Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Short, Satisfying Yet Flawed Thrillride...

 

A year has past since Eddie and the symbiote Venom have bonded together and their relationship is put in strain as Eddie refuses to eat people for Venom's consumption. When Eddie manages to make an important breakthrough in the case of finding the resting grounds of the victims of infamous serial killer, Cletus Kassidy, his career is saved, but causing Cletus to quickly get the death penalty. A frustrated Venom attempts to attack a vengeful Cletus, but the encounter causes Cletus to get in possession of a piece of the Venom symbiote, becoming the ruthless Carnage. That's all I will say in regards to the plot, which itself is best described as a retread of the first film, but without a first act that sets everything up. The story moves at a break-neck speed in regards to establishing the basic characteristics and desires of the characters without any filler or fat in place. While this makes for a blast of entertainment, it comes with the cost of lacking any sense of breather moments, thematic depth, or fleshed-out character moments. You can tell from the editing that there was a ton of scenes that are missing that, while not necessary plot-wise, do fill in a bit of a coherent void. As for the tone and humour, the film doubles down on what made the first film enjoyable for many people, which was the goofiness of the characters and the wacky lines and scenarios. The comedy improves as a result, but it will leave fans wanting a more edgy, darker and serious story in the dust, despite the film offering more brutality with the involvement of Carnage, Cletus, and Shriek.

Tom Hardy as Eddie/Venom continues to steal the show for his over-the-top physical and witty performance. Considering the film's unapologetic tone and humour, Eddie and Venom manage to be far more enjoyable as a result and their relationship also allows a bit of exploration in regards to how they work as a team and Eddie's arc of what it means to cooperate with Venom. Woody Harrelson as Cletus is such a perfect choice as the charismatic and unhinged psychopath that, while dark and irredeemable, has a sense of humanity in him when it comes to his long-lost love, Shriek. Shriek, played by Naomie Harris, is having a ball at playing this tortured, yet love-dovey partner to Cletus, whose sonic powers cause a ridge between him and Carnage. Michelle Williams, Reid Scott, and Peggy Lu as Anne, Dan, and Mrs. Chen are all great in playing off against Eddie and Venom in their minor roles. The only characters that aren't nearly as engaging are that of Stephan Graham's Detective Mulligan and Carnage. Mulligan is a pretty generic cop archetype that doesn't like Eddie and is trying to take charge of the case and the Carnage symbiote acts as if Venom had no chains to hold him back nor a sense of humanity to connect with considering the host he has chosen. I'm sure that both characters might have been fleshed out in deleted scenes, but as is, they are pretty standard. Still, Hardy continues to carry the film with his performance and the villains themselves do actually improve from that of the previous installment.

Andy Serkis takes charge of directing after Rubin Fleischer stepped back to work on both "Zombieland: Double Tap" and the upcoming "Uncharted". While Serkis is very much a talented actor and personality in cinema and his work on visual effects are fantastic, his directing skills aren't nearly on the same level. You can tell that Serkis is still fresh in the directing game and he isn't trying to do any ambitious ideas or a special vision for the sequel. Instead, Serkis copies the directing of Fleischer while incorporating a better colour palette and comic-book visuals. Serkis plays up the comic-book roots and gothic nature of the film, not only homaging classic Spider-Man stories and imagery, but even offering a special animated sequence of a young Cletus that feels very Tim Burton-esque. The lighting is very moody and atmospheric, which adds to the film's charm. The cinematography by Robert Richardson is adaquete with some neat tracking and distancing, but it's no Oscar-worthy work from the talented camera operator. The score by Marco Beltrami is pretty average that's experimental yet unmemorable compared to the thematic orchestrated offerings by Ludwig Goransson that has a recognizable main theme and action beat. It doesn't help that the Eminem song tied to this film is also far less memorable than the titular "Venom" single. The visual effects are about as good as before in regards to the designs and animation, but the convincing nature of the CGI isn't really its strong suit. The action sequences are far more improved from the first film. While I managed to enjoy the action sequences in the first film, I do understand that it can be pretty choppy and messy at areas for some. The action sequences here are far more coherent and easier to follow in regards to clarity with the final battle between Venom and Carnage being the highlight in its brutality and visuals. While Serkis has a long way to go to be considered a worthy film director, this demonstration shows he's at least competent in making a blockbuster.

"Venom: Let There Be Carnage" is not going to be for everyone. Whether it's due to the returning issues that the film doubles down on such as the tone and humour or newfound problems such as the rapid pace and overly-edited feel, the characters of Mulligan and Carnage, and the score by Beltrami being unmemorable. Regardless, the sequel does know how to capitalize on the entertainment value. From the evolving story, the improved comedy, Hardy's performance as Eddie/Venom, Harrelson and Harris's Cletus and Shriek chewing the scenery whenever possible, Richardson's cinematography being decent and visually engaging, the visual effects are still just as good as before given the modest budget, the action sequences are easier to follow and the climax is improved as a result, and Serkis's directing shows his love for the genre by offering a better use of colours and lighting as well as easter-egg homages to iconic Spider-Man stories. If you didn't enjoy the first film, chances are that the sequel might not win you over too much despite some improvements. However, if you are like me and did have a good time with the first film, you will be sure to have an even better time with the sequel.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Pretty good, but an extended cut is needed to really bump up the film in regards to its quality. Stick around for the mind-blowing mid-credit scene if you're watching it in theatres!

Beverly Hills Cop (1984) Film Review: Iconic Yet Basic At The Same Time...

 

Eddie Murphy was already known to be a notable stand-up comedian and his first few co-starring roles were huge hits such as "48" and "Trading Places". When it came time to take on a starring role though, no one will realize how huge of a blockbuster it would have become, earning it the spot of the highest-grossing film of that year and turning Murphy into a superstar overnight. Axel Foley is a young and talented detective in the Detroit Police Department, but is known to be a loose cannon and a reckless officer. When an old childhood friend comes over to pay him a visit, he is assassinated with the police force demanding that Foley stays off the case. Foley seems to agree by taking vacation time to leave the city, but it's really a way for Foley to actually investigate for himself as his friend told him that he spent time there before heading over to Detroit. As Foley continues to be a reckless officer, the Beverly Hills Police Department order a duo of their officers to keep an eye on Foley to ensure that he's not getting into unauthorized detective work. While the story has a good hook to keep you somewhat invested in Foley's case, it is perhaps the film's weakest area in regards to set-up. Foley's friend shows up for a scene or two talking about how close they are before getting killed off as soon as possible. Foley also has another friend in Beverly Hills who proves to be helpful in her own ways and the villain is so obvious evil that he doesn't even try to pretend he had anything to do with the murder. While one may think that this will be forgiven considering that the film is a comedy, that's not exactly the case. Yes, the film does have its comedic highlights as Foley is a street-smart and talkative personality that works off with the cast, the story still takes itself seriously to some degree and Foley isn't as extreme of a Murphy performance as you think. The film feels very much like the blueprint for "Bad Boys" given the grounded, serious story and the charismatic and funny leads.

Murphy as Axel Foley is one of the star's most unique roles in his career. When you think of Murphy, you think of this over-the-top comedian that just shouts and makes up a ton of nonsense that will irritate others around him, similarly to Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler. Axel Foley is strangely Murphy's more grounded performances in regards to his personality. Yes, Foley does act like a fool and shout a lot every now and then, but Murphy plays the character like a unique character who uses his eccentric behaviour as a strategic advantage. Foley only jokes around to throw off others or to show that he is in control, but it's all to act as a mind-game to others because he's far more observant then he leads on, which allows some great moments in the film and make Foley one of Murphy's most iconic characters he portrays. Judge Reinhold and John Ashton as Detective Rosewood and Sergeant Taggart work so well off each other as the inexperienced youthful cop and the serious, no-nonsense supervisor that the two of them alone could have made an entertaining film in their own regard. But with Foley thrown in, it cranks them up to be likeable pawns to his schemes and a trio of personalities. Lisa Eilbacher as Jenny, Foley's longtime friend who resides in Beverly Hills, is a bit underdeveloped in regards to how the two know each other, but Eilbacher is able to play off on Murphy's personality and make for a nice friendship that doesn't escalate to romance. Steven Berkoff as Victor Maitland is the obvious German villain that plays it straight even when Foley manages to invade his life, showing that he seems always in control of the situation. Maitland is a very generic antagonist for the genre for sure and one who lacks both menace and personality, but Berkoff is doing his best in playing such as a serious villain in a lively and energetic comedy. Lastly, there's James Russo as Mikey, Foley's friend who is killed by Maitland after he steals some bearer bonds off from him. While his inclusion is very much forced and cut short to establish how best buds he is with Foley, Russo does a great job for how limited his screentime is. There are other characters I'm leaving out, such as the lieutenant and chief of the Beverly Hills Police Department, but all I will say is that everyone acts well for their given roles, even if the writing on some of them is very much hampered by the direction of the narrative. Still, Murphy just steals the show for his portrayal of Foley and how he can be both a comedic stand-up and a convincing action star.

Martin Brest is a director that is not really known for having a unique flair, style or genre. He very much acts as a jack-of-all-trades so that the direction doesn't really overcome the film's script or actors, even if they aren't good themselves. This film is no different as not only Brest continues his lack of directorial style, but the budget itself is quite low to warrant ambition in the filmmaking department. Despite all of this, Brest does a good job in trying to give the film a sense of feel or character. Detroit is portrayed to be an ugly and industrial ghetto, while Beverly Hills is shown to be a sunny, lavish paradise with not many skyscrapers taking over the scenery. The film's low budget makes it feel like a indie production from the 70's, almost acting as an homage to films like "Shaft" and "Saturday Night Fever" in its bare-bones directing and aesthetic. The cinematography by Bruce Surtees is pretty standard given the lack of directorial style and budget, but it's not bad by any means. There's some good reaction shots, panning and staging that, while not spectacular, works well for the film it inhabits. Harold Faltermeyer knocks it out of the park in the musical score by gracing the film with the iconic Axel Foley theme, an 80's synth-pop beat that not only transcended to pop culture, but is recognizable as one of the most famous pieces from that decade. While the theme itself is overused and placed in scenes that don't really warrant the music, the piece is still legendary on its own merit that it's not a drawback whatsoever. It also helps that the film carries a decent soundtrack to boot with "Neutron Dance" and "New Attitude" that injects personality to the film as a whole. The action sequences are a mixed bag. The opening truck chase in Detroit is pretty good in its stunts and scale and the final shoot-out in Maitland's mansion is a great way to end off the film, but the hand-to-hand combat is so obviously poor and the violence itself is pretty tame given the R-rating. Yes, there is blood and bullet wounds, but it's clear that Brest was trying to avoid gore as the execution of Mikey literally contains no blood despite the implied brutality that is displayed. Regardless, Brest does a fine job as a director, even if it means that other elements of the film outshine his offerings.

"Beverly Hills Cop" is not one of the best action-comedies of all time. The story is pretty loosely-written, the comedy is a mixed-bag with some hits and misses, Jenny, Mikey, and Maitland are hampered by the writing in regards to the roles they fit, and the fake punches and lack of gore hampers the action. Still, it's not hard to see why this film is seen as a classic by many. The tone and balance of humour and seriousness is well handled, Murphy's performance and characterization of Axel Foley is one of his best roles in regards to how diverse it is, Rosewood and Taggart are great targets for Foley's schemes and have great chemistry, the cast as a whole do great jobs regardless of their roles, Surtees's camerawork is decent, Faltermeyer's score is iconic with "Axel F" along with a memorable soundtrack attached to a famous beat, the action sequences are solid in scope and stunts, and Brest's directing carries a low-budget appeal that works regardless if it's intentional or not. While it's by no means amongst Murphy's best work, it holds an important role in being the surprise blockbuster of the time that turned Murphy into the superstar he is known as today.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but not amazing. Still a fun watch and carries an iconic performance and beat.

The Revenant (2015/2016) Film Review: The Forgotten Oscar Darling...

 

Has there been a film that was hyped up during the Oscar season, nabbed a few awards, and just disappear from the public eye? One of these films was "The Revenant", a grisly (no pun intended) Western epic that managed to be a huge box office success and win some notable awards such as Best Cinematography, Best Actor, and Best Director. Even though it seems like this could have started a new trend in the genre or even begin a huge career for the director, nothing has happened for six years and the film is starting to lose its impact. Does it deserve its fate or should people revisit a potential classic? Loosely based on true events, the film follows Hugh Glass, a frontiersman who is put in a critical condition after a brutal grizzly bear attack. John Fitzgerald, a trapper part of Glass's group, tries to mercy-kill Glass without his approval in order to get paid and leave the enduring wilderness, leading John to kill Glass's half-breed son who attempts to stop the murder. After lying to a younger crew-mate that they will get ambushed, Fitzgerald proceeds to leave Glass behind with no weapons and hope he dies in a half-buried grave. Despite his injuries, Glass pulls through and begins his journey back to civilization to let the truth out and kill Fitzgerald for the murder of his son. The real-life event is far different as Glass never had a son and even forgave Fitzgerald once he returned, as the latter wasn't as devious in real life. The story is very much a revenge-thriller with gritty sequences and stomach-churning moments. While the film tries to act like there's more to the story and themes with some trippy hallucinations and flashbacks, it kind of fails in making the story seem far more poetic or thought-provoking than it really is. Despite this, it completely works as a basic revenge-thriller as the tone cranks up the intense raw grit, suspense, and the growing sense of hope as Glass manages to pull through in the most chaotic situations. Even though the film is two-and-a-half hours, it never loses my attention as there's a ton of great action and character moments throughout the runtime.

Leonardo DiCaprio finally won a long-deserved Oscar for his performance as Glass. While everyone debates about his portrayal of the survivor shouldn't have been the role to win an Oscar in contrast to his more memorable performances, it shouldn't take away that DiCaprio did a great job. Yes, Glass doesn't have the most compelling dialogue in the world, but DiCaprio goes all out on the physical acting and pain that he and the character go through in both the movie and in production. Tom Hardy as Fitzgerald manages to rescue the antagonist from being just an unnecessary bad guy that just hates the main character. Hardy's gruff and devious performance shows how talented he is at playing characters that have limited personality and manages to make them memorable despite their flaws, whether it's both the hero or villain. Domhall Gleeson as Captain Henry is also really good, showing how much he cares for his people and loyalty to the point that he can't mercy-kill Glass. Will Poulter as Jim Bridger is another great cast as the younger and naive member of the team who is kind-hearted, but easily manipulated by Fitzgerald. The Native American characters, Hawk, Hiquc, and Powaqa, are well acted by their respective actors and actresses and give off their sense of humanity and comradery, but they have limited amount of screentime in the film to make their hardships and fates more devastating as they are. Any other minor characters are just as good as the others, but it's truly DiCaprio that steals the show and puts out an Oscar-worthy performance not by amazing dialogue or character depth, but just raw physical acting.

Alejandro G. Inarritu is a director that could have became one of the most in-demand filmmakers of the modern era for his Oscar-winning work on both "Birdman" and "The Revenant", but he chooses to make films in his native home of Mexico rather than do more Hollywood projects. Whether it's due to personal reasons or the complicated production "The Revenant" went through, it doesn't really matter by the end as Inarritu continues to show he is a masterful director. The isolated, winter landscape is not only captured both haunting in terms of its scope and obstacles, but beautifully captured by the director to show an appreciation for nature despite the trials it can produce for both Glass and the production. While it may seem like a grey, cold film to look at when you judge the story and tone, there's actually quite a bit of colour and warmth, whether it's a flashback or just one of numerous spectacular shots from Emmanuel Lubezki. Much like Inarritu himself, the cinematographer could have been another in-demand worker in the industry by just this film alone. Not only does Lubezki have some beautiful captures of the environment and unnerving hand-held movement of Glass's endeavours, but the many uninterrupted, tracking one-takes are incredible to look upon, whether it's for an action sequence or a moment of basic survival. The score by both Ryuichi Sakamoto and Alva Noto is both haunting and etherial at the same time, matching the beauty and dangerous landscape of the winter wilderness. The practical effects and make-up are excellent in making the gore and injuries look and feel real while staying in nature to the brutal tone. While there's not too much CGI in the film, the outstanding digital effect is the bear attack that is expertly captured by DiCaprio's acting, wires, prosthetics, and camerawork by Lubezki. And while the film isn't described as an action film per se, the ambush in the beginning and the duel between Glass and Fitzgerald is both as intense, violent, and riveting in every second, while the seamless camerawork and editing makes it almost too real at times. If this is Inarritu's final collaboration with Hollywood, at least he made it one hell of a movie to go out on.

"The Revenant" isn't a perfect film that matches some other Oscar-winning material. The story is basically a big-budget revenge thriller with little to no thematic substance and the changes made from real-life are too much at times, particularly Fitzgerald's antagonistic role and the resolution. Despite this, the film might be the best revenge-thriller to date if we're going by quality alone. From the brutal yet hopeful tone, DiCaprio's Oscar-winning performance as Glass, Hardy's talented acting to make Fitzgerald far more memorable and compelling despite the weak writing for the antagonist, the side and minor cast are very well acted and used throughout the film even if some dramatic flair is deflated, the camerawork by Lubezki deserves every bit of gold on that Oscar, the score by Sakamoto and Noto perfectly fits the duel-identity of the film, the practical and digital effects are extremely top-notch in making the viewer believe in how real it is, the few action sequences in the film are visually compelling and gritty to behold, and the directing by Inarritu is practically perfection in capturing the brutal and beautiful side of nature and making the viewer be on the same journey as Glass. The film doesn't deserve the continuing decline of unpopularity that the public continues to act on. It's not a film that will challenge anyone's beliefs or viewpoints or even the most effective drama out there, but it's still a masterful piece of work by both the performances and filmmakers that went to hell and back to make this movie.

Verdict: 8.5/10. Great revenge-thriller, even if it doesn't really carry much thematic weight. Still a viewing experience no matter the first or repeated viewing it is!

In The Heights (2021) Film Review: How High Does It Get?

 

We all know or at least heard of Lin-Manuel Miranda's "Hamilton", a Broadway musical that has shot up to critical and commercial success and is quickly being regarded as one of the best musical productions in the industry. Despite the popularity of "Hamilton", you can be forgiven for thinking it was Miranda's first Broadway musical. His first, "In The Heights", paved the way for his signature style and musical flavour and it would be fitting that it would be the first of his works to get a film. In Washington Heights, a largely-Hispanic neighbourhood in New York City, a young bodega owner named Usnavi dreams of moving to the Dominican to inherit his late father's business as well as getting with Vanessa, a woman who wants to be a fashion designer. His friend, Benny, is also rekindling a relationship with Nina, a university student who has returned back to the neighbourhood after not enjoying the experience on campus. I'm not going to try to explain the story further as it takes a slice-of-life approach where it's all about the characters and themes rather than grand storytelling. The themes in particular resonate with me for my mixed background and it gets its message about the importance of heritage, belonging and identity across. The runtime though can be problematic at nearly two-and-a-half hours, which can really drag in areas. The tone is upbeat and energetic that tries to have humour that appeals to both younger and older audiences alike with some success. It's not as dramatic as "Hamilton" or even other musicals, but it surely keeps its preferred tone and feel for the majority of the film that it becomes quite infective.

Anthony Ramos as Usnavi is great as the young, naive storekeeper who dreams big and acts as the underdog of the film. Ramos brings charm and a sense of innocence and determination to the character that it's almost on par to that of Miranda's performance. Corey Hawkins as Benny is also great as the fun-loving and supportive boyfriend of Nina, while Gregory Diaz IV is enjoyable as Sonny, the teenaged cousin of Usnavi and the jokester of the group. Jimmy Smits as Kevin, Nina's father, is fantastic as the supportive and humble parent who just wants what's best for their daughter, and Olga Merediz reprises her role from the musical as Abuelia Claudia, the caretaker of Usnavi and maternal pillar of the community. There are some other characters such as the salon ladies and the piraguero man that serve as comic relief, but those are all of the likeable characters of the film. It's the main female leads however that really take the short end of the straw. Vanessa, played by Melissa Barrera, is a fine actress and singer, but she has no notable personality aside of wanting to be a fashion designer and wearing skimpy clothing in every scene. It doesn't help that the romance between her and Usnavi is extremely weak as they make the audience believe they are in love and it feels like it was all driven by attraction alone. Nina, played by Leslie Grace, is far better than Vanessa in terms of having a personality and the romance between her and Benny offering actual chemistry, but her reasoning behind leaving university and her reluctance to have her father pay is so petty that it makes her kind of weak in areas as it's all due to being the only brown person on campus and being searched once, which makes her selfish in dropping out as a result, until she chooses to return to school by the end. So, aside from the female characters carrying their problematic baggage, the characters are all enjoyable thanks to the performers who bring their charisma and singing chops to the role.

Jon M. Chu is known for his work on various Justin Bieber documentaries, "Step Up" sequels, and his breakout hit, "Crazy Rich Asians". While the director has his fair share of duds like "Jem and the Holograms", Chu proves to be a competent director and one whose most at home with musical/rom-com productions. The first thing to note is the amount of colour and personality that can be found in Washington Heights. While the real-life neighbourhood and the rest of New York as a whole isn't known to be a picturesque city, Chu manages to make the granite buildings and streets look vibrant and full of life to romanticize the level of community and heritage that belong in the area. It also acts as a prime summer movie with the sunny days and high temperatures playing into the overarching story. The cinematography by Alice Brooks is well done in her ability to offer a ton of variety in the tracking, scaling, and one-take shots throughout the film, which is more notable in the musical numbers. Speaking of which, the songs here are as great as you can get with Miranda's talents. Songs such as "In the Heights", "Benny's Dispatch", "No Me Diga", "96,000",  "Blackout", and "Carnaval del Barrio" are absolute bangers and the rest of the songs are top-notch in their own regard. A lot of the songs are inspired by Latino/R&B music and it makes them even more memorable because of the Latino homages and sounds.The musical numbers themselves all have kinetic energy and pacing accompanied by excellent choreography and set-pieces. Some sequences have more ambition in its camerawork and choreography such as "96,000" and "When the Sun Goes Down", but it doesn't undermine the rest of the numbers because the music and performers are just so good. Chu might not become one of the most in-demand directors in the industry, but he can at least make a great-looking film and musical.

"In the Heights" is nowhere near my favourite musical, but it almost could have been if a few issues were absent. From a long runtime, to the characters of Vanessa and Nina having their issues as characters as well as the romances not having much chemistry, the negatives do harm the overall experience a bit. With that said, it's great that the issues are as minimal as they are. From the slice-of-life approach and great themes, lighthearted and bouncy tone, Usnavi being a charismatic and likeable lead, the side cast being just as enjoyable or dramatically resonant, the camerawork by Brooks being solid and even visually enticing, a large portion of the songs being memorable without needing to watch the film to accompany them, the musical numbers and sequences offering some spectacular choreography and even some unique camerawork and surreal imagery, and Chu's directing being able to make one of the most unappealing cities in the world explode in both colour and personality while capturing that summer feeling. Even if it may never reach the levels of the best musicals in both film and theatre, "In the Heights" fits comfortably as just a great experience and production no matter what your background or opinion of Miranda is.

Verdict: 8/10. Enjoyable musical that could have easily been one of the best if the issues were non-existent. Check it out if you haven't seen it in theatres or on HBOMax. 

Batman & Robin (1997) Film Review: The Film That Nearly Killed Superhero Movies...

 

While the superhero genre appears to be in an immortal status in the film industry, that wasn't always the case. During the late 90's, it seemed that the genre would have been a fad and it was all thanks to one of the biggest box-office bombs of all time. At first, the story seems like it's the typical Batman affair as it follows the dynamic duo as they have to face-off against Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy and a very dumbed-down Bane, while Alfred's niece, Barbara Wilson, visits to spend time with her caring uncle when he begins to suffer the early stages of MacGregor's Syndrome. The story probably should have worked on its own merit alone... if this were a normal Batman movie. However, the tone and identity of the film has become surrounded in infamy thanks to the extreme use of campy, over-the-top approach to the film along with jokes and scenes that feel like they came from a parody movie. What's strange is that at very few moments, the film almost acts like a true Batman film with the more emotional scenes regarding Bruce and Alfred, along with Mr. Freeze's backstory. These moments however are so few and far-between that it won't make diehard fans stick around and watch. In my honest opinion, I did manage to get a few ironic and un-ironic laughs while watching, thanks to some witty dialogue and bizarre situations. I actually think that if it went all out on the satire approach and did something similar to what "The LEGO Batman Movie" did with the character and legacy, I believe that it could actually be pretty good. However, one can only tolerate so much camp and silliness with a good chunk of unfunny jokes to boot. Even if you just focus on the story, it still has its issues regarding some pointless sub-plots regarding Alfred's brother and Bruce's girlfriend as well as the tonal shifts between serious Batman film and comedic campiness.

Upon hearing the casting for the film, you'd be forgiven for thinking that it's not only ideal casting, but fuelled with talent. From George Clooney's Batman, Arnold Schwarzenegger's Mr. Freeze, Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy, Chris O'Donnell's Robin, and Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl, these actors and actresses not only look the part, but could even act it well...if this were a normal Batman film. While the cast never seemed to run into issues on set and do manage to recall having fun when filming, it's quite clear that they didn't really give it their A-game for this film. Because of the ridiculous tone and campy approach, everyone either underacts or overacts. Clooney looks great and acts fine as Bruce Wayne, but phones it in as Batman. O'Donnell and Silverstone mostly feel wooden as Robin and Batgirl, despite having a few decent lines and banter. Schwarzenegger is great at using body language for the more dramatic scenes, but plays Mr. Freeze way too campy. Thurman as Ivy is perhaps the best campy performance in the film as the lack of drama allows her to go all in on the femme fatale nature of the character and be just the right amount of over-the-top, even if that's not what many fans would want from the character. Bane, played by the late Robert Swenson, is well-known to be horribly mischaracterized as the strong, but dumb henchman despite the character having great intelligence and menace in the comics, but considering the type of movie this is, I'm not that offended about it. The only good performance that manages to come out of the film is the late Micheal Gough as Alfred. Despite how silly and comedic the film gets, Gough never phones in his performance unlike the others and makes his portrayal of Alfred very consistent throughout the various films. As for the minor characters and extras, they are all clearly having fun in being in an unapologetic campy, comic-book movie, which is both enduring and kind of bad to watch. While the cast overall do have their moments and Gough surprisingly manages to be the best actor in the film, the inherent nature of the tone clearly made the talented actors and actresses not take their roles seriously and just had fun with it, which is both understandable and insulting at the same time.

If there's one thing that the film has going for, it's Joel Schumacher's direction. Yes, his vivid colourful aesthetic does take away the gothic nature of Gotham City to practically turn it into a neon wonder, but man, does it look great. Schumacher states that he was trying to homage both the look and feel of the 60's show and early comics by Dick Sprang and he very much succeeded on his goal. The lighting in particular is able to offer its share fair of natural and gothic-looking scenes such as Wayne Manor and Arkham Asylum on top of the robust neon coloured scenes such as Freeze's and Ivy's lair. The cinematography by Stephan Goldbatt can feel a bit amateurish at times, but the pans and zooms help show off the grand scale of the set design, which Schumacher is clearly proud of. The score by Elliot Goldenthal is not bad by any means as it does fit with the character, but it's way too over-the-top and exaggerated like the film itself and it constantly blares itself over the film. It also just doesn't hold a candle to Danny Elfman's memorable score from the Burton films. The visual effects hold up pretty well for a film made nearly twenty-five years ago. Not only do you have some fantastic-looking minatures, props, matte-paintings, and opticals (save for one infamous moment), but the CGI is pretty solid. The action sequences, on the other hand, aren't anything special as the majority of the fights have some poor choreography and scale. There are some neat moments such as the various Bat-vehicles being put to use and when Freeze freezes the city, but the action isn't really the strong suit of Schumacher's films. Overall, the saving grace of the film is very much Schumacher's direction as he does manage to make a pleasant and memorizing-looking superhero film, even if it's not one that best associates with Batman.

"Batman & Robin" is nowhere near one of the worst films ever made or even one of the worst superhero films made, but it's very much the worst Batman film to date for obvious reasons. The story feels undercooked in areas with the tonal shifts and undeveloped sub-plots, the tone goes far too campy and goofy for many, the humour mostly misses instead of hits, the Bat-crew are underacting and phoning in their performances, the villains and side-cast are overacting and making them goofballs, and the action sequences are just not really engaging to behold. Despite all of this, it's far from being considered painful or boring for me to watch. When the film acts like a serious Batman film in sparse moments, it does feel effective. The tone is very much an issue, but if you quickly accept the tone, there are some funny lines and moments to witness that are both intentional and unintentional. The casting all around is spot-on with Thurman and Gough offering the best performances with the others showing few moments of charisma, the camerawork by Goldbatt complements the great production and set design, Goldenthal's score is decent on its own merit, the practical and digital effects hold up extremely well with the minature and matte-paintings being the best aged elements of the visuals, and Schumacher's direction makes a memorable-looking film with a wide and vivid use of colour palette makes the comic panels come to life regardless of the aesthetic of Batman. It's a film that can range so bad it's good to just below-average depending on your perspective towards the franchise and acceptance of what the film is. Could it have been a really mature Batman story or even an interesting satire on the iconic character if given proper attention? Sure. But, no matter what you say about this film, it will never be a boring one to watch or talk about.

Verdict: 4/10. Bad overall, but can serve as great eye candy. A recommended watch with friends and drinks!

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: This Ain't No Legend In The Making...

 

Phase Four of the MCU might be the franchise's weakest since Phase Two so far. While "Wandavision" and "Falcon and the Winter Soldier" were decent miniseries, they had some poor creative choices and structure as single-season stories. "Loki" is completely nonsensical and just made to complicate the franchise with multiverse adventures that Doctor Strange and Spider-Man have to deal with, while "Black Widow" is an underwhelming return to theatres with a pointless story of a dead character, mishandled villain, and no advancements for the universe aside from a single mid-credit scene. The only thing that I'm really enjoying is "What If...?", and that's just because they are single bite-sized stories ranging from silly concepts to interesting outcomes. Marvel's latest superhero romp though had me interested at first. The action looked great, Simu Liu is a fun Canadian actor, and the director's last film was the underrated "Just Mercy". This film may have the potential to reach the heights of "Iron Man" or "Black Panther", but man, did it blew its opportunity.

Positives:

• The story when it focuses on Shang-Chi and his father. It's both emotional and dark to see the father and son fight as the film gives us some great backstory material and a strange dynamic where the characters don't really want to kill each other or hate each other, but their goals and beliefs simply don't align to them. When the film takes itself seriously, it echos the lost potential of how great this movie could have been.
• Simu Liu as Shang-Chi. Liu does an excellent job at being both charismatic and dramatic as the hero with the tortured past. The fact that most of the stunts were performed by him shows just how dedicated he was to the film and role.
• Tony Leoung as Xu Wenwu/The Mandarin. Leoung was fantastic at being both this menacing and cold leader while showing that he does have potential to be a caring and king father. His arc, up until the end, was great and he could have been one of the best villains in the franchise if the film didn't take such a random direction at the end. Fala Chen as Ying Li is also great as the wife of Xu and the only person that truly changed his outlook on life.
• The direction by Destin Daniel Cretton. Cretton is becoming a rising filmmaker and this film shows off how talented he can be. The film can feel both low-budget and cinematic at the same time and the brightened aesthetic and vivid colours does make the film feel clean and visually engaging. 
• The cinematography by William Pope. Similar to Cretton's direction, but his work on most of the action sequences is great and some of the single-frame wonders look wonderful as the environment engulfs the actors from afar.
• The music by Joel P. West. I have never heard of West before, but he did such a great job with the score. While the licensed soundtrack is kind of average in its selection, the original music that crosses from dramatic oriental pieces to electronic punk is great at giving the film a sense of personality.
• The hand-to-hand combat and the first two big action sequences. The use of kung fu and stunts throughout the film is awesome to see during the first half of the film. While the second set-piece in the fight-club is decent, the first set-piece involving Shang-Chi in the bus is one of the best in the genre. From the music, the stunts, the pacing, and the scale, it's a brilliant way to keep people invested for the rest of the film. However, it's a damn shame that it made the movie peak way too early as a result.

Negatives:

• The story direction. The first act does a great job at setting up a personal dilemma and the feel that the film is going for in terms of aesthetic, action and scope. The film feels almost grounded with the exception of the Ten Rings themselves. However, the story takes such a wild direction by the second act where they introduce a hidden village located in an alternate dimension that hosts Pokemon-looking creatures and the introduction of the true threat, which are these space demons that suck the souls off people. We went from a grounded action-thriller that is motivated by personal drama to saving the world from space demons with dragons and glowing weapons. You can debate about if it's using the Asian culture good or not, but this is such a whiplash of story direction and makes the film feel more generic that it should have been.
• The forced MCU connections. What makes "Black Panther" one of the best films in the franchise is that it feels very stand-alone to the rest of the universe, rarely incorporating other characters or elements from the franchise. "Shang-Chi" however feels insecure as a stand-alone film and forces various cameos throughout. Remember the scene in the trailer where Abomination and Wong fight? Well, that happens for like ten seconds and the scene itself feels so random and out-of-context. Like, why is Wong fighting in a fight club and making friends with Abomination? Where did this come from? The mid-credits with Bruce Banner and Captain Marvel feels forced in order to tell the audience that Shang-Chi is going to be part of the Avengers at some point. And then there's Trevor Slattery, played by Ben Kingsley. I thought this guy was going to appear in like one scene. Instead, he joins the crew in the second act as comic relief and it feels so out-of-place along with the random hairy butt creature he just knows how to communicate with that will lead the heroes to the hidden village. Slattery feel so forced in the plot that it's stupid.
• The tonal shifts. I love when the film focuses on the serious story and relationships of the family dynamic of the hero and villain. However, the serious nature of the film is constantly at odds with the humour, mythical creatures and over-the-top third act. A prime example is when Shang-Chi is telling a flashback of his past and is interrupted by a flight attendant halfway. "Black Panther" has its humour very much kept away from the more serious moments of the story. Imagine when T'Challa is fighting Killmonger and Shiri asks them what were those? That's the level "Shang-Chi" stoops down too. Also, it doesn't help that the humour itself is pretty weak given the clashing of tones and forced writing.
• Awkwafina as Katy. At first, Katy is a typical Awkwafina role. An unfunny and cartoonish comic relief that acts as the best friend of the main character. I didn't find her too annoying for the most part, but her inclusion just felt odd. The moment where she manages to shoot an arrow through the throat of the big bad monster though, it just shows how stupid this movies gets, considering Katy just learned how to fire a bow and arrow the day before. Katy went from an unfunny comic relief to an unnecessary important character from one single idiotic scene. 
• Meng'er Zhang as Shang-Chi's sister, Xu Xialing. Zhang is well-acted, but ultimately pointless in the grand scheme of the plot. It almost feels like she was meant to take Katy's place in the story, but Katy took bigger priority for comedy purposes. There's not really much for the side cast aside from the villagers and Razor Fist, who are just generic roles.
• The CGI. The overuse of the visual effects causes a lack of clarity and it painfully sticks out throughout the film when the first act kept it minimal. If the rings, weapons, and backgrounds were effects, it would be fine. But when monsters and creatures gets thrown in, it takes a notch down from how fake they look and how they clash with the more grounded first act.
• The latter action sequences. The escape from the prison was all CGI and it's a far-cry from the excellent stunts and kinetic action from the first two set-pieces. The climax itself is mostly CGI nonsense with weapons, demons, the rings, and dragons flying all over the place. It makes the climax of "Black Panther" look amazing in retrospective.
• The climax as a whole. While I already stated the tonal clashes, overuse of effects, Katy's role, and weak action present, it's how insulting the third act derails the personal story between Shang-Chi and his father by two ways. For one, rather than a proper reconciliation, Xu is killed by the big bad Dweller-in-Darkness. For a movie that carries such a serious relationship and characterization of the primary villain, him getting killed by a CGI abomination is just so silly and off-putting. If he was going to die, do it either more tastefully or more logical. The second and most heinous act is how it changes Shang-Chi's perspective of the rings. The film makes it explicitly clear that Shang hates the rings as weaponry and how it acted as a type of drug that consumed his father's life. He even disarms himself once he bested his father. But when Xu gets his soul sucked by the giant CGI monster, what does Shang do? Use the rings to kill the monster and keeps them by the end of the film. It's amazing on how inconsistent this film is to its own script and identity.

"Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings" is a prime example of how bad Marvel Studios is at making good movies. Yes, the direction, camerawork, score, martial arts action, aspects of the story, and the lead performances of Liu and Leound are outstanding. But, they barely amount to anything if the rest of the film is painful to watch in how misguided and self-destructive it gets. From the random fantastical elements thrown in the third act, the forced MCU connections, the unbalanced tonal shifts of serious and light-heated humour, Awkwafina's Katy being both bad comic relief and idiotic plot device, Xialing is just standing around aimlessly, the CGI is overused to hell that it looks awful, the action sequences present in the second and third act overuse effects that it becomes more artificial, and the climax itself disregards the strongest aspects of the storyline regarding the connection with Shang and his dad and his view on the rings. I really wanted to enjoy this movie and the first act was everything I was expecting, but man, this movie just falls apart after the bus sequence. Yet, because this is the only movie worth watching this month, people will flock to it and praise trash like this.

Verdict: 5/10. Average at best, painfully bad at worst. Just wait until it comes out on Disney+ and watch the first act before watching something else entirely.