Screening Spectacles

Luca

2021-06-24T21:45:00.001-07:00

Pixars reputation as an animation juggernaut is very fascinating to watch over the past few decades. Most of the time, they are very reliable in bringing excellent visuals, engaging character interactions, interesting premise concepts, emotionally connecting or thought provoking storylines, cute humor, and memorable moments that have left a lasting impact on many family audiences. With how impactful their status is, it can end up as a double-edged sword for the studio where any project they pump out carries that high expectation for success. This brings us to their latest effort, Luca, which was the directorial debut of Enrico Casarosa (who wrote and directed the Pixar short film La Luna). The marketing campaign for this was rather minimal with not showing a whole lot and Disney made the decision to pull it from a theatrical release to their streaming service Disney+. I wasn't hyped about it but was curious and after watching it, it ended up being a simple pleasant experience that won't leave an impact on me.

What's it about? Taking place in a world where sea monsters can transform into humans on land, the story follows two teenaged members of that species learning about humans in a village. Something interesting about the style of animation and tone that this is leaning towards it's how similar it feels to filmmakers Hayao Miyazaki's movie, Kiki's Delivery Service (one of my personal favorites). There's an earnest nature in how the protagonists interact and learn about this new environment they are visiting. The visuals and music are strong as to be expected but don't lean towards the immense realism shown in Pixar's Soul with the city. The narrative is very much back to basics coming of age with the cliched archetypes but is handled in a more sweet manner for younger audiences.

For all of it's light-hearted charm and endearing spirit, however, there are issues with it that affect how memorable it is. The script feels like a rough draft as there are missed chances to expanded on some details that are only visually displayed (such as one of the protagonists issues with abandonment). The material here while fine on its own, doesn't attempt to rise above and add more meat to the thing basic plot. That's not to say it needs major stakes conflict as this is the lowest stakes out of the studios films, but with how short the actual story is, having more content would have helped. In fact, similar to an underwhelming previous film Onward (another studio film I didn't love like the majority did), having a flashback scene for the shy protagonist would have been greatly appreciated as there isn't much material for him aside for being very introverted. It should also be noted that there is a post end credits scenes but it's nothing worth fast forwarding for.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Jacob Tremblay and Jack Dylan Grazer. The chemistry between these leads is very likable as they work off each other well in their antics together. Jacob served his lead role very well in terms of conveying excited curiosity and that endearing spirit you want to root for in overcoming his fears. Jack is pretty good as well as that troublesome youngster that thinks he knows it all and can be a bad influence on those close to him. Honorable mention goes to Saverio Raimundo for having a lot of fun being such a very cliched jerk that you love to hate (one of the very few villains in the studios projects who is purely malicious and no redeeming factors).

Overall Consensus: Luca is a pleasant coming of age experience with beautiful animation, nice calming music, and simple likable characters but doesn't rise above a basic script needing more content and lacks much of a memorable impact. ⭑⭑⭑1/4 Runtime: 1 hour 41 minutes PG

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Enrico Casarosa. You want to have a pasta dish while watching something that takes place in an American-ized Italian village. You want a laidback narrative with pretty visuals to look at with your family. You are in the mood for a basic and without deeper subtext.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Enrico Casarosa. You aren't in the mood for a basic and without deeper subtext.

In the Heights

2021-06-20T23:11:00.002-07:00

If there was a genre with cinema that I am not that big a fan of, it would definitely be live action musical adaptations. There are certainly a handful of these that I like such as The Sound of Music but it feels like more of an issue with modern ones. This can be summarized with how much of a double-edged sword these films are: they can provide all the glitz glamour that they can afford but they are confined to the limitations of a bulky 2+ hour runtime with the pros and cons tied to whatever they are adapting for audiences. It's why movies like Rent and Les Miserables just didn't do anything for me. This brings us to a new entry in this area, In the Heights, which was directed by Jon M Chu (Crazy Rich Asians) and is based on Lin Manuel-Miranda's musical of the same name. Admittedly I haven't watched Hamilton at the time of this review (though it's on Disney+ for me to access) but I was hoping the success of it and the Lin's involvement could have helped this out. After watching it in theaters, however, it ended up being such a lackluster letdown that hit a few of my pet peeves.

How are the songs and musical numbers? Let's quickly touch on this first: with what this film was aiming for, it doesn't satisfy the "high energy" numbers that were advertised in the marketing. They all feel mostly middle of the road with their momentum between the R&B style parts and ensemble pieces. Something that's worth mentioning is that there isn't much dialogue as the majority of the conversations that take place are through songs. What may or may not help the music stay in the mind is whether or not the viewer has the emotional investment in the plot arcs. The production value is something to look forward to if you want to turn your brain off and watch what's going on in these numbers. My favorite song highlights here would be "96,000" and "Carnaval del Barrio" primarily for having a consistent flow and being more likable towards whatever had better investment.

What's it about? Taking place in Washington Heights, the story follows a few members of the Dominican community who are pursuing their own respective dreams. This splits in the narrative into multiple plot arcs that provide a variety of flavors of conflict, so if one doesn't work maybe one of the other issues can provide some investment. The community spirit is present throughout as it dips into the pool of cheesy traditional lines.

That being said, for all of its good intentions and modern social commentary, the screenplay ends up being a double-edged sword of an adaptation. Because there are many lead characters with their own plot lines, the pacing hit hard with the juggling act of these problems. There's even a Dreamers tidbit that arrives very late in the third act and is resolved not that long after. It becomes more style over substance in its approach of quantity over quality feeling the need to hit every checkbox of cliched drama. It also doesn't help that there are 2 romances that are lackluster to watch due to the unfocused nature presented. The direction is very weak too as none of the actors seem capable of rising above their material and the filmmaker doesn't guide them better.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Anthony Ramos and Leslie Grace (I could have mentioned Melissa Barrera but her appearances are infrequent with the plot). Anthony gives a serviceable performance as a somewhat central figure with that kind of charisma in scenes where you'd want to hangout with him but it felt like direction was holding back his acting. Leslie is another competent acting highlight as a character who has enough material as a lead despite her script letting her down. Honorable mentions goes to Gregory Diaz IV, Daphne Rubin-Vega, and Lin Manuel Miranda due to the former two being interesting enough standouts as a comedic relief and crowd rouser, respectively, while the latter has a cute little cameo with his grudge against a business competitor.

Overall Consensus: In the Heights entertains with mindless community unifying music and nice production value but is very lackluster in terms of narrative focus, storytelling, bad pacing, weak direction, and uninteresting characters. ⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 2 hours 23 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Jon M. Chu. You like cheesy musical adaptations with a sense of community and competent songs. You are familiar with the source material and want to see how it's treated.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Jon M. Chu. You dislike cheesy musical adaptations that are lacking emotional investment in the main characters and uninteresting stakes. You are familiar with the source material but don't want to see how it's treated.

Wish Dragon

2021-06-18T00:03:00.002-07:00

With how often crowded animated family cinema can get, there's definitely going to be a good share that are going to be given the labeled of "this is a version of (insert familiar movie with same premise) but in a different setting". These types of comparisons are usually unavoidable as this type of entertainment can overuse troupes and cliches of popular eras. These comparison statements are often either unintentional similarities found in the films or those projects that are blatantly ripping off without understanding what made those aspects work. This brings us to a new entry within this topic, Wish Dragon, which was directed by Chris Appelhans and was another Sony Animation that was given to Netflix for distribution. I didn't know much about it as I avoided the marketing to remain blind about it and only heard about it from a YouTube animated movie reviewer. I was hoping for another solid good time like The Mitchells vs the Machines and after watching it, I ended up liking it just fine.

What's it about? The story follows a college student who finds shenanigans after being given a magic teapot carrying a wish granting dragon. Let's get this out of the way really quick: yes, the 3 wishes aspect is the main Aladdin similarity that can be found here alongside minor tidbits of the narrative format. The approach, however, is entirely different as rather than aiming for a love interest angle, this is more focused on two young adults who are unsure about their own lives with the main protagonist wanting to reconnect with a childhood friend. There are a handful of feel-good moments spread throughout that provide a delightful calm to this comedy. There are some pretty good jokes too in the antics that happen throughout (one of my favorites being a traffic scene).

That being said, there are some blatant weaknesses in the execution holding it back. As far as the main villain is concerned, it's another stock last minute reveal in the final act that's just meant to push the plot with a physically imposing figure instead of being an actual character. There are parts that feel undercooked such as the scenes with his childhood friend as it would have been nice to get more fleshing out her character more. It still follows cliches to a fault, though to give it credit it gets through a liar revealed part just fine enough.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Jimmy Wong and John Cho. Jimmy gives a nice serviceable performance in a main role that admittedly was rather standard but likable enough. John provides a solid portrayal that exudes the regal agitated type of attitude with some nice chemistry with Jimmy in their banter together. Honorable mentions Natashu Liu Bordizzo, Jimmy O Yang, and Bobby Lee due to the former giving good voice work that I wish was given more material to work with while the latter two are enjoyable enough in their small but goofy doses. Dishonorable mentions Constance Wu for yet again going for another mother role where she's phoning it in as if she's on autopilot with being typecast hard.

Overall Consensus: Despite its cliches and predictable narrative, Wish Dragon gives enough entertainment with its humor, sweet moments, and solid voice work for a good watch. ⭑⭑⭑3/4 Runtime: 1 hour 42 minutes PG

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Chris Appelhans. You don't mind familiar predictable scripts in family entertainment. You want something with a laidback likable charm. You don't mind Aladdin similarities and want to see where they differ here.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Chris Appelhans. You are bored with familiar predictable scripts in family entertainment. You don't want something with a laidback likable charm. You are bothered with the Aladdin similarities.

A Quiet Place Part 2

2021-06-13T23:52:00.001-07:00

Modern day horror has problems maintaining success in any followups to solid features. There's always that risk of fresh factor being solid in whatever antics are continued on from before. Even the news of having a bigger budget than the low one from a predecessor won't mean much if an experience won't be maintained. This brings us to A Quiet Place Part 2, which was written and directed by John Krasinski. Admittedly I haven't given the predecessor any revisit since it didn't stick with me much but I appreciated how good it was with its premise. This sequel, however, has been given troubles before it released due to the pandemic delaying it the release and affecting interest in it. I started going back to theaters and this horror followup was on my watchlist. After watching it, however, I was letdown by the execution and wanted to like it way more than I did.

What's it about? Taking place immediately after the events of its predecessor, the story follows the surviving family trying to move forward in their dangerous predicament. It is nice seeing more world building aspects in an environment where humanity was attacked by blind creatures hunting using sound. There's a pretty good flashback sequence in the beginning that eases the audience into being reacquainted with the main characters as well as the threat. The sound design does a nice job with the noises of the monsters as well as a deaf family members perspective. Something funny to note is that the amount of camera shots of feet here (trying to increase tension) would make this a film Quinten Tarantino would like given how often you see feet in that directors movies.

That being said, it unfortunately falls prey to sequel problems primarily with the screenplay. The narrative as a whole plays very similarly to the first film and it gets predictably distracting (esp. the abrupt ending). The scare factor is mostly neutered here as being familiar with the weaknesses of the creatures and recognizing plot armor doesn't raise the stakes at all. Something else that stood out was the pacing as it felt like it was slogging along making its short runtime feel like its 10-15 minutes longer than it actually is. Due to how the group gets split up halfway through, there are moments where it padding it added to try and create forced conflict with the monsters.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Cillian Murphy and Millicent Simmonds. Cillian does a solid performance with his newly introduced role and blends well enough in his vocal and body acting (to be honest I didn't recognize it was him due to his facial hair until I looked it up). Millicent is an MVP among the cast primarily with having the most screen time and does a bit more with her part than she did before. Honorable mentions Emily Blunt and Noah Jupe with both of them doing solid work despite how limited their roles end up becoming for plot purposes later on.

Overall Consensus: A Quiet Place Part 2 is a serviceable horror thriller with good acting, decent world building, and cool sudden moments, but suffers from sequel screenplay problems and pacing troubles. ⭑⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 36 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker John Krasinski. You liked A Quiet Place Part 1 and are curious about this. You like sound based hunting in thrillers.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker John Krasinski. You liked A Quiet Place Part 1 but aren't curious about this. You dislike sound based hunting in thrillers. You aren't in the mood for predictable narrative structures with slow pacing problems.

The Mitchells vs the Machines

2021-06-10T23:07:00.006-07:00

Family road trips are definitely an overused premise in many films for that demographic. Regardless of whether it's a live action or animated feature, there's always a predictable template they tend to follow: introduce members of the group driving together (including conflict between key members, they stop by locations along the way where shenanigans ensue, an obstacle is identified to overcome, and they reach their destination with a change due to character growth). Because it's a common topic, that's where it highly depends on the directing, actors chemistry, and how engaging the experience to make up for the predictability. This brings us to a new entry in this topic, The Mitchells vs the Machines, which was produced by Sony Animation as well as the directorial debut of Mike Rianda (known for his work on Gravity Falls). This was initially announced for a theatrical release under a different title before Sony sold the distribution rights to Netflix and reverted it back to this current title. I watched it ready for something fun and it ended up being one of my favorite films this year so far.

What's it about? The story follows a disfunctional family whose road trip is intruded due to a sudden robot apocalypse. The focus here isn't to hide the fact the the premise is as by the numbers as you would expect but rather to entertain in comedy. The main character is an aspiring filmmaker (who produces her own YouTube videos) so there are aspects of visual humor reflecting that perspective (for better or worse). The fast pacing of the jokes coming to the audiences works well to the point if one fails, there's another right around the corner. The amount of detail work in the stylish animation is enticing to where pausing parts can find hidden details. The combination of the visuals, entertainment, and light-hearted tone make this a delightful romp.

For all that the film has fun with, however, there are blemishes that are hard to ignore. Sometimes the dedication to "YouTube" style video edits feel jarring that it could have been restrained a bit while keeping the bits of it that worked (there's not a lot of that in there but still). In terms of family unit, the brother felt the weakest in terms of being funny compared to the rest of the members. And as mentioned, the story doesn't hide all the familiar generic format that you would expect, which would make it hard to standout but thankfully it doesn't lean towards melodrama.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Abbi Jacobson, Danny McBride, and Maya Rudolph. Abbi provides an energetic performance that blends the weird creative yet insecure personality into a role of someone trying to connect with her dad. Danny gives a fun portrayal of that father who's trying to understand his family while trying to get outside his comfort zone with technology. Maya is solid as expected as that supportive mother who can cut loose in over the top situations. The family cast as whole all have great chemistry with one another. Honorable mentions go to Olivia Colman, Fred Armisen, and Beck Bennett with the former doing nice work as an AI antagonist while the latter two have a fun dynamic with each other. Minor dishonorable mention goes to Mike Rianda who was miscast as the brother as his voice wasn't the best fit, esp. with the writing.

Overall Consensus: The Mitchells vs the Machines mostly overcomes the predictable generic premise with excellent visuals, fast paced comedy, great cast chemistry, and light hearted tone elevates it to an enjoyable experience. ⭑⭑⭑⭑1/4🍿 Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes PG

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Mike Rianda. You are in the mood for a high energy family comedy with an over exaggerated style that Phil Lord and Chris Miller are known for. You like seeing non-Disney studios do their own animated projects. You don't mind generic plots or "YouTube" humor references. You don't mind slightly long comedies.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Mike Rianda. You aren't in the mood for a high energy family comedy. You have an issue with generic plots or "YouTube" humor references. You are annoyed with slightly long comedies

Wrath of Man

2021-06-06T23:17:00.005-07:00

With how long various overused genres are in modern cinema such as thriller and heist flicks, it's very easy to predict plenty of their outcomes. Because of that, it suddenly becomes an important factor of having the right director at the helm to see if they can attempt to shakeup something that could be throwaway forgettable into something competent and watchable. It doesn't even matter who's the main lead in a formulaic film if they aren't directed well. This brings us to another entry to this field, Wrath of Man, which was directed by Guy Ritchie and is based on the French film Cash Truck. I'm not very familiar with Ritchies earlier works that made him well-known such as Snatch but I have seen his recent work such as The Gentlemen (which I enjoyed) and Aladdin Disney remake (which he was the wrong director for). Knowing him and Statham tend to be a winning duo, I decided to make this film my first theatrical visit ever since my full vaccination. I entered the auditorium not expecting anything special and left it having liked it enough but not as much as The Gentlemen.

What's it about? The story follows crime boss on a revenge mission following a loved ones demise caused by a nearby armor truck robbery. This premise has an interesting approach with its narrative that helps it out a bit. It shows two different perspectives on the events that take place: the main protagonist and the group he encounters. There's a cool eerie violin music bit that plays through that's kinda neat with the suspense leading towards the chaotic climax. The directing of its action is handled well-enough for a cool sequence in the final third.

For all that it does well, there are elements that feel lacking that all lie in the screenplay. The characters don't have that much going for them to latch onto as they are just playing into their given archetypes, so it's impossible to have a connection to them when something bad happens. The predictable format of the premise is easy to figure out throughout the film too, esp. the outcome of the finale. The first act is also the weakest just by moving a bit too slow for its own good before it actually picks up momentum towards it main goal.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Jason Statham, Holt McCallany, and Scott Eastwood. Jason does a solid portrayal into leaning towards an intimidating side of his lead role here, though it's nothing different from what some have seen from him. Holt does a nice job in his scenes working well with Statham and doing enough with limited screen time. Scott gives a competent performance as that arrogant jerk you like to hate just with his mannerisms. Honorable mention goes to Jeffrey Donovan for being an intriguing strategist and was able to standout from the supporting cast.

Overall Consensus: Wrath of Man is a competent heist thriller with solid directing, good suspense, intriguing narrative format, and a cool third act action climax, despite the predictable plot and character archetypes. ⭑⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 59 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Guy Ritchie. You are in the mood for a basic heist revenge thriller. You want to see how it compares to Ritchie's recent works.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Guy Ritchie. You aren't in the mood for a basic heist revenge thriller. You want to have investment in the lead protagonist. You are bored with predictable scripts and standard character archetypes.

New Gods: Nezha Reborn

2021-06-03T23:01:00.001-07:00

300th Review!

It's very fascinating watching countries like China recently making a stance in the ever competitive animation cinema field against juggernauts like America. With how dominant American studios like Disney, Dreamworks can get in their global appeal, there's a hidden itch for international competitors such as Ireland's Cartoon Saloon to come out of nowhere with their own heavy hitters like Wolfwalkers. China has emerged these past couple of years (likely having seen Dreamworks treat Chinese culture with respect in the Kung Fu Panda films) with their production companies tackle folklore subject matter. This brings us to a new effort in that rein, New Gods: Nezha Reborn, which is based on the Ming Dynasty novel Investiture of the Gods. It should be mentioned that I reviewed another Nezha film a few years back in theaters but it's unconnected this adaptation since they are from different Chinese productions. After watching it on Netflix, I enjoyed as it shares the same pros and cons of that other Nezha movie.

Note: I watched this in the English sub version, not the English dub so that's what's being reviewed.

What's it about? Taking place in steampunk city environment, the story follows dangers facing a biker who discovers he's a reincarnation of a deity. The animation is definitely a strong aspect going in this narratives favor between the character designs as well as the cool action sequences. A focus on the narrative is regarding how perceptions from actions taken with best intentions can often lead to critical judgement from those around you. There's a fair amount of intrigue with the lore that's introduced to help with the world building. It's not even shy about wanting to expand on this material with its end credits scenes (the subtitles literally tell the viewers to stay tuned for them.

For all that it gets right, however, there are writing problems holding it back from being great. The characters don't have anything interesting or that compelling beyond their standard archetypes. The main protagonist is serviceable but he's nothing memorable in the grand scheme of things beyond just being a biker who becomes edgy. The amount of plot to absorb can also be an issue with how often they are delivered throughout, which even happens in the climax of the final third. The predictable plot doesn't rise above the cliches in its formula but those who are in the mood for competent blockbuster stuff can find enjoyment.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Tang Tianxiang, Zhang He, Ao Guang. Tang does a fine performance to overcome how cliched his protagonist role is with aiming for an anguished troubled vibe. Zhang is a highlight among the cast for being more eccentric in the portrayal for his wildcard character. Ao is having a little bit of fun as a stereotypical antagonist where he kinda goes hammy acting wise in the final third. Honorable mentions Li Shimeng and Zhu Ke'er for both doing the best with their limited support roles.

Overall Consensus: New Gods: Nezha Reborn is an entertaining animated blockbuster with interesting lore, pretty good visualizations, and energetic action sequences, despite the screenplay issue regarding predictable plot and characters. ⭑⭑⭑⭑ Runtime: 1 hour 50 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors. You want to see animated foreign language blockbusters. You want to see how this adaptation compares to the 2019 version. You are familiar with the Ming Dynasty novel Investiture of the Gods and want to see how it's treated here.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors. You don't want to see animated foreign language blockbusters. You are familiar with the Ming Dynasty novel Investiture of the Gods but aren't interested to see how it's treated here. You are bored with predictable plots and stereotypical characters.

The Mauritanian

2021-05-30T22:55:00.000-07:00

When watching films "based on true stories" regarding tragedies in American history, there's a sizable group within them that forms known as "shady American government actions". Hearing and witnessing to modern day problems from those in power is hard to watch but looking back on historical adaptations of events just reminds us to hope that we aren't doomed to repeat them. This brings us to another entry into this type of group, The Mauritanian, which was directed by Kevin Macdonald and adapted Mohamedou Ould Slahi's memoir Guantanamo Dairy. I wasn't aware of this drama's existence until it popped up in my Twitter feed sometime ago and I had it on my watchlist until it was available at a normal rental price (after its $20 period). I recently rented on Amazon and after watching it, I was simultaneously impressed by the effort put into it as well as shocked by the events that unfolded.

What's it about? Taking place after the 9/11 incident, the true story follows a captured Mauritanian man in Guantanamo Bay who enlists a defense attorneys aid in his long quest for justice. In terms of how this legal drama is formatted, the narrative has a 55-45 split on the focus between the imprisoned in his past events of torture by the US government and the legal side investigation. The investment in this premise is very effective for the most part with most of that leaning towards prisoners life (both in the present and the pain he underwent leading up to it). While there isn't exactly anything new you would expect in how this is presented, the directing is pretty effective with the cast he's dealing with.

For the amount of strong qualities in the execution of this depressing story, there are weaknesses that hold it back from greatness. There are pacing issues caused by little scenes that end up feeling more like padding to the content. A majority of the scenes here work well that get to the meat of the issues that there are some outliers that felt like filler (for example minor thing with the attorney's assistant later on that proved to be unnecessary). If 10 minutes were shaved off the runtime, then there wouldn't speed slow bumps that intrude the momentum.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Tahar Rahim and Jodie Foster. Tahar gives the best performance among the cast in terms of wonderful range between moments of panicked despair, adapting to environments, and admirable determination. Jodie gives a great performance that carries determined demeanor with snark on the side as a persistent defense attorney. Honorable mention goes to Benedict Cumberbatch for feeling like he did the most with his limited screen time.

Overall Consensus: The Mauritanian is a well done legal drama that's bolstered by great lead performances, a depressing true story premise, and solid directing, despite its pacing issues caused by minor screenplay problems. ⭑⭑⭑⭑1/4 Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Kevin Macdonald. You don't mind sad legal narratives based on true stories lacking rewatch value.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Kevin Macdonald. You are bothered by sad legal narratives based on true stories lacking rewatching value. You aren't in the mood for anything depressing.

Together Together

2021-05-27T23:11:00.003-07:00

Comedies that focus on showing non-romantic relationship dynamics can be rather endearing in their own right. Looking at how friendships can form between those of the same age group and gender can bring out some neat bonding experiences. One of my favorite films, I Love You Man, shows the bond with an engaged man whose lack of male friends leads him to befriending a more social brave dude, which leads to appealing interactions and cast chemistry. This leads us to a new entry within this type of group, Together Together, which was directed and written by Nikole Beckwith. I didn't hear too much about this comedy but I noticed it good things mentioned it among some film festivals. I waited until it was available at a normal rent price. After watching it as an online rental, I watch surprised by how heartfelt and genuine it was to watch.

What's it about? The story follows a lonely 40-something who enters a surrogacy agreement with a mid-20s loner, which leads to them exploring a platonic dynamic. It's very refreshing to explore a friendship bond between these two characters as there's gap of experience between them. It explores the type of life ruts that would be expected between individuals of those age group but shown and talked about naturally between these strangers getting to know one another during surrogacy. The narrative itself jumps through time using trimesters of the pregnancy, which tests how comfortable they are with boundaries of their roles. It's worth watching the development as it avoids melodrama and heads straight into honest discussions that lead to supportive heartwarming words of encouragement.

If there was anything holding this back from greatness, it would be the writing of its humor. The jokes here are hit or miss in the execution, notably with a supportive character that leans into that modern day dating humor that doesn't land as well as it thinks it does. It would have been nice to have had at least one more scene with the surrogate mother being vulnerable too as it could have maybe balanced out the neurotic nervousness of the father.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Ed Helms and Patti Harrison. Despite his history of being not used properly by past directors, Ed gives a surprisingly great performance where the direction he's given anchors him into tolerable amounts of anxiety from him with softer aspects. Patti provides a well balanced portrayal that blends nervous vulnerability with a somewhat level-headed personality, which is impressive as she's fairly recent big screen acting. The chemistry between Ed and Patti is very believable and watchable to the point where it managed to shed some of my tears near the end, which is another showing of great direction. Honorable mention Tig Notaro for being a nice standout among the supporting actors.

Overall Consensus: Together Together is a heartfelt lighthearted comedy that blends great cast chemistry, good directing, and an interesting yet simple premise into a delightful viewing package, despite hit or miss humor. ⭑⭑⭑⭑1/4 Runtime: 1 hour 31 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Nikole Beckwith. You are interested in slice of life premises involving surrogacy. You want to see something that's lighthearted and sweet.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Nikole Beckwith. You aren't interested in slice of life premises involving surrogacy. You don't want to see something that's lighthearted and sweet.

Army of the Dead

2021-05-23T23:12:00.001-07:00

When it comes to filmmaker Zack Snyder, his works have an interesting history where he made his directorial debut with his Dawn of the Dead remake in 2005, with his following projects of Watchmen and 300 cementing his trademarks strengths and weakness that he would be identified with. He does a great job in terms of bringing great action visuals and some fascinating intro music sequences but is also known for having weak writing alongside being excessive in length and slow motion moments. His track record is very hit or miss with surprising successes with 300 and Dawn of the Dead as well as failures like Sucker Punch. This brings us to a new entry for this unfocused filmmaker with, Army of the Dead, which is a return to non-comic book films after a decade (Sucker Punch was his last one before Man of Steel, 300: Rise of an Empire doesn't count as he only co-written that). This made it's debut on Netflix recently and after my bad luck with a streaming movie earlier that week, I was hoping for something dumb but fun. After watching on the day I received my 2nd Covid vaccine shot, I had a decent time with it but recognized the filmmaker needs more experience to fine tune is blatant creative issues.

What's it about? Taking place after zombie infested Las Vegas gets quarantined, the story follows of a group of soldiers getting hired into pulling a heist in that area before it gets nuked by the government. The best way to describe the execution is that it encompasses everything that's known about him here. The narrative is aiming for classic B-movie action territory where his cinematography shines between an amazing music intro sequence and zombie battles. After being patient with about 40 minutes of setting up the crew and simplified exposition, the fights against the undead are very fun to watch between tense creative parts and wild guns. The zombies here are creatively different blending in hierarchies of the creatures between simple normal slow types and the commanding dominant rulers.

On the flip side, this film carries a lot of the weakness the filmmaker is best known for in the screenplay. As a result of having too many people in that group, the characters are one dimension archetypes lacking in the emotional investment so it attempts to rely on actors to try and makeup for it. The plot is very predictable in its approach and it doesn't help that the dialogue isn't good either. As for the movies runtime, it wasn't an issue at first as for the most part is was going by smoothly but near the end it was really dragging on hard. A big reason for that is an unnecessary annoying subplot that is empty and only exists to add 15 minutes of padding to the length. If that subplot was removed, the score I'm giving it could have been increased a bit. The lack of focus in the screenplay simply does very little with the many characters on-screen (disservices some of them).

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actor to focus on is Dave Bautista. Out of everyone in the cast, Dave gives the best performance in showcasing his range well enough for this genre and is given more opportunities in his role to actually care about than anyone else. Honorable mentions Omari Hardwick and Samantha Win due to the former contributing a decent amount of charismatic energy in his scenes while the latter deserves a shoutout mainly for her standout zombie fight. Dishonorable mentions go to Ella Purnell and Huma Qureshi for being the most unnecessary additions to the cast with contributing very little to their respective roles and being the weakest performances.

Overall Consensus: Army of the Dead brings enough fun zombie action, great visual direction, and decent acting that's attempts to offset the blatant unfocused screenplay and runtime problems. ⭑⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 2 hour 28 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Zack Snyder. You don't mind formulaic cliched characters lacking development. You want dumb wild undead fights. You are interested to see how this compares to Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Zack Snyder. You are bored formulaic cliched characters lacking development in a predictable story. You aren't in the mood for something that's style over substance. Zombies and gore scare you too much.

Thunder Force

2021-05-20T23:10:00.000-07:00

Superhero comedies are nothing new in modern cinema due to how many of them have risen in the past few decades. They aren't exactly hard to do when the effort is there but it can open the door to complacency for those who want to take a premise and turn it into a vanity project. That type of effort description perfectly describes comedian Melissa McCarthy: when she puts effort into projects where her husband Ben Falcone isn't directing, films turn out decently. But when he's at the directors/writer helm with a minuscule budget for better profits, you get laziness such as The Life of the Party. This brings us to their latest efforts into the aforementioned genre, Thunder Force, which Ben both wrote and directed. The announcement of it filled me with dread and being available on Netflix would mean possible streaming deals for that duo. I eventually reached the point where I would decide to watch it after getting enough good films in my system and it ended up being worse than I though it would be.

What's it about? Taking place in a reality where a cosmic beam gave powers to malevolent people, the story follows 2 distant childhood friends who end up getting abilities to fight crime. There is certainly potential in such a premise to where the term they use to identify these felons is different from other media: they are called Miscreants. And with that, the only positive element has been identified about this film.

As a whole, there is so much laziness and vanity written into this script (by the stars husband) to the point where spoiler details must be discussed to describe how bad it is. The standard opposite friends intro is super rushed and there's an annoying phrase that feels phoned in the more it's used ("I'm not a nerd, I'm just smart"). The comedy is heavily reliant on improvisation jokes but those are incredibly drawn out, tedious, and annoying to the point where the mute button was used during my viewing. In addition to that, they don't even follow their own established logic: the main protagonists go through a period of experimenting before their powers kicked in but it must have been forgotten when in the climax, a companion takes a pill to get speed powers. The vanity is so apparent to the point where the smart friend of the duo turns invisible just to provide more spotlight on the main star. The writing is so bland and doesn't even try to elevate itself (includes pointless plot twist) to the point where a main protagonists nourishment is eating raw chicken (yes seriously).

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actresses to focus on are Melissa McCarty and Octavia Spencer. Melissa gives such a phoned in performance that relies on things people have been wanting her to move away from: physical humor as an overweight person, badly drawn out improv, and basically anything Adam Sandler character troupe. Octavia isn't given useful material to the point where the director gave her invisible powers so that the most talented actress in the cast doesn't upstage his wife (pushing the black best friend to the side in favor of that disfunction white woman). Dishonorable mentions Ben Falcone, Bobby Cannavale, and Jason Bateman due to the former 2 giving the worst performances among the supporting cast while the latter is phoning it in with his weak lines regarding his crab claw hands.

Overall Consensus: Thunder Force is a vanity project that focuses on weak improv humor, awful directing, horrible script, and lack of commitment to a cohesive engaging comedy, neglecting the rest of the cast as a result. ⭑ Runtime: 1 hour 47 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Ben Falcone. You want to have something on as background noise.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Ben Falcone. You dislike lame comedies that don't try to live up to its potential or give its cast useful material. You are annoyed with comedians who are aiming to follow Adam Sandler type of annoying protagonist roles. You hate Hollywood nepotism that leads to terrible directing.

Those Who Wish Me Dead

2021-05-16T22:12:00.001-07:00

The 1990s model of thrillers has often been overused in many modern films for a variety of reasons. A majority of them are made with mid-budgets, the scripts are recycled in how formulaic they are, they tend to include current actors or those trying to make a comeback, well-known directors who are doing them to make money for their next bigger project, etc. How well they end up being will depend on how the directing and acting makeup for its downsides. This brings us to Those Who Wish Me Dead, which was directed and co-written by Taylor Sheridan (best known for Sicario and Wind River). The marketing for this looked standard and nothing special but Sheridan's involvement could have something good about it like Wind River did in execution. I watched it on HBO Max and ended up a bit underwhelmed by the results, despite liking the good outweighing the bad.

What's it about? The story follows a smokejumper protecting a surviving boy witness of an assassination from those who want to end his life. This is very much aiming for that aforementioned thriller type with its main focus on tension, which is arguably a strong point. Once it gets past its 30 minute mark of build up, it finds a familiar groove of acting on the survival elements. The direction showcased is doing its good job in distracting its audience from its blatant missteps. By the end, it ends up being a competent popcorn flick that doesn't drag with pacing and feels fairly smooth to get through.

That being said, the narrative doesn't hide the screenplays blatant problems. The characters are very much predictable archetypes that are expected for survival flicks such as an expert with traumatic issues, a kid to bond with, bland antagonists, etc. It includes an attempt with adding stakes for the killers to do their task but that 1 scene with their boss is never visited again. The relationships the people have with one another are almost serviceable but with how short the story is, sudden events and tragic aspects don't pack anything to latch onto. As a whole, it just doesn't do anything special to standout from the oversaturated thriller movie group.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actress to focus on are Angelina Jolie. Angelina gives a solid performance that feels like it's the closest to almost overcoming the script problem. Honorable mentions go to Aidan Gillen and Medina Seginhore who are standouts among the supporting for doing the most with their respective roles. Dishonorable mentions Nicholas Hoult for being the weak link among the actors (mainly just miscast in an antagonist role).

Overall Consensus: Those Who Wish Me Dead doesn't hide how predictable its narrative and cliched its characters are, but the direction and most of the performances are enough to offset the problem. ⭑⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 40 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actor and/or filmmaker Taylor Sheridan. You are in the mood for a decent 90 minute popcorn action flick. You don't mind a script with familiar narratives or cliched archetypes.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actor and/or filmmaker Taylor Sheridan. You aren't in the mood for a decent 90 minute popcorn action flick. You are bored with a familiar narrative or cliched archetypes.

Concrete Cowboy

2021-05-14T00:04:00.000-07:00

Movies involving at-risk youth being involved with a program to learn responsibility aren't anything but can be wholesome to watch if done well. Typically they are protagonists whose reputation with "street" activities can often put their lives in danger if taken too far and these plot lines get predictable admittedly. An example of this that comes to mind would be Step-Up, the dance film featuring Channing Tatum in a similar spot though in his case was dancing. This brings us to a new entry in this type of area, Concrete Cowboy, which was directed by Ricky Staub and is based on the novel Ghetto Cowboy, which was inspired by a real life African American horse-riding community in Philadelphia. I didn't know much about this film except its limited marketing highlighting Idris Elba as its big star but was curious to see if it had anything of value. After watching it on Netflix, I was underwhelmed by its execution despite its best intentions.

What's it about? The story follows a Detroit teenager whose mom sends him off to live with his estranged father in the summer with a horse riding community. Something going for this is how it highlights the real life culture group, the Fletcher Street Urban Riding Club. It displays some of its actual members portraying fictional versions of themselves having supportive parts alongside their interviews during the end credits. It goes about mentioning the struggles of maintaining their status of providing care to the horses. Even the ending does a nice job not sugarcoating this aspect.

If you didn't any mentioning of the narrative itself back there, that's because it ends up joining the list of problems holding back this drama's potential. The writers dipped their hands into a bucket of recycled predictable cliches that spilled it all over the script, leaving its characters off as uninteresting archetypes. With its focus more on the teen rather than his bond with his dad, it skips around a lot event wise and there isn't much emotional investment. There are numerous undercooked elements such as not thoroughly exploring why these culture struggle to maintain their operations (only passing mentions), the father-son dynamic is barely focused on and winds up getting skipped over too, and feels like a less effective advertisement of this community.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actor to focus on are Caleb McLaughlin. Caleb gives the best performance of the cast where he carries himself well as a lead, which is a nice improvement from his Stranger Things work, despite the predictable material. Honorable mentions Clifford "Method Man" Smith and Jamil Pattis for being standouts among the supportive cast. Dishonorable mention goes to Idris Elba for not bringing his great acting chops to make the most of his limited screen time (yeah he's not in it as much as you want him to be).

Overall Consensus: Concrete Cowboy doesn't land its impact well due to sluggish pacing, lengthy runtime, and predictable script lacking emotional investment, despite its best intentions regarding a fascinating group. ⭑⭑⭑3/4 Runtime: 1 hour 50 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Rickey Staub. You want to have a Netflix drama turned on as background noise. You are familiar with the aforementioned culture and are want to see how they are handled in a film.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Rickey Staub. You dislike dramas with bad pacing and long runtime in a boring experience. You aren't in the mood for predictable cliched storytelling.

The Ultimate Playlist of Noise

2021-05-09T21:48:00.002-07:00

If there's anything that's easy to find in teen comedy-dramas, it's that one road trip where they travel from point a to b for either a material purpose or something meaningful. That's not to say such a familiar premise is a bad thing as long characters bring anything captivating to the story, then it's just something to kickback with. With how numerous this does occur within the genre, however, it presents a challenge with needing a unique attribute to standout with. This brings us to The Ultimate Playlist of Noise, which was directed by Bennett Lasseter and debuted as a Hulu streaming movie. Admittedly I only learned of this features existence while researching 2021 entries on streaming platforms that I had access to. There wasn't any social media comments about it and the release date of January wasn't doing it any favors as that month traditionally are where mediocre throwaway flicks are tossed into streamers and theaters. I watched it to see if it was a hidden gem and ended up being let down by the forgettable experience, despite its best intentions.

What's it about? The story follows a music obsessed high school senior embarking on a road trip to record a playlist to share before having brain surgery that will render him deaf. This isn't short on the cliches audiences know about such as shy person traveling with an eccentric individual, having a light-hearted tone, life-altering event to reach, etc. The bond that forms between the traveling duo is definitely watchable and helps elevate the middle chunk of the story. The aching sense of wanting to listen to special noises before going deaf as well as wanting to share it is an admirable goal here given how enthusiastic the protagonist is about music. The supportive friends and conflicted family help contribute in doses to this little feature.

However, there are a variety of reasons that sink down the quality here into being unmemorable in one main area: the screenplay is a problem. The third act presents interesting issues that aren't resolved in a cohesive manner. For example, the senior student learns a tragic detail, which piles onto his previous depressing mood from before leaving onto his trip, and the conversation he has later along with everything that follows feels like half effort. That resolution rings hollow, despite its intentions, and ends up being some teen TV happy ending that thinks it accomplished its emotional payoff. The other side of that coin is the traveling companion who reveals her motive and there's even less effort put into satisfying resolution with her end. Even the humor feels like its recycled mainstream TV jokes trying to be cute.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Keean Johnson and Madeline Brewer. Keean gives a decent performance in being as adorkable as possible, even though he's not great enough to elevate his material with the direction he's given. Madeline is the MVP among the cast where her charm and acting fares better, despite her script problems in the third act. Honorable mention goes to Rya Kihlstedt for looking like she did the most with her limited screen time.

Overall Consensus: The Ultimate Playlist of Noise fails to reach an emotionally satisfying experience due to an unambitious script that doesn't explore its third act more thoroughly but has competent acting and good intentions. ⭑⭑⭑* Runtime: 1 hour 38 minutes R

*This feature just barely gotten this score for the merits of being a streaming movie. If it was in theaters, score would have been lower.

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Bennett Lasseter. You want to have a small flick going on as background noise. You don't mind cliched road trip adventures.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Bennett Lasseter. You dislike narratives that don't explore its ideas. You are bored with cliched road trip adventures

The Father

2021-05-06T21:42:00.004-07:00

The mental state of main protagonists can have interesting creative results upon any narrative. For example, Joker (2019) created ambiguity using Arthur Fleck as an unreliable narrator whose hallucinations brought numerous elements into question. This brings us to a new entry into this topic, The Father, which was the directorial debut of Florian Zeller and was based on his 2012 play Le Pere. It debuted in film festivals last year but wasn't given a public released until earlier this year. I didn't know much about it except for Anthony Hopkins Oscar winning performance. I went in blind with checking it out and after watching it, I was impressed by a great outing for a directors first film.

What's it about? The story follows an aging father whose dementia tragically affects his relationship with this daughter. This isn't so much a movie that's focused on having a plot where things happen but rather a character focused mental health decline. The portrayal of this illness is handled excellently between the jumps in time and perspectives on lost memories. It's treated very seriously between how people react to him as well as observing the familiar pain of watching a relative dwindle away their own sense of reality. The subject matter may not be anything new but the execution is worth the watch.

If there was anything that needed to be improved, it would be the way the daughter's boyfriend interacts with the father. On its own, that aspect is fine but compared to the quality of the other supporting characters are handled, that behavior could have maybe used one more scene to flesh it out more instead of coming out for plot convenience.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Coleman. Anthony gives an amazing performance that's abundant with a wide range of emotions that delivers on the weight of this role and absolutely deserved that Oscar win. Olivia isn't in the movie that much but she gives a pretty good supportive portrayal as she tries to keep her composure around her ailing parent while trying to do what's best for him. Honorable mentions Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell, and Imogen Poots for giving wonderful distinct performances for their respective dual roles.

Overall Consensus: The Father makes the most of its simple but effective premise thanks to impressive direction, excellent acting, and pretty good emotional weight to a depressing but familiar topic. ⭑⭑⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 39 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors. You want to see how dementia is portrayed alongside its effect on the narrative. You don't mind depressing subject matter in dramas. You want to see how Hopkins earned in award.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors. You dislike watching depressing subject matter in dramas.

Without Remorse

2021-05-02T22:02:00.000-07:00

Tom Clancy's espionage novels have a fascinating history in terms of being adapted for various media. There has been more video game series focus on portraying those books compared to the films, which makes sense given the production of console products versus cinematic works. Admittedly I haven't watched any of those movies, read the books, nor played any of the games but have been aware of their popularity with the public. This brings us to Tom Clancy's Without Remorse, which was directed by Stefano Sollima and is based on the 1993 novel of the same name. Paramount Pictures originally wanted this for theaters but ended up selling it to Amazon for distribution. The marketing for it looked like something that could be cool with its genre. After watching it on Amazon Prime, however, it ended up being a disappointing dull boring experience.

What's it about? After the murder of his pregnant wife and unit members, the story follows a US Navy SEAL embarks on a revenge mission while uncovering a mystery. If there was any positive highlight about the premise, it would be the action sequences. Some specific shoutouts among them include a night-vision in a cramped household setting, an airplane scene, and a shootout in the third act. On paper, the story has potential to continue its story with the novels that follow it.

However, the execution of its narrative ends up taking digging through a recycling bin of predictable bland throwaway script. It wouldn't be much of an issue if the main protagonist himself was written to being an interesting engaging lead we would want to follow. Unfortunately, they were hoping to banking on an actors star power to see if that would make anyone overlook how bland his character is. The sluggish pacing throughout is rough to the point where by the time the last 15 minutes arrive, the boredom that's been steadily rising is frustrating to sit through.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actor to focus on is Michael B Jordan. Michael gives a decent performance but he's not strong enough of an actor to overcome to the lack of personality he's suffering from, though nobody can blame him for choosing this project for his rising career. Dishonorable mention go to Jodie Turner-Smith for being the weakest link due to her half-effort acting among the supporting cast.

Overall Consensus: Without Remorse wastes it potential due to terrible script with its predictable plot, dull characters, awful pacing, and mixed bag of performances, despite having solid action sequences. ⭑⭑ Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Stefano Sollima. You are familiar with Tom Clancy's novel this is based on and are curious about how it's adapted here. You only want to fast forward to see the action parts.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Stefano Sollima. You are familiar with Tom Clancy's novel this is based on but aren't curious about how it's adapted here. You dislike forgettable dull espionage movies with predictable formulaic narratives.

Arlo the Alligator Boy

2021-04-29T23:02:00.000-07:00

The modern age of family animated content has often felt like going for similar approaches around the mid-2000s and beyond. This is often found in channels such as Cartoon Network where bizarre looking characters learn lessons while enticing audiences with their charm and visual style. On paper that sounds like it would get stale with how saturated that market would get but the successful types of entries in that field know to how make a lasting impression with their effort. This brings us to an attempt on that area on Netflix, Arlo the Alligator Boy, which was the directorial debut of Ryan Crego. This was meant to act as a pilot to an announced streaming series I Heart Arlo and I didn't know much about it except hearing its name dropped from a content creator on YouTube who focuses on animation. I wanted to see if its charm with its weirdness can help bring something more focused than Mortal Kombat but after watching it, it ended up being underwhelming as a film.

What's it about? The story follows a naive wide-eyed half alligator half human boy who travels to meet his long lost father. This is definitely leaning towards the charm of its wacky antics during the venture, which can sometimes be neat to watch. The strength carrying this journey is definitely the 2D animation which appears decent for characters but is a highlight in the musical numbers. The song segments are standard R&B genre for the kids with their lyrics but the visuals that accompany it were given strong efforts. The messages its aiming for are very familiar but are light-hearted and delivered fairly respectfully.

Unfortunately, what lets this down from being memorable is the fact that it's meant as a pilot to a series has the bad side effect on the narrative and characters. The formulaic plot doesn't push itself beyond being very cliched in terms of forgettable archetypes for the supporting cast and comments about being a family unit that feel very hollow. Because it's meant to promote another connecting product in this universe, the bizarre group the protagonist meets doesn't have a chance to shine nor feel like the family unit its preaching about to the audience. The excuse of being connected to a series gave these writers that classic mindset of "Oh we'll just flesh out these folks on the episodes planned there and just say they are together as a family".

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actor to focus on are Michael J. Woodard. If there's anything great to comment on, it's how much Michael manages to hold his own carrying this lead role on his back. As an American Idol winner from a few years ago (I didn't realize it until I did some research on this), his singing is amazing for making up how basic the song lyrics here are, in addition to his enthusiastic charm throughout. Honorable mentions go to Mary Lambert and Vincent Rodriguez III with the former feeling like she did the best with what little was given to her, plus both of them are also solid standouts singing wise.

Overall Consensus: Arlo the Alligator Boy is an underwhelming film meant to promote a tv series that falters with a weak predictable story and uninteresting cliched characters but shines with great visuals and pretty good musical segments. ⭑⭑⭑1/4 Runtime: 1 hour 32 minutes PG

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors. You want to have child friendly content playing on as background noise. You are interested in the musical R&B segments.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors. You are bored by predictable formulaic child friendly plots with bland stereotypes.

Mortal Kombat

2021-04-25T23:55:00.000-07:00

Video game franchises have the potential for various television and film adaptations but there's always one hurdle to overcome: Trying to figure out how to use the lore of the source material in a watchable manner for the audience. What can appear simple as Tomb Raider brings a challenge with having it standout from other adventure genre movies or complex as Warcraft to compete with other fantasy flicks. The results have often left much to be desired and introduced the "video game adaptation curse". This brings us to Mortal Kombat, which was the directorial debut of Simon McQuoid and based on the fighting series of the same name. There have been 2 live action versions in that past that aren't good (though the 1995 one has decent cheese in it) and an animated feature, Scorpion's Revenge. The marketing for this adaptation was rather enticing, alongside the fact that it was R rated (compared to the 90's PG-13 ratings). It was released simultaneously in theaters and on HBO Max (latter for 30 days) though I was curious about its quality. After watching it, however, it ended up failing to reach it potential.

Note: I'm unfamiliar with the Mortal Kombat franchise and will be only judging this as a movie, not comparing it to the source material.

What's it about? The story follows a group of fighters being gathered to represent Earth realm in a tournament to keep it safe from nefarious forces. There's definitely some fascinating promise that can be found throughout the narrative. The opening scene knows how to make a pretty good impression in setting up an event as a connection in a well executed manner. There are attempts in adding humor to try and have some personality in a few characters that aim for that cheese factor. The final 20-30 minutes are definitely a showing of great promise that can be rewarded IF this adventure gets a sequel.

Unfortunately, as a whole this story fails to bring an interesting flow in the chunk of story that lies between the opening and the third act. It doesn't help matters that some of the more recognized figures of the series are sidelined in favor of a blandly written studio insert protagonist who hogs a fair amount of importance here. In fact, the plot went into too much of a stretch with connecting him to a particular figure that can be seen by just about any viewer and it felt forced. The script attempts to build up excitement by having leaders of the competing heroes and villains constantly mention an "upcoming tournament" and how important it is all throughout this section. As a result the good effort of the opening and final third are competing against the boring dull nature that's thrown onto these numerous characters.

How's the action? The fighting definitely delivers the violence the series is known for to the best of its capabilities. The ridiculousness of matchups carries over here and the famous "fatalities" are pretty cool to watch. The editing and choreography, however, leave much to be desired with a handful of the sequences. It does the annoying blockbuster method of having too many quick cuts when trying to see what's going on. The choreography needed far more polish as it felt rather inexperienced for whoever the stunt coordinator was (in fact some tussles were quick and done with). The battles of the opening and final act as a whole are a highlight to check out

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Lewis Tan, Josh Lawson, and Ludi Lin. Lewis was cast more for his stunt work rather than his acting and he struggles to elevate a basic rushed exposition of his lead role, though it doesn't help having a first time director at the helm. Josh is definitely a standout in trying to makeup for some of the badly directed performances with his jokes that tries to compensate for that. Ludi is decent in aiming for his determined subdued type of attitude. Honorable mentions go to Joe Taslim and Hiroyuki Sanada for doing the most with their limited screen time. Dishonorable mentions Jessica McNamee for being the weakest performance among the cast, which is saying something.

Overall Consensus: Mortal Kombat struggles to live up to its potential due to an uninteresting plot, lackluster directing, and weak character execution, but has some competent action sequences. ⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 50 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors. You are a fan of the titular fighting games and are curious to see how it's translated here. You want to see the famous fatalities. You want to see how it compares to the previous Mortal Kombat movies. You want to see the iconic song during the end credits.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors. You are a fan of the titular fighting games but aren't curious to see how it's translated here. You dislike adaptations of video games.

Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar

2021-04-23T00:15:00.000-07:00

Comedies from modern Saturday Night Live actors tend to have a quality when it comes to their intended goofy films. There's a notion that because they are on the show that means their presence is enough to sell attention for their features where in reality it's a cause of concern. Those cast members feels confident in their improv skills to the point where it appears their scripts have tons of empty spaces that expects them to shine with whatever random line is chosen as hilarious. This brings us to a new entry within this area, Barb and Star go to Vista Del Mar, which was directed by Josh Greenbaum and written by its two leads Kristen Wiig and Annie Munolo. There was little marketing for it but it appeared to look nothing special and had little social media buzz. I wanted to see if Kristen can makeup for her recent blunders from being mishandled by Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) but after watching this, my views of this actress declined with this bland forgettable throwaway movie.

What's it about? The story follows 2 middle aged best friends who go onto vacation in an attempt to break the monotony of their lives. This is definitely aiming for that chill goofy type of tone to kickback with. There are are scenes showing its potential with moments such as a singing montage and a musical number.

But the execution is overabundant of attempts at awkward humor that wants to keep trying until something lands. The script is very predictable and familiar but doesn't attempt to sticking with something that works (such as the fun musical or song sequences) and tries everything to see if anything makes impact. The best way to describe this would be a mediocre mix of an Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell blend of silliness without committing to any of it. The addition of having a villain arc drags the already struggling flick down further, especially with the final act.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo. Since Kristen Wiig is portraying different roles, let's start with how she and Annie fare as the besties. Chemistry between the both of them is solid though it's easy to see how Annie is putting more effort in while Kristen is phoning it in with her schtick. As far as Wiig's other role is concerned, she's attempting something different as a "comedic" villain but it doesn't help that her pride in uncomfortable jokes falters here too. Honorable mentions Jamie Dornan for appearing to be the only story actor among the cast who's bringing a genuine effort while looking like he's on vacation to forget that the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy ever exists.

Overall Consensus: Barb & Star go to Vista Del Mar is a bland forgettable attempt at a comedy that missed its potential due to weak improvisation, predictable uninteresting premise, mixed performances, and lack of focus in entertainment. ⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 47 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Josh Greenbaum. You want to put something on as background noise.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Josh Greenbaum. You dislike boring recycled screenplays that overuse cliches and stereotypes. You aren't interested in mediocre products from SNL cast members that rely too much on weak improv skills and star power.

Bombay Rose

2021-04-18T22:27:00.002-07:00

Animation films from foreign markets are an interesting bunch to experience for a variety of reasons. There are times where they can experiment with different visual styles that combines hand drawings with computer framing, can occasionally show on-screen death in family features more than the American versions, and can be entertaining to see different cultures from those filmmakers perspectives. This brings us to a recent entry in that field that was released onto Netflix, Bombay Rose, which was written and directed by Gitanjali Rao. I didn't know much info about this movie as I was only made aware of it via a YouTube animation content reviewer (in this case, Cellspex). There hasn't been much social media buzz around it but I was curious to checking it out to see what it can offer. After watching it, it ended up being an underwhelming mixed bag.

What's it about? The story follows a flower seller falling in love while being surrounded by other subplots. The best strength regarding this would be definitely the animation style as its utilizing frame by frame hand painted visuals using computer. It's impressive to see this being done for the runtime as you can see the effort from start to finish. It does a classic method of show more detail for characters focused on in scenes while leaving the surrounding crowds looking like the unfocused blurs you would expect.

When it comes to the story content, however, that's where the beauty displayed onscreen can't cover up the blatant problems. There are 3 story arcs happening throughout and they don't mix well when it keeps switching back and forth between them. Because it's juggling those plot points and numerous characters, none of it feels fleshed out or emotionally moving to watch. It's the classic scenario of "style over substance" and it doesn't leave a memorable impression despite its attempts. At the end of it all, it becomes an forgettable unfocused disorganized structure with pacing problems.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Cyli Khare and Amit Deondi. Cyli and Amit give decent performances but aren't given better material to work with and it felt like their voice directing wasn't as good as it could have been. Honorable mention goes to Amardeep Jha for providing the best acting of the cast and being able to standout better.

Overall Consensus: Bombay Rose is unable to hide behind beautiful visualization when its intent suffers from unfocused subplots, uninteresting characters, and an unmemorable experience lacking emotional investment. ⭑⭑⭑1/4 Runtime: 1 hour 37 minutes PG

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Gitanjali Rao. You are interested in frame by frame painted animation. You don't mind the mixing of English and Indian languages in the dialogue (it's more of the latter than the former).

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Gitanjali Rao. You are bored by subplots that get stale and tedious to watch without anything to care about. You dislike style over substance executions.

Shiva Baby

2021-04-15T22:19:00.003-07:00

Anxiety as depicted in movies can be a rather fascinating experience to watch for a variety of reasons. If it's a suspenseful thriller or a horror flick, it can add to the stakes the protagonists are facing to overcome. The manner of anxiety can provide excuses for filmmakers can add hallucinations or bring about nightmares for characters to undergo. This brings us to an independent comedy-drama that focuses on this topic, Shiva Baby, which was written and directed by Emma Seligman in her filmmaking debut. This was brought to my attention from a quick review of a YouTube content creator who watched it at a film festival (in this case, Adam Johnson from YourMovieSucksDotOrg). I went in blind with this low budget hoping to see if it can bring something different from what I've been watching lately and after finishing via renting on Amazon, it ended up being one of the most impressively tense and awkward viewings I've experienced in the best way possible.

What's it about? Taking place at a shiva (a mourning event in the Jewish community), the story follows a directionless young woman trying to hide her secrets from those around her. What makes this intriguing is how we aren't given much of a backstory on her present situation except that she's in her own rut and it's more about how she presents herself publicly to family friends. It's aiming for the notion of feeling embarrassed for being in a stage of life that contrasts to public expectation, which is handled very well. The awkwardness that escalates feels hilariously realistic as unexpected revelations are made and the nervous state the protagonist finds herself in gets uncomfortable. The claustrophobic directing provides that all too familiar feeling of being trapped in between surrounding conversations as you feel like the personal standings to individuals are in a flux. The interactions between these characters are simple but engaging to watch unfold in terms of the dynamics.

If there was any issues to be found with this story, it's that a few more scenes with a side character or two could have been added as the runtime left wanting just a bit more for it to feel a bit more complete.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Rachel Sennott, Molly Gordon, and Danny Deferarri. Rachel gives great performance in this lead role that demands variety in showing a positive face on the outside in public with relatable awkward nervous mannerisms. Molly and Danny are pretty good in delivering their respective dynamics with Rachel and land memorable enough impressions for their parts. Honorable mentions Polly Draper and Fred Melamed with the former doing well in the high strung mother portrayal while the latter is just delightful in his lighter personality contrasting with how tense the other plot characters are.

Overall Consensus: Shiva Baby is an impressive anxiety driven character focused comedy-drama that's thrives off its great performances, wonderful directing, and realistic interactions. ⭑⭑⭑⭑1/2🍿 Runtime: 1 hour 21 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors. You are in the mood for an uncomfortable tense comedy that will you feel a bit claustrophobic. You like narratives where young women are feeling pressure from others that expect them to be in better phases of their own lives instead of where they are now. You want to see how a Jewish community is portrayed on the big screen from a director of that same religion. You are interested in low budget character focused plots.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors. You aren't in the mood for an uncomfortable tense comedy. You aren't interested in low budget character focused plots.

The Map of Tiny Perfect Things

2021-04-11T23:18:00.001-07:00

Teen romance is definitely a very hit or miss topic in many movies. They are absolutely formulaic in their plot lines and standard cliches such as happy cute or sadness music montages, at least one of the romantic partners is dealing with an illness, they are in ruts with their own respective lives, supportive best friends, and a lesson is learned from grief. With how numerous this sub-genre has been over the decades, it becomes rather difficult for any of them to land a memorable impression. This brings us to another project related to this, The Map of Tiny Perfect Things, which was directed by Ian Samuels and written by Lev Grossman (the author of a short story this is based on). I noticed it was among Amazon Prime's film slate from earlier this year but didn't know much about it. After watching it, I was impressed with this pleasant little flick.

What's it about? The story follows two teenagers who are stuck in a time loop repeating the same day as they bond together. On paper it definitely has some familiarity to recent years movies that feature similar time related premises but thankfully has some variety to help it stand out. There's definitely more of a light-hearted tone to this venture as it's primarily focusing more on character rather than plot itself. The execution of its predictable narrative is handled rather well in aiming for the feel of old features regarding teenage dynamics. The existentialism factor gets addressed as the story moves forward and ends up feeling natural to a fairly satisfying experience.

That being said, there are some speed bumps that hurt it in ways that prevent from being great. The comedy in the script is very hit and miss (more of the latter than the former) though that's not focused on much. There are a few happy cute montages that get too full of itself thanks to the soundtrack that's blaring out like crazy. The science behind what's going on gets iffy with the details that are weirdly plot convenient. Compared to the recent time loop premise films, it's competent but doesn't rise above them in terms of quality (somewhat felt like a diet version of Palm Springs).

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Katherine Newton and Kyle Allen. Katherine and Kyle have pretty solid chemistry together with a fair amount of awkwardness and natural sweetness, despite the latter looking more like an adult rather than a teenager. Katherine does a pretty nice performance that starts out distant and delivers with some natural warmth along the way. Kyle is pretty solid is blending charisma that works its way out of boredom funk into feeling impacted by developments later in the story.

Overall Consensus: The Map of Tiny Perfect Things is a delightful lighthearted comedy-drama that's strengthened by solid acting, great lead chemistry, and a decent albeit predictable premise, despite its cliched writing issues. ⭑⭑⭑1/2 Runtime: 1 hour 39 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Ian Samuels. You want to see how it compares to time loops stories. You are in the mood for a laidback science fiction flick for those in the teen demographic. You don't mind familiar cliches.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Ian Samuels. You aren't in the mood for a laidback science fiction flick for those in the teen demographic. You are bored with predictable narratives.

Flora & Ulysses

2021-04-08T23:41:00.001-07:00

With the amount of property under Disney's ownership, it's become a rather difficult task to find quality new features under them that don't rely on their primary box office existing IP such as remaking their original classics and entries within cinematic universes such as Star Wars and Marvel. The main work around the studio has with other projects are those based on young adult novels or other lesser known source materials. This brings us to a new project from the studio that was released on Disney+, Flora and Ulysses, which was directed by Lena Khan and is based on the children's novel of the same name by Kate DiCamillo. As the streaming service has been in desperate need of new and original content since its launch, shows related to their popular IP flourished while other made for streaming flicks like this never made much of an impact. I added this to my watchlist to sniff out whatever film content I can access and after watching it, I felt mostly indifferent to this pleasant but forgettable cute family flick.

What's it about? The story follows a 10 year old comic book fan who meets squirrel possessing super powers as she tries to get her parents out of their relationship troubles. As far as the narrative goes, there are some nice cute moments that help it keep to a consistent flow. It's aware that it's aiming for a 1990s family formula and adds flavors of Disney owned properties in tiny details.

However, even though it maintains a consistency with itself, that doesn't mean it rises above being average. The slapstick elements that lean hard into people screaming whenever something is on their bodies (esp. their head) and feels like its phoning it in. The humor is hit or miss with a few jokes landing nicely and others falling flat. There are chunks of the story where the momentum slows down and becomes pretty boring after a while.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Matilda Lawler, Ben Schwartz, and Alyson Hannigan. Matilda does a pretty good job being that optimist lead trying to find hope in a sad family situation, alongside some energetic line reading. Ben is a highlight among the cast for having a good balance of delightful glee and sweet comforting side. Alyson gives a competent performance that feels like she's portraying a version of her role as Lily from How I Met Your Mother (except for more family friendly).

Overall Consensus: Flora & Ulysses is an average family adventure with good acting, silly light hearted tone, and a familiar story, despite having hit or miss visual effects, lackluster slapstick, and slow momentum. ⭑⭑⭑3/4 Runtime: 1 hour 37 minutes PG

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Lena Khan. You have read the novel it's based on and are interested in how it's adapted. You don't mind formulaic predictable plots. You want to have a 90 minutes diversion for your children on Disney+.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or director Lena Khan. You have read the novel it's based on but aren't interested in how it's adapted. You are bored with formulaic predictable plots.

Godzilla vs Kong

2021-04-04T21:44:00.000-07:00

The Godzilla franchise in Japan has seen its fair share of widespread popularity for its enemy monster of the film matchups the titular gigantic lizard would find himself fighting. The charm of its dated production effects with some of them and insane destruction that ensues can be such ridiculous fun if done well. But when the cinematic American Monster universe (or Monsterverse) that started with 2014 feature with the famous Kaiju, it didn't exactly start off on an exciting note with audiences. I don't have any nostalgia for the Japanese franchise as I haven't watch it before but this series from Legendary hasn't stuck with me as much as it does with others, despite financial struggles. This brings us to the latest entry within this line of creatures movies, Godzilla vs Kong, which was directed by Adam Wingard. It was being filmed during the time King of the Monsters (2019) was released to box office struggles and was delayed due the covid pandemic. Having released both in theaters and HBO Max (latter for 31 days), I watched it via the latter hoping for something fun and ended up liking it fine as it became what I expected of it (better than King of the Monsters but not something I'll rewatch much).

What's it about? Taking place 5 years after the events of its predecessor, the story follows the titular monsters being drawn into a clash due to outside malevolent forces. This whole adventure is standard popcorn action flick any audience is familiar with but in a chill laidback manner. It doesn't take itself very seriously like the previous outing did and it knows why its viewers are watching it. In fact, the laws of physics has left the movie altogether and is partying off-screen (just like the Fast and Furious series). In regards to staying for the battles, they deliver the entertainment very well (particularly the third act).

That being said, there are plenty of problems hurting this film and preventing it from being great. The story being ridiculous with its logic isn't one but rather the human. While they aren't as bad as those from the predecessor, none of them are memorable or feel like actual characters. They are there to deliver exposition while a handful of them attempt to be funny, which falls flat quite a bit. If the humans were even more reduced, this wouldn't be as much of an issue.

How are Godzilla and Kong? In regards to the screen time between the two of them, this film is definitely more focused on Kong himself than Godzilla. It feels great being with the giant ape as his face is more expressive, his animation is pretty good, and watching him experience the journey is a nice treat. One weird noticeable thing about Kong was that it felt his size scaling was inconsistent sometimes (in Skull Island (2017) he was towering massively but here it looks different). Godzilla is as imposing of a powerhouse force as he's meant to be though it should be noted that his boost at the end of King of the Monsters appeared to be temporary as it doesn't appear here. Honestly watching how these two titans interact both with each other and their respective environments kinda feels like there's a better monster movie in there with no humans and pure silent storytelling.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Brian Tyler Henry and Kaylee Hottle. Brian does a fine competent performance that feels like there's a likable personality and the closest thing to an arc among the characters. Kaylee give a solid performance which can secure better investment in as she's communicating via ASL (the actress is deaf) and is probably the only actress not hurt by the script. Honorable mentions go to Rebecca Hall and Alexander Skarsgard for doing decent work in their limited supporting roles that work with Kaylee well. Dishonorable mentions go to Julian Dennison, Demian Bichir, and Eiza Gonzalez due to the former being the most unnecessary addition to the cast where his humor schtick fails while the latter two are incredibly forgettable and wasted.

Overall Consensus: Godzilla vs Kong delivers the standard popcorn action flick experience with great fight sequences, solid visual effects, and fun entertainment, despite script issues and lackluster characters. ⭑⭑⭑3/4 Runtime: 1 hour 53 minutes PG-13

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Adam Wingard. You want mindless ridiculous crazy creature fights. You want a blockbuster to kickback and relax with. You are a fan of the titular franchise and want to see how this compares to them.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Adam Wingard. You aren't in the mood for mindless ridiculous crazy creature fights. You are annoyed by bland cliche uninteresting characters who aren't funny.

Bliss

2021-04-01T23:51:00.000-07:00

Ambiguity tends to be a risky feature to take in a variety of art house genres such as science fiction, horror, and drama. Leaving story details unknown with the intent on wanting the audience to interpret events surrounding it. It's usage carries a hit or miss success rate as being mysterious about the plot can alienate audience members if the film's as niche as I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020) in execution or used in the more clever of manners with sci-fi such as Inception (2010) with the ending. This brings us to another venture into this field, Bliss, which was written and directed by Mike Cahill. I had come across this feature while looking up the slate of entertainment on Amazon Prime that can be accessed in there. There was little marketing for it and I was curious to see if it was a hidden gem of 2020. After watching it, however, the execution of its ambitions ended up as a mixed bag that I felt indifferent about.

What's it about? The story follows a middle-aged man whose perspective on reality goes in a different direction when he meets a peculiar woman. There are some interesting ideas present here that are fascinating to observe. The mental state of the main character in how he reacts strange activities happening around him. The perceptions of what's real or not is nothing new but there are some opportunities to dissect that for those who feel daring enough for the task.

There is missed potential with the execution, however, that ends up dragging the experience down. The writing gets bogged down in terms of its attempts to explain the science exposition surrounding it all. The stakes are tricky to have some interest in as the protagonists don't feel very engaging to watch. This is more of a concept arthouse type of science fiction narrative rather than one where the characters have something to latch onto. By the conclusion of this story, it all feels rather neutral than anything positive or negative and without much of a lasting impression.

How are the actors? In regards to story importance, the actors to focus on are Owen Wilson and Salma Hayek. Owen and Salma are doing their best to make the most of their respective roles and they don't feel like they are phoning it in. Something that does get in the way, however, is the mixed bag of their chemistry together. That feels more like a directing issue rather than them as they are capable enough talent to have decent chemistry, it's just not here.

Overall Consensus: Bliss is an ambitious ambiguous drama with interesting ideas and decent acting but is let down by a messy weak script, lackluster character depth, and an indifferent forgettable impact. ⭑⭑3/4 Runtime: 1 hour 43 minutes R

Reasons to watch it: You are a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Mike Cahill. You like giving arthouse dramas a chance to see what they are attempting to convey. You are interested in storylines that deal with what's real and what isn't.

Reasons to avoid it: You aren't a fan of the aforementioned actors and/or filmmaker Mike Cahill. You dislike arthouse dramas with messy scripts. You aren't interested in storylines that deal with what's real and what isn't. You want to have engaging protagonists that are worth investment in.