Turning Red (2022) Non-Spoiler Film Review: The Most Non-Pixar Film From Pixar...

 

If there is a film that I have been looking forward for, despite poor advertising, it's this latest Pixar film. Not only is it because Pixar makes a lot of great movies, but this is one of two movies this year from Hollywood that is set in Canada, particularly in Toronto. As a Canadian, I was completely intrigued, but what can the movie offer me aside from just a familiar location? The answer is a lot. Set during 2002, 13-year old Mei Lee is a hyperactive tween girl who is constantly trying to appease the sides of both her traditionalist mother and her school friends. When a family curse suddenly awakens inside Mei, she discovers that extreme emotion turns her into a giant red panda. While she and her mother plant to perform a ritual to be rid of the panda, Mei prays that she and her friends are able to see their favourite boy band, 4* Town, perform in their city before it's too late. If you can't tell, this is a far smaller-scale, coming-of-age film that is more akin to "Luca" rather than a "Toy Story". It's clear how the film is inspired by Studio Ghibli in its execution and the metaphor of the red panda works in regards to adolescence and the choice of letting your true self exposed or bottling it up for reputation sake. The red panda element of the story can however be carried away a bit too much for some, particularly by the climax. The tone is the most distinct I've seen of a Pixar film, which is that it doesn't feel like one. Because of the setting, characters, and time period, the film feels oddly modern and wacky, almost as if another studio made this film. The humour relating to certain pop culture and the personalities of the girls can be hit-or-miss for some, but I personally enjoyed myself, since I found it quite charming.

Mei is a loveable protagonist thanks to her expressive animation and range of emotions. Her personality can be a bit annoying for some, but given her age, it makes sense for the character and the tone of the film. Her mother, Ming Lee, is also a well-written character given her relationship with Mei and her perspective of her family and what makes a woman. Mei's friends, Miriam, Abby, and Priya, are a bit of a mixed bag. On the one hand, they show to be really supportive and enjoyable with their chemistry with Mei. On the other hand, their humour involving 4*Town and pop songs can be pretty irritating at times. Lastly, Tyler is a pretty fun bully archetype, since he manages to grow as a character throughout the film. There is Mei's father and extended family, but they don't have much screentime to really worth mentioning. All of the voice actors do their job great and I do find the characters enjoyable for the most part with Mei being a great character to follow due to her personality, despite the negatives that go with her and her friends.

The animation style has been the film's biggest punching bag ever since its marketing. People hate the simplistic art design the film is going for, despite "Luca" doing the same thing last year with no criticism. Calling the animation simplistic is an insult as it's top-tier Pixar animation quality as always. Not only are the colours vibrant and the city and characters given so much detail, but the facial expressions make the simplified character designs work extremely well for this movie and tone. There are a lot of fun character animation details to highlight that you can easily make a montage of all of the over-the-top expressions made. In regards to if the city of Toronto and Canada as a whole was given justice, I would say that the film uses a perfect amount of iconography that Canadians are aware of Toronto and their country as a whole along with using the setting of the city to the story's advantage. Although it's odd that the CN Tower is never name-dropped nor involved in the climax, it was still so much fun seeing this film and recognizing the details distinct to Toronto and Canada. The score by Ludwig Goransson is nowhere near his best, but is an effective score for the multicultural film using a mix of oriental music and pop songs. Not only does the film have original songs made for the fictional boy band that sounds like it could be sung by a real-life boy band, but the 2002 setting also allows it to feature some songs from the era such as "Cha Cha Slide" by DJ Casper and "Bootylicious" by Destiny's Child. It is so surreal to hear licensed pop songs in a Pixar film, let alone a Disney film, but that is simply the uniqueness of Domee Shi's directorial debut.

"Turning Red" is another strong addition to the Pixar library. While the climax gets a bit too out there, the tone and humour can be a bit alienating for some, and the tween girl characters can get a touch annoying when they don't shut up about 4* Town, these issues aren't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. The story mostly works as a low-stakes, coming of age story that will resonate with adolescent girls and just finding your identity as a whole, the tone and humour is so distinct that it's admirable coming from Pixar, Mei is an enjoyable female lead, Ming Lei is a understanding obstacle and mother figure, Mei's friends have their moments of levity and charm, the voice cast all around does a great job, the original score by Goransson is solid, the original and licensed songs perfectly fit the early 2000's, and the animation demonstrates how talented Pixar is in not only creating expressive and vibrant character movements, but fully realize Toronto as a distinct city that has its own identity and pays it with great respect. It sucks that Disney hasn't treated this film well by putting it on Disney+, since I would not only have wanted to see this in theatres, but a financial success could prompt more films to use Canada's setting to their advantage.

Verdict: 8/10. Great, but probably not top ten material for Pixar. Please check it out when you get a chance and watch the most refreshing and unique title from the best animation studio! 

Uncharted (2022) Film Review: Soon to be Forgotten As The Treasure Itself...

 

Video game adaptations are slowly becoming more and more mainstream thanks to the success of films like "Tomb Raider", "Detective Pikachu" and "Sonic The Hedgehog". Sony is seeing this success and has opened up their own production company to make their own video game adaptations, starting with one of their most beloved franchises, "Uncharted". Serving as a prequel to the games, the film is a mostly original story that follows a younger Nathan Drake and Victor Sullivan teaming up for the first time and seeking the lost treasure of Magellan. While the story itself is original, it does feel like it belongs to that franchise unlike the story of "Sonic the Hedgehog". The tone is also very much like the games in being this fun, peril-increasing adventure. It's not meant to be super serious and that's the point, even if it can get a bit over-the-top at times. The humour however leaves a lot to be desired. Very few jokes land, mainly due to the choppy editing and pacing that ruins the delivery of the joke. 

Tom Holland as Nathan Drake is divisive to say the least. While it is a prequel and the film is focusing on a younger, less experienced Nate, Holland will never look like the character because he will always look like a babyface. Still, Holland did the best he can in this miscast role, offering his awkward charisma and dedication to the action. Mark Wahlberg is also miscasted as Sully, who is more gruff and a wiseass in the game, compared to just the jokester in the movie. Wahlberg does a fine job though and the two leads have decent chemistry. The side cast is also good with one exception. Sophia Ali is spot-on as Chloe, a backstabbing, no-nonsense treasure hunter from the games, and Tati Gabrielle is also good as Braddock, a mercenary racing against Nathan and Sully for the treasure. The one character I had issues with that's not tied to the portrayal is Antonio Banderas's Santiago Moncada. While Banderas is great in the role and adds character and motivation to an otherwise cliched role, the film makes the stupid choice to be killed off halfway in the film by Braddock for no reason. I understand that Braddock is the more threatening role, but she is also a generic one. Banderas adds some needed charisma and a bit of development to make him a potentially entertaining villain, but the script just demands a twist in the story. Regardless, the actors and actresses give it their all and it's up to the viewer whether they can be fine with Holland and Wahlberg's performances.

Ruben Fleischer has proven to be a competent director in his "Zombieland" films and in "Venom". However, this is probably the one film he sort of went on autopilot for. While Flesicher knows how to shoot a competent, slick production, he fails to inject a sense of style or flair to this film compared to his previous works. This is probably due to the choppy editing by Chris Lebenzon and Richard Pearson. Their editing is probably mandated by Sony to keep the film under two hours, which results in the film to have the jokes be cut short, scenes end in awkward places, the action being hindered, and the ending to have two mid-credit scenes back-to-back with one being a more appropriate ending than the ending itself. The cinematography by Chung Chung-hoon is adaquate. There are some neat shots and angles used, particularly in the action, but a part of that is hampered by Fleischer's lack of direction. The score by Ramin Djawadi is uninspired for the most part as it mostly sounds like stock adventure music. The only time the music is memorable is when Djawadi actually uses the motifs of the "Uncharted" theme, which is renditioned well. The soundtrack is also forgettable, using modern music that I can't remember for the life of me. The visual effects are decent with the set-pieces of the cargo plane being the standout and transitioning to live-action well. The action sequences are mixed though. While the set-pieces and choreography is creative, the editing is so choppy that it's almost trying to hide the action at times. It's watchable, but it feels underwhelming at parts sort of like Fleischer's directing.

"Uncharted" is one of the better video game adaptations made, but that's not saying too much as a movie. While the original story work fine enough, the tone captures the fun of the franchise, Holland and Wahlberg are enjoyable to watch, the cast in general does a good job with their roles, and the visual effects are good, that's really all the film has going for. The humour is poorly executed, the portrayals of Nathan and Sully are inaccurate, Santiago is killed off so the generic Braddock can fill the villain role, Chung-hoon's cinematography is standard, Djawadi's original score is bland, the soundtrack is Sony fluff, the action is hampered by Lebenzon and Pearson's editing, and Fleischer's directing is uninspired and felt made out of committee. The film suffers from the same problems as "Sonic the Hedgehog". There's clearly potential to deliver great things in a sequel, but the first film must be cheap and streamlined to make money in order to deliver on these promises, which is simply not a good way to make these adaptations.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Average, but nothing special. A sequel can be better, but that's not how franchises should be made.

The Batman (2022) Non-Spoiler Film Review: The Best Batman Film Yet...

 

When a serial killer dubbing himself the Riddler is killing Gotham's elite, a freshly-suited Batman must figure out the villain's plan and motivation before more and more victims are made. This is all I will talk about the plot, but the story itself has its fair share of twists and turns along with some great themes surrounding the hero and villain. Unlike previous films, this is very much a detective, film noir-inspired story rather than a typical superhero blockbuster. Don't expect any jokes or positivity in this movie, it's as dark and mature as Batman can be. However, it's surprisingly tame enough that younger viewers can watch fine, even though they might want something that has more action.

Robert Pattinson does an excellent job at becoming the titular role. While I think Ben Affleck is my personal favourite, Pattinson is great at playing the distant, tortured, and reserved vigilante and heir to Wayne Enterprises. Zoe Kravitz is a dazzling femme fetale as Catwoman, a thief who has her own agenda amidst Batman's quest. Jeffery Wright as James Gordan is as great compared to Gary Oldman as the aging authority figure who trusts Batman in his work. Paul Dino as Riddler is just perfectly over-the-top that it's both funny and creepy. Colin Farrell is fantastic as the Penguin along with the excellent make-up effects attached to him. Andy Serkis as Alfred is humble and assertive, but doesn't match Jeremy Irons's portrayal. John Turturro as Carmine Falcone is also great as the mob boss with confidence and sliminess to his name that it makes his casting even more effective. All of the cast do their best and make their interpretations of these characters work, but it's Pattinson's performance that steals the film.

Matt Reeves is a director that is slowly becoming one of the best filmmakers in this generation with this film being a great example of his talents. Gotham feels like a living, breathing, gothic city that feels like its own, rather than just being a New York City backdrop. The sets are given extreme detail and While the colour scheme is on the darker side, there is a bit of brightness that helps contrast in some of the scenes. The cinematography by Greg Fraiser is fantastic with the creative angles, tracking shots, and iconography. It's practically a comic-book coming to life.  The score by Micheal Giacchino has cemented his place as a rising star in the musical scene. His theme for the Batman is memorizing with the orchestrated, gothic and heroic motifs that feels like its own and appropriate for the character. Along with using Nirvana's "Something in the Way" and "Ave Maria" as both songs and interconnected tracks into the original score, Giacchino knows how to make an atmospheric score. The visual effects are pretty solid, given the limited use of CGI. The use of the StageCraft technology is noticeable in a specific location, but it's fine given the fact that they filmed this during the pandemic. Lastly, there is the action sequences. While the fights and action feel very much like Batman with precision and brutality, it's not the most exciting action that has starred the character. This is primarily due to the film being more of a crime thriller than an action movie, but I expected a bit more scale and creativity from Reeves given the Apes movies. Still, this is very much a master-craft production that is all tied by Reeves's visionary mind.

"The Batman" is a top contender for being one of the best Batman and superhero films for years to come. Aside from the action being underwhelming, everything else is done to the highest regard. From the story, themes, tone, Pattinson's portrayal, the rest of the characters and performers attached, the cinematography by Fraiser, score by Giacchino, the effects, the stunts, the sets, and direction by Reeves, there's really not much wrong with this film aside from preferences being the obstacle. I'm looking forward to more films in this universe and can't wait to see what Reeves and the others will bring to the table.

Verdict: 9.5/10. Practically perfect if the action is more unique, but aside from that, nothing else needed to change. 2022 has started off with a banger before a third of it has even finished!

Death On The Nile (2022) Non-Spoiler Film Review: The Destination Matters More Than The Journey Getting There...

 

After the events of the first film, Detective Hercule Poirot is assigned to travel to Egypt in order to attend and work undercover to monitor the honeymoon of Simon Doyle and Linnet Ridgeway, which includes a cruise on the Nile River. When a murder occurs on deck, it is Poirot's job to learn what's going on before the murderer can strike again. While similar to the first film in structure, the sequel does a far better job in the overall mystery and conclusion. There's also an underlaying theme of love and what people will do for it that makes it a fitting film for the Valentine's Day week. The pacing on the other hand is a huge problem. The first half of the film moves at a snail's pace without the murder happening and just has the cast indulge on this vacation. There is a reason for the slow pace though as it does a far better job at establishing the characters and environment compared to the first film. The tone is also very much like the first, with very few jokes and a serious mood, but the latter sticks even by the end, unlike the first film's ridiculous sappy and cheesy conclusion.

Kenneth Branagh returns as Poirot to still be the most charismatic character in the film. Poirot is far more subdued in this film as the tone is far more consistent, but still has his quirks with sweets and social skills. Much like the previous film, the ensemble cast are talented and do their best in the film, but do their characters improve from the underwritten tropes from the first? To a degree. There are some characters that are underwritten and basic such as Armie Hammer's Simon the newlywed, Rose Leslie as Louise the timid maid, Emma Mackey as the crazy-ex Jaqueline, and Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French as the two bumbling British elders that are enjoying their time and are insensitive to Egyptian culture. However, there are some characters that are given a bit more depth and personality than the others such as Gal Gadot's high-class elite Linnet, Tom Bateman's Bouc, the loyal friend of Poirot, Annette Benning's Euphemia as Bouc's overcaring and possibly racist mother, Russell Brand's Linus, a doctor who was a fiancee to Linnet, Ali Fazal as Andrew, Linnet's envious cousin, Sophie Okonedo as the blues singer and cool-as-a-cat Salome, and Letita Wright as Rosalie, Salome's niece and lover to Bouc. So, the cast is much improved over the previous film in the regards to the characters. Even though not everyone is as good as Poirot and the others, at least they all still do their best in their performance.

Branagh directs once more and while his directing is as great as ever, it's far more engaging in this film. This is primarily thanks to the location and environment of Egypt and the boat. The train and snowy Alps in the first film were fine and the cold and moody lighting and colours helped with the atmosphere of the film. Here, the warm and vibrant colours of Egypt and the Nile are not only more distinct to look at, but carries its own sense of dread as the paradise will soon be viewed as deadly rather than dreamlike. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is just as good, if not, better than before thanks to creative tracking shots of the ship, the panning over the river, and some dynamic cinematic birds-eye view shots. The music by Patrick Doyle has also improved. I couldn't remember anything from the previous film, but the more dramatic and dreading score helps fit the film and make things more memorable as a result. However, one thing that didn't improve was the effects. The first film wasn't heavy on visual effects as the train and environments were digital and were well rendered given the budget and limited use. However, Branagh tried to push the effects and sets with the increased budget and while the sets and recreations are pretty impressive, the issue is that the green-screen and compositing shots look dreadful. They are so obvious and unlike a train where it's easier to hide the effects in the environment, a small boat with tons of open space isn't as easy. Despite the effects though, Branagh's direction is as sharp as it can be.

"Death on the Nile" is an improved sequel that has some overbearing luggage of its own. The pacing in the first half is abysmal, some of the characters are just as underwritten as the previous film, and the visual effects are even more obvious and worse to look at. However, the murder mystery is far more compelling and interesting than before, the tone is perfectly serious and contains light levity, Branagh's Poirot is just as enjoyable as before, some of the newcomers are given character and a touch of depth, the acting all around is great from all of the talented cast members, the camerawork by Zambarloukos is visually creative and interesting, Doyle's score is more memorable than before, and Branagh's direction allows the warm sunny landscape of Egypt to carry a sense of dread and unnerving atmosphere. If they just fixed the issues they had, this honestly would be a top contender of the genre. As is, it's a solid detective film that's unfortunately burdened with a painfully slow set-up.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but could have been far better. Watch this week if you like your spicy murder mystery adventures. 

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Film Review: Murder Of Precious Time...

 

With "Death on the Nile" finally coming out this week, it's time that I look back on the first film. While the marketing and pre-release was a big deal with the various big names and slick production, the remake of this classic story got mixed reviews when first released, but earned enough money to have a franchise. So, five years later, is it worth going back to? Short answer: Not really. Detective Hercule Poirot is invited to take the luxurious Orient Express back to London for a three-day expedition. When a con-artist named Edward Ratchett asks Poirot to be his bodyguard, the detective refuses, resulting in Ratchett to be murdered in the first night. Poirot now must discover the truth behind Ratchett's murder and learn who's the culprit leading to a shocking reveal. While the premise alone sounds interesting the problem is the conclusion, which many found disappointing. It's revealed that all of the suspects admitted to killing Ratchett due to him causing so much pain and misery in their lives. Poirot then decides that he will let everyone go as there will be no justice for the case. This ending is one of the most infuriating I've ever seen as it not makes the mystery not worthwhile, but having everyone get away with it just makes Poirot a spineless person as a detective. The only positive thing I can say about this ending is that I doubt that the sequel will use it again, because that would be dumbfounding. The tone of the film takes it seriously for the most part up to the ending as well, as the reveal makes it cheesy and childish, not just for the depiction of the murder, but for everyone to be let go. You can't make a film that takes itself pretty seriously and have an ending that is ripped from a children's movie.

The cast and characters is where things get complicated, because the actors are all highly talented and commendable, but the characters themselves are underdeveloped or cookie-cutter. Kenneth Branagh as Poirot is by far the only charismatic performer of the film, since Poirot is a very expressive and cunning man who knows how to put the pieces together. The problem with the character is that he lets everyone go off the hook at the end, which is just dumb. As for everyone else, I'm not going to go in depth for every character, but they all carry the issue of a talented actor over a bland character. Johnny Depp as Ratchett is underused and is just treated as a filthy criminal, Josh Gad is a devoted assistant, Judi Dench is just the old family relative of a crucial character, Willem Dafoe is a European professor that's hiding a secret, Michelle Pfeiffer is the aging femme fetale, so on and so forth. The problem with ensemble casts like this is that everyone ends up being underdeveloped, so you don't really get attached to any of them. It sucks, because the actors and actresses do a fantastic job with the limited material. At the end of the day, every character aside from Poirot is meaningless, only a directive to uncover the full underwhelming mystery.

If there's one thing that Kenneth Branagh can do, it's to direct a slick-looking movie. The 1930's is depicted with elegance and luxury and every detail and set is carefully made to feel welcoming with the set design and ominous with the grand Alp Mountain landscape. Branagh also knows how to carry an intense and suspenseful mood with the more enclosed personal scenes. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is excellently handled with methodical movement and wide shots of the environment and subtle tracking in the interior scenes. Close-ups of various actions and objects are also shot with perfection. The score by Patrick Doyle is pretty generic though as nothing really resonates or stayed with my memory. The effects are also standard for the most part with the train and landscape being the notable elements. They aren't the most convincing effects ever made, but they are acceptable for the modest budget and production values. Overall, Branagh always does his best when he makes a film. Even if the material isn't the best, he tries to throw eye candy whenever possible to distract you.

"Murder on the Orient Express" is a frustrating experience. On the one hand, the majority of the story is given a great tone and suspense, the character of Poirot is charismatic, the acting all around is superb, the camerawork by Zambarloukos is exceptional, the effects are decent, and Branagh's directing continues to show just how much of a visionary he is in the art of cinema. However, the film is botched from an awful ending that ruins the credibility of the mystery, tone and characters, the extensive ensemble cast is underdeveloped and never grow to be fleshed-out or endearing, and the score by Doyle is rather forgettable. The film is so close to being considered good or even decent, but the third act practically ruins what could have been a great mystery film. 

Verdict: 5.5/10. Just above average, but not really worth a watch if you want a great murder mystery. Hopefully "Death on the Nile" can stick the landing?

The King's Man (2021) Film Review: The Best From The Franchise And Vaughn Himself!

 

It's been more than a month since my last review, which is primarily due to a lack of new movies releasing at the time of January as well as the theatres being closed in my area. I never had intention to see this movie, mainly since I wasn't in love with this particular franchise and director, but with a dry spell of movies for the first two months, I guess it wouldn't hurt watching this box-office dud. For those who aren't familiar, "Kingsman" is a spy franchise that is about colourful characters battling over-the-top villains. The first film was a solid introduction, even though I wasn't in love with the main lead and the cliched story formula. The second film, while not bad, damaged the brand due to its ridiculous writing, weak drama, and a continued use of racism that is depicted in these films along with other Matthew Vaughn films. As for the long delayed new installment, this film goes way back into the past as it covers the first World War and the man who would eventually find the espionage service in the attempts to stop Germany from winning the war due to the aid of a shadow organization. While the story does appear predictable, the film does incorporate some nice twists and turns that keeps the film far more fresh than it is. What really stands out from the story though is the tone. The first Kingsman had a balance of seriousness and over-the-top comedy and scenarios, while the second film doubled down too much on the craziness and comedy. This film is the most serious of the franchise, while incorporating few moments of absurdity and humour. It not only helps ground the film more in reality than the others, but it makes the dramatic aspects far more potent as it never once feels shallow or empty, unlike the previous films. Despite the seriousness, it's still a fun movie for the general crowd.

Ralph Fiennes as Orlando Oxford is the best protagonist that the franchise has received, not only due to Fiennes's acting, but also Orlando's distinct personality and growth. Orlando is a pacifist who must learn to make the hard choices in life and is overprotective of his adult son due to a family tragedy. The way the character grows and deals with the story throughout the runtime is resonating while also providing a bit of charm and wit. Harris Dickinson as Conrad, Orlando's son, comes off as a pretty bland character who just wants to do the right thing and make his father proud. Conrad however serves as a perfect red herring of the film as he is shockingly killed off in the second half of the film, which lets his character serve a huge deal to Orlando and the plot, but make his inclusion more interesting because of how vanilla his character is in these type of films. Djimon Hounsou as Shola is a great supporting role as the badass butler to Orlando and escapes the usual black guy dies trope in the process. Rhys Ifans as Rasputin is fantastic for the limited screentime he has by making the figure so over-the-top and enjoyable as a secondary villain. Matthew Goode as The Shepard is also a fun yet generic villain whose petty motivation is made up for his energetic performance. Aside from other supporting roles such as Tom Hollander as various historical leaders and Charles Dance as Kitchener, there are two characters that sink the film down. Gemma Arterson's Polly is a very generic"strong female" archetype that's over-confident and acts badass without given much depth, despite a lazily-forced love angle with Orlando. Aaron Taylor Johnson has a bit role as Archie Reid, the man who Conrad trades places with in the war and a founding member of the Kingsman, but he does nothing at all to gain that position, not even joining the climax to make up for Conrad's sacrifice. Lastly, the choice to kill Rasputin early in the film is a mistake as it not only serves as marketing fodder, but it does make the climax a bit one-sided to an extent. Despite this, the cast of characters are great with well-done performances all across the board, with Fiennes and Ifans stealing every scene.

Matthew Vaughn is a director I both love and hate. While I can't stand some of his films in regards of storytelling and writing, he always knows how to direct a film. So, imagine if you get the best parts of Vaughn as a director and a writer. Well, this is the film we get. The stylized, comic-book esque mixed with a sense of realism and restraint is the norm of Vaughn, but is best used in this film due to the setting and tone. Ben Davis does a fantastic job with the cinematography as the camera zooms or pans to various locations while tracking specific subjects or people. It makes the action have spectacle, but keeps the somber scenes untouched to savour the mood. The score by Matthew Margeson and Dominic Lewis is good for a typical action film set in that era along with some great dramatic cues. The soundtrack is also restricted to that era, primarily using classical music, until the credits which is a nice touch. The effects are good for the budget it has, as Vaughn tries to make his action in camera as much as possible, so the effects are used for locations, green-screen or objects that wouldn't be pulled off with a limited budget. Lastly, there's the action. While the church scene in the first film will always be the most recognizable sequence of the franchise, this film carries the best action in regards to consistency and memorability. The Rasputin fight is the most over-the-top combat in the film with the music and choreography, the fight amongst the covert ops in the trenches is well-shot and paced with no music to match the intensity of the situation, and the climax is a typically robust way to end a movie like this with brutes, sword-fights, and gory deaths. It completely overshadows the action from the second movie and the majority of the action from the first. It has taken me a while to get around, but I now can't wait to see what Vaughn does next as a director.

"The King's Man" is the most refined of the franchise to date. While a few characters are underdeveloped or under-utilized, the film has the best story due to its serious tone, themes and historical context, Fiennes's Orlando being the most compelling character in the series, Ifans and Goode as Rasputin and the Shepherd are enjoyably over-the-top villains, the side cast is strong with Dickinson, Honsou, Hollander, and Dance to name a few, the camerawork by Davis is just as great as it gets, the score by Margeson and Lewis is good and fits the movie well, the effects are well-implemented, the action sequences are fantastic, and Vaughn's directing continues to show that he is a gifted filmmaker in the visuals and style. It's a shame Disney went out of its way to make this film bomb in order to not finance more movies with these characters and feel. Here's hoping that the third Kingsman learns from this prequel.

Verdict: 8.5/10. The best film from the franchise to date. If you want a clever, emotionally-packed action movie that's not Spider-Man, this is a good one to see during a rather slow February. 

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.

Unhinged (2020) Film Review: Am I Crazy Or Is This Actually Good?

 

When the pandemic shut everything down back in March of 2020, theatres went with it. As things stayed shut down for the entire spring, a brief period began where theatres briefly opened for the summer and fall of that year, with this indie-distributed thriller being the first film to be widely released and welcome back moviegoers. I never went to see this in theatres, since I thought it just didn't look that good. When it come out on Netflix, I decided to give it a chance and man, I honestly wished I saw it in theatres when I got the chance. Rachel is not having a good day. She overslept, is late driving his son to school, is fired from her work, currently in a messy divorce, and stuck in painful traffic. It seems like it can't get any worse, until she exchanges some nasty words with a truck driver and refusing to apologize for her petty behaviour. This unknowingly causes something to snap in the man and is now hell-bent on making Rachel having the worse day she could never imagine. The premise is sort of meant to be shallow in order to have the crazy rampage and violence that the film unleashes and it work well for the most part. However, there are plenty of moments that can cause the viewer to question the situation. Like, how did the man plant a flip-phone and memorize the number to swap it out for Racheal's phone? Also, Racheal is constantly doing brain-dead decisions like not locking her car or leaving her phone in said car to make the whole thing escalate. It is pretty mindless like that, but I think that's kind of the point for this film. It's a turn-off-your-brain and have fun movie like that. It works so well that I wish it could actually have been longer. The tone is overly-serious, despite the insane action and circumstance, and it really works to be both intense and entertaining in how over-the-top it can get.

Russell Crowe as Tom Cooper/The Man is fantastic as the insane mass-murdering psychopath behind the wheel. What makes Tom such a great villain for this type of movie is that Crowe perfectly switches from a calm, almost civil guy to a vicious and monstrous criminal in an instant. Even though we are shown a lot to not sympathize with Tom, Crowe gives enough personality and details in his limited backstory and perspective of society. Caren Pistorius as Rachel is great at playing this stressed, paranoid woman who doesn't want anything bad to happen to the people around her, but the character herself is pretty idiotic at various times and her big mouth got her in trouble in the first place. Gabriel Bateman as Kyle, Rachel's son, is decent, but he doesn't really do much in the film and Bateman's acting can be pretty questionable at times. The side cast is also pretty shallow in regards to their limited development. Jimmi Simpson as Andy, Racheal's friend and divorce lawyer, is probably the best side character in the film thanks to Simpson's acting and the diner scene offering the best of both and Crowe's character working off each other. Austin P. McKenzie as Fred, Racheal's stoner brother, is hilariously miscast since McKenzie looks almost as young as Andy in the film to make me think that he and Racheal are siblings. Juliene Joyer as Mary, Fred's girlfriend, gets nothing to work off since she only gets one scene of existing before getting killed by Tom and her death, while brutal, is too rushed to have a sense of sympathy or tragedy to it. Lastly, there's Rachel's mother and ex-husband, who are essentially offscreen characters despite having actors attached to them. They simply serve as light additives to the world, with the mother moving to a retirement home being critical for the location of the climax and the ex-husband existing so Tom can throw shade at Rachel. The cast isn't the best of its genre and majority of the characters are given little development for the bare minimum, but Crowe gives it his all for his villainous performance as Tom.

Derrick Borte is a German director that has made quite a couple of independent productions prior to this film. While I haven't seen any of his prior work, I can tell that Borte did a pretty good job for what it's worth. The grungy, unfiltered look perfectly fits the grounded tone and raw intensity that will be presented in the film. New Orleans looks cloudy, hostile and unforgiving, which is far different from other vibrant portrayals. The cinematography by Brendan Galvin is solid in serving a hand-held, close-up focused camerawork throughout the feature. It's not a cinematic or overly-ambitious offering, but it perfectly fits the film it shoots. The score by David Buckley is average for the most part, but really shines when the main chase theme plays. It's intense and gets you pumped up for the thrilling action. Speaking of which, the action itself isn't too bad here. There are some moments that can be over-the-top such as when a truck squashes a police car or when Tom causes an insane accident on the freeway, but that just serves the mindless fun that the film offers. The chases are rightfully intense, paced well, and have a gritty feel to them that is just as hard to watch as the brutal kills that are presented. The stunts and gore used is pulled off in a convincing matter that just adds to the rawness of the film. While the film is not as polished as other films from that year or even from its genre, Borte did a solid effort in what is meant to be a schlocky production.

"Unhinged" may continue to fall more into obscurity for just being known as the first film to welcome back audiences to theatres in the summer of 2020, but it's actually far better than it deserves to be. While the story has its plot holes, Rachel is a very idiotic protagonist, and the side cast is certainly lacking, it serves its purpose as a fun action thriller by having a fun premise, serious tone, a fantastic performance and villainous portrayal from Crowe, Pistorius is great in the acting department, Galvin's camerawork is perfect in the use of hand-held and personal-feeling shots that make the viewer part of the action, Buckley's great main theme, some well-made car chases and grisly executions, and Borte's directing offering a gritty, drab appeal that reflects the miserable nature of the lead characters. For what it is, it's quite well-made and offers a lot of fun, which makes me kind of wish that the film itself was fleshed out and expanded upon more to be one of the best of its kind.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Pretty good, even if it has some obvious issues. Check it out if you're having a bad day and just want to have an hour and a half of unapologetic thrills!

Dune: Part One (2021) Non-Spoiler Film Review: This Is Just The Beginning...

 

In the year 10191, House Atreides is assigned by the Empire to rule over the desert planet of Arrakis and harvest the resource known as Spice, unaware that it's an elaborate coup to eliminate the whole family and allow House Harkonnen to continue their iron-fisted rule over the planet. As Paul Atreides, the son of Duke Leto, starts to have mysterious dreams and visions about Arrakis and its people, Harkonnen attacks, causing Paul and his mother to escape and stranded in the hostile environment. Paul, and his growing power known as "the voice", seeks vengeance on House Harkonnen and the Empire by allying himself with the local populous known as the Fremen. The film only covers half of the acclaimed novel and it really shows. I won't go into much detail, but the ending feels abrupt, almost as if we just ended in the first act of a greater story. While that can be problematic for those wanting a more conclusive story, the film excel in its storytelling. Frank Hubert's novel is infamous for its complicated lore and narrative, but the film manages to make it as digestible as possible to those unfamiliar with the source material. It can be easily viewed as a straight-up sci-fi epic about good vs. evil and the chosen one archetype, while also incorporating various themes and allegories on religion, colonialism, politics, and historical resonance. While there's a bit of humour, it's a film that takes itself very seriously and is nowhere near the 80's cheese that can be found in the original 1984 adaptation.

The cast is enormous to try and condense for everyone and considering the part-one nature, not everyone is given much screen-time, but I will try my best to get the most important characters across. Timothee Chalamet as Paul is great at playing this distant, almost emotionless teen who is forced into a massive conflict and prophecy that he has to take part of. While some might say that his acting is wooden, that's just how the character is written from the novel. Rebecca Ferguson as Lady Jessica is fitting as the mother of Paul who have a special bond due to her heritage as a Bene Gesserit. Oscar Issac as Duke Leto is very good as the noble lord who hopes to make peace with the Fremen unlike House Harkonnen. Lastly, Stellan Skarsgard is brillaint as the villainous Baron, a vicious, gluttonous lord who wants to keep control of Arrakis and the Spice harvest. The supporting cast is also well-cast, but are limited in their screen presence. Jason Momoa is fun as Duncan, a high-ranking soldier of House Atreides, Josh Brolin is perfect as Gurney, the serious weapons-master and mentor to Paul, Dave Bautista reeks of menace as Rabban, the nephew of the Baron, Zendaya is fitting as Cheni, the Fremen love interest for Paul, and Javier Bardem steals whatever scene he's in as Stilgar, the leader of the Fremen. There are far more minor characters that I'm leaving out, but everyone here is doing a great job with their respective character, so much so that not one of them surpasses the other in regards to stealing the film for themselves. While not everyone is developed or characterized here, I will let it slide due to this being a part-one of a larger story.

Denis Villeneuve is quickly becoming one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of this generation and it's not hard to see why. Right away, Villeneuve perfectly brings the aesthetic of the source material to life. The technology and costumes are the right blend of timeless and modern to make a surreal-looking distant future. There's both a sense of grit and beauty to the film, which Villeneuve knows exactly how to balance akin to previous works in "Arrival" and "Blade Runner 2049." The cinematography by Greg Fraser is excellent with massive wide-shots that show off the scope of the world and extensive cast. Fraser's camerawork screams both prestige and cinematic experience by the calculative spacing and framing. The score by Hans Zimmer is one of his best efforts of his career with the use of choir, booming music, and feel of dread and epic-ness. Instead of sounding futuristic and modern, it has a more timeless and natural base. At times, it does get a bit too repetitive and even abrasive during scenes with no real action, but it's still a fantastic score. The visual effects, much like Villeneuve's previous films, are used effortlessly here that it feels real and expansive of the world, all thanks to the camerawork and direction that makes it feel more feasible then it really is. Lastly, there's the action, which the film lacks, but makes up for it with its execution and style. The use of sword-fighting has a raw, close-combat approach while incorporating a martial arts flair along with the imaginative designs and principles of the world-building. This is not a film for action fanatics, but it's one that is executed almost flawlessly by Villeneuve's involvement.

"Dune: Part One" may not be my favourite film from Villeneuve, but that's not saying much in regards to his resume. While the part-one structure and some underdeveloped side characters may dimmer the quality for the time being, this is still an excellent attempt at adapting what is widely regarded as one of the most impossible novels to adapt onscreen. From the digestible storytelling, various themes and allegories that can be interpreted, brilliant actors that perfectly fit their respective characters to the point of all being on the same level of talent, Fraser's camerawork sharing the grand scope, prestige and movie-going experience that this story demands, Zimmer's unique and timeless score, outstanding visual effects, great bits of action, and Villeneuve's direction and portrayal of Hubert's world and large sense of scope, scale, and lore that manages to feel tangible. "Blade Runner 2049" is still the best film he has made to date, but this is a close second for sure.

Verdict: 9/10. A sci-fi classic in the making. "Part Two" has a lot of pressure on its shoulders now after this debut.

Sausage Party (2016) Film Review: A Party That Will Be Hard To Forget...

 

R-rated animated films are a pretty rare sight. Either they get piled up with direct-to-video trash or they happen to be part of a well-established franchise such as "South Park" or "ATHF". "Sausage Party" managed to surprise everyone, both by how vulgar it gets and how successful it was as an original R-rated animated film, still carrying the record of being the highest-grossing film of its kind. The food found in Shopwell's all have a varied yet collective dream, which is to be chosen by their human gods and taken to the Great Beyond. Unaware of what really happens to food outside of the store, a freak accident causes an assortment of characters to be thrown off their carts thanks to a suicidal honey mustard. A sausage named Frank wants to discover why the honey mustard killed himself following his return from the Great Beyond and pulls his girlfriend, Brenda, along with a bagel and lavash to discover the truth about the Great Beyond. The "Toy Story"-sounding premise is actually more than it seems as the film has a clever dose of religious allegory and commentary, which is far better than most R-rated animated content would offer. The film however uses its R-rating to its full advantage as there's constant swearing, sexual innuendos, gore, drug use, and a chaotic and almost uncomfortable finale that is unapologetic whatsoever. The vulgar identity that the film carries is both entertaining to a degree, but also a bit repetitive and tiring, particularly with the swearing. Still, the film contains a ton of laughs to be had and it's all down to the clever writing and character dynamics rather than just constant swearing.

Frank, voiced by Seth Rogen, is sort of the average leader character who puts himself on a journey that will cause some distance between him and his peers, both literally and figuratively. While Frank has his enjoyable moments, his role as the protagonist is a bit odd, especially with Rogen's more comedic antics and vocal performance. Barry, voiced by Micheal Cera, does fit the role of protagonist more than Frank, which is thanks to the character's naive personality, the extended role he gets in the B-roll story, and perfect direction by Cera. Brenda, voiced by Kristen Wiig, is pretty likeable as the worrying girlfriend, but she doesn't really have an arc compared by Frank or Barry and she has some weird racial undertones every now and then. The side cast is massive, so much so that I'm not even going to bother listing the other actors and actresses since it will just double this section alone. Sammy Bagel Jr. and Kareem Abdul Lavash are fantastic comic relief in their portrayal of Jewish-Muslim tension, Teresa del Taco is a solid supporting character who aids the group and lusts for Brenda, the Non-Perishables are an entertaining group of wise men who know the long history of the Great Beyond, Gum is a charming parody of Stephan Hawking, and Douche is a decent, if simple, antagonist who wants revenge for not being able to enter the Great Beyond. There are also the human characters such as the drug dealer and Darren, but they don't have a lot of time to be enjoyable. Overall, the entire cast is great in regards to the sheer star power attached and the characters themselves are fairly likeable or humorous. However, there are some questionable decisions in regards to the role of protagonist and underwritten characters like Brenda and Frank.

The animation is one of the more fascinating aspects of the film, considering that the budget was just $19 million. While you might think that the animation would be of poor quality with that low production value, it's actually not the case. The animation itself isn't perfect though, as there are some odd texture moments and the emphasis on more smooth and simplistic designs means that you're not going to get the most detailed renders out there. However, the animation proves to be pretty fluent and imaginative given its limitations, going for a more cartoony aesthetic and the character designs for the food products being fairly unique in how it has an old-school approach with the gloved hands and black outlines and the food itself adds to the character animation or how they are represented in-universe as a clique or ethnic group. The music by Christopher Lennetz and Alan Menken is above-average. While there are some generic tracks to be sure, Menken knocks it out of the park with "The Great Beyond", which is a charming, Disney-esque musical number that perfectly introduces the tone and feel of the film. The licensed soundtrack itself is also pretty good with Meat Loaf's "I'd Do Anything For Love" and Wham!'s "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" being used in some memorable sequences. Overall, the animation and music is nowhere near the best when compared to other films, but it's pretty adequate given the budget and film it is. 

"Sausage Party" isn't going to be a movie for everyone. The vulgar nature can be too much at times with the swearing and gross-out ending, the characters of Frank and Brenda are underwritten for the roles they play, and the animation isn't the most prettiest thing to look at. For some people, it's going to appear like it's a film made just to be edgy and attract teen audiences for how crass it is. However, the film actually manages to hold up quite well even five years later. From the entertaining premise that complements its R-rating, the witty and hilarious commentary that does a great job in poking fun and criticizing religion as a whole, Barry being a solid secondary protagonist that deserves to be the main character, the various cast of side characters that are likeable in their personalities and comedic writing along with their talented voice actors, the decent and creative animation that does the job well given its low budget, and the offerings from Lennetz and Menken being fairly memorable thanks to "The Great Beyond." If it just held back on its vulgarness in areas and tweaked some central characters, this would honestly be one of the best animated films from that decade. As is, it's still a shockingly great comedy that has a lot more than meets the eye!

Verdict: 8/10. Great, but can be divisive in areas. Watch if you can deal with countless F-bombs and sexual overtones.