects by Weta Digital and the dual performance of Doug Jones and Laurence Fishburne as the physical and vocal portrayals. 
• The comedy is stronger than the first film with quite a few chuckles. I will still complain about the tone, but the banter between Johnny and Ben as well as the physical humour with Reed manage to offer more comedic potential than ever before.
• The action set-pieces. Unlike the first film where there was only two action sequences along with a few small fights, the sequel doubles it up by four, ironically. From the chase between Johnny and the Surfer, the ferris wheel rescue moment in London, the military ambush of the Surfer, and the climax between the team and Doom in China with the Fantasticar and Johnny being able to absorb the powers of the other team members to act like the Super Skrull with the combined power set.

Negatives:

• The overstuffed story. The first film had a simple premise with the origin of the team and the fight with Doom. The sequel cranks it up to eleven with how much things are happening in the movie. The general plot is about the team encountering the Silver Surfer, who is planning the world's destruction for his master, Galactus. Because of the short deadline they have along with their plans constantly screwing up, the military has decided to team up with the sudden return of Doom, much to the team's dismay. That alone would be too much for the standard sequel, but throw in the wedding between Reed and Susan, Johnny hitting on a random military captain, Ben's new relationship with Alicia, and the globe-trotting nature of the story, it becomes pretty big to set down easily. If the film were more than two hours or so, it might be possible to have everything flow naturally and coherently. However, the movie is just short of an hour and a half, which makes things go at an unnaturally fast pace. The first film had a far simple premise and pace that works with the short run-time. The sequel has too many storylines that are extremely rushed because the film is simply too short.
• The tone. If you thought the first film was goofy, the sequel is almost reaching parody levels. Even though I do like some comedic moments, the film just has this cartoony feel to it that even dire moments such as the losing battles and the death of Susan feel either too lighthearted or too edgy for the stakes of the film. The first film, despite its comical nature, tends to feel more grounded thanks to the Thing's arc and the story of the team trying to get rid of their powers. The sequel feels like a WB cartoon for babies.
• Jessica Alba as Susan Storm. Alba was simply the hot ex Reed needed to get back in the first film. The sequel not only continues to not have the intelligence or personality of the character, but makes her so moody and selfish on just wanting her wedding to go perfectly well and hating how Reed wants to keep saving the world. It makes her extremely unlikeable, especially since she's a freaking superhero who has the duties to save others, not getting the perfect wedding.
• Julien McMahon as Victor Von Doom. Not only is his performance still not capturing the threat and menace of the character, but his role in the sequel is extremely forced. Basically, after the Surfer's presence frees him from his prison and fixes his deformity, he becomes fixated on having the vehicle for its immense power and reality capabilities. The military hires him offscreen just so Doom can tell them and the team one thing to stop the Surfer. Once the Surfer is captured, Doom steals the board for the climax despite knowing how it's crucial to stop Galactus and gets thrown into the ocean to seemingly die yet again. Not only does Doom feel forced-in given his lack of importance or role in the overall story, but the climax just reduces him to a maniacal villain once again. If Doom was removed from the film and more attention was put onto the Surfer, I think it would have been more effective story-wise.
• The side cast. They really don't add anything to the movie at all and just keep the story bloated for the sake of it. While Kerry Washington as Alicia is great as the blind girlfriend to Ben, the character really doesn't do anything in both the story or Ben's arc. Andre Braugher as General Hager chews up the scenery as the typical army general who is extremely judgemental, but his sudden death by Doom is so comical, despite how brutal it should be. Beau Garrett as Captain Frankie is by far the most pointless character in the film as she's meant to be the love interest to Johnny, but the two have zero chemistry, too little time, too much time taking up the runt-time, and she suddenly appears in the wedding at the end. It's ridiculous how pointless of a character she is. And then there's Galactus. According to the director and writer, they wanted to introduce the comic-accurate design in either a future sequel or spin-off as it would be too quick, random or silly to have the character as he is for only one scene in the film. While I understand their reasonings and the fact that Galactus is supposed to look like whatever people view him as, his appearance as a giant purple cloud with tentacles is beyond disappointing. There's not even a voice or character to him, which makes his onscreen debut even worse as it would be many years before we will get the chance to see him again. 
• The production design and direction by Tim Story. I really hate giving flack to Story and the action is actually his best to date, but this might be his worst film to date after "Tom & Jerry". The problem is that the film looks extremely cheap despite the budget being increased from before. Everything feels like a set or constructed in an artificial matter. From the various international locations, the interiors, to even the streets of NYC, Story has an issue of making the film feel like a TV movie. At times, it feels like he's shooting a commercial rather than a big-budget superhero film.
• The cinematography by Larry Blanford.  It's a downgrade from Oliver Wood and aside from the action sequences, the film has no character visually because Blanford has no creativity with the camerawork.
• The music by John Ottman. Just as forgettable as before.
• The visual effects. While the make-up and physical props are still good, the CGI is both really noticeable and poorly rendered. Aside from the Thing and Silver Surfer, the effects for the powers are still just as unpolished as before, despite more budget put into the sequel. The worst offender has got to be the compositing and green-screen. General Hager's death is so poorly executed from the weird effects, the encounter between the Surfer and Doom have them both inserted in Greenland artificially, and the use of green-screen can be so awkward at times. You can always debate about the quality of effects of the first film given the budget and experimentation of various abilities and set-pieces. The sequel has no excuse whatsoever. 

"Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" is both a bad sequel and bad superhero film at the same time, despite not even being the worst film based on the titular team. While the male leads are still enjoyable, the comedy is kind of decent, the Silver Surfer is done as perfectly as you can, the physical effects and make-up are just as decent, and the action sequences are both more relevant and exhilarating, that's all the credit I can give out to it. The story is too bloated for such a small run-time, the tone is even more silly and comical than ever before, Alba as Susan is now unlikeable as well as simple eye candy, McMahon's Doom is both forced and insulting to both the character and the film as a whole, the side cast never stand out, Galactus is a cloud, Blanford's camerawork is bland, Ottman's score is nonexistent, the visual effects are still dated and weak with the compositing being one of the worst I've seen in a big-budget blockbuster, and Story's directing suffers by how cheap he makes every scene and location feel. Even though there's more entertainment overall action and comedy-wise, I actually prefer the first film tenfold due to having at least more balance both in the story and tonal shifts. I have seen far more boring or uninteresting films from the genre, but this sequel is so bad in how it wastes its potential to fix the problems of the first or make a grand, coherent adventure.

Verdict: 4/10. Bad, but still watchable. I will rather watch this than "Fant4stic"... 

Police Academy (1984) Film Review: The Only Good One?

 

One of the most infamous comedy franchises has got to be the "Police Academy" films. The various films and shows were all over the place during the 80's and 90's and they received a reputation for being bad and lazy. Not only did the seventh and final film became so bad of a box office bomb that it's not even funny, but the studio wanted to tone down the mature content for the sequels to ensure more ticket sales. Because of this, the first film was rated R, the second PG-13, and the rest PG. With all that said, was the first film actually good to warrant a franchise that refused to die until a decade later? The story is practically non-existent. The mayor of an unknown city, even though it's filmed in Toronto, has decided to lower the restrictions of police training to ensure more recruits, no matter their size, gender, colour or personality. An ensemble cast of quirky characters enter the police academy, despite the lieutenant's objections and attempts to ensure the recruits, specifically the troublemaker known as Carey Mahoney, will quit on their own terms by harsh training and using two eager recruits as allies. That's all the plot is. It's mainly an excuse to incorporate gags and wacky situations. Even going by the loose story, the film shows that it doesn't take itself seriously by featuring a goofy tone you've come to expect from comedies from the era. Is it funny though? Surprisingly, yes. It's by no means the funniest film I've seen, as some gags fail to impress, but there were quite a few times where I laughed out loud, some of which are slapstick, wordplay or vulgar in nature. However, some jokes do take a few jabs at homosexuals and even though they are pretty funny in the context of the film, they might not age well with certain viewers.

The best thing about an ensemble cast is that there's always a character or two you can enjoy, and the film does offer a strong advantage in having some very likeable or entertaining characters. The protagonist is Steve Guttenberg's Mahoney, a reluctant recruit who tends to give his superiors a hard-time, despite later wanting to be a cop and falling in love with the female recruit, Karen. Mahoney is good as the lead and offers some good moments, but he does tend to be overshadowed by the larger side cast. Karen, played by Kim Cattrall, is probably the weakest character in the film as she lacks both an arc or a quirky personality that makes her memorable as she's just the love interest for Mahoney. G.W. Bailey as Lt. Harris is so great as the officer who is forced to train the recruits he wants out of the program and works as the foil for Mahoney's pranks. When it comes to the side characters, there are so many that grab your attention. From Hightower's intimidating height and heroic arc, Barbara's push-over attitude that he must overcome, Martin's womanizing nature and faux Spanish accent, Tackleberry's eagerness to shoot guns, Hook's arc of being so quiet that she gets mocked by Harris, Blankes and Copeland's role as the rotten accomplices of Harris, Sgt. Callahan's female authoritarian and sexual appeal, and Commandment Lassard's sense of judgement and eagerness for the new recruits. There's really only two side characters that I feel are kind of unnecessary, despite their performances. Fackler is rarely funny as the mild-mannered and oblivious cadet with a nagging wife due to wasted potential. And then there's Micheal Winslow as Larvell Jones, or also known as the guy who does funny noises all the time. Winslow has fantastic vocal talent to say the least, but the character of Jones is just a bit too over-the-top as he just makes random noises like a child for the sake of making noise. Impressive, but not really funny compared to the others. Overall, I do think the cast in general is really solid thanks to the various arcs and quirks of the characters as well as the actors and actresses they got. Even though three side characters tend to be wasted or unfunny, the rest of the cast carries the humour and joy of the film quite well.

The late Hugh Wilson is only known for directing the first film. There's honestly not much to say about Wilson as a director as it does feel paint-by-the-numbers for the most part, though he does do two notable things for the installment. He was the one who made the more explicit or vulgar scenes tamer than intended and actually made them funnier due to it being not super gratuitous. His choice to film in Toronto offers a memorable sequence in the climax that's shot in Kensington Market, which does work in being the ghetto area of the unnamed city. The cinematography by Michael D. Margulies is really good in having multiple one-shot, tracking shots to showcase the large ensemble cast for the various gags. The score by Robert Folk is for the most part standard for the comedy genre with a strange inclusion to add Christmas music in one scene, despite the film not even being set near the holiday. However, the main theme used throughout the franchise is actually really memorable and fits the nature and premise of the film so much that some police graduations use this piece at times. If there's one thing holding the film back on a technical level, it would be the editing by Robert Brown and Zach Staenberg. Not only are there some awkward transitions and a poor moment of ADR, but some gags are cut early despite their comedic potential. The film was apparently over two and a half hours in the editing floor, but was trimmed to be around the usual 90 minute runtime comedies are known for. I kind of wish that the film was longer in an extent so we could have had more scenes with the characters.

"Police Academy" is not only the best of the titular franchise by a long shot, but it's actually one of the funniest films from the era. It does have its issues from a few unfunny or poorly-aged jokes, the characters of Karen, Fackler, and Jones being both unfunny and unnecessary, and the editing by Brown and Staenberg can hurt the film at times due to some rough cuts and a few unfunny moments going on for too long. Despite this problems, I was really surprised by how fun it was. From the basic premise that focuses on comedy rather than narrative, the tone and humour that complement each other to be both zany and vulgar, the sheer volume of the ensemble cast and how enjoyable they can be for their quirks and performances, Margulies's camerawork offering some nice tracking shots that make for effective visual gags, Folk's composing of the main theme being really poppy and energetic, and Wilson's choices to film in Toronto and hide the explicit content of the vulgar jokes manage to be used to such great effect that the next few sequels were influenced by his otherwise standard directing. What should have been an average low-brow comedy turned out to be a really decent romp. It never needed to spawn a franchise, but as it is, it's really good.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Just a really fun comedy that doesn't take itself serious and offers a great cast of characters. Give it a watch if you can tolerate a few bad jokes and amateur filmmaking from time to time.