Onward - Review

 

Once, there was magic in the world. It enchanted people across the lands with exuberant sights of fancy and tales of brave heroes and great sacrifice. And most of that magic came from a studio called Pixar. While their tracked record is still a cut above most, it’s easy to immediately think “It’ll never be as good or inventive as their originals,” at almost anything the studio has released post 2010.

However, there is something to be said for a tale that might recycle its overall plot in favor of cultivating a gooey emotional center. Those big beating hearts at the center of their films are what make most audiences put their butts in seats still to this day. That’s what “Onward” coasts on and what makes it a cut above.

The urban fantasy stylings, while it may be “Bright” by way of Disney, are what visually set the world apart though. Thankfully, while they may not be anything particularly new nowadays, writer/director Dan Scanlon (“Monsters University,” “Mater and the Ghostlight”) makes sure that these elements are more than window dressings.

Lighting is a huge wonder in this film, with neon signs and streetlamps juxtaposing brilliantly against cobblestone and the green haze of enchanted woods. The urban fantasy elements factor into every facet of the plot and make this feel like a tale that could only be told via this vibrant and fairly goofy animated world. It also wears the D&D inspirations on its sleeve, just likes its brotherly heart, and it’s all the better for it.

Tom Holland (“The Lost City of Z,” “Spider-Man: Far From Home”) and Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “her”) have excellent chemistry together as brothers Ian and Barley and that chemistry and emotional connection makes for the film’s biggest and best quality. There is no single moment wherein the love between these brothers does not seep off the screen. Scanlon doesn’t make their journey easy yet doesn’t fall into typical tropes like “the liar revealed” or “if we only just talked to each other.”

The bumps feel organically navigated, and neither feels too much like a stereotype. Yes, Ian is nervous and shy, yet he isn’t just as shy at home or around family and his desire to break free of his emotional crutches is seen throughout. Likewise, Barley isn’t just a bumbling oaf, as he has his own set of skills and is just as smart as his brother, yet in different ways.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus (“Seinfeld,” “Veep”) and Octavia Spencer (“Hidden Figures,” “Snowpiercer”) don’t get material as emotionally rich but are still very funny. Spencer’s Corey has her journey played mostly for laughs and while there’s clearly the inklings of an emotional breakthrough for Dreyfus’s Laurel, the mother of Barley and Ian, it just doesn’t have the same amount of screen time associated with it. Shoutouts go to Mel Rodriguez (“The Last Man on Earth,” “Overboard (2018)”) as Colt Bronco, one of the best mostly comedic characters Pixar has had in a long while, as well as Kyle Bornheimer (“Marriage Story,” “Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were Made”) and Tracy Ullman (“The Tracey Ullman Show,” “Small Time Crooks”) as the masters of doing great work with minimal screen time.

The film’s biggest struggles are completely plot based, as it does two things that are pretty annoying and make the plot much more obvious for attentive moviegoers. There’s a particular method in which the plot of the film is effectively telegraphed within the first 20 minutes, and while by the end it manages to be turned on its head, it doesn’t save the fact that it ends up resulting in a much more predictable adventure than what otherwise could have been.

Also, the film’s last 5 minutes seem as if they were added in after the film was already completed, as they serve more as putting all the ducks in a row in too short of a fashion, with some callbacks that feel incredibly weak compared to the ones implemented earlier in the film.

All of these issues are easy to point out after the fact because the thing that distracts the audience from them, the chemistry and love that radiates from the film’s center, only exists while watching the film. It’s the eternal struggle, as these issues are only truly apparent after the film is over, not during it.

None of these issues could mask what is a beautiful and emotional adventure from Pixar. While more formulaic than the studio’s other works, “Onward” knows where to put its time and energy to best make the emotional arcs work as opposed to creating something wholly original. That’s where is succeeds and passes with flying colors.

Only time will tell where exactly “Onward” falls in comparison with the other Pixar works, but as a film on its own, this is an emotionally powerful and gorgeous realized adventure choked full of clichés and charm, making for something big, goofy, warm and inviting. It’s also makes it virtually impossible to leave the theatre without your heart in high spirits. 4/5

First Cow - Review

 

If you know the name Kelly Reichardt (“Meek’s Cutoff,” “Night Moves”), you know exactly what kind of movie “First Cow” is going to be. The screenwriter/director has made a career out of telling stories set in the American Midwest, in various different time periods, and this is no exception.

There’s a thick fog that seems to linger over every aspect of “First Cow.” The sets, dialogue, characters, events. It all has a very authentic feeling, one of those films where it genuinely comes across as if the actors and director were the only ones on set. It lives and dies on its atmosphere, and luckily Reichardt has injected a wry sense of wit and critique into this gold rush era tale.

John Magaro (“Not Fade Away,” “The Umbrella Academy”) stars as Cookie, a former indentured cook who just wants to make people happy and serve them good food. He has an apathetic nature to him that just begs you to fall in love with him. His warmth and kind nature shines through the entire film, and his gentle soul is simply a delight. He’s the kind of character that makes you smile simply by smiling himself.

His friend and business partner King-Lu, played by Orion Lee (“Only You,” “Chimerica”), is equally interesting. He’s far more blunt than Cookie, and his is the eye for business. Yet, as much as they disagree on the reasons behind their business, their love for each other is real. It has been a long time since a friendship has been portrayed so honestly and easily as it is here.

Yes, while King-Lu wants to make money, he also wants people to buy their food so his friend can continue to make it, and this is absolutely clear. As much as Cookie just wants to cook for people, it takes King-Lu to bring him around and help him become a bit more outgoing, and you feel for these two every moment they’re together.

The supporting cast helps maintain Reichardt’s somewhat serious, somewhat comedic tone authentically. Toby Jones (“Infamous,” “Captain America: The First Avenger”) plays a British aristocrat always a few steps behind everyone else and Ewen Bremner (“Trainspotting,” “Wonder Woman (2017)”) plays a somewhat bumbling and self-aggrandizing Scottish guardsman for Jones’s aristocrat. They’re excellent, helping to maintain the tonal shifts as the film moves from a slightly bent heist story to a more serious tale of survival.

This is where the biggest trouble comes with reviewing a film like “First Cow.” It is a slow film, often times with characters simply going through the motions and living their lives. We aren’t even introduced to what the central concept of the film is for about 20-25 minutes. And yet, despite the deliberately slow pace, things never feel like a drag.

It might be because of Reichardt’s script or just the chemistry between Magaro and Lee, but this is simply one of those films that fun to watch because you want to spend time with the main characters. You grow to care about them. It virtually fails to provide anything resembling a traditional “plot”, but it nevertheless tells their tale efficiently, even if it does lack a real ending.

Maybe this was the point, and it seems like it very well might have been. It’s a gorgeous looking film regardless of plot however. The forests and gold rush era setting dazzle with their authenticity and it becomes a nice respite to a time of simpler visual aesthetics. Cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt (“Meek’s Cutoff,” “mid90s”) uses the 4:3 aspect ratio simply and effectively, blending some great shot construction and depth work with the dream-like oldness of the setting.

“First Cow” is a slow film that somehow doesn’t feel slow thanks to the chemistry between its lead actors. Its easy to nitpick it apart, but what Reichardt has delivered is an enjoyable tale with dreamlike qualities and a non-standard plot that just wants to be about why people love food and why capitalism can be a killer. It’s a quaint film, nothing less and nothing more, and its all the better for it. 4/5

The Invisible Man (2020) - Review

 

In the world post Tom Cruise’s “Mummy” reboot, anything even remotely connected to the Universal classic monster movies is likely going to be scoffed at. However, this low-budget and modernized take on H.G. Wells’ tale “The Invisible Man” has both the acting and creative potential to pull off a satisfying surprise.

Unquestionably, the film’s groundwork is built off Elizabeth Moss’s (“The Square (2017),” “Us”) performance. Cecilia the kind of roll where if you don’t believe her, the entire film falls apart. Luckily, she’s delivering some great stuff here, balancing a performance that could have been too overpowering or too weak. It’s a great middle of the road between someone who’s put in such an intense scenario but still has their wits about them and she absolutely nails it.

Her ability to act against nothing is the crowning achievement. While most films nowadays have actors talking to tennis balls on sticks or puppets that stand-in for computer generated creations, her ability to act against legitimate nothingness and sell it is astonishing. The supporting cast is great as well, with Harriet Dyer (“No Activity,” “Down Under”) and Storm Reid (“A Wrinkle In Time (2018),” “euphoria”) providing small semblances of normalcy and Aldis Hodge (“Brian Banks,” “Straight Outta Compton”) stealing virtually every scene he’s in thanks to a commanding presence.

Writer/Director Leigh Whannell (“Upgrade (2018),” “Saw”) is likely most famous for creating the “Saw” franchise with James Wan, but “Invisible” is much closer to his 2018 film “Upgrade” in that it thrives on technical innovations on its startlingly small budget. Silence is key here, as is large areas filled with nothing, and Whannell clearly does not take the easy way out in constructing this terrifying tale.

Multiple sequences take place in locations filled with stark colored lighting, mirrors or giant windows. It’s a technical feat that works because it services the scares, not scares that service the technology. Cinematographer Stefan Duscio (“Sweetheart,” “Upgrade”) frames these moments with sharp angular camera movement and wide shots that often sit in corners, further isolating the characters and the audience. It absolutely helps that a faint, almost ethereal soundtrack from composer Benjamin Wallfisch (“Blade Runner 2049,” “Shazam!”) underscores every moment.

Its not a completely seamless experience, however. This is clearly a different kind of horror film than “Halloween” or even “Us.” It’s a slow burn and that leads to the first half of the movie being the most boring. Not that its bad, far from it: the character work done to build Cecilia into a believable protagonist who you care about is integral to the kind of story Whannell is trying to tell, and it’s necessary.

It just means that the first half of the film is the slowest and least intense, but Whannell more than makes up for it because when the twists and scares start to flow with reckless abandon in the second half, not only do they work because they’re scary, they work because they’re earned. It doesn’t mean the film is too good for some more obvious jumps and loud music cues, it just means that they’re in the minority.

Given that the film is about a woman being “haunted” by her abusive ex, its easy to see the allegorical through lines underneath the entire story. It isn’t even so much that these are undertones, they’re very clearly overtones, however, it doesn’t seem like the film’s biggest idea is a social one. Unlike horror films like “Us” or “Get Out,” these elements are there to build the genre thrills and aren’t the main focus.

This doesn’t mean that they’re disrespectful or poorly done though, far from it. It’s very easy to see articles and papers based on the themes of abuse, PTSD, and survivor’s guilt that course through the film. It might not be the focus, but its still handled extremely well. It’s also the hallmark of a successful reimaging: bringing it into the modern day with modern themes without overpowering the original material.

This new “Invisible Man” has all the scares and thrills one could want, backed up by some phenomenal technical innovations and social themes and overtones throughout. Moss nails her performance, cementing this as a modern reimaging that, while slow at the start, easily earns its place amongst the rest of the invisible men. 4/5

The Call of the Wild (2020) - Review

 

To many, “The Call of the Wild” is just another one of those “gung-ho America” books that was required during middle school, like “Little House on the Prairie” or “Hatchet.” The true legacy of the classic novel is likely lost on many growing up today, so it makes sense to change it some to fit the expectations of modern-day audiences. And while this version…isn’t awful, it doesn’t nearly live up to the source material.

Harrison Ford (“Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) is likely the sole reason a lot of people unfamiliar with the novel will be seeing this film. His gruff attitude with a heart of gold helps his performance as John Thorton emerge as one of few inarguably good things about this adaptation. His smile beams through his beard and the numerous moments involving him shouting with pure elation at finding gold or a giant fish make it hard not to smile.

However, he’s only in the second half of the film, and his co-star for that second half is Buck, the completely CGI dog, with Terry Notary (“Avengers: Infinity War,” “Kong Skull Island”) providing the movements via CGI. Without even getting into the quality of the CGI, Buck represents a humongous problem with the film. Every vista, animal, beautiful mountain, etc. is completely computer generated. It robs the film from feeling like the awe-inspiring visual feast that the previous adaptations so supremely nailed. It doesn’t matter how good the CGI is, when Ford looks over a sweeping vista with Buck by his side, it looks just off enough to spoil the entire affair.

It wouldn’t have worked as well even if it was good CGI, and it definitely isn’t. While some moments and animals look better than others, a majority of the time the environments are so bright and pristine, they end up looking like satirical versions of the land their mean to emulate. They just look too pretty.

Buck meanwhile looks like an early PlayStation 3 game. He’s just simply too cartoony looking, practically rolling his eyes at the camera like he’s in “The Office” half the time. The decision to make him a lovable oaf who messes up half the time also undercuts some incredibly serious moments. It’s hard to think that there’s any real danger to a sled dog team when half the time Buck is tripping over his own feet and being comically dragged behind the rest of the team.

Sure, he is cute, but it’s hard not to watch his lower effort CGI body prance around and not think of the most recent “Planet of the Apes” trilogy. Those films also utilized motion capture and maintained a startling level of realism that, had it not been achieved, would have made the films collapse.

Early on in this film, Buck is captured and confronted with a dog seller with a nasty club. Buck tries to escape and is hit fairly hard on the head with that club. The main, adorable dog of this film was hit with a club by a clearly antagonistic character. And the audience was silent. Not whimpers from the kids in the crowd or gasps or crying, nothing.

Because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how good the effects are if it sells the emotion and characters. The ones used here just don’t. Director Chris Sanders (“Lilo & Stitch,” “How to Train Your Dragon”) and screenwriter Michael Green (“Logan,” “Blade Runner 2049”) have both worked on effects heavy movies before that focus on the odd couple pairing shown here with Buck and Ford. Yet the emotion here is boiled down to cartoony levels of absurdism. Ford doesn’t even appear until the second half of the film, and before then it’s a bizarre mixture of intense dog fights and weird physical comedy via mail delivery.

Even an intense moment involving a frozen river is undercut as it ends on an elaborate joke. When Ford shows up, it doesn’t immediately go away. There are multiple moments where guns are pulled, and characters are in life or death peril and yet there’s nothing to feel. A supposedly threatening antagonist is laughably acted by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey,” “Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) and by the time his arc is introduced for the climatic finale of this calm nature novel, all bets are out the window.

Despite having a lot of visual problems, most of the story issues can be forgiven if you just want a simple movie that looks nice and you’ll forget about in a week. Ford is reliably charming here, and the film is over in just under 100 minutes. For those looking for an adaptation that captures the harsh reality of the novel, give it a pass. This is a film for those just looking for some over-glossed escapism. It isn't bad, just bland and passable. 2.5/5

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) - Review

 

Sonic has had quite a few ups, downs, and loop-de-loops over the past 29 years, and the official first design of his film version definitely ranks up there with the biggest missteps of the franchise. However, thanks to a quick redesign and a more faithful approach to the character, he actually seems to physically resemble the speedster beloved by all. Thankfully, the similarities to the iconic character are more than just physical.

Ben Schwartz (“Parks and Recreation,” “This Is Where I Leave You”) delivers a fun and energetic version of the blue blur that is right on par with the 90’s cartoons and video games. He has a wit as quick as his feet and a childish personality that feels right at home with the character. The small changes, like the more outsider personality, fit snuggly into the characterization that Sega has been perfecting for decades.

He really is so easy to love, and his charming characterization is the big fat beating heart of the entire film. Meanwhile James Marsden (“Westworld,” “X-Men”) proves that, despite his previous attempts, the human sidekick in this sub-genre of CG creature and human duo road trip films doesn’t have to suck.

He’s earnest and means well, and thankfully is never shown to be an idiot. The same goes for his wife, played by Tika Sumpter (“Get On Up,” “Gossip Girl”). While their screen time together is brief it shows how easy it is for a film to avoid making the human characters so annoying; make it seem like they actually enjoy being around each other.

And who could possibly forget about Jim Carrey (“Ace Ventura Pet Detective,” “The Truman Show”) as Doctor Ivan Robotnik. This whizbang maniacal doctor is without a doubt the best character in the film outside of Sonic. The way in which he beams through each line, dripping with cartoony menace, makes his moments the most manic moments of the film. He’s also the perfect encapsulation of the film as a whole.

Because while the characters are nailed and the re-design works oh so well, the film’s humor has some hits and just a few misses while the plot is shockingly cliched. That’s not to say that the mere presence of a character as charming as Sonic necessitates Oscar worthy material, but the unoriginality of the plot delivered by writers Patrick Casey (“Golan The Insatiable”) and Josh Miller (“Golan the Insatiable”) is genuinely surprising.

While the action never disappoints and the scenes where Sonic lets loose are an absolute blast, the tale of a loner who wants to fit in, find a friend, and teaches his reluctant sidekick something about family is incredibly redundant. There are also moments of product placement that, while expected for a film like this, are shockingly obvious. An early mention of Zillow seems innocuous enough, but then multiple mentions of Olive Garden are so bizarrely in your face that they border on parody. Thankfully, these moments are in the minority.

It’s the individual scenes and sequences of humor within that plot are where the film excels, but it’s hard to ignore something so recycled from other family films of better and worse quality. The jokes here are good, with only a few groan worthy lines here and there. It isn’t Shakespeare and it definitely has its fair share of fart and “meme” gags, but it’s hard not to smile at the childlike silliness that is at the core of the film.

This is the perfect example of a film for the fans. If you’ve ever played a Sonic game or consider the character to be a part of your childhood, then you won’t be disappointed here. Director Jeff Fowler (“Gopher Broke”) and the writers have done an excellent job translating the attitude of this character to the big screen, and while it isn’t very original, it’ll satisfy fans young and old alike. Meanwhile, if you’ve never touched a Genesis and think a Chaos Emerald is some kind of drug, this isn’t the movie for you.

“Sonic the Hedgehog” is a burst of silly energy carried by some energetic performances and a sense of childlike humor and speed. While its plot is shockingly unoriginal at times and the humor isn’t always consistent, it nails who this character is and why so many people love him. It’s a delightful adventure for those who hold the blue blur close to their hearts. It’s hard to ask for more than that. 3.5/5

Farmageddon: A Shaun the Sheep Movie - Review

It’s hard to ever fault Aardman Animation. Even when they don’t reach the high water mark of “Chicken Run” or “Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit,” then still end up turning out movies that are either remarkably smarter than they first seem (“Flushed Away”) or have gallons of heart and emotion to spare (“Shaun the Sheep Movie”). While this sequel to the 2015 almost-silent film hit is still funny, it lacks in one particular area the previous film excelled.

Shaun and his flock of wooly friends are as hilarious as ever. The silent film antics Aardman often employs in Shaun’s various adventures continue to delight here. Whether it’s misunderstandings over the proper feed for the sheep or over a new hay bailer, the comedy flows freely throughout this adventure. There are also just as many smaller touches as there are in any Aardman film. The studio’s trademark visual style of leaving in smaller imperfections, such as thumbprints on the characters’ clay bodies or the holes in their eyes from where they were placed with toothpicks, is still ridiculously charming and leaves the impact that you really are watching something made by hand.

Aardman has never really gone for broke when it comes to their films, unlike studios like Laika, and this is no exception. First time directors Will Becher and Richard Phelan keep the film breezily moving along and focusing on smaller comedic moments to keep the sub-90-minute runtime feeling energetic. Moments in a supermarket with an interstellar belch are just one of many highlights.

Speaking of interstellar, yes, this film features an alien finding its way to Shaun’s rural U.K. farm home, and this little creature, referred to as Lu-La, is absolutely adorable. She’s a delight, mischievous and also homesick, setting the adorable-meter off mere moments after being introduced.

Things do get surprisingly intense in the third act, though no one ever really feels in harm’s way. The Aardman style of visuals and humor hardly ever shows much menace, let alone in Shaun’s world. It doesn’t reach the heights of creepy intensity of “Curse of the Were-Rabbit” and the final “battle” is instead yet another excuse to showcase some great visual gags and set pieces.

This is where the biggest criticism of the film comes into play. While every moment of Shaun’s intergalactic adventure is enjoyable, it feels lacking in one aspect that the first Shaun film did so well. Despite the lack of language, with the film being reduced to all manner of baa’s and grunts, the emotional through line of the first film was surprisingly heart wrenching, bringing audiences to tears numerous times throughout its plot. It was and remains one of the most unexpectedly emotional animated films of the last decade.

“Farmageddon” simply doesn’t have that. It does have a much smaller emotional arc, but it doesn’t feel nearly as inventive of unique as the first film’s and ends up being kind of a letdown. What this means is that instead of being the complete package of witty humor and heart wrenching emotion, “Farmageddon” is merely just really really exceptionally funny and clever.

There’s nothing wrong with that, not in the slightest. It breezes by and ends up delivering just as much twee humor for the whole family as could be possible in this format. After all, it’s not very often that a film exists where the little kids can understand it just as well as the grownups. However, given how strong the first film’s emotional arc was, it’s disappointing that this film ends up being only just exceptionally witty. Although, an Aardman film that’s a bit lacking is still leaps and bounds ahead of pretty much anything Hollywood animation is churning out. 4/5

Birds of Prey - Review

 

She’s definitely got moxy. That’s one thing nobody will argue against when it comes to Dr. Harlene Quinzel, aka Harley Quinn, the kooky ex-girlfriend of the Joker and general hell raiser in her own right. Despite appearing like a lost puppy looking for the Joker in the celluloid turd that was “Suicide Squad,” the past decade of comics, television, and animated films have been spent establishing Harley as a force all by herself. Thankfully, “Birds of Prey” continues the streak DC started with “Shazam!” by providing a delightfully zany and scatterbrained anti-hero adventure.

Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street,” “I, Tonya”), who’s also a producer on the film, clearly loves Harley. Her performance here is leagues above “Suicide Squad.” She cracks wise to the camera, flips the narrative around when it suits her, and constantly narrates scribbles and words across the screen. She’s a delight for every moment she’s on screen and her arc is quite impressive. Themes of “working together” come full circle by the time the rest of the team shows up, and Harley has made legitimate changes and it leads into the film’s most action-packed act yet with strong narrative grounding.

Not everyone gets as much time devoted to them, however. Despite the title being “Birds of Prey,” it’s basically Harley’s story. That does leave the film feeling a bit uneven, but the rest of the cast still holds their own. Jurnee Smollett-Bell (“Friday Night Lights,” “The Great Debaters”) as the killer voiced Black Canary has the most equal arc and screen-time compared to Harley. Her performance is also just as varied as Robbie’s and the pair really go there with their arcs.

Meanwhile Ella Jay Basco, in her film debut, as Cassandra Cain, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” “10 Cloverfield Lane”) as Huntress end up playing more comedic versions of their comic counterparts. They’re still plenty fun, but they never seem to be taken that seriously. The same goes for Ewan McGregor (“Moulin Rouge!” “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”) as Black Mask and Chris Messina (“Argo,” “The Mindy Project”) as Victor Zsasz. While both are menacing in individual moments, their best bits are their fantastic comedic chemistry, putting a thick layer of homoerotic cheese over their crime sprees.

If anyone gets the short end of the stick, its Rosie Perez’s (“Fearless,” “Pineapple Express”) Officer Montoya. Not only is she handed the most cliched and underdeveloped part of the script, she’s also playing this officer incredibly ham-fistedly. Not that she doesn’t get some moments to shine, she’s great in the first act playing straight to Gotham’s overblown shenanigans. She’s just the weakest link in this flock.

Thankfully, it almost doesn’t matter if there even is a weakest link, because director Cathy Yan (“Dead Pigs”), screenwriter Christina Hodson (“Bumblebee (2018)”) and cinematographer Matthew Libatique (“Requiem for a Dream,” “Black Swan”) ground the film in a sense of pure camp and absurdity. The film is constantly flying back and forth between Harley’s narration, fantasy sequences, and the supposed reality of the film. It lends everything a very surreal feeling.

Similarities to films like “Deadpool” and “Pulp Fiction” are understandable, but it’s the clear personality that immediately sets the film apart from those. Often times, the audience is cut out of an important conversation because Harley was cut out of it or just wasn’t paying attention. It works because the entire project is so clearly wrapped around her own psyche and perspective on these events.

One could argue that the film’s heavy subjects, such as empowerment, police corruption, the male gaze, toxic relationships, and more, require a more respectful hand, but given the kind of film that this is, there’s something to be said for purposefully going over the top to make a point. While it might not be to everyone’s taste, this state of silliness is consistent throughout the entire film, never flinching or falling prey to tonal shifts or imbalances.

The action scenes keep the bizarro absurdity, with the camera floating through car chases and fun houses with the same ease. Blood spews for every goon Harley whacks with her oversized hammer while gracefully gliding around on her roller skates, and as she beams, it becomes clear exactly what kind of film this is.

It’s the antithesis of every superhero film of the past decade. Part Deadpool, part Pulp Fiction, with enough blood and foul language spewing from every orifice to make both of those films proud, it feels like it should be derivative. However, it’s the strong chemistry and commitment to the absurd point of view of this killer clown queen that makes this flock soar higher than its so-so character development should have allowed. 4/5

The Reel Life's Year in Film: Best of 2019

The end of 2019 is here, so its time to list the Reel Life with Jacob DiLandro's picks for the best, worst, and most mediocre films of 2019.

Bad Boys for Life - Review

 

Whatchu gonna do when they come for you? Because they’re back. Will Smith (“Men in Black,” “I, Robot”) and Martin Lawrence’s (“Boomerang,” “Death at a Funeral”) dynamic duo have returned, 25 years after Michael Bay’s directorial debut and 17 years after the so bad its good action cult classic sequel. With Bay no longer in the director’s chair and an older but wiser perspective on the story, could this be the best of the “Bad Boys”?

What’s most impressive about this threequel is the surprisingly large amount of time it spends on emotion and downtime. There’s plenty of action to be had here, but it doesn’t feel nearly as archaic or nihilistic as before. Some will likely long for the spastic, incoherent nature of Bay’s directing style, but the Belgian duo of Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah (“Black,” “Snowfall”), known as Adil & Bilall, ground the action and carnage in a thankfully intelligible way.

While there are still some of the classic 360 Bay shots, like “Bumblebee” these younger directors take the foundations that Bay laid and clean them up. Many action shots glide along, going on for easily double or triple the length of a typical Bay shot. Some shots of brutality linger in a very “John Wick” way, lending some menace to the villain and the proceedings.

It makes the entire film much more satisfying (and easier) to watch. No longer is there fear of motion sickness due to the sheer number of cuts, and the plot moves along fairly coherently, even if it isn’t anything particularly new. Someone is out for revenge, someone who knows our heroes and they have to solve the case before its too late. Classic and cliched stuff.

Yet, screenwriters Joe Carnahan (“Smokin’ Aces,” “The Grey”), Peter Craig (“The Town,” “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1”) and Chris Bremner (“The Wedding Ringer”) make sure the films’ ample downtime is used to great effect. The action scenes are thrilling, but ironically the films’ best moments come from scenes of honest chats between Mike and Marcus. The pair debate things like retirement, non-violence, different approaches to their job, family life and growing beyond their angry, overly masculine ways throughout the film. These also aren’t just one-off conversations, as they’re integrated into the plot in meaningful ways.

Smith is as charming as he’s ever been, though this film also allows him to examine new depths with the bad ass bad cop Mike. Meanwhile Martin Lawrence is mostly a comic foible, but he also gets his own moments of surprising depth when examining his own life, mortality, and karma. Jacob Scipio (“The Outpost”) who plays the villain Armando gets some great moments of true menace here, and even his story isn’t as surface level as the previous films’ baddies. None of the three are doing groundbreaking work, but its solid across the board.

It’s the supporting cast that really shines. Vanessa Hudgens (“High School Musical,” “Spring Breakers”), Alexander Ludwig (“Lone Survivor,” “The Final Girls”) and Charles Melton (“Riverdale,” “The Sun Is Also a Star”) are a group of younger, more tech savvy special unit cops whom Mike and Marcus assist throughout the film. While the dynamic of a younger team vs the old veterans is a well-worn action movie cliché, they pull it off better than most. Leading this team is the extremely charming Paola Núñez (“Reina de corazones,” “The Son”), who’s no nonsense demeanor and casual nature with Mike steals the show. Joe Pantoliano (“The Fugitive,” “The Matrix”) also returns as the chief and is as humorous as one would expect, as are the handful of cameos from the likes of D.J. Khaled to Michael Bay himself.

It isn’t revolutionary, but the film’s love of Miami is in full effect, with multiple characters casually slipping in and out of Spanish and blending cultures left and right. The locations are gorgeous, with a slight tint bathing Miami and Mexico City in an orange glow. In a world of whitewashed and lukewarm white action heroes, the films heavy emphasis on Latinx culture lends it a kind of freshness akin to last year’s “Terminator: Dark Fate.”

Really, thanks to an engaging supporting cast, a more focused story and sense of action, a surprising level of emotional depth, and the always charming duo of Smith and Lawrence, it is no stretch to call this the best film in the series. Granted, it still isn’t anything award worthy, but given the typical cliché of January films and the previous two in the series, its an accomplishment to label these bad boys as pretty good. 3.5/5

Cats (2019) - Review

 

This is a genuine example of a once in a generation event. This is a live birth of a future midnight movie phenomenon, that will pack drive-ins for decades as audiences cackle at the screen, tossing cat toys and popcorn with wild abandon. Its rare to see something like this before the zeitgeist that will inevitably take it over, because “Cats” is just really that bizarre.

Don’t be mistaken, its also a pill of cat shit in virtually every way. This film is a textbook example of the stark difference between something being entertaining and something being good. “Cats” is thoroughly entertaining, at least half of it is, but few, if any, moments could even be called decent.

The cast is a who’s-who of Hollywood darlings and annoying comedic actors. Idris Elba (“Luther,” “Finding Dory”) seems to be having a lot of fun as Macavity, the villain of the film, and therefore is probably the least embarrassed of the final product. He’s the only one who gets out alive though, as the likes of Judi Dench (“Shakespeare in Love,” “Chocolat”), James Cordon (“Peter Rabbit (2018),” “Ocean’s 8”), Taylor Swift (“The Lorax,” “The Giver”), Jason Derulo, Rebel Wilson (“Pitch Perfect,” “Isn’t It Romantic”), Ian McKellen (“X-Men,” “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring”), and Jennifer Hudson (“Dreamgirls,” “Sandy Wexler”) all seem like they’re being dragged limp through the set, propelled only by their agents offscreen with fishing rods baited with cash.

Its less upsetting to see such A listers tumble into this garbage pit of a film. Oh no, Swift was in a bad movie! What is she to do? Her career will be soooooo hurt by this. No, what’s legitimately upsetting is seeing the chunk of the cast made up of legitimate ballerinas and stage dancers forever have their resumes tarnished with such a film. Francesca Hayward, who gets an “Introducing” credit in the trailers, needs a bit more introducing in the film, as all she really does is stare wide eyed and do some, admittedly impressive, ballet moves. A few of the dancers even overshadow the famous actors and are actually good, like Laurie Davidson as Mr. Mestoffelees or the brief stint from Steven McRae as Skimbleshanks.

The few moments that make “Cats” entertaining are slap dashed and clearly accidental. A sequence involving Derulo thrusting his crotch at various female cats in a milk bar and he screams “MILK” is the kind of hallucinogenic experience most people take fashion drugs for. What about the moment when Wilson’s character strips off her skin and eats singing and dancing cockroaches, who are also played by humans? Or when Swift literally drugs the entire cast into a purring sleepy mess as she sings about her crush?

All of these moments are bewilderingly enjoyable, thanks to the mixture of bad effects and poor acting, but that’s not the linchpin of it all. Tom Hooper (“The Danish Girl,” “Les Misérables”), the ACADEMY AWARD WINNING director of “Les Misérables,” has tried to create a three-act structure within a musical that has famously never really had a plot. It results in a story that’s insanely hard to understand, not because of the songs, but because of the film. The weird bits that are actually fun to watch are so spread out, with stretches of some semblance of incredibly boring plot trying (and failing) to stitch it all together.

Let’s make one thing very, very clear, all of the problems with “Cats” are problems with the film and not the source material. This is an eclectic, very queer and extravagant musical that purposefully goes for the extreme and outrageous that Hooper and Universal have tried to squeeze into a PG-rated, less than 2-hours Hollywood musical. These constraints just turn this into a bloated and uncanny mess.

Yet, it is so bizarrely entertaining. You laugh at it, not even remotely with it, and eventually after the horror of the visuals subsides, it becomes clear; this was never going to be good. Even if the effects were done in time and they were flawless, it’s an unfilmable musical.

Midway through the movie, there’s a musical number featuring Skimbleshanks, the railway cat. The song is catchy and the visuals of it all are purposefully weird. This is what the film should’ve been; a purposefully and knowingly weird musical that knows its place as a piece of bizarre Broadway pop culture. That strangeness has been contorted into a self-serious piece of nightmare fuel that the Hollywood musical will never recover from. “Cats” is extremely entertaining and utter garbage. 1/5