Encanto (2021) Film Review: Disney's Best After Five Years?

 

Ever since "Zootopia", Disney Animation hasn't really been putting their biggest effort in their films. "Ralph Breaks the Internet" and "Frozen 2" were insulting follow-ups to respectable films and "Moana" and "Raya and the Last Dragon" had their moments, but didn't have a sharp script or strong enough theme to complement the film. Much like "Raya and the Last Dragon", I barely noticed the advertising of the latest film from Disney and expected something that was going to be average, but was pleasantly surprised by the time the credits rolled. In a rural town, the Madrigal family are the most talked-about, mainly due to their magical house and candle that grants each member of the bloodline a special gift. One member of the family though, Mirabel, never received a gift and is treated like the black sheep because of it. When Mirabel starts to notice signs of the house losing its magic, it's up to her to learn what's causing it and the true nature of her family's struggles. Throughout the story, I was sucked in to the growing mystery and narrative from a lost family member to uncertain outcomes to the themes of the story about families needing to work through toxicity and not holding the status quo. While the story did hold my interest for the entire runtime, it sadly falls by the very end. Not only does the film never explain why Mirabel doesn't receive powers whatsoever or if her being the only one without powers has a greater meaning, but the ending actually makes everyone loses their powers and magical house only to give everything back to them by the final minute, just for the sake of a happy ending for children. The ending really needed to have been changed or expanded upon in my opinion. And while I like the more mature tone that fits with the themes and storytelling along with the solid emotional and character moments, the comedy is pretty mixed in the use of good and bad jokes. I watched it in theatres with a good amount of families and the laughs are very uneven to say the least. When the humour is focused on the family dynamic, it's pretty good. When it's focused on animals or outsider characters, it's not.

Mirabel, voiced by Stephanie Beatriz, is on the same level as Judy in regards to loveable Disney protagonists. She's quirky, wholesome, a bit of a klutz and just has a great range of personality and emotional range. Her acceptance of embracing herself despite lacking a gift is a great arc, even if that whole plot point can be frustrating to me. Abuela Alma is a very interesting character that I'm surprised a Disney film would cover. While at first a supportive, if stern, grandmother, Alma reveals her true colours at revealing her vile side in making both Mirabel and Bruno the black sheep of the family in order to hold that perfect reputation for her family. She's extremely realistic in how much she loves her family to the point that it starts to hurt them, but is not evil or completely unredeemable. She's just a toxic family member that needs to be put on the same page as others. Uncle Bruno, voiced by John Leguizamo, is a bit of a retread of Hector from "Coco", but he's such a fun and tragic character that I honestly wouldn't have minded if the film copied that whole plot-line from the Pixar masterpiece. The rest of the family are also well-developed and have their moments of chemistry and growth with Mirabel for the most part with the muscle-bound Luisa, the super-hearing Dolores, and the innocent, animal-loving Antonio along with more minor, comic-relief family members, particularly the male characters. However, not everyone of the family is as fleshed out as they could have been or even likeable. Julieta, Mirabel's mother, is the typical supportive mother who doesn't have a unique conflict with her own mother, which is something that felt oddly left out. Tia Pepa is just the stressed-out and annoying family member that never really connects with Mirabel or even her own son. Lastly, Isabela, Mirabel's sister, is far too mean to Mirabel for literally no reason when the film could have made her envious by making her wish that she lacked her gift and be in the background like Mirabel. Still, the cast is very enjoyable with many characters competing for being a favourite, much like the conflict of the film.

The animation is fantastic as usual coming from Disney. Not only is the film bursting with vivid colour and even a moody atmosphere on occasion, but the detail is just spectacular. The character designs are a nice balance of cartoonish and realistic with a touch of exaggeration, but they look just like how they act like real people. The songs by Lin-Manuel Miranda are pretty good with "The Family Madrigal", "Waiting on a Miracle", "Surface Pressure", "We Don't Talk About Bruno", "What Else Can I Do?", and "All of You" being respectable numbers on their own right. Although his work on "Moana" is probably more memorable, the songs he writes here are inherently better as it not only feels like Miranda wrote them, but it ties a lot more into Columbian and Latino music as a whole. Overall, the animation and songs are top-tier in Disney's line-up.

"Encanto" manages to get up to the top ten best that the studio has offered, but could have easily been in the top five or even three. The ending, along with unsatisfying aspects of the plot and characters, just hold the film back from being a masterpiece, but that doesn't mean it's not a strong effort. The story did a great job in unfolding a mystery, the themes and morals are resonant, the more mature tone is balanced off with the more juvenile humour, Mirabel is a fun protagonist, Alma is a unique deuteragonist, the rest of the family member mostly add to the fun or even have some great development with Mirabel, the animation is beautiful, and the songs/musical numbers Miranda and Disney has offered for a while. I was very pleased to know that this film was as good as it was, flaws and all.

Verdict: 8.5/10. A great Disney classic in the making, but so close in being their next masterpiece. Looking forward for their next project to come...

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: Close To The Best Of The Best...

 

When Spider-Man's identity is revealed to the public and causes problems for his and his loved ones, Peter Parker asks Doctor Strange to make a spell to make everyone forget that he was Spider-Man. As Peter starts to get cold feet about the results, the spell is messed up and pulled in five villains who knew Peter from other universes. Upon learning their history though, Peter wants to save the villains from a dark fate, something Strange doesn't care or seek to aid him in. That's all I will say about the plot, but let's just say it gets pretty spectacular. I wasn't in love with the previous Holland films due to the MCU nature, but the final installment in this trilogy starts to mature out from the typical MCU formula to an actual Spider-Man movie, one that's really good. The story however does have minor issues and large plot holes galore, but the film is hoping that you ignore these writing problems and get won over by the overall experience, which it does, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist. The tone is a perfect marriage of MCU light-hearted humour and actual drama. Although some jokes overstay their welcome or are just not that funny, a large amount of them do hit and the emotional beats are actually effective in this trilogy, because Peter isn't whining or put in a mild predicament. It's dark, but fun at the same time.

Tom Holland excels at his performance of Peter, thanks to a vastly improved screenplay and character growth for the character. I always thought that he's a great actor, but the previous films held him back in the writing department. Now, these issues are gone and you start to feel for Holland and the journey he has to endure. Zendaya and Jacob Batalon as MJ and Ned are still great supporting roles as the girlfriend and best friend, who are also at their best in this movie. Jon Favreau as Happy Hogan is still decent and they actually gave Marisa Tomei's Aunt May actually have a character rather than be a youthful aunt joke. It should have happen much earlier, but I'm glad that the character of May is actually fixed. Benedict Cumberbatch's Doctor Strange is also kept as the perfect side role for a MCU lead, unlike Tony or Nick Fury in previous films. He does do pivotal things in the story, but Strange is written in a great way so that he has perfect reason why he doesn't get involved as much as he does. The returning villains are also done justice for the most part. Willam Dafoe's Green Goblin is such a classic to see and challenges Peter's mission throughout the movie, Alfred Molina's Doc Ock is a disgruntled, hopeless broken man that doesn't believe in salvation, and Jamie Foxx's Electro actually was improved from his initial appearance as they utilize Foxx's charisma and his previous development of him turning into a villain because he felt like a nobody. While these villains are done very well, the same can't be said for Sandman and Lizard. I will try to not dive into spoilers, but the issues with their characters is that they not only have strong motivations unlike the other villains, but they rarely feel connected to the others, because of the lack of chemistry and jokes played much with them and lack of character development. It also doesn't help that the effects on them are a bit off and the actors are reduced to a voice-over role. I understand the reason why they are done the way they are in order to keep their involvements secret along and to flesh out the other villains, but I wish that they either got different villains to take their place or just give them more development or moments of interaction. Despite that creative hiccup, the cast is greatly acted and loveable throughout, holding a strong foundation for the entire runtime.

Jon Watts is slowly, but surely, becoming a talented director. While Watts still suffers from having that lack of flair, style, overproduced, studio look in the first half of the film, he starts to experiment far more by the second half. From creative shots to use of colour to just avoiding the typical MCU look, Watts branches out more by the time it feels like he can get passionate about the film he's making, which is a far cry from the lackluster effort he did from previous films. One thing that holds him and the film back though is the editing by Jeffery Ford and Leigh Folsom Boyd. While the second half of the film feels mostly untouched, it's very apparent that the first half had tons of scenes and moments trimmed down or cut. From cutting down on the opening crisis of Peter being framed for murder to making certain reveals or moments feel awkwardly start or end, the editing in the first half is messy and I hope deleted scenes make it into the home release. The cinematography by Mauro Fiore is solid, but doesn't utilize the impressive tracking shots and methodical planning from his other work. Still, he offers some great iconic shots and moments throughout the movie to make up for the lack of trademark. The score by Michel Giacchino improves even more for this final theme as while he carries over the previous themes and mixes them around, he cuts out a lot of licensed music and settles for a more dramatic, orchestra complete with choir. Giacchino is slowly becoming a prominent name in the composing title and this film shows off just what he can accomplish. The visual effects are very good for the most part with the best aspect being the de-aging effects for Molina and Dafoe. While some of the CGI is a bit spotty during the climax along with the overall appearances of Sandman and Lizard, it's still great work and never comes off as problematic. The action sequences are again another thing that vastly improved from the previous films. Not only do they feel much more grander in scale and have more numerous fights, but there's a great fight near the end of the second fight that got me smiling throughout the entire thing. The climax is also a lot of fun, even if the setting feels a bit done-before. Aside from some weak effects here and there and the choppy editing in the first half, the filmmaking is vastly improved, thanks to the talents of Giacchino and Watts.

"Spider-Man: No Way Home" manages to be my third favourite "Spider-Man" film ever made. What holds it back from "Spider-Man 2" and "Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse" are the more noticeable issues as opposed to the other's only containing one issue (2's power loss narrative in a logical sense and Spiderverse's villain issue). From the various plot concerns, the poor treatment of Sandman and Lizard, and the editing by Ford and Boyd do make their presence known and it does hold this film back from truly the best of the best, unless you just don't care or ignore these issues, which I can't. Despite this, this film still accomplishes a lot. From the great story, wonderful use of a light and dark tone, Holland's Peter offering the best performance and development in the franchise, the side characters being more prominent and supportive, the main three villains offering their great presence and new character arcs, the camerawork by Fiore offering some great imagery, the score by Giacchino being the best of the trilogy with the more dramatic approach, the effects being pretty good all throughout, the action being far more exciting and memorable than ever before, and Watt's direction managing to improve more and more by the end of this trilogy. If future Spider-Man films are just as good with the potential of another trilogy, we can have the best superhero trilogy ever made. While flawed in its areas, this is still a great Spider-Man movie and superhero blockbuster extravaganza.

Verdict: 8.5/10. An amazing installment, but could have been even better if tweaked in areas. Still excited for the potential future of the character.

 

Eternals (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: A Never-Ending Borefest...

 

With "Spider-Man: No Way Home" coming out this week, I feel it's appropriate to review the last MCU film to come out today. Because of a borderline disinterest, I didn't watch "Eternals" when it came out and was actually planning to review the new Resident Evil film instead. However, due to a change of plans, I did manage to watch this in the weekend and got what I was expecting to get. Is it just as bad as the other MCU films that came out this year? Kind of...

Positives:

• The acting as a whole. While the characters have their issues for sure, the performances are pretty solid and you can tell that the actors and actresses are doing their best in handling this material.
• Chloe Zheo's direction. The Oscar-winning director does truly lend her talents to the MCU in regards to the commitment to on-location shooting and a polished, cinematic feel that is overlayed on a film that looks like an Oscar-bait attempt.
• The cinematography by Ben Davis. From the wide, establishing shots to the creative angles and zoom lens, Davis does a great job at making this film look as visually pleasing as it is.
• The score by Ramin Djawadi. While not his best work in regards to memorability, Djawadi does try to make this score feel as unique as possible when contrasted to other Marvel films, offering a lot of choir, orchestra and a dramatic scale to the film and its emotional moments.
• The visual effects. Not every effect is convincing, but the CGI is well-rendered and does look like it matches the movements and gestures of the characters onscreen.
• The action sequences. Although the action is hampered by the pacing, it looks pretty good mainly thanks to Davis's camerawork and the visuals. The fight with Ikiris and the ambush in the Amazon are the best sequences that the film offers. While not holding a light to "Shang-Chi", it at least is better to watch than any of the action presented in "Black Widow."

Negatives:

• The story. The premise of a group of immortal beings being on Earth for thousands of years and not partaking in the mold of human history is a neat, albeit complicated, concept. While the idea of the supposed heroes actually being villains in regards to their purpose being to monitor and destroy worlds for their cosmic creators is interesting, the story itself falters by the type of franchise it is in along with the various characters and sub-plots it throws in. Exposition is another big problem as the film literally opens up on a wall of text rather than showing the viewer the backstory. Even the story doesn't feel necessary to the MCU as all of the characters get pulled out of the galaxy and the world can continue on not acknowledging the events of the film much at all. I will expand more on how the story ultimately doesn't work as I continue through.
• The pacing. The film is two-and-a-half hours long and it feels much longer. The issue is that the story is set up to bring the gang back together for the climax. This type of narrative isn't so bad on paper, but the editing completely screws up the execution. The use of flashbacks overstay their welcome and the attempt to introduce the characters and their lives on modern-day not only gets repetitive, but slows down to the point that they have to introduce the final character by unearthing their ship, which raises a ton of questions and feels a bit unsatisfying. The worst part about all of this is that scenes and sub-plots take up too much time and don't amount to anything, which makes the film even more padded than it really is. This problem is doubled down on when other sub-plots and elements don't have much time to elaborate on, particularly certain philosophies and romances.
• The tone. This is the most uneven tone I've seen in a MCU film. The film tries hard in making an otherwise serious and introspective story, but is forced to endure the cliche MCU comedy. The comedy itself rarely hits the mark and should have been reserved to one or two characters than all of them. As for the serious nature and themes, these elements alone could have made the film one of the best in the MCU, but it botches that up by not really going all the way with its ideas. While ideas such as the consequences of immortality, powers that one can't really use, human design, universal plans, and even the larger question of letting one world die to make hundreds more are mostly downplayed upon, making the characters mostly align to one shared view by the end.
• Sersi as the protagonist. Gemma Chan is a great actress, but her talents can not save this blank slate of a character. Sersi has no notable personality traits and her reasons to love humanity and defend Earth is so basic that it begs the question why was she chosen as the lead character for this film. The worst thing about her character is the romance between her and Ikiris not being fleshed out. The film never explains why she grew distant from Ikaris romantically despite being together for thousands of years and it makes her feel like a deus ex machina by the end because Ikiris gives up his conquest after refusing to hurt Sersi.
• The villains. Ikaris, played by Richard Maddon, is well-acted and does have the potential to be a threatening villain, but the aforementioned romance with Sersi brings down his credibility since his life-long goal can easily be derailed from a lame romantic sub-plot. Ikaris also being another evil Superman archetype is pretty lazy as well. But the worst offender have got to be Kro, voiced by Bill Skarsgard. The Deviants are already pretty lame monsters that the Eternals have to battle, but the film shows a bit of potential as the leader of the Deviants begins to evolve by taking the powers and intellect of the Eternals he has killed, eventually vowing revenge on the Celestials and Eternals for what they have been doing to his kind. This could have been interesting by the climax as Eros could have joined forces with the Eternals to defeat Ikiris and stop the birth of another Celestial, which would be a satisfying arc and conclude the arcs of Thena and the Deviants perfectly. But nope, Eros is killed by Thena, despite being able to heal his wounds throughout the film and he just served as a lame villain at the end of the day.
• The other characters. I will try to get through all of the other characters as brief as possible. Kingo is meant to be the comic relief of the film and does shine in a few moments, but the character ultimately doesn't serve much purpose as he actually refuses to participate in the climax, which makes him a bit of a scumbag. Sprite's child-like appearance allows for an interesting debate and potential arc for this spiteful, envious Eternal, but her villainous deeds get randomly rewarded by Sersi for no reason. Her crush on Ikaris also goes completely nowhere as the film wouldn't even allow Sprite to kiss Ikaris on the cheek, let alone have Ikaris admit any feelings whatsoever. Phastos is pretty likeable and manages to be the unsung hero by the end of the film, but his motivation and philosophy is so on-and-off that it slows down the film and even hurts the character a bit. Makkari has her moments with the action and her charming personality by being a deaf hero, but her deafness doesn't actually factor in towards any conflict or philosophy and her being the final hero to recruit is lazily thrown in at the last minute as just being in an underground ship for the entire life out of boredom, making her a pretty pointless character in regards to the themes of the film. Druig is just an unlikeable asshole who, despite stating that he will use his powers on humans after leaving the group, doesn't do anything but make a village with some human puppets, which downplays the potential villainy or heroism of the character and just makes him the character you're supposed to dislike. Gilgamesh barely has time to define himself, other than that he cares for Thena and is a comedic, kind-hearted guy with no philosophy or perspective to share, not even a question of if Thena is a burden to him. Ajak is the leader of the Eternals and really should be the protagonist of the film due to her development and personality, but is killed by Ikiris before the film really starts, forcing us to deal with Sersi as the lead. Thena is just the badass female warrior whose mental illness could spark some interesting ideas to the rest of the team and the overall messages of the film, but it just acts as a minor hinderance and plot device. Lastly, Dane Whitman just serves as the current boyfriend of Sersi who knows the true nature of the Eternals and disappears from the majority of the film, despite the fact that he could easily be a great human perspective character/protagonist of his own. The point is, the entire cast of characters failed to completely win me over or justify their purpose in the story.

"Eternals" is the definition of style over substance, despite their attempt on the latter. While the actors are great, the camerawork is fantastic, Djawadi's score has its unique flair, the effects being visually interesting, the action being pretty entertaining in their short bursts, and the direction by Zheo offers the best-looking and cinematic film of the franchise with the on-location shooting and the creative visionary of making a superhero film feel like a potential Oscar-winning one. However, the film simply fails at its most important elements. The story lacks impact and relays too much on exposition, the pacing and editing is dreadful and almost keeps you hostage for two hours and a half, the tone is poorly uneven with lame comedy and the seriousness coming off as melodramatic and underdeveloped, Sersi is a boring protagonist the viewer is forced to root for, the villains lose their creative potential and are either defeated by lazy writing or needlessly included to prolong the film and leave no impact, and the rest of the side cast are filled with characters who don't fully develop, accomplish or even establish their conflicts or philosophies. While it is better than "Black Widow" thanks to the filmmaking being unquestionably better overall, it falls short from "Shang-Chi" in regards to keeping the story and characters engaging enough, regardless if the film wastes their potential or not. It is shocking that so far, all of the MCU films released this year are among the top five worst films I've seen in 2021.

Verdict: 4.5/10. This is what we call a polished turd. Can Spider-Man break this bad streak once and for all? 

Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) Film Review: The Battle Of Originality And Nostalgia...

 

The "Ghostbusters" franchise has had a complicated history. While the first film was a smash hit and the sequel being a disappointing follow-up, a third film refused to be green-lit due to script troubles and Bill Murrey refusing to be a part of the project. After the 2016 reboot, it seemed that a third film starring the original actors was dashed, until the surprise announcement of this continuation. After multiple delays, the film is finally here with most fans praising it as a proper return to form with critics being mixed on the overall delivery. So, was it worth more than thirty years of development hell? The story shows off the dual identity of the film, both good and bad. When a single mother and her two children are evicted out of their home and have to relocate to their only inherited property, a run-down farmhouse in a small town in Oklahoma left by their deceased grandfather. As the three slowly readjust to the small town, the daughter, Phoebe, starts to discover more about her grandfather and discovers the legacy of the Ghostbusters, becoming fascinated by the paranormal team. When an ancient foe is set to return to rule the earth, it is up to Phoebe, her family, and some newfound friends to stop this ghostly apocalypse. The most frustrating thing about the story is that I really love one half of it and found the half shockingly lazy. The first half of the film does a great job at being a lower-level entry point of the franchise and having Phoebe and her family get comfortable with the town and her desire to be like her late grandfather. The second half of the film completely drops all originality and just does the first film all over again just for the fans. There are things to enjoy in the second half of the film, but it severely drops in quality. The tone does stay consistent in being a grounded and witty family film with relatable drama and humour. Not every joke works, but a good portion do, and it does feel like a nice gap between the classic film and injecting a new identity to the franchise.

The new characters, for the most part, manage to steal the show. Phoebe, played by McKenna Grace, is fantastic as the lead since she is so likeable in her dry wit and chemistry with the cast, along with being a sympathetic character. Paul Rudd is entertaining as always as Mr. Grooberson, Phoebe's teacher and massive fan of the Ghostbusters. While I do wish he got to participate more in the climax, Rudd steals every scene he's in. Carrie Coon is also great as Callie, Phoebe's mother who holds justified stress and spite towards her estranged grandfather while hoping to have a nice romance with Mr. Grooberson. Lastly, there's Logan Kim as Podcast, Phoebe's new friend and comic relief. While I do think Podcast could have needed more serious moments, Kim is just loveable as the eccentric kid who wants to make friends. Not every new addition works though. Finn Wolfhard as Trevor, Phoebe's brother, doesn't have much to do with Phoebe's narrative other than crush on a girl. He does have some good lines and Wolfhard is a charismatic actor, but the character feels like an afterthought when compared to Phoebe. And then there's Lucky, Trevor's love interest played by Celeste O'Connor. Talk about a pointless character. Not only is the romance between the two so underdeveloped that they don't have a kiss or anything, but the attempt to have a fourth member of the new team backfires when she barely gets involved in the action and has a bland personality to boot. As for the returning characters, this, again, is another issue of the film. I don't mind seeing the classic characters and actors return during the climax, since fans wanted them to return. However, the choice to reuse Gozer as the main threat along with the Keymaster and Gatekeeper is just lazy. Not only does it detract from the film's unique and original direction, but they barely do anything fun. or interesting with the use of Gozer, aside from a few jokes. Nothing new is discovered and it actually gives the 2016 film some credit in that they actually tried doing a new villain for the franchise. So, the cast is mixed in my opinion. I think that Phoebe and Callie are great additions, Mr. Grooberson and Podcast being fun yet under-utilized, the returning Ghostbusters being a predictable yet necessary moment for the film, and the use of Trevor, Lucky and Gozer as poorly written or used. With that said, all of the cast members do a great job, it's just that some characters needed improvement.

Jason Reitman takes over his father's franchise and utilizes his indie talents on a special effect-driven franchise. What Reitman does so well is that he captures the small-scaled nature of the film and setting and yet makes it feel far more cinematic than it has every right to be. The isolated environment and sleepy-town aesthetic helps make the film more like an indie comedy-drama than an action-packed blockbuster and it really excites me to see what Reitman does in the future. Reitman's long-time cinematographer, Eric Steelberg, offers some great wide shots that show off the rural landscape as well as some more personal close-ups that is very reminiscent of the first film. The score by Rob Simonsen however is a bit underwhelming. While there are some nice new tracks that touch on the more dramatic and personal side of the story, especially towards the end, Simonsen overuses the iconic soundtrack and motifs from the original and it overstays its welcome and adds to the conflicting identity of the film. Since the film is more modest in budget, the effects aren't going to be mind-blowing, but they look decent for what it is. It helps that the film doesn't try to push the effects as much as possible and tries to use practical work for more smaller moments than going bombastic in design. The action sequences are also well done and try to be creative in their set-ups. Personally, the 2016 film offers the best action of the franchise in regards to the use of creative gadgets and offering the biggest set-piece out of all of the films. However, for the small-scale nature of "Afterlife", the action is solid. The only thing I have an issue with though is that the film fails at being nearly as scary or creepy compared to the first film. While mainly a comedy, the first film had some great jumpscares that freaked children of any age to this day due to the snappy delivery and lack of warning. "Afterlife", much like the 2016 film, fails to scare audiences because of a sanitized market and it's a shame. Despite this, Reitman did a wonderful job in directing a franchise that his father created and would be proud of.

"Ghostbusters: Afterlife" is a good, but not amazing, return to the franchise. While the film has some prominent issues in regards to the lazy retreads of the second half, Trevor and Lucky being pointless in the overall film, Gozer being reused as a villain and not do anything new with it, the over-use of nostalgia sound cues and music, and the lack of real horror moments, the rest of the film delivers on being a worthy follow-up. From the more human and grounded first half storytelling, a balanced tone of wit, heart and comedy, Phoebe being a loveable lead, Callie, Mr. Grooberson, and Podcast being great newcomers on their own right, the cast as a whole being generally likeable, the return of the classic Ghostbusters is a nice moment, the camerawork by Steelberg replicates the original in a fresh way, the visual effects are neat in its modesty, the action is decent in being small-scale in nature, and the direction by Reitman shows how indie filmmakers can add to a iconic franchise. It's not as amazing as fans make it out to be, but I wouldn't say that it didn't make me feel good by the end of the day.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but not close to being on par with the original. Still better than the 2nd and 2016 reboot though.

Jungle Cruise (2021) Spoiler-Filled Review/Rant: I Will Take The Flight Back Home Immediately.

 

After a month of papers and labour, I finally return to make a review for the blog! Another thing that has been stopping me from making reviews is that I haven't watched any new movies for the entire month of November out of disinterest. In fact, the only new film I saw was this summer blockbuster in a second-run theatre out of boredom. Like most people, I rolled my eyes upon the announcement of the project. However, many people managed to praise this film as a good time, so I hoped at the very worst, it would just be an average adventure film. Let's just say that it's far worse than it can accomplish.

Positives:

• Emily Blunt as Lily. Blunt surprisingly works as both an action-packed female heroine and a pawn to some of the comedic antics. While I don't think everything from her character works, particularly the dramatic and the feminist agenda, I think the character is a pretty solid co-lead.
• The cast in general. While the characters have issues that I will address, the actors attached do their best in having fun or hamming up their performances that it almost averts your attention from how badly-written the characters really are.
• The cinematography by Flavio Labiano. While his work needs improvement during the action scenes, Labiano has some creative shots in the establishing and tracking moments of the film that offers flair to an otherwise bland movie. 
• The score by James Newton Howard. While his offering is one of his more weaker ones due to the generic sounds from the genre, Howard does his best to make the music above-average and nice to listen to.

Negatives:

• The story. While an adventure surrounding a group of characters trying to find a magical healing tree for their own benefits in the Amazon sounds like fun, it tries too hard to copy the formula of "Indiana Jones", "The Mummy", and most transparently, "Pirates of the Caribbean." The latter inspirations are very apparent with the introduction of cursed undead beings, an evil empire trying to get power for their own, and said magical MacGuffin getting destroyed because of a random rule or variable. It's just really hard trying to get lost in the adventure when said adventure is trying way too hard to be three notable movies at the same time. It also doesn't help that the tree in question is inconsistent in its rules. Not only can stone people "consume" a petal to remove their curse, but the tree manages to bloom one final petal just when they establish that it just died a few minutes ago!
• The tone. The comedy rarely gets laughs and the film, for the most part, doesn't take itself seriously compared to the films it inspires, because Disney likes light-hearted, family-friendly fun. The only laughs are ironically the exact same puns that are used for the ride, which is not saying much in the writing department. However, when things do need to get serious, it feels out of nowhere or laughably executed. There's a scene where Lily's brother talks about being gay while not directly saying he is that, while a nice moment, feels randomly placed because his sexuality never comes back in the story. There's also a flashback sequence that explain's Frank's role with the conquistadors and the curse, where he tries to defend the local tribe. Again, this should be a very dramatic moment, but for some reason, they chose this action-packed music in what is otherwise a serious scene.
• Dwayne Johnson as Frank. While Frank's character is not bad in trying to make a likeable asshole who has his moments of selfishness and heartfelt connection, Johnson is very miscast for this character. Johnson just can't play that type of character, because he's far too charming of an actor. If an actor like Bruce Campbell was chosen, the character would be far more effective and loveable than he is now, because Campbell has proven that he can play those type of selfish yet likeable roles. It also doesn't help that Johnson's figure and size is very over-the-top to take seriously when his employer holds him by a leash and that he's the only one from his conquistador group that looks like they bench-press.
• The villains. Jesse Plemons as Prince Jochman is clearly having a lot of fun with the role, but the character is too much of a joke that you can't take him seriously. There's only one moment in the film where they treat him like an actual threat by killing a bunch of guys with a sword, but by the climax, he becomes a pathetic wanna-be villain that doesn't even get killed by one of the leads, but by the comic relief side character! On top of Jochman, the film also feels the need to force the cursed conquistadors as villains too, who are cursed to stay close to the river and have became hybrid creatures of the elements. Not only are they just a copy-and-paste trope from the cursed pirates from literally all of the "Pirate of the Caribbean" films, but their motivations are also random in whether or not we should relate to them. The leader, Don Aguiree, wanted to find the tree in order to save his ill-ridden daughter, which should make him a character that would do anything, even murder, to save his child. However, his daughter never comes back in the narrative and his motivation as a cursed soul doesn't reflect that same motivation. This added level of complexity just made Don Aguiree an even worse villain, because he doesn't feel like a defined character whatsoever. What's worse about all of this is that there's simply too many villains for what is a simple adventure. If the film chose one or the other, they could develop one of the villains far more to be compelling and memorable and save the other for a sequel. Instead, they tried to have too much ambition in having "cool" villains and completely fail both of them.
• The side characters. While there's not too many to list, they all suck in their portrayals. Jack Whitehall as MacGregor, Lily's brother, has his moments as the bumbling idiot, but the film forces in the gay scene and him being able to fight off the villain competently that it makes his character inconsistent. It also doesn't help that MacGregor is the same supportive brother character that "The Mummy" had with its female love interest. Paul Giamatti as Nilo, Frank's harbourmaster, doesn't do much other than be the jerk character that gets a bit of karma instead of just dying. Like I mentioned earlier, it just doesn't make sense why Nilo seems to have control over this immortal, muscle-bound man, instead of being a bit cowardly. Lastly, there's Veronica Falcon as Trader Sam, the chief of the Puka Michina tribe. The chief serves as a complete foil to Frank's plan to ditch Lily, since she can speak English, and the chief herself is played up for laughs when she ditches MacGregor to be taken by Jochman instead of participating in the climax. The "wittiness" of modern Disney movies is just really cringe the more it forces itself into a narrative or character.
• The direction by Jaume Collet-Serra. I have nothing against Serra as a filmmaker as I have enjoyed his earlier work and I'm looking forward to his work on "Black Adam." However, his skills are completely nowhere to be found in this movie, since it feels like it was made on committee. Because of how generic jungle adventures are, the film looks generic to boot. Instead of taking inspiration from films from the early 20th century that the film attempts to homage, it's instead taking inspiration from more modern productions, which makes it feel older than ever. Watch "Orphan" and this back-to-back and try to see if this was made by the same director. When directors can't put an ounce of their motif or talent in a blockbuster film, it's insulting for both the viewer and the filmmaker. And it's not like the film is poorly directed, but it just feels like anyone could have made it, which isn't good for a visionary like Serra. 
• The visual effects. For a film that costs $200 million to produce, the visual effects are not the best way to show where the money has gone into. It's strange because big companies like ILM and Weta Digital were involved in the CGI, yet it looks like it could have been made twenty years ago! I understand that studios don't want to use real animals or prosthetics anymore for their own silly reasons, but the best thing you can do is at least make them look good.
• The action sequences. Adventure films usually don't have the best action in comparison to other genres, but they make up for it by the unique set-pieces and choreography. "Jungle Cruise" however drops the ball when it comes to action. The hand-to-hand combat is shot and edited poorly and isn't doing anything unique. The submarine chase is a bit creative, but its placement in the film and the execution isn't nearly as fun as it could be. Even with the introduction of the cursed conquistadors, the action sucks because either the people fighting the villains completely fail at fighting these creatures or Frank just dominates all four empowered men with just his fists alone and no special abilities. The action doesn't impress because it's either not creative enough or fails to do the most creative elements justice with the action.

"Jungle Cruise" should have been a harmless yet forgettable adventure romp with the biggest stars of the industry today. Instead, it somehow manages to be one of the worst films of the year! While Lily is a fun character, the actors are doing their best in their respective roles, the camerawork by Labiano is decent from time to time, and the score by Howard is better than it has any right to be, this can't save an insultingly lazy film. From its story being too in nature to other films of its kind, the humour missing far more than hitting, the serious moments being too out-of-place or mismatched in a very goofy movie, Johnson as Frank is painfully miscast, the villains are too silly to be taken as a serious threat, underdeveloped and forced to share screen-time with one another, the side characters are cliched tropes or too goofy to take them seriously as characters, the CGI is below-average for a high production cost and top-notch animation studios attached, the action sequences are boring from a lack of creativity and bland choreography, and the direction by Serra is so automatic that I wouldn't be surprised if Bob Chapek himself directed it. It's actually dumbfounding that they are going to do a sequel because I can't imagine how you can improve a film like this, let alone the fact that people actually think that it's a good movie in general.

Verdict: 3.5/10. Pretty bad, but not quite as insultingly awful as "Mortal Kombat". Still not recommended to watch when you can watch so many better adventure romps.