BlacKkKlansman (2018) Film Review: The True Best Picture Of 2018...

 

A while ago, I reviewed "Green Book", claiming that it deserved its Best Picture win based on quality alone, never understanding why people were so pissed off that it won over Spike Lee's latest film at the time. Now that I managed to watch it, I finally realized why people were mad, but also why the Oscars refused to give it the win. Based on true events, it follows Ron Stallworth, the first black police detective in Colorado Springs, who is unsatisfied with being switched back and forth on various divisions. When he spots a local ad for the Ku Klux Klan in the paper, he decides to call and ask to join the organization, using a white narcotics detective to portray him undercover in the hopes to find out if the Klan is planning some sort of attack in the hopes to divert attention from the Black Panthers. There's not much to the story itself, it's basically Ron going deeper into the case in order to stop any potential attack and to prove that the Klan are more hostile than the Panthers ever were. Yes, there are historical inaccuracies in the film, but they were all done to have the story feel like a movie and to have more satisfying moments. The themes of the movie however is honestly the real reason why the Oscars chose to not let it win Best Picture, as it confronts racism and the broken system head-on with the epilogue showing how Ron is forced to not expose the Klan from his superior, racism is still very much around, and that how angry white men were enough to elect Trump as president with the film even giving a tribute to Heather Heyer by the very end. Simply put, there was no way the Oscars would have let the film win if they can't even have a black person win Best Actor. Even though it does get serious from time to time, the film still manages to have fun and levity thanks to the witty and playful dialogue as well as the chemistry of the talented actors.

John David Washington's lead debut as Ron shows how he's a A-lister in the making. Washington knows how to carry a charming energy to the character in the lighter and comedic moments, while also having an iron face in attempting to hide extreme emotions when in a situation he can't stand. While Washington is the lead actor, it almost gets overlooked by Adam Driver's Oscar-nominated role as Phillip Zimmerman, the Jewish detective who goes undercover as Stallworth. Driver knows how to make his line delivery both hilarious and chilling as he tries to blend in with the Klan members and acting as extreme as possible to not blow his cover. It almost seems like Driver is known for outburst scenes and having a quiet moniker, but that just shows how talented he is at playing both a mild-mannered and emotional character. The rest of the supporting cast is also fantastic in their own right. Laura Harrier as Ron's political activist love interest works well off of Washington as a cute couple, Topher Grace as David Duke is laughably over-the-top as the real-life scumbag, while Ryan Eggold, Paul Walter Hauser, Ashlie Atkinson and Jasper Paakokonen are brilliant as the various Klan members who realistically depict the racist perspective and how scary they can be as people with power and connections in America. There are other characters I can list, but they are far more minor in their appearances and mainly steal one scene of the movie. Overall, the cast and characters are fantastically performed, but Washington and Driver make this movie far more enjoyable than ever.

Spike Lee is one of the most acclaimed directors of our time in regards to tackling issues of race and division. Not only do his films have something to say or even keep you entertained, but he has such a cinematic vision for each of his projects. Since the film is set in the 1970's, Lee practically ensures that the film feels like it came from that time period with the more muted colours, the clever use of costume and production design to transport the viewer to the time period, and of course, the charmingly dated editing by Barry Alexander Brown. The cinematography by Chayse Irvin feels almost documentary-like at times. While the camera never fully appears as a character of its own, it grounds the film more in reality and makes it feel like it's an undiscovered home video at times in its handheld movement. The score by Terence Blanchard is on the more minimalistic side as most character or comedic scenes don't have music attached. The more serious scenes have dramatic compositions that feel appropriate from the time period. Lee's direction wasn't just to simply make a film feel like it was from the time period, but one that feels like part blaxploitation, part documentary to create a unique film that's both fun and powerful.

"BlacKkKlansman" is another masterpiece from Lee. From the interesting story, use of humour and seriousness, powerful themes of the racist and powerless system, Washington and Driver's brilliant performances, an extremely talented supporting cast that you love or hate for good reason, Brown's personality-filled editing, Irvin's on-hands camerawork, Banchard's underused yet effective score, and Lee's masterful direction and visual eye to make his film come from the 1970's. Yes, it should have deserved far more awards at the Oscars, but it doesn't mean "Green Book" was a terrible movie. Both films are effective in what they were going for, but "BlacKkKlansman" forces the issues head-on a bit more and manages to linger in your memory because of it, regardless how enjoyable "Green Book" can be. It just shows how things haven't really changed that much.

Verdict 10/10. Another perfect film that Lee can be proud of. The unspoken masterpiece from 2018 everyone will admit to agreeing on the matter.

Old (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Is Shyamalan Back To His Old Ways?

 

M. Night Shyamalan is one of the most divisive filmmakers of our time. He has made some of the best and worst films of the past decade, but he never stops at what he does best. After the revival from "Split" and "Glass", fans and critics were curious on what he will do next. His answer is that of an adaptation of a French graphic novel, which has already many critics slam as another bad movie from the talented director. But, is it really that bad or are the critics too old themselves to get invested? The story follows a group of vacationing families and couples who decide to go to a private beach that their resort has recommended. While it's a beautiful and secluded spot, it becomes a living nightmare as they slowly realize that time moves in a rapid rate in the area and it appears that they can't get out due to blacking out. If that's not bad enough, many of the patients have medical conditions that can prove harmful to them or others if unchecked. While the first ten minutes feels slow, the film really picks up when the characters get on the beach. We want them to learn what's going on and how they can get out of this situation, if they can even get out of it. The tone is both extremely effective yet harmful to the film at the same time. While there are some odd quirks and bizarre events and jokes, the film takes itself really seriously to the point that it can be a pretty bleak and almost depressing experience to watch. Now, that's not a bad thing and the film can get really emotional and introspective at times, but that's not what a typical horror-thriller crowd would want to watch. They want to watch something that's super-fun and satisfying, not a frantic and devastating catastrophe. I won't spoil the trademark twist Shyamalan is known for, but while it does make sense and even offers some resolution by the end, the twist itself isn't mind-blowing or interesting that a repeat viewing will unearth more and more detail.

The cast offers both the strongest and weakest aspects of the typical Shyamalan film. I won't go too in depth with the characters as they don't have too much of a personality, but the actors and actresses they got are really talented and diverse. Gael Garcia Bernal and Vicky Krieps as Guy and Prisca are fantastic as a married couple who are on the brink of divorce. While people will laugh or judge their deliveries, it's really their accents more than their talent that make them seem a bit amateur. It does take a while, but Bernal and Krieps do manage to keep you invested throughout the movie. Rufus Sewell and Abbey Lee as Charles and Chrystal, a schizophrenic doctor and his self-absorbed wife, could have easily been so unlikeable in their actions throughout the movie, but Sewell and Lee's acting manages to keep them more human and understanding as people breaking under pressure from the beach. Ken Leung and Nikki Amuka-Bird as the fast-thinking nurse and the logical psychologist offer both a touch of humour and heart in being the nicest couple of the film. Lastly, there's the kids, Trent, Maddox, and Kara, played by a variety of child actors and young stars as the film progresses. It's the older actors of these characters though that do such a great job by playing these aging kids whose mental capacities are still that of their original age while being thrusted into adult and stressful situations. There are other characters in the film that are also on the beach, but they are far more minor than they should be, despite how great their performances can be. So, if the acting is generally solid all around, what's the issue with the cast? Well, the thick accents and odd dialogue can bring down their skills a bit and the shifting of tone can either boost or drag a performance based on the scene. Regardless, these are nowhere near bad performances. In fact, the acting is very good across all the characters, even the children, it's just that it's constantly in flux due to the tonal shifts and mood.

If there's one thing that you can't deny about Shyamalan, it's that he's a brilliant visionary director. The decision to set a thriller film on a beach-shore in the Dominican is odd in concept yet unique on execution. The first time the characters enter the beach, it's beautiful in the remoteness and tropical setting. But as the film progresses and the mood and atmosphere comes in, the beach itself almost gets scary in its effect, despite still looking the same as before. I don't talk about audio-mixing much, but god damn, it's excellent in how dialogue is spaced out and the ambience feels more intense than the accompanied music. The cinematography by Mike Gioulakis is both fantastic yet flawed. Gioulakis does a great job in having one-takes, wrap-around shots and shaky-cam as if the camera itself was a physical character in the film that is joining the others in the experience. It helps putting the viewer into these people's shoes. However, there are some strange zoom-ins that focus on something else other than the actors themselves such as an object or horizon. I believe it's attempting to replicate how one's perspective can drift off as a conversation continues on, but it does prove distracting overtime. The score by Trevor Gureckis is great in playing up the suspense and emotional beats using themes of dread, hope and revelation, while also being minimalistic in the more powerful scenes of the film. The last thing to mention would be the make-up that is used to show the characters age. I actually think the artist do a good job at making these good-looking actors and actresses look older and older. It doesn't go over-the-top with a ridiculous amount of wrinkles or grey hair, it's more subtle and a bit believable in a way. Some have complained that they should have recasted the adult actors to have elderly replacements, but I think it will undermine just how good the main cast is as the film progresses. Overall, Shyamalan continues doing what he does best, even if the viewer must accept some of his odd choices.

"Old" is far from Shyamalan's worst films as critics try to make it out to be. Despite a underwhelming twist, polarizing tone, odd bits of dialogue from the diverse cast, and odd zoom-ins, the film excels by its story, uses of humour, suspense and emotion, the gifted actors and actresses that bring life and humanity to their characters, the almost-POV approach to Gioulakis's camerawork, Gureckis's score, the make-up effects, the brilliant audio-mixing, and Shyamalan's skills as a director to make what is otherwise a wonderful time at the beach eerie and stressful unlike any other movie. So, does that make it one of his best films to date? Not really. It's an extremely effective film in a lot of ways, but it's not a really satisfying or fun experience to watch. Even the most emotionally intense Shyamalan films have a far more sense of optimism and clarity by the time the credits roll. While "Old" does end the best way it can, it still gives the viewer emotional whiplash and that's why, as much as it's well-made, it's far from his best work.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good as a dramatic supernatural thriller, but pales in comparison to the best of the best Shyamalan can offer.

Snake Eyes: GI: JOE Origins (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: He's Not On A New Level...

 

The "GI:JOE" franchise has always had a hard time transitioning to film. "Rise of Cobra" was a huge flop and "Retaliation" did slightly better, but not enough for Paramount to actively persist on a third film. As "Transformers" is getting rebooted thanks to "Bumblebee", Hasbro hopes that they can repeat the same formula with "GI: JOE" with the fan favourite character, Snake Eyes. While I love the character for his cool factor alone, it's hard to not see how manipulative of a product the film is in regards to its goals and execution as an origin/stand-alone film.

Positives:

• The base storyline of Snake Eyes and his journey/arc. The titular character is on a revenge path on trying to find and kill the man who murdered his father many years ago. While working for the Yakuza, he saves the life of Thomas Arashikage, a heir to the Arashikage Clan. Thomas thanks Snake Eyes by recruiting him into the clan, much to his superior's concerns. As Snake Eyes starts his training as he completes the three trials of initiation, it's revealed that he's actually still working for the Yakuza leader, Kenta, who demands a special artifact in exchange for his father's murderer. Snake Eyes is internally conflicted as he must choose one side or the other as a larger threat reveals itself. While the narrative has its cliched elements, I actually enjoyed the origin for the character as it shows how morally grey he can be and the way his bond with Thomas gets torn is very clever as it ties into the arc of Snake Eyes finding his place in the clan, while Thomas is banished due to harbouring negative emotions, all of which is brought up because of Snake Eyes's actions in the film. It's different from previous adaptations, but it's a unique interpretation and actually gives a great origin for the "silent" ninja.
• Henry Golding as the titular character. Golding is great at being an edgy yet likeable protagonist. He has his moments of levity, but he tends to play the character as seriously as possible, which makes sense given his arc. If someone had to give a face and voice to the ninja, Golding did a nice job in making you believe that he can translate to this character.
• Andrew Koji as Thomas/Storm Shadow. Koji is able to bring some humbleness and over-the-top outbursts as the future rival to Snake Eyes and it's really all down to the character writing. Koji manages to paint Thomas almost as if he was the protagonist as his storyline and personality interconnects with Snake Eyes and, despite their bond as friends, how their personal goals manage to tear them apart when they are brought to life. When Thomas is banished from his clan, you understand his anger and betrayal, even if he's in the wrong. Koji's performance practically outshines Golding in regards to making you believe in the flawed nature of his character.
• Most of the side cast. Haruka Abe as Kenta, the Yakuza leader and antagonist, is really good at playing this confident and cunning warrior who is overcome with revenge towards the Arashikage Clan. Haruka Abe as Akiko works well off of Golding and Koji as the family advisor and guardian who, at first, distrusts Snake Eyes for his lack of background and suspicious activity. Iko Uwais as Hard Master is an enjoyable douchebag who undermines Snake Eyes yet still being an effective mentor and equal. Lastly, there's Peter Mensah as the Blind Master, the wise and skilled second-in-command of the Clan whose disability proves to underestimate his enemies and is one of the most badass characters of the movie.
• The music by Martin Todsharow. While not outstanding, Todsharow offers some nice oriental-inspired themes and cues and an effective action soundtrack.
• The direction by Robert Schwentke. It's not perfect, as we will get into in the negatives, but the Japanese setting and uses of vivid colours make the film stand out with the neon signs, the sharp hues on the costumes of the ninja, and the beauty of the castle setting. All of this is complemented by the cinematography from Bojan Bazelli, who offers some decent one-track shots and pans that give the modest budget film a larger sense of scope. 

Negatives:

• Whenever the story is trying to connect to the larger world of GI:JOE, it's painfully shoved in, underdeveloped, and teasing of future films that it's distracting. I don't mind Snake Eyes's backstory with his dad having to do with JOE and COBRA, but when the rest of the movie is trying to push these elements into the main plot, it's really obvious in how executive it is.
• The tone. For the most part, I actually liked the tone established in the first half or so as the film is trying to take itself more serious and not have many quips or jokes. By the third act though, the tone becomes more akin to a Marvel movie with poses, one-liners and far lighter tone than previously seen. It also doesn't help that the film starts to introduce more mythical elements such as a gem that sets things on fire or literal giant snakes! While some say that this is more based on the comics, the previous films and shows tend to stay a bit more realistic in its world-building, and the introduction of magic and giant ass snakes may be way too silly for those wanting a more grounded "GI:JOE" movie.
• Samara Weaving and Ursula Corbero as Scarlet and Baroness. While Weaving and Corbero are decent actors and look good in costume, their involvement in the film is so questionably dumbfounding as they are literally just there to establish their affiliated organizations and tease more movies with them. There's a moment where Scarlet could easily kill off Baroness in the third act, but asks to briefly team up to stop Kenta, to which Baroness leaves in the middle of the fight. It's so stupid on the decision-making Scarlet has, and the movie treats the team-up like a big deal when they aren't even the focus of.
• The editing by Stuart Levy. The editing is more noticeable during the action sequences, but Levy fails to make smooth cuts and transitions that feel natural. It feels like there was another half-hour left of the movie that was cut out for pacing and the editing clearly shows.
• The action sequences. For one, Levy's editing cuts way too much throughout the majority of the action to the point that epic showdowns such as Snake Eyes taking out a bunch of Yakuza with a knife or the forced-in female empowerment scene are cut down too much or not even shown onscreen. For the first two action set-pieces, Schwentke and Bazelli establish their unappealing aesthetic of shaky-cam and close-up shots in grey environments akin to a Bourne movie. While the rest of the action does look more visually pleasing in regards to the lessened amount of handheld camera and more interesting backdrops, that issue persists due to Levy's quick editing. Lastly, as much as the sword-fighting and martial arts are stylish and fun to look at, it's missing both impact and violence to make it feel engaging or visceral. So the action isn't the worst and I do commend on them keeping CGI to a minimal, but there's just simply better action movies to watch this year alone from "Godzilla vs Kong" to "Nobody".
• The fact that this movie demands that a sequel must be made for the story to be complete. Going into the movie, you think that the story will cover everything of Snake Eye's origin, particularly the epic showdown between him and Thomas and how he began his vow of silence. This movie does get towards the betrayal and torn bondage of the two, but Snake Eyes himself hasn't given up on Thomas and seeks to save him from a destructive path. The ending not only has the balls to have both Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow get recruited by their respective teams, but the moment where the character finally puts on the iconic costume is at the final shot of the damn movie! I was guessing maybe he was going to put the costume on by the third act, but nope, final shot of the movie instead. The fact that they showed the shot in the marketing and even use the costume in select posters is just ballsy for the studio to make. The worst thing about all of this is that Paramount is hoping that you will spend enough money on this movie to give you what you really want, which was the full origin of Snake Eyes and the costume in action. Instead, they pulled off a "Sonic the Hedgehog" and basically demand that you will only get the movie you're asking for if you spend money on a cheap-ass product first.

"Snake Eyes: GI:JOE Origins" is Paramount's unapologetic attempt at kick-starting the "GI:JOE" franchise once more. From the forced involvement of the GI:JOE characters and universe, the uneven tone that introduces magic and giant snakes into the military-action franchise and Marvel-esque lightheartedness, Scarlet and Baroness feel pointless and even idiotic at times by the manipulative script, Levy's awful editing, action sequences plagued by an unappealing aesthetic, shaky-cam, editing, and lack of brutality, and the film's assumptions that a sequel will certainly be made to finish Snake Eyes's origin story and finally have him in the iconic costume. Despite how corporate the film can be, I wouldn't lie if there are some positives to point out. Snake Eyes's narrative is engaging despite a bit predictable, Golding is great as the lead role, Koji is fantastic at playing the sympathetic yet irrational Thomas, some of the side cast is enjoyable and well-acted, Todsharow's score is pretty good, and the direction and cinematography by Schwentke and Bazelli can bring out some neat shots and eye-candy, particularly when the film sets itself in Japan. It's in a similar boat akin to "Sonic the Hedgehog", where the first movie is bare-bones in order to ensure a franchise. While I do prefer this over "Sonic the Hedgehog" in regards to my expectations, it doesn't mean that it's a good movie regardless.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Average action blockbuster with good character-writing sandwiched between sequel-teasing and universe-building. If you want a mindless action spectacle, watch "Nobody" instead or just go see "Space Jam: A New Legacy" if you just want to turn your brain off and have fun.

Space Jam: A New Legacy (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Won't Create A New Legacy, But Will Be An Entertaining Sequel!

 

With theatres finally being able to open up in my city, I can now do reviews on new releases that I can actually go out of my way to see without paying thirty or more dollars. So, to kick off the next few weeks of fresh reviews, let's start with the sequel to one of the most strangest films to come out of the 1990's. LeBron James is a legendary basketball player, but he has an issue communicating with his son, Dom, in regards to their interests and wants. When James is invited to WB Studios for a movie deal he refuses with Dom, the two get sucked inside the digital space by the rogue A.I algorithm, Al-G Rhythm. Al-G challenges James to a basketball game after the latter refused his deal, giving the superstar one day to get a team that will crush whatever Al-G throws at him. It just so happens that he meets Bugs and the other Looney Tunes where his plans get thrown out completely. The story is similar to that of the first film, but having a more conventional narrative formula and even including a basic moral and lesson, something that was oddly missing in the original. Tonally, both films are just as insane in their executions and energy, but the sequel attempts to have a bit more heart and weight compared to the original because of the moral it carries. Generally, the sequel feels more like a movie than the original in a strange way. The humour is where things get dicey for people as the sequel focuses a lot on the pop culture references and modern-day motifs that can range from charming to cringy. Despite this, there are a few good jokes and it's mostly the Looney Toons characters that deliver them, thanks to the writers managing to retain what made the characters funny in the first place. The original film was an odd time capsule of a 90's family film, whereas the sequel will act as a time capsule for the modern era with the addition of the WB catalogue. You can say all you want about how corporate or dated it will be, but the inner child in me simply enjoys the hell out of it.

As much as I enjoy Micheal Jordan's deadpan charisma in the original, LeBron James is clearly the better actor in almost every way. James knows how to have energy and personality in a fictionalized version of himself that acts genuinely to the wacky situations he has got into. However, it's almost laughable that James proves to be the best live-action actor in the movie when compared to everyone else. Don Chedle as Al-G Rhythm is clearly a far better villain than Swackhammer from the first film simply due to Chedle's performance for chewing up the scenery and his manipulative nature towards Dom. The problem with Al-G though is that he does have a fair share of cringe humour with his partner, Pete, and the motivation for him to have a grudge against James is pretty random. Dom, played by Cedric Joe, isn't a bad child actor, but he's just way too generic as the son who has difficulties bonding with his dad because he loves video games. If Dom was more eccentric or nerdy, it will work, but as is, he's just there a lot, which is an issue when the film focuses a lot on him for the story. The rest of the family and one-off "characters" act way too sitcom-esque to take seriously or funny and it makes the side cast from the first film far more memorable in hindsight. When it comes to the Loony Toons though, the sequel not only gives each one a moment to shine, but also rectify the issues made from the original. While the Loony Toons were enjoyable to watch from the original, their humour and characterization lacked the wit and charm that made them special, which essentially made all of their comedy slapstick-focused. Here, all of the characters feel genuine in their spirit and the talented voice cast of veterans make it all the more enjoyable. Even when certain characters say these bizarre lines, jokes or references, it manages to feel like they are still in character. Again, my favourite characters are still Daffy, Wile E and Sylvester. As for Lola Bunny, now voiced by Zendaya, she actually feels more like an actual character that's more tomboyish and spirited compared to the promiscuous personality she had from the original. Strange how despite wanting to have the character less sexualized, the film still manages to give fans enough material to work off. Lastly, there's the Goon Squad, who are recognizable NBA stars that are mixed with various elements and animals. While their designs do fit the film's identity and it's nice that the stars themselves voice their respective characters, the MonStars do actually have more comedic energy and personality than the Goon Squad. Overall, the cast offers its ups and downs. James and Chedle act better than Jordan and Swackhammer, and the Toons are far better portrayed than before, but the human side cast and the Goon Squad does prove to be weaker than their counterparts from the first movie. However, the improved leads and Toons manages to beat out the odds to make them enjoyable throughout the runtime.

Malcom D. Lee takes over as director from Joe Pytka and it's noticeable who is the better director in the live-action segments. While Pytka's direction doesn't truly stand out from the original visually, it's far better than Lee's artificial and cheap-looking direction. For such a big-budget blockbuster, the live-action segments look really amateur and makes the film have a bit of a bad impression in the beginning. The cinematography by Salvatore Totino is also bland and boring for this type of movie, showing how the production clearly didn't give a crap about the live-action portion of the movie. While that's a blow-back for the movie, it's a godsend by the time the animated segments of the film kicks in. When James gets launched into the Toon World, the filmmakers actually manage to use hand-drawn 2D animation and, my god, I miss it so much. The 2D animation isn't on par with the original, but it still looks great for this day and age. When the 2D characters get turned to CG models, they look fantastic as they still move and behave fully animated while given nice details in the fur, feathers, and clothing. The animation and effects, both 2D and CGI, look great and it's obvious that the filmmakers put their most effort in that aspect, much like the original. Last to mention would be the music. While Kris Bowers's original score is on par with James Newton Howard's, the soundtrack is perhaps the only thing the original outclasses the sequel in every way. While the songs featured in the sequel from a wide assortment of various hip-hop artists that are decent enough, they are just no match for the legendary compilation that was the "Space Jam" soundtrack that included R. Kelly's "I Believe I Can Fly", Seal's "Fly Like An Eagle" and the Quad City's DJ's "Space Jam". The soundtrack for "Space Jam" is beyond iconic, while the soundtrack for the sequel is simply forgettable. Regardless, the animation is just a breath of fresh air and I hope other studios try to do more hand-drawn projects in the future.

"Space Jam: A New Legacy" surprisingly outclasses the original in a large amount of ways. The story and tone has more structure and has an actual message to it, the crossover elements and humour makes me smile a lot gimmick be damned, James shows that he's a fairly capable and charismatic actor, Chedle proves to be far more memorable as a villain compared to Swackhammer, the Loony Toons themselves are far more better represented in their humour and characterization than ever before, Lola is given a far better upgrade as a character, Bower's original score is decent, and the animation offers great-looking CGI renders of the classic Toons and bringing back hand-drawn 2D animation to a mainstream production! While that's all and good, the sequel does have its fair share of drawbacks. The humour can be pretty divisive depending on your tolerance of pop-culture references and modern tropes, the human side cast are just horribly acted or entertaining, the Goon Squad isn't as charismatic than the MonStars, the direction by Lee looks lazy and cheap, Totino's camerawork makes a child Youtuber have more skill with the camera, and the soundtrack is embarrassing in comparison. The sequel does, at the end of the day, overcomes the shadow of the original in a lot of areas and is an enjoyable romp for Loony Toons fans and unapologetic crossover fanatics like myself. However, your enjoyment on the film is very much dependent on the humour and gimmick of the sequel, which is certainly not going to win everyone over.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but very much flawed as a result for what it brings. The fact that it does manage to improve from the original actually shocks me. 

 

Mission: Impossible III (2006) Film Review: The Weakest Yet Most Important Film Of The Franchise...

 

While "Mission: Impossible II" was the highest-grossing film of 2000, the critical reception was pretty bad as the sequel completely diverted from the formula that made the original film from 1996 so beloved. The third film was created with one primary goal: put the franchise back on course. While the film itself was a financial disappointment, the reputation of the franchise was saved and greater films followed suit. While that's great for the future films, it does come with one problem, which is that the third movie is probably the weakest of the franchise to date. Ethan Hunt is planning to retire from IMF to marry his new fiancee, Julia. When he is asked to do one last mission to rescue a former student of his, the mission goes sideways and Ethan demands to bring the one responsible for the abduction, arms dealer Owen Davian, to justice, while the discovery of a mole in the organization is brought to light. While the story does have a sense of finality to it and offering a more human and emotional aspect to Ethan, the spy narrative itself just repeats the premise of the first film with an operative killed by a villain who is one step ahead of the group with a potential mole in the IMF being responsible for the event and framing Ethan for the entire thing. Aside from Ethan's new fiancee, there's not much added to the story. There is a Macguffin known as the Rabbit's Foot, but we don't even know what it does other that it's a dangerous weapon of sorts that is all part of a plan to invade the Middle East once more. The tone however does work at keeping things serious for the most part with the emotional and suspenseful sequences being very effective in how brutal or sudden it can be. There's however a decent amount of humour thrown in thanks to the characters of Luther and Benji. So, it's a step-up from the second film and its messy tone.

Tom Cruise returning as Ethan Hunt brings back what made fans enjoy from the first film, which is that he's just one man who is left with his wits, skills, and human reaction. He's not a swab agent who can look sexy or be chill throughout the film like in the second, he's now in a more tricky situation where he can feel fear, frustration, and anxiety. The late Phillip Seymour Hoffman does a fantastic performance as Davian, an emotionless, unfazed arms dealer who threatens to kill Ethan's fiancee even when he is in cuffs. Even though the character himself has a lack of motivation for his actions and feels a bit stock, Hoffman's performance makes this sociopath a scary villain for Hunt and does build up from the previous villains of the franchise. Michelle Monaghan as Julia is pretty likeable as Ethan's fiancee and even gets to partake in the action by the end and using her skills as a nurse to effect. Ving Rhames as Luther continues to inject his humour and banter with Ethan, Simon Pegg as Benji also helps add a lighthearted dose in the heavy plot as the British technician, and Laurence Fishbourne does an amazing job as Theodore Brassel, the strict and dismissive IMF director who is said to be the mole behind the agency. While these characters are great additions, the others leave a lot to be desired. Billy Crudup as John Musgrave is just a lame secondary antagonist with the obvious reveal that he is the mole, despite Crudup's decent performance. Musgrave is such a boring twist villain that he gets killed off so randomly and sudden from Julia, just because he walked into the wrong room. Keri Russell as Lindsey, the agent Ethan tries to save but dies right before it can be done, is basically a nothing character as the audience barely gets to know her even if her death is the emotional push for Ethan to continue his mission, Maggie Q as Zhen Lei, a sexy agent who is part of Ethan's new time, is just there to be the girl who serves as the eye candy that is needed in every one of these movies, and lastly there's Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Declan Gormley, another agent who makes up of Ethan's team. Aside from a slight idea that he's into Zhen, Declan has absolutely no characteristics at all. It's so bland that you would be begging for Billy the helicopter pilot from the last film as he at least had something to do and being somewhat memorable at the same time. Overall, the leads are effective as usual amongst a few side characters, but the other major supporting characters are just so bland or forgettable, which is a problem since they are involved in a large part of the movie.

J.J Abrams makes his feature film debut and, man, it's pretty obvious. I'm never a fan of Abrams's directing aside from his work in the "Star Wars" films. Despite being a visual and creative director, his trademarks are just so ugly to look at. For one, a lot of his films have this ugly digital look to them, which is supposed to make the movie look gritty or grounded. This wouldn't be a problem in "Cloverfield", but a slick spy-action film shouldn't have this look unless it's part of the "Jason Bourne" franchise. While there are some nice-looking moments such as the scenes in the Vatican and Shanghai, that's about how visually engaging the movie can be. It wouldn't be nearly as bad if the cinematography by Dan Mindel didn't muck everything up. While there's not many lens flares you come to expect from the director, the shaky hand-held movement became a staple here and the film suffers because of it. It really hurts the action sequences as we will get into later, despite a few moments of the camera actually being still or stable. The score by Micheal Giacchino is not bad by any means, but it's a huge downgrade from both Danny Elfman and Hans Zimmer in the previous films. It just sounds very stock to the spy genre compared to not just those previous films, but even to Giacchino's work in other films. Then, there's the action sequences. While not terrible when put inside a vacuum, the action here is perhaps the worst in the franchise simply due to the filmmaking and the lack of creativity. The shaky camerawork is paired up with quick editing by Mary Jo Markey and Maryann Brandon to create a disorientating combo. The scenes in Berlin and Shanghai are really generic to watch. Even though Cruise continues to do his stunts, there's nothing as jaw-dropping compared to the previous or future films aside from him running a lot in Shanghai. The attack on the bridge is a cool concept, but there's no real back-or-forth momentum as the sequence is meant to be a complete disaster for Ethan and his team with not one henchmen killed. The only action sequence that proves memorable is the final fight between Ethan and Devian. Even though the editing and camerawork is sloppy, it's such a brutal fight to watch, leading to a satisfying death from Devian. Despite Abrams continuing to produce the future films since, there's a reason why he hasn't returned to do the other films and we should be thankful for that.

"Mission: Impossible III" is both an important yet the worst entry of the franchise. While the tone is far more balanced to have a more serious and suspenseful nature while offering light doses of humour, Cruise as Hunt returns to being a more human and emotional protagonist, Hoffman does a threatening performance as Devian, Julia, Luther, Benji and Brassel are great returning and new faces, and the final fight between Hunt and Devian is one of the best hand-to-hand fight scenes in the franchise, the rest of the film just doesn't pop out. The story practically copies the beats from the first film, the fixation of the Rabbit's Foot and the motivation of the villains are just laughable, Musgrave is such a predictable and boring twist villain, Lindsey, Zhen, and Declan are the most boring allies for Ethan in any of the films, Mindel's camerawork is vomit-inducing from the amount of shaky cam involved, Giacchino's score is underwhelming compared to his work and the music from the past entries, the action sequences are unwatchable due to how unimaginative they are and the atrocious editing by Markey and Maryann, and Abrams's directorial debut showcases his terrible trademarks the industry is forced to endure. Regardless of the film's quality, it served its purpose to put the franchise on course and, thankfully, the future installments are as pure quality as they can get.

Verdict: 5/10. The worst film from the franchise based on its mediocrity. The second film may have flaws, but it had character and identity, something the third film doesn't have.

Mission: Impossible II (2000) Film Review: The Odd One Out Doesn't Equal The Worst Out Of The Bunch...

 

While the first "Mission: Impossible" film was an unexpected success for both Paramount and Tom Cruise, there was a bit of criticism at the time that the story was overly-complicated and that there was hardly any action. When it finally came time for a sequel, the studio decided to give fans what they wanted, which was more action and a simplified plot. Although this did ensure the sequel to be the highest-grossing film in that year, it has earned the reputation for being the worst out of the franchise for its departures from the previous film. Is the criticism really deserving though? The story does at least have a more easier narrative to follow than the twisty and the almost chess-game nature the first film carried. Years after the first film, Ethan Hunt accepts a mission to find and destroy Chimera, a deadly virus that will ensure death to victims twenty hours after infection. While falling in love with a new recruit, a thief named Nyah, Ethan is disheartened to learn that he needs to use Nyah as bait in order to learn the whereabouts of Chimera from Sean Ambrose, a former IMF agent who has studied underneath Ethan and is always two steps ahead. While the first film has the better story in terms of originality and creativity, there's a charm in watching a movie that is centred on stopping a deadly virus in a pandemic landscape. Even though the story can be somewhat engaging on the main spy narrative, the love story between Ethan and Nyah does drag the story down a bit as their chemistry isn't exactly the most realistic. Maybe a lot of their scenes are cut for time, but it doesn't excuse the first half of the film being about the dramas of Ethan being madly in love. The tone is what makes the film the most divisive of the franchise. While the story takes itself seriously for the most part, the action, villain and direction enters over-the-top cheese. This can be pretty distracting, especially if compared to the rest of the franchise, but man, it feels kind of refreshing in how early 2000's it feels. I will get more into the other elements in a bit, but as long as they are done in an entertaining matter, I don't mind this odd shift in tone.

Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt once again graces audiences with his charismatic smile, death-defining stunts and 3D Chess-level intelligence that fans are familiar with in other films. What's not familiar though is his characterization as Ethan doesn't feel as serious or unnerved in this film compared to others and feels far too chill and swab. Many feel that he feels like James Bond and while that's not a bad thing in general, his portrayal is simply the opposite approach to the serious nature of the character and how he puts the mission first above everything. Dougray Scott as Sean Ambrose is both silly yet effective as the cunning and emotionally unstable villain. Scott can make the viewer believe on how threatening Ambrose is in his fear tactics and intelligence, but also make them smile on how he goes all in on the performance, even when it goes over-the-top for the character such as his one-liners and emotional outbursts of defeat or betrayal. Thandiwe Newton as Nyah looks gorgeous and plays the playful thief pretty well, but her romantic chemistry with Cruise doesn't really work the best in terms of her character and ultimately undermines the performance of Newton as a result. The side cast is actually not that bad, especially for characters who only appear in this single film. Ving Rhames as Luther is always a pleasant face to see, regardless if he's far more serious than in other films, Richard Roxburgh as Hugh Stamp is a fantastic right-hand man to Ambrose that almost mirrors a similar duality akin to Black Mask and Zsasz from "Birds of Prey", and Anthony Hopkins as Swanbeck does a great job in the few scenes he's in, offering a sense of authority and comedy to the situation. Not every character is a banger though. Brendan Gleeson as John C. McCloy is a pretty generic CEO figure with some awkward dialogue and John Polson as Billy Baird may be the most forgettable ally in the franchise for just being a weak comic relief and helicopter pilot. Overall, the cast is on the mixed end as the actors themselves are good and characters such as Ambrose, Luther, Stamp and Swanbeck are frankly really good, but Hunt's characterization along with Nyah and a few pointless side characters makes it probably the weakest cast in the franchise, despite some engaging villains.

If you are aware of John Woo as a director, you will know that he has the need to be overly-stylized with the common motifs of slow-motion, cross-dissolves to random symbolic imagery, doves, fire, and close-ups of people's faces. His directing is a make-it-or-break-it for many, but if you fully accept that the film is going to contain some over-the-top filmmaking, it makes the experience pretty fun. I also give props that Woo set the sequel in Australia, which is not a country that's seen much in film, especially for an action movie. The cinematography by Jeffery L. Kimball is mainly following the motifs Woo is known for, which can weaken the camerawork as a whole, despite Kimball showing off breath-taking framing of action and stunt performances by Cruise. The score by Hans Zimmer may honestly be the best of the franchise by far. While the rock version of the main theme is grunge 2000's cheese at its max, the original music is actually really good with the use of a gothic choir and Spanish-sounding cues that adds as an audio reminder of the almost, soap-opera romance the film features. The licensed songs are also memorable additions such as "Iko Iko" and various rock songs from Metallica, Limp Bizkit and Rob Zombie. It may be the complete opposite approach to a "Mission: Impossible" soundtrack, but the uniqueness is almost of legendary quality. The action really shows up by the half-way point of the film, but by then, it fully delivers on the over-the-top shootouts and kung-fu combat you'd come to expect from Woo's filmography. I never expected Hunt to be someone who kicks a lot, but the choreography is amazing in how both silly and badass it gets. The motorcycle chase is the highlight as the stunts and crashes feel so life-like while including some of the most absurd images ever seen in the genre. A bonus to Cruse showcasing his one of his most dangerous stunts in his career by having a real knife be stopped a millimeter from his eye. Overall, the quality of the filmmaking is geared towards you opinion of Woo as a director and the identity he brings to the sequel, which is marvelous in my book.

"Mission: Impossible II" may be the strangest or goofiest of the beloved franchise, but it's about as entertaining as its respective competition. Yes, the tone is uneven for some, Ethan's characterization is widely different from the rest of the series, the romance between Ethan and Nyah is underdeveloped, some of the side cast is unmemorable, and Woo's direction and flair is clearly not for everyone by how zany it can be. With that said, there's actually a lot the film does well. The story about the virus is pretty engaging in a pandemic environment, Cruse and Newton do their best in injecting life and energy to their roles, Scott and Stamp's performances as Ambrose and Stamp are just the perfect blend of serious and over-the-top, characters such as Luther and Swanbeck are just too enjoyable thanks to the talents of Rhames and Hopkins, Kimball's cinematography is fairly adequate in capturing the scenery and action, Zimmer's unique score is the best the franchise has to offer aside from Danny Elfman's classic rendition of the theme, the licensed soundtrack is memorable in being a perfect time capsule of the early 2000's, the action sequences are as over-the-top and exhilarating as ever, and Woo's direction can be enjoyable on its own wacky merits. Honestly, this is not even the worst film from the franchise as the third film has aged kind of poorly in terms of memorability or ambition. This sequel is clearly wild in its identity, but that's not a bad thing in retrospect.

Verdict: 6.5/10. Decent action joyride from that decade that still provides some fun and enjoyment to this day. Just don't go in thinking it's on par as the best from the franchise.

Logan (2017) Film Review: A Perfect End To A Beloved Hero And The Peak Of The Superhero Genre...

 

For me, my favourite superhero franchise is not the MCU or the DCEU, but rather the X-Men films from 20th Century Fox. Not only were they the most mature and revolutionary of the franchises, but they offer as much creative freedom as possible, for better or worse depending on the project. The final Wolverine film was supposed to be yet another superhero movie with the hero fighting off a powerful villain to save his kind and contain more bombastic spectacle, but it evolved into something more somber, personal, and emotionally genuine that not even the biggest MCU deaths or even their best films can match toe-to-toe with it. In a timeline separate from the ending of "Days of Future Past", the mutant population is rapidly shrinking as no new mutants have been born for 25 years. Logan is in a depressive state as the adamantium in his bones begin to poison his healing abilities and is struggling to earn money so that he and the dementia-suffering Charles Xavier, whose uncontrollable seizures killed members of the X-Men a year prior. When Logan accepts a job from a nurse and child named Laura, he learns that the mute Laura is actually a genetically-modified mutant born from a lab and Logan's own DNA, with the people responsible for her creation on their trail, forcing Logan and Charles out of hiding while attempting to reach the supposed safe haven to drop off Laura to stay safe. The story is the perfect balance of being small-scale, epic, and intense. Rather than trying to seek revenge against a villain or save the world from a bad guy, the story is essentially a chase movie where Logan is worrying about being able to escape the crosshairs of the never-ending army that the villains are able to access. It also serves as a character study for Logan and his arc being that he must embrace his heroic nature rather than avoiding to do the right thing. The tone offers the most darkest superhero film in terms of events, drama, intense violence, and thematic resolutions, but it also provides moments of levity, comedy, entertaining action, and the small glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. It's actually quite shocking that I laughed more times at this movie than a large portion of the comedic MCU films, but that's simply due to how well the writing and the chemistry of the characters work so off on each other.

Hugh Jackman's final performance as the Wolverine is not only as perfect as previous appearances, but it's probably his best out of the franchise. We not only have Jackman be at his most distant and dismissive as the aging and withering Logan, but he still manages to let out acts of charm and humanity that is kept locked up inside of the empty shell that is Logan. It makes it more satisfying by the end when he chooses to save Laura and her friends by basically embracing himself as a hero, while knowing that he may die doing so. Patrick Stewart's final performance as Professor X is on par as Jackman in terms of being so personally invested in the character. Stewart offers a familiar warmth that is familiar to the franchise and offers some of the more funny, humble, and heartwarming moments in the film, but it's given a sense of dread with him being diagnosed with dementia and that he's proving to be uncontrollable to others during his seizures, which makes him a liability to his only friend alive that is Logan. Newcomer Dafne Keen does a stand-out job as Laura/X-23, showing off fantastic capabilities for a child actor by being portrayed effectively mute for the first two-thirds of the film and speak English and Spanish by the third. Even though the character is completely different from the more adult portrayal in the comics, Keen manages to give off so much personality just by her body language and facial expressions. Stephan Merchant as Caliban is great playing this vulnerable, cynical ally to Logan and Charles who is concerned for the well-being of the two. It's jarring to see a one-scene character from "X-Men: Apocalypse" not only be more prevalent, but even be emotionally investing. The side cast are also acted as perfectly as possible from the kind and joyful Munson family, the nurse who seeks out Logan's help, and the various mutant kids who Laura reunites with. If there is one minor issue that the film has, it would be the villains. Boyd Holbrook as Donald Pierce is chewing the scenery and works as a cocky yet intimidating enforcer, but he and the Reavers are just not that interesting as they are just working for a larger corporation. There's X-24, a mindless clone of Wolverine made to follow orders played by Jackman, who is the best of the villains due to the simplicity of his symbolism and concept. Richard E. Grant plays the stock British villain that is Dr. Zander Rice, the surgical head of the company known as Transgen and the creator of a virus that was put into effect for decades to ensure no new mutants are born due to the consumption of corn syrup in products only for Logan to shoot him mid-speech. The villains work in a different way compared to most films. Unlike previous films where the villains are given a lot of depth and backstory to make them interesting for the entire film to have their evil motivation, the villains in "Logan" have already won to an extent and they are practically doing all of this slaughter and work out of pettiness and overconfidence. Even though all three die by the end, the company still exists and Laura and the others have to cross the border anyway, so they work as a different type of obstacle rather than fleshed-out and interesting antagonists. Overall, the cast is extremely talented with not one performance being below-average in comparison to the others, with Jackman, Stewart, and Keen offering some of the best performances in both the franchise or in a superhero film in general for their brilliant characterizations and investment for their final or only performances.

James Mangold took it upon himself to make a far more distinct and improved title from "The Wolverine" when he returned to direct and write the final film of the titular trilogy. Mangold takes a lot of inspiration from not just "Old Man Logan", but the western genre in general, allowing the film to have a far more relaxed pace, familiar structure and storytelling, and a unique look and style unlike that of previous X-Men films or superhero films in general. The world that we see in 2029 is dirty, grimy, and lacking a sense of warmth or clarity, which perfectly matches the tone and the journey of the heroes as the world doesn't provide a sense of comfort or security much like a western film where it's everyman for themselves. The cinematography by John Mathieson is not as stylish or flashy, but rather picturesque and feasible in execution, which gives the film a more personal aesthetic than a studio-processed look. The trick used to give off Charles's seizure attacks is genius in how it's just Mathieson shaking the camera and having a program to correct the movement to give off a frantic visual effect. The music by Marco Beltrami is perhaps his best work to date as it offers a more western-dramatic-inspired score rather than an energetic hopeful score we hear countless times in the genre. Again, it feels far more personal and hands-on rather than a large eventful piece only an orchestra can pull off. Mangold tries to not overuse CGI in the film, instead trying to do action as hands-on as possible. Whenever there's CGI onscreen though, it's not too distracting or fake-looking. The best visual effect though is the interactions between Logan and X-24 as the choreography and editing makes it look like the two characters are inhabiting the same place despite being played by one person. The action is also great in how it has a grisly brutality with the combat of Logan and offering some type of style to it. The opening scene is a perfect introduction to how violent the film gets and each sequence afterwards tops off the previous scene due to the increased stakes and introduced elements that pile up from one another. The violence itself is by no means an over-the-top gore-fest, but rather show the realistic effects Wolverine's claws can do to an ordinary person that was left unseen for all of the X-Men films up to now. Even though his career has really just taken off, I think that this is Mangold's best film to date and one that will prove impossible to top.

"Logan" is as brilliant that a superhero film can get, allowing to be one of, if not, the best superhero film to date. While the villains aren't as developed due to the choice of narrative and approach, everything else about the film is spot-on. The story is small-scale yet engrossing, the tone is punishingly dark yet allows brief moments of humour and levity, Jackman's final performance as the titular hero offers the most depth to the aging mutant in this final venture, Stewart's final performance as Charles is both wholesome and tragic as the once-respected mentor, Keen's break-out role as Laura shows just how talented the child actress is with allowing a mostly-mute character to have so much personality and range just by physical acting alone, the side cast is extremely well-acted to allow the characters either care or hate them, Mathieson's cinematography has scope but not be excessively flashy, Beltrami's score is his best to date with the somber western music that fits the film and stands out from the genre, the CGI is decent to great with the two Wolverines being the highlight of the visual effects, the action is brutal yet memorizing to watch, and Mangold's directing not only converts the superhero story into a neo-western with its tropes and world-building, but his effortless dedication to the film and character makes this his best film in his career as of to date. Even though I didn't mind "X-Men: Dark Phoenix" or "The New Mutants" as the final films of the franchise as they are good films in their own ways, "Logan" should have been the final film to show that the best superhero franchise can go out in such a phenomenal way that not even the MCU could come close to the excellence that is the final Wolverine film.

Verdict: 9.5/10. Almost perfect if the villains were just a bit more interesting. Despite this, I will always call this the superhero masterpiece and I don't believe any film will be able to top off this for a long time...

Whiplash (2014) Film Review: An Ironic Masterpiece About Trying To Be A Legend...

 

Perfect movies are hard to come by. Even though I have given ten out of tens before, I always add that the films themselves aren't made for everyone due to preferences or taste. However, anyone who has seen "Whiplash" would know exactly what I mean when I, amongst many others, consider this a favourite or perfect movie. Andrew Neiman, a first-year jazz drummer, wants to be one of the legends in his field. His opportunity comes knocking when he is picked out by the prestigious bandleader and music teacher, Terence Fletcher. While this seems likes a turn of good fortune for Andrew, he quickly learns the abusive and aggressive manner Fletcher exacts on his students in order to push their skills to the maximum. Fletcher's ways of teachings slowly, but surely, begins to take an effect on Andrew as Andrew begins to push himself as hard as possible at a destructive rate, which starts to unravel the underlaying theme of what does it mean to achieve success. The story is both small-scale yet grand at the same time, mainly due to the pivotal choice of using jazz as the connective tissue for the narrative and characters. You feel both invested in what little story is happening onscreen, while also getting hooked in by the character studies of both Andrew and Fletcher, which is the real heart of the movie as I will go on in the character segment. While the film takes itself seriously from the first to the very last frame, there's actually good humour throughout the film, which is mainly dark comedy served by the imaginative insults Fletcher dishes out whenever he's onscreen. While some people will argue that the insults are too mean-spirited to be laughed at, I believe that it's the perfect balance of being so morbid yet serving as levity in such a heavy film. It's surprising that the film is as short as it is, since I was hoping it would be longer!

Miles Teller gives out his best performance to date as Andrew, who perfectly makes this struggling yet extremely determined student come to life. Teller just brings out this level of humanity in Andrew and it's seen in every moment and decision the character makes onscreen. Even when the character makes questionable decisions throughout the film, the viewer understands why he does the things he does, thanks to Teller bringing out the realism of the character and the motions he must ride in order to seek fame and glory. However, it is J.K Simmons's Oscar-winning performance as Fletcher that steals every second he's on screen. Simmons is terrifying as the abusive music teacher that wears all black with his calculated body language and split-second reactions, while making you either laugh or tense when he's dropping insults and comments to his students. However, it makes it more riveting when the film manages to make you understand him as a human being as the film progresses and it's all thanks to Simmons's charm. The side cast is also well done with Paul Reiser's Jim Neiman, Andrew's awkward father, Austin Stowell as Ryan Connolly, a rival drummer of Andrew, and Nate Lang's Carl Tunner, a seasoned student of Fletcher who is pitted against Andrew for the position. Melissa Benoist as Nicole is also great as Andrew's girlfriend, but I felt that she was underused throughout the film as she starts dating Andrew, only for Andrew to dump her due to his extreme pursuit of his music career. I don't view this as a negative though, as it's mainly due to how short the film is in contrast to many others, so it's sort of surprising when characters are used both perfectly well yet not enough. Overall, the cast is fantastic with Teller and Simmons practically competing each other as the best performer almost like the student vs the mentor story they are in the film for.

Damian Chazelle is on the rise as one of Hollywood's acclaimed directors and his breakout film is his best to date. Chazelle makes New York feel cold and distant as much as the interiors being filled with tense and anxiety from the mind-games being played by Andrew and Fletcher. The film is almost reactionary to Andrew's mood as the few bright spots in his life feel warm and relaxing while the intense shadows and lighting act almost like a mind-space that Andrew inhabits onscreen. The Oscar-winning editing by Tom Cross is excellent with how the film is timed perfectly to the jazz music being played and the energy presented onscreen. The cinematography by Sharone Meir is great with the use of tracking shots, panning and close-ups to exhibit the raw talent of the actors in their appearance and musical talent. The score by Justin Hurwitz is very minimalistic as the film has more ambience as any piece of jazz music heard from the titular "Whiplash" or "Caravan" is played out onscreen by the musicians. Not everyone is a big fan of jazz, but I believe that the way the jazz is presented in the film from the editing, performances, and story may actually make those non-fans engaged by how crucial the music is used. The filmmaking in general is pitch-perfection.

"Whiplash" is undoubtedly one of, if not, the best film to come out from the 2010's. From the riveting story, the dark yet entertaining edge it carries from the use of music and improvised insults, Teller as Andrew delivers his best performance to date as a young man driven obsessively to secure his prestigious position, Simmons as Fletcher shows a natural yet scary performance from the humble actor that makes you both laughed and terrified by his mood shifts and actions, the side cast are just as talented and genuine as the leads, the editing by Cross deserves its award for how perfectly timed and paced everything is to the music and story, the camerawork by Meir captures every action and facial movement flawlessly while almost having a cinematic/stage aesthetic, the music by Hurwitz is decent in how minimal it is to allow the jazz music to dictate the film's flow and pace, and the direction by Chazelle not only manages to make a moody film from a few interiors and New York, but also allow the jazz music to be so crucial yet replaceable in a film that serves a human message about the lengths people will go to achieve success. I doubt anyone who has ever watched the film came out disappointed or unamused simply because everything is meticulously done to ensure a sense of depth, entertainment, quality, and riveting experience.

Verdict: 10/10. A truly perfect film that has every amount of praise delivered. A guaranteed masterpiece and/or favourite you will recall for years to come.