The Princess and the Frog (2009) Film Review: The Best Of The Disney Revival Era!

The Disney Revival Era is also known as the second Disney Renaissance, a period where the company put out hit after hit from 2008 to the current year, critically or financially. It started out with 2008's "Bolt" and was followed up by what Disney hoped would be their grand comeback after years of disappointment, as well as the return to 2D animation after a five year hiatus. However, "The Princess and the Frog" didn't set the box office on fire and when "Tangled" was released the year after, Disney completely separated itself from hand-drawn animation. "The Princess and the Frog" is not seen as a modern classic or even that relevant ten years later, but I personally believe that this is in fact the best film Disney had made over the last decade. The story follows Tiana, a workaholic waitress who hopes to open a restaurant for her late father's memory in New Orleans. At a friend's costume party, she encounters a frog who turns out to be Prince Naveen who hopes that a kiss from a princess would break the spell. The kiss backfires as Tiana turns into a frog herself due to her not being a princess in the first place. The two of them now have to work together in order to break the spell as well as thwart a local voodoo witch doctor who is planning to take over the city. What works so well about the story is all of the creative liberties given to the source material. The original fairy tale was way too short to adapt into a full-fledged movie, so they have to completely rework the entire story by the setting of New Orleans and the character development of the leads. The story isn't the easiest to follow though as from the villain's plan to the reversal of the curse and all of the technicalities in between. To be fair, it makes for a more interesting narrative and outcome compared to the average family film, but more younger audiences will be way more confused by all the twists and turns. The tone however is pitch perfect. You got the above-average humour and the lighthearted adventure, but there's a hidden element of dread whether it's the villain's actions or the pressure to remove the curse. It's no "Tarzan" or "Hunchback" by any means, but I love the slight adult edge it carries.

Tiana is perhaps the best princess character Disney has created. Not only does she have a fiery and loveable personality, but she goes through a very interesting character arc. Tiana is a workaholic, obsesses about trying to open a restaurant up for her father's sake, but she has denied finding love or cutting loose in the process. However, as she spends more time with Naveen, she realizes that what she wants is not what she needs, and what she needs is love. Prince Naveen is also the best prince character Disney made as well. Naveen has a fun-loving, energized personality that conflicts with Tiana's more serious and judgy character. Naveen also starts to realize that money isn't everything and his goal to marry a rich woman starts to go away once he starts to fall in love with Tiana. The film's strength are the leads and the romance between them, which many Disney films tend to have a hard time perfecting these elements in one film. It's the most believable when it comes to chemistry and it's the one you root for the most, since you love both of the characters, not because you love just one of them. Dr. Facilier or the Shadowman as the locals call him is a solid villain. He's a man who just want riches in exchange for the souls of New Orleans, but has voodoo magic and allies from an unholy place in order to aid him. He's not the strongest villain that Disney made, but he is largely helped mainly by his animation and Keith David's vocal performance. Side characters range from Louis, an alligator who plays the trumpet and wants to perform on stage, Charlotte, Tiana's best friend who is a rich, spoiled woman who wants to marry Prince Naveen, Mama Odie, a blind, old witch doctor who helps guide the characters on how to break the spell, Ray, a Cajun firefly who is in love with the Evening Star, and Lawrence, Naveen's valet who works alongside Facilier in order to marry Charlotte and inherit her wealth in the process. All of the characters are actually enjoyable in their own way. Sure, Charlotte and Ray can get a tad annoying, but you tend to slowly warm up to their antics. However, it's Tiana and Naveen that remain the most engaging characters.

This film was the last Disney film to use hand-drawn animation with a big budget, and man, does it look beautiful. I always prefer hand-drawn animation more than CGI due to the impressive work and skill required to do it. One can appreciate hand-drawn since it needed the animator to bring characters and locations to life with passion driving them. New Orleans looks great and recognizable and the 1920's setting makes it very unique for the medium as this is the most modern time period Disney ever did with 2D animation. The bayou location is mainly just a dark swamp, but it still looks pleasant to be in. The colours pop with the expressive characters, backgrounds and effects. It's a very lively movie to say the least. The character animation is also fantastic, mainly due to the variety of humans, species and age groups involved. They all move so fluently, even more than the CGI animated films. Speaking of CGI, there's practically no special effects for it in the film. Outside of perhaps a few carriages in the background during the beginning, there's no CGI effect that stands out, which helps you to appreciate the hand-drawn work even more. The score and songs are by Randy Newman, which is the mixed-bag of the otherwise flawless film. The music sounds very much like Toy Story, and it pulls me out from the film. To be fair, it's not bad and it does work on occasion, but I just feel that Newman's music is just not the greatest match for this film. The songs are also a mixed bag as it ranges from quality. "Down in New Orleans", "Almost There" and "When We're Human" are pretty good songs, but it's "Friends on the Other Side" that shines as the best song in the film which is once again due to David's fantastic vocal performance. However, there are quite a few stinkers in here. "Dig a Little Deeper", "Gonna Take You There", and "Ma Belle Evangeline" are just bad in my opinion as they feel the most like filler songs and just don't match the others. I feel that if the soundtrack and music were done much better, I believe that this film wouldn't been looked down upon as much compared to "Tangled" or "Frozen".

"The Princess and the Frog" is a film that rivals many of the CGI films made by Disney during the decade from its great update of the story,  a tone that's geared towards both older and younger generations, very good humour all around, extremely loveable leads and chemistry, a memorable villain with a fantastic song of his own, enjoyable side characters that never get you annoyed, beautiful hand-drawn animation, and some catchy songs in between. The only issue the film has is Randy Newman's score and the few bad songs thrown in, which does impact the soundtrack negatively for sure. The film as a whole though is brilliant and I feel that it's the last great Disney film that they put out, not because of hand-drawn animation being completely thrown away, but the creative stories and well-written leads as well.

Verdict: 9/10. An amazing film only hampered by some awful music every now and then. If you haven't seen this film yet, please do by any means!

Cinderella (2015) Film Review: The Best Of The Modern Disney Remakes???

Since I reviewed the "Aladdin" remake a couple of weeks ago, I felt I should bring up what I feel is the best of the live-action Disney remakes made in the past decade. While I still think the 1994 "Jungle Book" film is my favourite, the "Cinderella" remake might be my second favourite. I think all of you know how the story goes, so I'm going to skim through it. Ella, nicknamed Cinderella, is a hard-working girl who is forced to do the chores of the household due to her stepmom's controlling nature. When the palace invites every maiden in the kingdom as prince Kit befriended Cinderella prior to the event, her abusive family leaves her behind at home. Cinderella though is helped by her fairy godmother to make an impression at the ballroom. The classic fairy-tale remain very much the same, but with some smart updates and changes compared to the original animated film. These include fleshing out the characters of the prince, king and the stepmother to be more realistic and human, significantly reducing the screen-time of the mice, and include more backstory and development for Cinderella, along with some story tweaks. Most of these are great improvements, though there are some issues when it comes to Cinderella and the fairy godmother that we will touch upon. The tone is also well-handled as it's for the most part lighthearted with moderate doses of humour. However, there is still some space for some drama surrounding the lead, which works very well most of the time.

Lily James as Cinderella is a role that's hard for me to judge. Personally, I think James does a good performance, but the character is not exactly very fleshed-out to be very relatable, as she's just a walking metaphor for the theme of the film. While she does get into some dramatic moments, the issue is that she feels a bit unrealistic personality-wise due to her overwhelming gullible nature and forgiving attitude. Cate Blanchett is fantastic as Lady Tremaine though. Not only was the character's motivation behind her actions brought into light, but Blanchett plays her role with style and grace that you at times side with the villain due to her charisma. Richard Madden as the prince is good as well, bringing in way more personality compared to the original with his reluctance to move in to his father's position as king. Then, there's Helena Bonham Carter as the Fairy Godmother. She's not bad by any means, but her comedy wasn't very funny. However, it's her constant narration of the story that really gets on people's nerves as she's reinstating the obvious past the first act. On top of that, a lot of people would have just preferred if the character was older, much like the original's grandparent-like caring personality. The side characters are all well-acted and characterized from the stepsisters, the king, the grand duke, and the captain of the guard. I personally like the update to have the stepsisters not be ugly, but rather unskillful on top of their bratty personality. The mice can't even be considered characters as they don't even talk, but you can tell who they are supposed to be from the original. Honestly, the entire cast is great, but the main issue is that the character of Cinderella and the Fairy Godmother don't really make themselves appealing.

Kenneth Branagh is a director known for his visionary eye, bringing kingdoms to life with surreal amounts of colour. Branagh does a perfect job in his work and unlike Guy Richie's work on "Aladdin", actually uses his eye-candy aesthetic into good use. I think the one thing people are going to get out of the film is the costume design, as they are both stylish and colourful to the saturated world. The settings are also very well constructed and designed from the warm yet cold aesthetic of Cinderella's childhood home and the glamorous palace. You can tell a lot of the Disney budget went to the aesthetic of the film, which is its shining achievement. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is also very good from some creative shots and iconography. What's not very good though is Partrick Doyle's score. It's not awful, but it shoves the magical, whimsical music so much into your ears that it becomes almost as abusive as Lady Tremaine. The CGI is also on the weaker end as you can tell that it's one of the few elements Branagh didn't need to put much focus on, along with the budget being surprisingly modest. The effects are just very average to say the least. What you see is what you get, and what you got are fake mice, stags, and lizards that don't feel or look realistic. Regardless, Branagh's skills are put to the test and accomplish the look and feel of the film, even if a few things are lacking.

"Cinderella" is honestly my second favourite Disney remake, and my favourite from the past decade. To be fair though, it has quite a bit of issues from Cinderella's personality, the misuse of the Fairy Godmother, the over-bearing score by Doyle, and the below-average effects. However, there's so much that's done well from the mostly smart and creative changes from the original while keeping the story itself identical enough, the tone being a simple use of lighthearted drama and comedy, Cate Blanchett's performance as Lady Tremaine, the cast and characters in general, Branagh's visionary directing, the aesthetic of the film ranging from the costumes to the interiors of the sets, and Zambarloukos's cinematography complementing Branagh's direction. For me though, the big take-away and why I have this as my favourite from the modern remakes is how they written the story to be different, but same enough that it respects the original, but stands out as its own to a degree. The issue with a lot of these remakes is that they either strive too far from the source material or stick way too close to it with unnecessary changes. I hope future remakes really learn from Branagh's work and this specific remake, because if not, we will continue to suffer from weaponized nostalgia bait.

Verdict: 7.5/10. Very good remake, but it could have been much stronger. Maybe the new "Mulan" can learn from this film, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

Shaft (2000) Film Review: How To Reboot A Dated Franchise Perfectly.

The "Shaft" films from the 1970's were blaxploitation crime films that remained one of the most successful in its genre, both financially and critically. So, when the franchise started to become more irrelevant as time went by, a reboot was made in order to kick-start a new series of films. However, production issues and meddling results at the box office caused this film to fall back into obscurity. In this sequel/reboot, John Shaft II is a police detective who is hellbent on making Walter Wade Jr, the son of a wealthy man, serving jail-time after he gets away of murdering a black man in cold blood. As the justice system fails to sentence Wade twice, Shaft quits the police force and attempts to handle the case by himself by finding the only witness of the attack who refuses to participate. Wade is also pursuing the witness and partners up with a Dominican drug lord named Peoples in order to hunt down and kill the witness to tie all loose ends. What works about the story is that it's perfectly simple to follow, but throws in twists and turns to make the wild goose chase more engaging. As much as I enjoy the 2019 film, the story is just uninteresting as it's your typical overly-complicated crime set-up that feels really unrealistic. The story for the 2000 film works much better due to the simple premise, but sprinkles in some nice plot events in order to keep the narrative fresh. It also helps that the pacing of the film is perfect with very little filler involved in the story. The tone leans more towards a serious take, but it does have its own cheeky humour, mainly from the one-liners and Shaft's personality of a womanizing, smooth detective. The 2019 film is perhaps the funniest of the franchise as there's more attempts to give out some great, raunchy humour, but the 2000 film has a more balanced experience as the story takes more of the centerstage rather than the comedy.

Samuel L. Jackson is just perfect as Shaft, emulating both the badass crime-stopping detective while having a charming, yet hot-headed personality that causes him to be so likeable by his peers and the ladies. Sure, it's mainly just Samuel L. Jackson playing a more glorified version of himself, but he does it so perfectly. Christian Bale as Walter Wade Jr. is slimy and despicable as both a vulnerable, but untouchable bastard who attempts to get away from murder. What I like is that he's not really the main threat to Shaft as he seems to get himself in positions where he lacks power from his ill-fated partnership with Peoples Hernandez, played by an over-the-top Jeffery Wright with a convincing Spanish accent. Peoples is just a fun villain for his crazy and demanding outbursts, while also having some intense, calm, charming conversations. Wright is almost unrecognizable as Peoples and practically becomes this Spanish drug lord the first time you see him. The side characters range from Vanessa Williams's Carmen Vasquez, a police detective who helps Shaft in his case, Busta Rhymes's Rasaan, a messy, pot-headed friend of Shaft who assists him as his drive-away guy, Toni Colette as Diane Palmieri, a waitress who is threatened by Wade after she saw him attack his victim, and Richard Roundtree as John Shaft I, the "uncle" of Shaft who acts as a guide and word of advice to his "nephew". I'm putting quotation marks here, since the 2019 film retconned this into his father pretending to be his uncle, which is a clever joke in hindsight. The cast is generally well-acted and even smaller characters that I chose not to mention can get a nice highlight in the film. None of the actors slip out of their roles or come across as awkward, they all stay in their convincing characters as long as they appear onscreen.

The late John Singleton directed this film as if it was almost a home video given some budget for some nice flair, giving the film this independent look while still being professionally directed. It's almost trying to visually pay homage to the franchise's humble beginnings. What is great about Singleton's direction is that he attempts to make the film as if it was set in the 70's, as outside of the modern soundtrack, the film never uses modern technology or political background at all. It makes it more in line to the franchise than the modern and updated take in the 2019 film. This can also act as a double-edged sword though as some viewers might not like the dated aesthetic of the film. It's a shame that Singleton passed away young as he was a talent in the industry. The cinematography is good with great uses of close-ups and establishing shots, as well as emulating the feel of the original by its simplicity. The score by Dave Arnold is mostly reusing the main theme from the 70's, which personally works well in my opinion. Considering that the film isn't obsessed of showing the updated technology and landscape, the seemingly outdated score blends well due to the lack of attention given to the late 90's world. The soundtrack is really good with the highlights being Black Rob's "Whoa" and of course the Oscar-winning Shaft theme. Personally, I prefer the soundtrack of the 2019 film more, but this one is also pretty good. The last thing to mention would be the action, which isn't supposed to be the takeaway of the film. The shootouts present are filmed as if they were made back in the 70's. So, you got a bit of over-acted deaths, not much use of blood outside of headshots, and a style that feels low-budget rather than going for style. However, it should be pointed out that this was intentional. Singleton was practically trying to emulate the 70's films with just a new fresh coat of paint, so the action should feel similar to that. I feel it's more effective than the 2019 film, as that tried to be stylish and modern, but came across as generic and boring outside of the climax.

The 2000 "Shaft" is a film that perfectly reboots and pays tribute to the 70's franchise. Sure, it's not extremely funny, the action isn't something to write about, and the film really commits to the 70's filmmaking aesthetic that it might turn some viewers off, but honestly, these are barely issues. From the simple yet engaging story, Samuel L. Jackson's charisma as Shaft, the villains being so well acted and despicable from the talents of Jeffery Wright and Christian Bale, the side characters being memorable in some capacity, Singleton's excellent directing that homages the roots of the franchise, good cinematography, and a catchy soundtrack and score despite the unoriginality. To be honest, the first time I watched it, I thought it was just okay. But the second time, I completely understood why the film was made the way it is, which gains a lot of respect from me. As much as I did bring up the issues of the 2019 film, I personally enjoy the franchise and all of its entries, with the 2000 film perhaps being as great as the original.

Verdict: 9/10. A great film that's perfect in its mission and existence. Give it a watch if you want to watch a slightly modern take on the franchise or if you love anything Jackson stars in.

Constantine (2005) Film Review: A Hellish Delight?

When a women commits suicide, her detective sister doesn't believe that she would kill herself due to her devout Christian practices. Seeking help from John Constantine, a cynical, occult detective and exorcist, they learn that there's much more to the suicide, which is tied to the son of Lucifer attempting to claim Earth involving the Spear of Destiny. Based on the DC comics and character, the movie makes plenty of changes to the source material, but still makes the story feel like it fits the character. The story itself is a bit of a mixed bag, as it does have a bit too much stuffed inside. The Spear of Destiny is shown in the beginning, but disappears until the end of the film when it becomes relevant. There's also plenty of characters that serve some purpose in the story that makes it bloated. However, by the end, everything clicks in place in order for everything to make sense from the motives and overarching narrative. It's a story that seems confusing and muddled at first viewing, but by the end, you understand what's been happening up until now. This does create a viewing experience though that some might tackle or give up their attention on, depending on one's patience. It doesn't help for the impatient viewers that the tone takes itself very seriously, giving it a dull exterior. That doesn't mean that there's no humour in the film, as there are plenty of good lines in the film that reflect the personality of the source material, but you can tell that the film is focused more on being epic rather than fun for the audience, which once again can divide some people.

Keanu Reeves as John Constantine is one of the most miscast performances in his career. Constantine is supposed to be a blonde, British, punk who's cynical personality causes the people around him to both love and hate him. Not only does Reeves not match that criteria, but he plays the character more seriously with a quiet, monotone voice. To be fair, when the writing makes the character feel like the source material from his lines and actions, it works really well, regardless of Reeves's performance or not. However, many would just wished that Matt Ryan played the role. Rachel Weisz plays Angela, an LA police detective who has the repressed ability of a psychic who joins Constantine in figuring out her sister's suicide and her unknown role of a demon uprising. Although she does have some interesting moments in the story, Angela is just your typical, "strong" female character entering a new world of the hero, even though the two never get together by the end. Shia LeBouf plays Chas Kramer, an apprentice to Constantine who while inexperienced has studied the ways of the occult and wants to prove his worth to his master. He's not in the movie much and although he's supposed to be the comic relief, Chas never becomes irritating as you'd think. Dijmon Honsou plays Papa Midnite, a witch doctor who runs an underground club who, despite his neutral status, aids Constantine. Honsou is well-cast as Midnite and I did wish that he got more time onscreen, since he's an intriguing character. Tilda Swinton plays Gabriel, a half-breed angel who plans to unleash Mammon due to their distain against humanity. Swinton plays the role fine as this angelic, powerful figure, but the issue is that there's barely enough time of her onscreen to suggest her true nature or villainous position. Peter Stormare as Lucifer though is casting that's just fantastic. He's so over-the-top compared to the tone and characters, but his charisma is just so fun to watch and provides a very different take on the character. Also, the way he is used in the film is just so extremely well-written that it just breathes the comic. The only characters that really don't work are the characters of Beeman and Father Hennessy, allies of Constantine who get dispatched throughout the film. The issue of these characters is that not only do we have Chas as the loyal ally already, but we don't know anything about these characters. The only memorable thing about them is how Hennessy dies, which is a cool death scene as he seems to be unable to drink alcohol no matter what, but he actually drowned from all of the liquor he seemingly couldn't get a taste of. Other than that though, they really should have just made Chas fit these roles rather than having two more characters that are just going to die anyway. Overall, the casting and characters are average with some of the characters being very effective in their role and some of them being generic and bland, which mirrors the mixed-bag result of Keanu Reeves as Constantine.

Francis Lawrence's directorial debut is one that's unpolished, but shows the the visionary talent of the director. One thing that I won't defend though is the very dark aesthetic of the movie. It's very gothic and dreary and can be unappealing to look at sometimes. However, certain locations such as Midnight's nightclub and the hospital are nicely designed and lit for the mood of the scene. The hospital in general gets plenty of visual cosmetics, which is thanks to the lighting that gives context of the situation. You can tell Lawrence has the eye to make some great-looking imagery though. From the scene where the possessed Mexican walks towards a herd of cattle that die and rot as he walks near, to the sequence where Angela is pulled away by an unseen force creating holes throughout the office building and walls, or the slowed down moments as one descends to Hell. I like the design and concept of Hell, which is a windy, rustic, destroyed Los Angeles where time stops in the real world for one, and the demons are varied and creatively designed. The CGI isn't amazing though. You can tell what is made from a green-screen or from a computer, but the designs overcome the average effects. The cinematography by Philippe Rousselot is good, but misused at times. There are some great establishing and close-up shots, plenty of which offer some nice visual flair when perfectly edited, but the editing is pretty awkward at times, inserting some unneeded shots or cuts that ruin the purpose of the shot. The music by Brian Tyler and Klaus Badelt is hard to judge, mainly due to the lack of it. The score is very minimalistic and the film mainly keeps it subdued, only bringing it out during the action moments or pivotal plot sequences. When it appears though, it's decent, albeit you crave to hear more of it as soon as it goes away. The two songs used throughout the film though reeks of early 2000's, but it has its charm. The last thing to look at would be the action scenes. There's not much of it and it's very underwhelming if you came in expecting action. I for one didn't expect much to begin with, since the character in the comics is more of a detective rather than a hero that battles evil, but it's pretty disappointing. Outside of the sequence of Angela's abduction and Lucifer's intervention, the action scenes last way too shortly and generally lack a uniquely, cool impact to it. The scene where Constantine uses holy water and a crucifix shotgun is very ripped out of Blade and the scenes where he battles a specific demon such as the insect one and the generic, side-villain are very anti-climatic due to Constantine being able to stand his own by sheer luck, whether it's a car or unestablished brass knuckles. However, considering that the action isn't really in the forefront as the film is more detective-thriller, I wouldn't complain about it too much.

"Constantine" is a bizarre movie to say the least. There's plenty of bad that people can point out from the overly-serious tone, the messy story, Keanu Reeves as Constantine, the generic human characters, the mediocre CGI, the ugly gothic aesthetic, the choppy editing at times, and the short, uninteresting action scenes. However, if you have knowledge of the character and source material, or if you are able to hold plenty of patience for film in general, there's actually plenty of good things in here. The story becomes much more understandable and coherent by the end of the film as all of the pieces come together for the audience as a detective story should be, plenty of great one-liners that Constantine fans would praise, the portrayal of Constantine being very different but still engaging and carrying the attitude of the source material in some excellently-written scenes, the supernatural characters are all well-casted and performed with the stand-out being Stormare as Lucifer, certain settings and creatures being well-designed and established, the cinematography by Rousselot when it's perfectly executed, the decent yet quiet score, and Lawrence's visual directing creating some fantastic scenes and imagery. It's a film that's enjoyment really relays on your general knowledge of the source material or are into supernatural, religious action-thrillers. If not, you might not like this film due to the multitude of issues. The screenplay is really the deal-maker/breaker for the viewer and it seems as if half of it was blessed by angels while the other half was cursed by unholy demons.

Verdict: 5.5/10. Personally, I managed to find enough enjoyment to call it slightly above average. It's an extremely flawed film that is only balanced by your preferences.

The Boondock Saints (1999) Film Review: An Underrated Classic Of The Action Genre.

When two Irish brothers kill two members of the Russian mafia in self-defense, they hear a calling from God that they must punish the wicked or bad men in order for the good to flourish, starting with the Russian and Italian mafia. As a friend teams up with the duo, a gay, eccentric FBI agent is tasked to solve their identities while a part of him admires the work they have done in the community. What works really well about this film is that it perfectly balances an over-the-top tone with a story that feels grounded in reality. This is not your typical action blockbuster with the unstoppable hero going up against an army of bodybags. This is a film that is at times edgy, satirical, and even intellectual over self-right justice, vigilantism and how people view them. I won't spoil the ending, but there's a brilliant scene that plays over the credits that mirrors our reality and how the everyman would either agree with the actions of the Saints or disagree with their violent ways. The film also has its share of funny moments, which is mainly due to the entertaining characters and charisma of the cast. If there is one issue with the story, it's that the pacing and story direction is a bit all over the place, as once the Russian mafia is out of the picture, the group turn their guns to the Italian mafia. I feel that perhaps the group should've focused on taking care of other small-scale criminals such as rapists or neo-Nazis. The focus on taking down the mafia is a bit too standard in the genre and the ones depicted in the film aren't the most evil bunch in media.

Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as Connor and Murphy MacManus are just great as the onscreen brothers. You can feel their chemistry being so genuine and caring as the two bicker with each other from Connor's action-movie loving mindset and Murphy's hot-headed attitude. Both brothers are written so that one isn't written to steal the other's spotlight. You can like both characters equally for their own personalities. Willem Dafoe as Agent Smecker though is perhaps the best character and one of Dafoe's best performances in his career. Smecker is a man who's so good in his job that he simply enjoys mocking the local police force with his flamboyant personality and enhanced knowledge of dissecting a crime scene. Dafoe puts so much commitment to this character that it's actually awe-inspiring as not only is the character so over-the-top and a bit demeaning, but the scene where he disguises himself as a women shows true dedication and how talented the legendary actor can be. David Della Rocco plays Rocco, a friend of the MacManus brothers and the third member of their crusade as he plans to take revenge against the Italian mafia for setting him up to a death trap. Rocco is insane, hammy, and a bit unlikeable, but you understand why the brothers care for him, as he's not only a man with plenty of info, but he is also committed to killing bad people. As much as he does feel like a scumbag, you do start to feel for the character as the film progresses. Lastly, there's Billy Connolly as Il Duce, a mysterious assassin who is tasked to kill the Saints. While he doesn't say much, his presence in scenes work effectively to show how dangerous of a man he is, until a hidden revelation about his identity is shown. There are other characters such as the local police officers assisting Smecker and the members of the mafia, but they don't stand out much due to the main cast just soaking up the spotlight. Although Dafoe might be the huge takeaway performance, Flanery, Reedus and Rocco manage to stay afloat with their engaging characters and charisma.

Troy Duffy is a director who although has very few titles to his career, proves to be a creative mind with his passion project. There is some amateur filmmaking though that sticks out like a sore thumb. The film takes place in Boston, but it was clearly shot in Toronto, which careful viewers can find TD Bank and the CN Tower in the background. The opening credit sequence is sketchy, and the use of fade to black transitions feel a bit awkward at times. However, outside of these issues, Duffy knows how to direct the meat of the film, which are the action and crime-solving sequences. Instead showing the action and have Smecker piecing the crime-scene together, we instead see the aftermath of the action and as Smecker pieces more and more of the evidence, the more we see of the action taking place. However, Duffy would also switch things up as there's an excellent sequence where we see Smecker describing what took place while we see the action unfold while sharing the same space as the Saints in a creative and visually engaging scene, along with Dafoe's scene-chewing charisma. The editing and direction of these sequences as well as every part of the action and comedic moments are just perfect. The cinematography also has great use of low angles, close-ups, and establishing shots for these sequences. I also like the choice to have a more gritty, dirty, unpolished look to the film along with the lack of striking colours outside of some bright interiors, as it adds to the film's story of the Saints cleansing the evil that lurks though the city that's more scummy than morally correct. The score by Jeff Danna is 90's cheese with the edgy, almost skater boy quality to it, but it does work for the film. I can't recall much of the soundtrack outside of that. To be honest, I wish Duffy gets more work as a director, because he clearly shows creative talent with a low budget, so imagine with a much bigger one that can iron out some amateur mistakes.

"The Boondock Saints" is one of my favourite action films, despite its flaws. The story could have done without the mafia being the villains, the side characters aren't very memorable outside of the one cop Smecker makes fun of, and Duffy's uses of fade to black transitions and awkward editing in the beginning of the film gives off a TV movie vibe to newcomers. However, despite this first impression, the film manages to become an unexpected classic. From the great story dealing with vigilantism in a realistic, but fun matter, the perfect tone to balance the humour and the grounded reality the film sets up, the main cast is excellent to say the least with memorable characters and performances, Duffy's creative and brilliant directing with the action and crime solving sequences, good cinematography to attach itself to these great sequences, editing that perfectly emulates the vision of the director, and a score that matches the goofy, fun half of the film. It's a shame that the franchise is practically dead with very little flow in the industry as the concept and characters need to be expanded on to cover other sides of the police force and the criminal underworld. It's a film that, underneath its cover of glorifying violence and twisted forms of justice, has a sold theme and proves some sort of relevancy today.

Verdict: 8/10. A great film that's flaws barely take away from the excellent qualities. Watch it if you never saw it, it's going to give you a good time no matter what.

 

Dr. Dolittle 2 (2001) A Better Sequel That's Still Just As Bad As The First Film.

Few years after the first film, Dr. Dolittle is tasked to help protect a forest by getting an endangered species of bear to mate. However, one of the bears was raised in captivity and has no idea how to adapt in the forest. Dolittle has to make do with a short deadline and a greedy, logging magnate, while balancing his family life. The first film was very messy with balancing the story, and while the sequel does have more focus on the main story and keeps the pace natural, the subplot with Dolittle's family proves to be cluttered. That subplot is mainly about Dolittle and his rebelling, teenage daughter, who realizes that she can also talk to animals. The issue is that not only is there not much time with the subplot, but the conflict with his wife appears and disappears. On top of that, you also got the villain who just wants to cut down the forest for money, which is just unnecessary. The main story alone honestly works fine, but the filmmakers keep adding more filler to make the film bloated despite the short runtime. The uneven balancing of the story is also reflected on to the tone and humour. To be fair, the humour is better than the first film, given the reduced pop-culture gags. However, there's jokes going straight for either the adult crowd or toddlers. You of course got your toilet humour and butt jokes that kids just love, but then you got sex jokes and awkward allegories such as the interspecies joke between Dolittle and the female bear. It's more uncomfortable than funny. I will say that the humour and tone isn't not as bad as "My Spy" though.

Eddie Murphy returns as Dr. Dolittle and acts much better than before. The issue with the first film was the character's personality conflicting with the story and pacing. Here, Murphy is more casual as the doctor who takes care of the animals and has a wise-cracking attitude towards his family. Considering a lot of his scenes is just him acting at nothing, he gives a lot of dedication to the role. Steve Zahn as Archie the bear is honestly great casting. The actor voices the lazy, pampered bear perfectly, though Archie himself isn't really funny or too engaging. Sometimes, he can get some cringe moments. The audience only roots for him in order to have the forest be saved, not because Archie is a loveable character. Outside of these characters, everyone else from the animals to the humans fit your cliched roles such as the annoyed, teenaged daughter, the supportive yet disgruntled wife, the stubborn and villainous, logging magnate, and the animals fitting the roles of comic relief. Much like the first film, there's not much character in the majority of the cast. They act fine and do their role, but you wouldn't remember them at all. Once again, Murphy is left attempting to save the movie himself by charisma alone, which is a hard task for any actor.

Steve Carr takes charge of directing and it's still very average and flat. Honestly, it makes Betty Thomas's directing look so much better in comparison. At least with the last film, the location of San Fransisco and the sets looked good. This film mainly takes place in the forest and you can tell that a good chunk of the scenes are a set and not very natural to the point of pleasing the audience. Like, your gut will just tell you that there's something off with the forest setting. It just feels like a much cheaper film, even though it has the same amount of budget that the first film had. The cinematography is actually even worse, mainly by the increased back to forth shots of Murphy and the animals. I know that's because Murphy doesn't like working with animals around him, but it's no excuse to get lazy because of it. The score by David Newman is so generic family fluff that the bubbly comedic music only reaches your memory, which itself is so borrowed from other generic family comedies. The soundtrack though is very bizarre, using a lot of R&B songs at any chance possible. The songs aren't bad, but they just don't fit in this movie at all. The visual effects at least did get better. It still uses green-screen and digital editing, but it's much more convincing. Considering that Archie is in the film a lot, I'm glad to see that they tried their best in making him share the same space as Murphy, which there are a few cases where the effect perfectly works. For the most part though, you can tell that he's not real or inhabiting the screen, but you acknowledge that it was the best they could do. However, the editing once again ruins the film. While not as destructive as the previous film with all of the subplots, the editing still cuts scenes far too quickly, whether they are part of a gag or not. I honestly feel that in retrospect, all of the "Dr. Dolittle" films, from the original to the Robert Downey remake, suffer primarily from the editing. What is with this franchise and terrible editing choices?

Dr. Dolittle 2 does actually improve on the original, surprisingly. From the better premise and humour, Murphy's dedication to the role being more prominent, and the digital effects being improved, you can't deny that it does make the film better than the first. However, the sequel is still just as bad. From the cluttered subplot, unbalanced tone of the humour, the majority of the characters (animal or human) once again assume the same roles that they were given, bland directing from Carr, very flat cinematography, another forgettable score, a bizarre soundtrack attached to a family film, and the editing yet again practically ruining the enjoyment and function of the movie. Once again, it might be entertaining enough to grab your kid's attention, but outside of the very adult jokes that are more awkward than funny, you might as well give up on finding a good Dr. Dolittle film.

Verdict: 4/10. Improvements don't escape the awfulness of this film. Pick your poison for what you prefer, the original or the sequel.

Aladdin (2019) Film Review: Why, Guy Ritchie, Why?!?

Months ago, I reviewed Guy Ritchie's "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels", which I stated that it was his one and only masterpiece. After rewatching it, I was reminded of the worst film he has made. Although one might say his King Arthur film is worse, you can at least say that it's a Guy Ritchie film, something that you can't say about the "Aladdin" remake. A live-action adaptation of the 1992 animated hit, Aladdin is a thief who is in love with the princess, Jasmine. The villainous Jafar instructs him to capture a magical lamp, which contains a wish-making Genie that can help Aladdin become a prince to woo Jasmine, while Jafar attempts to get the lamp for himself.  While the film does stick close to the animated counterpart, they decided to change up on certain set-pieces and flesh the character of Jasmine out more, along with some political intrigue that Jafar and the Sultan are butting heads over. These differences only manage to harm the film in the process. The set-pieces are way less engaging as everything is scaled back for whatever reasons. From the Cave of Wonders collapsing being less exaggerated to the climax having a giant parrot chase the heroes rather than Jafar fighting them with his magic. Fleshing out Jasmine's character in return takes away more time from Aladdin and doesn't establish him very well, despite his role as the lead. The political intrigue is also uninteresting as it involves Jafar wanting to invade another kingdom where Jasmine's mother was from. The issue with this useless subplot is that we not only see Jasmine's mother, but not one single person from this mysterious land at all. There are other changes and inclusions, but the point is that they all degrade the original in a minimal or large scale. The humour is also lacking as it tends to go for more awkward dialogue rather than hilarious lines. It also doesn't help that the Genie is made to be more charismatic rather than goofy. It does work for the character as a whole, but the humour only grants a chuckle here or there because of this.

Mena Massoud as Aladdin is a polarizing role, as many either think he did an awful or good performance. The issue with the character is that there's not really much of one. He's deadpan, lacking emotion, and doesn't have much depth to him. However, Massoud is clearly trying his best and his scenes with Jasmine are good to say the least, going for an awkward teen asking out their crush vibe. I honestly think that he's a good actor, but he's just not been giving much direction of his character. Will Smith as the Genie is meant to steal the show and well, what can I say? It's Will Smith being fun and charming as always. He's not really funny, mind you, but he's entertaining to watch interact off with Massoud. Naomi Scott as Jasmine is also pretty good, given her increased role for wanting leadership of her kingdom, and being a good singer. She's a bit too white for the role in my opinion, but she's still a good actor. Then, there's Jafar, who is practically the worst character of the movie. Although the character was so charismatic and devious in the original, they got the worst actor for the job. Marwan Kenzari is not only too young to play a character whose age is made fun of, but his line delivery is just laughably bad. I'm sure Kenzari is a nice guy and can act in different films, but he was clearly not meant for this role. As for the side characters, there's the Sultan, who I feel is the best performance of the film, as the character is much more serious than the animated counterpart. Dalia is Jasmine's annoying handmaiden who falls in love with the Genie, who I just can't stand. She's clearly meant to appeal for the rom-com audience and is just the stereotypical role of the woman's best friend who is more thirsty about boys and won't shut up about them. Lastly, there's Prince Anders, a silly-sounding Scandinavian stereotype who is a suitor for Jasmine in one painfully, unfunny scene. Why did I mention him? Well, he's going to get his own spin-off, that's why. So, we can hear more of his unfunny voice. The cast overall is actually pretty good with the actors boasting an enjoyable performance, outside of the characters of Jafar and Dalia.

Guy Ritchie is a director who hasn't really reached his full potential since his first film. With the case of Aladdin, his directing is not only tired, but practically in auto-pilot as there's barely any creativity. Ritchie tends to direct films with a gritty, down-to-earth feel, which doesn't really work in a fantasy musical. While there are some nice sequences, mainly as the city is shown, that's mainly because there's a lot of digital effects in the way. The city of Agrabah is one that is not convincingly brought to life. The interiors of the palace and the set for the city look nice and detailed, there's just way too much CGI used in the backgrounds, especially in the nighttime exteriors. Is it that hard to shoot in Tunisia or something? Cairo in "Indiana Jones" feels much more alive than the kingdom of Agrabah. The costumes are a mixed bag where some looks stylish and fit realistically in the world, while others are either too silly or exaggerated. The cinematography for many of the romance or scenes of exposition is just flat with little care to keep the audience engaged. His signature slow-motion is thrown in at the most random of moments such as Aladdin falling into the ocean or when a fake CGI Abu grabs the fake CGI lamp. I know I keep mentioning the CGI, but a big problem of the filmmaking is the overreliance of the technology. Abu didn't need to be a CGI monkey, a real monkey could be used for most of the scenes that don't put the animal in danger, same can be said for the tiger and Iago, who has no character in this movie. Yet for some reason, they decided to stick with a fake-looking, CGI monkey doing things that a real monkey can do with much better effect. The quality of the CGI as a whole isn't terrible, but using them too much for things that can be done physically will make the effects look pretty bad as the years go by. Lastly, we have the songs. While the original songs are still nice to listen to, and the musical numbers work really well for the film and put on the best effects or physical work, there's still quite a lot of auto-tune used. It's not as bad as the "Beauty and the Beast" remake, but it's pretty noticeable. The new song, Speechless, was pretty unnecessary though. Scott's vocals are good and it's a nice little female empowerment song, but the musical number is a bit silly and the scene that follows up shows Jasmine's plan working only for Jafar to just instantly make her a damsel. It brings up the question why Ritchie was chosen to direct this film in the first place.

"Aladdin" is one of the better Disney live-action remakes, but that's not saying too much. While most of the actors do a good job in their roles, the change of Jasmine and the Sultan's character being the best improvement that was introduced, the set and costume design attempts to make the city of Agrabah come to life, and the musical numbers are decent if you ignore the auto-tune, there's also a lot of issues with the film. Most of the changes made were practically a downgrade from the original, the humour was weak, Jafar was just an embarrassment to the character, Dalia and Prince Anders were annoying inclusions, Ritchie's directing was flat, the overuse of CGI is headache-inducing, and the new musical number just adds useless padding to the film that is instantly disposed of once the scene ended. This is a film that needed to be made by a Bollywood director, which was the remake's biggest wasted potential. A Bollywood-style Aladdin movie would've worked extremely well. Not only would there be far less CGI, but there would be more effort in the musical numbers, the physicality of the actors, more on-location scenery, and perhaps an over-the-top tone that can salvage broken elements such as Jafar's performance. If the film emulated the Bollywood formula, we could be talking about one of the most boldest and creative remakes ever. However, we just got a standard, executive-charged, product that only fuels more uncreative remakes in the near future.

Verdict: 5/10. A mediocre film that could have been so much more than what it is. Just a paycheck for the washed-up director that is Guy Ritchie.