Toy Story 4 - Review

 

Few series carry levels of expectation like “Toy Story.” Despite seemingly astronomical amounts of hype and skepticism before release, all of the previous three films have managed to exceed expectations to create what is truly only of the greatest film trilogies ever made. And now we have a fourth.

After what was a perfect ending, even down to matching the first film’s opening with the ending frames of “Toy Story 3,” there’s a lot to be skeptical about with this new instalment. Thankfully, Pixar once again crafts a wonderful story, though not necessarily for the reasons one might think.

Whereas the previous three films all featured journeys of some kind, “4” is mostly self-contained, existing for a majority of its runtime in the same location. This, and a lack of a cut and dry antagonist, leaves this entry feeling like the slowest and most anticlimactic of the bunch.

However, it also feels entirely intentional. This is the most Indie-like film Pixar has ever made. There are races against time and a few tense sequences, but most of the film focuses on characters talking about their roles and relationships. It’s a very talky movie, so don’t be surprised if younger ones find it difficult to sit through.

It still delivers massive amounts of charm and humor though. Tom Hanks (“Forrest Gump,” “Cast Away”) continues to deliver the goods as Woody, equally matched by his space-man costar Tim Allen (“The Santa Clause,” “Galaxy Quest”). Aside from Jessie, though, most of the supporting cast is pushed to the side so the newer toys can shine. And shine they do, thanks to excellent vocal talent in the form of Keegan-Michael Key (“Don’t Think Twice,” “Keanu”), Jordan Peele (“Keanu,” “Get Out”), Christina Hendricks (“Mad Men,” “The Neon Demon”), and Keanu Reeves (“Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure,” “John Wick”). But none steal the show more than returning player Annie Potts (“Toy Story,” “Ghostbusters”) as Bo Peep.

Her storyline makes genuine sense in the context of the rest of the film and the overarching plot of the entire series. Woody’s arc is also extremely down to earth and will stand as one of the few family films that clearly is speaking directly to the parents. Because so much raw emotion and investment involves from these characters, it means that when things get tough, the tears start to flow very easily.

Forky, though, seems as if he was chemically engineered to counteract those tears. He is wonderfully adorable and charming, and Tony Hale’s (“Veep,” “Arrested Development”) performance helps cement him as a new Pixar staple.

However, not everything is buttoned up nice and tightly. A minor plot point with Woody and Hendricks’s Gabby Gabby feels a bit half baked, and the lack of a true climax could leave some feeling cheated. However, in the context of the film and its place as more of an epilogue as opposed to a final chapter, these issues become easier to swallow.

Visually, this film completely blows the competition out of the water. Sequences in the rain and with bright neon carnival lights are jaw-dropping, as well as tiny details like dust and reflections. This is one of the most incredibly gorgeous films to come out Hollywood period in a very long time.

Randy Newman’s (“Toy Story,” “Monsters Inc.”) score and musical work isn’t as strong as in the past, mainly because it’s so on the nose, (A song that says “Don’t throw yourself away,” as a character literally tries to throw themselves away) and there’s a lot of reused cues and work from previous “Toy Story” films, but it still works well here.

“Toy Story 4” might possibly be one of the most bittersweet and melancholy films Pixar has ever made. It wonderfully brings the stories of so many beloved characters to an end, and with the new Pixar creative heads saying they will not be focusing at all on sequels, it’s a worthy epilogue.

And that’s the best way to approach this film. “Toy Story 4” is an epilogue, meant to cinch everything up and provide closure for some of these characters. It’s a bit rocky in its subplots and lacks a true climax, especially in comparison to the previous films. But it is without a doubt one of the most heartwarming films of the year and manages to deliver a satisfying, if sad, ending for a truly beloved franchise. Everything gets tied up with a nice and neat Bo. 4.5/5

Rocketman (2019) - Review

 

There are a fair number of comparisons to be made with “Rocketman” to last year’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” The crossover in directors and characters, both centering on gay musicians with drug problems considered to be legendary musicians, and both featuring extravagant costumes.

However, while those comparisons are apt, they’re virtually skin deep, as “Rocketman” is everything “Rhapsody” wanted to be; clever, stylish, a bit cliched, and an all-around wonderful film.

Taron Egerton (“Kingsman: The Secret Service,” “Eddie the Eagle”) shines as Elton John, a wonderful interpretation of the musician. While there are moments of uncanny similarities in the costuming, mannerisms, and vocal work, most of what makes Egerton’s performance so excellent is the focus less on mimicry and more on emulating the emotional states of the performer throughout his long career.

Some of the supporting cast are merely one-note representations however; Richard Madden (“Game of Thrones”) makes Elton’s former manager and boyfriend little more than an evil scowling antagonist, and Bryce Dallas Howard (“Jurassic World,” “The Help”) shrieks through a thick accent as Elton’s mother, not really doing much of anything other than being a hag.

However, that doesn’t mean they’re all thinly portrayed. Stephen Graham (“Snatch,” “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”) manages to make his representation of music producer Dick James quaint and enjoyable while it lasts, and Jamie Bell (“Billy Elliot,” “The Adventures of Tintin”) is absolutely doing some of the best work of his career as Bernie Taupin.

While the star of the show is Egerton and his emotional representation of Elton, that emotional aspect is also where the film shines the brightest. Thanks to its premise, as a fantastical jukebox musical of Elton’s greatest hits, the films is admitting from the start that it isn’t going to strictly follow the facts. However, it does fill that space in with something far greater: emotional resonance.

Instead of portraying Elton’s life as precisely as possible, director Dexter Fletcher (“Eddie the Eagle”) and writer Lee Hall (“Billy Elliot,” “War Horse”) opt to focus on getting the emotional state of Elton and his situations across. If some characters or moments need to be mixed around in order to make this work, they make that sacrifice, and it ends up being a stronger film for it.

It also helps that the cinematography from George Richmond (“Eddie the Eagle,” “Kingsman: The Secret Service”) is excellent, meshing wonderfully with the extravagant costumes and musical choreography. It creates living breathing representations of the songs that Elton made so popular, delivering a toe-tapping and visually astonishing experience.

It doesn’t avoid every bump in the road, however. Clichés are still rampant throughout, and while they are accurate to the broad picture of Elton’s life, it does still deliver the beats of drug addiction, bad relationships, bad parents, etc. But it does still manage to freshen them up a bit thanks to the format. It’s also wonderful in that, there are moments throughout the film where Elton himself admits to not regretting his moments of drugs or lunacy.

What this means is that Fletcher and his crew aren’t satisfied with showing a dumbed down version of their subject. This is a very frank movie, blunt with its subject and its material, wrapped up in fantastical flourishes. That doesn’t save it from its clichés, but it certainly helps.

Overall, this is an emotionally satisfying story, with great performances that manages to get the point of Elton’s life across, even if it sacrifices some accuracy. It’s still clichéd and has its share of hammy performances, but its just as glorious and flashy as you’d expect a movie about Elton John’s life to be. If people want a beat by beat accurate retelling, go read an autobiography. Instead, some here to find an impressively shot and emotionally authentic experience. 4.5/5

Godzilla: King of the Monsters - Review

 

What does a filmmaker owe their audience? Sure, the argument can be made that people who decide to buy a ticket to “King of the Monsters” know what they’re getting themselves into. They want to see big monsters fight, so why bother trying to do more? This kind of an excuse is why genre films have languished in the realm of laughability for decades and why the few that do break out (“Godzilla (2014),” “Mad Max Fury Road,” “Logan”) make such an impact.

It’s because of this preconceived notion, that movies like this are supposed to serve their target audience and simply stop there, that makes it difficult to review a film like this. Because yes, it delivers on exactly what it should, but it could have done so much more.

“King of the Monsters” follows two groups of characters both with vested interests in these large Kaiju, but smartly still keeps things focused on three leads. It helps to avoid too much confusion and prevents everything from spiraling into a bloated ensemble piece. Kyle Chandler (“Friday Night Lights,” “Super 8”), Vera Farmiga (“The Conjuring,” “Bates Motel”), and Millie Bobby Brown (“Stranger Things”) are the human leads, and their talent fluctuates throughout.

While Chandler is fairly middle of the road, delivering lines of strength and stupidity with equal conviction, Farmiga stumbles through even the better lines, delivering a performance that is bizarrely overacted in its subduedness. Bobby Brown rises to the top of the entire cast, as she continues to prove her talent. The last 30 minutes are a testament to her ability to do heaps while being given very little to work with.

The supporting cast around them fair well enough, and some even have the most developed arcs in the film. Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water,” “Paddington 2”), Charles Dance (“The Imitation Game,” “Game of Thrones”), Thomas Middleditch (“Captain Underpants,” “Silicon Valley”), Aisha Hinds (“Widows,” “Bad Times at the El Royale”), and O'Shea Jackson Jr. (“Straight Outta Compton,” “Ingrid Goes West”) all are given barely anything to work with. Some are either used for seven minutes of screen time at most, or seem to be wandering around with no idea what to do.

Thankfully, the film’s strongest emotional connections come from Ken Watanabe (“Godzilla (2014),” “Inception”) and Zhang Ziyi (“Memoirs of a Geisha”). Not only do they manage to give some of the more emotionally driven performances, but Watanabe’s scene with Godzilla in the third act is the emotional climax of the film. They also manage to deliver some of the much-needed context of the film’s events without it feeling like forced exposition.

That exposition is needed though because, even for those who have seen the previous 2014 film, most of the integral characters are brand new. The arcs for Chandler and Farmiga’s characters stem from the events of the 2014 film despite not being in the previous film, and most of the characters who were in the previous film are either killed off or relegated to the sidelines.

This means that, while most of the conflicts make sense within the world, they don’t have the weight director Michael Dougherty (“Krampus (2015),” “Trick r’ Treat”) seems to want them to have. They aren’t devoid of importance, since the events do involve city destroying Kaijus, but the importance on an individual level just isn’t there.

Thankfully, while it stumbles with its cast and its bloated importance, there are still plenty of things that “King of the Monsters” gets right. This is a truly gorgeous film. The visuals pop with flair and color, and the fights feel joyous, even as buildings are collapsing. It feels like the people choreographing these sequences took joy in their work, and if they did, it shows.

Liberal color usage also helps give this film a distinct look. It is dark for much of the film, but instead of a dark black, Dougherty and cinematographer Lawrence Sher (“The Hangover,” “War Dogs”) flood the film with dark whites, blues, yellows, and greens. Much like how the 2014 film utilized the color red for excellent visual results, here the usage helps liven up what could have been a massively dull film to look at.

Bear McCreary’s (“10 Cloverfield Lane,” “God of War (2018)”) score is a bass thumping delight, with choral singers blaring their voices at almost any chance given. It could easily make this overblown or monotonous, but somehow it all works. Trumpets blare with an overblown joy, and even a bizarre original song over the end credits manages to stick the landing.

Quite possibly the most impressive success the film has is with its pacing. Not one moment drags or slows down, whether it involved giant monsters or not. And while it fumbles in its characters arcs, rarely do any of them actually feel boring or annoying, thanks in part to the work done to make it clear to the audience that these are characters who deeply care for each other. It helps to explain some of the typical monster movie stupidity that happens in the latter half, and while it isn’t necessarily understandable, these emotional connections are still believable.

It’s also important to note that, while it deals with world-ending catastrophes and god-like creatures, it never feels macabre, thanks to the sheer joy that the people working behind the film, and the film itself, takes in telling this overblown and destructive tale.

“Godzilla: King of the Monsters” is an almost incredibly uneven film. It has solid pacing and believable emotions throughout, but most of the performances are corny or underutilized and the plot is just incredibly confusing. However, the excellent visuals and overall production design on display, Millie Bobby Brown’s performance, and the sheer joy on display here make it well worth the time. It sure isn’t perfect, but it’s a Kaiju fans dream come true and the ultimate summer blockbuster. 3.5/5

Booksmart - Review

 

Sometimes, even the best films in a genre can lack that special something that makes them truly stand out. As good as movies like “Blockers,” “America Pie,” “Superbad,” “The 40 Year Old Virgin” are, most are capable of providing laughs and that’s about it. They’re well-remembered, but lack a spark to be true classics, as funny as they may be.

Olivia Wilde’s (“Tron: Legacy,” “House”) directorial debut does has that spark, though. It has the laughs, the spark, and a hell of a lot more, and the combination of all these elements is what helps turn “Booksmart” into an absolute instant classic, one of the best comedies of the decade, and assuredly one of the best films of the year so far.

The chemistry of Kaitlyn Dever (In a role almost the complete opposite of hers on “Last Man Standing”) and Beanie Feldstein (“Lady Bird”) as best friends Amy and Molly is incredibly fleshed out and real. The two bicker and banter back and forth in a way that shows the nuances and ticks that can only show up when two people have known each other for as long as they have. Not only that, but their arcs and well realized and remarkably deep. The attention given to their characters assures that they never become one dimensional, and it helps give a lasting impression.

With such strong lead characters, it would be understandable if the supporting cast fell flat. However, one of the biggest strengths of “Booksmart” is its ensemble, filled with characters who all shine whenever they’re on screen. This isn’t just because of their comedic timing, as many are given small mini arcs that help to fuel Amy and Molly’s own arcs. The cast is peppered with the likes of Jason Sudeikis (“Horrible Bosses,” “Saturday Night Live”), Jessica Williams (“The Daily Show,” “2 Dope Queens”), Eduardo Franco (“The Package,” “American Vandal”), Noah Galvin (“The Real O’Neals,” “Assassination Nation”), Skyler Gisondo (Vacation (2015),” “Santa Clarita Diet”), Mason Gooding (“Ballers”), Diana Silvers (“Ma (2019)”), Victoria Ruesga and many more.

Gisondo is a wonderfully charming awkward kid as Jared, and both Silvers and Ruesgand make the absolute most out of limited screen-time as Hope and Ryan. Williams is kick-ass teacher Ms. Fine, whom the class idolizes, and Franco is wonderful as lovably spaced out soccer player Theo. Gooding is also wonderfully charming as Nick, a seemingly airhead class VP.

However, the queen of stealing scenes throughout the entire film is Billie Lourd, as the completely bizarre and trippy Gigi. She practically glides through each scene with a crazed drug fueled anarchistic energy that would make her mother, Carrie Fisher, immediately proud. She serves as a weird kind of soothsayer and also source of the some of the film’s most bizarre humor and sequences. She’s without a doubt one of the singular best elements of “Booksmart.”

Lourd’s out-there performance, and the rest of the wonderful characters, wouldn’t exist without the sharp script. Writers Katie Silberman (“Isn’t It Romantic,” “Set It Up”), Emily Halpern (“Trophy Wife”), Sarah Haskins (“Trophy Wife”), and Susanna Fogel (“The Spy Who Dumped Me”) have written a tight and consistently funny script that has some of the most varied and effective humor in recent memory. For every joke about Susan B. Anthony or feminism, there’s one about masturbation and various kinds of drugs. It’s incredibly funny, balancing a wry sense of smarts with a warm crudity. However, thanks to the effort put into building Amy and Molly’s journey, it manages to be a great story that would succeed event without its copious amount of jokes.

Wilde also directs this film with a clear style with a heavy emphasis on lighting and musical cues. She and cinematographer Jason McCormick (“Lemon”) make heavy of warm ambient lighting and the bright Los Angeles sun to create a comedy that is as well shot as it is written. One sequence in a pool is particularly well shot and is the standout cinematic sequence from the film. The score from Dan the Automator helps to infect the film with a beating synth heart, and the song selection is a great mixtape of comedy classics from the 80s, 90s and beyond.

Now, that particular spark, that special sauce, that one aspect mentioned before that sets this movie apart? Well, it’s the theme of the movie, of course. Built on the classic fear of missing out, Wilde and her writers have crafted a story unique in exactly what it wants to say. In fact, the film pulls a complete 180 from its opening, turning a seemingly cynical “be better than those lesser than you” into a wonderful conclusion about perceptions and stereotypes.

It’s even thought provoking at times, especially in the ways it throws its main characters under the bus at times. It’s not afraid to show how messed up even their perceptions of life can be, and the ability to treat its leads as real people, as opposed to sacred cows who can do no wrong, is refreshing. So many other films of this genre, like the much referenced “Superbad,” have characters that do learn things, but don’t really change. “Booksmart” throws this idea out the window and commits the most radical shift the genre has seen in recent years: treat its characters like people.

What this leaves audiences with is one of the most radically funny and wonderfully poignant stories of friendship, drugs, queerness, and underage drinking ever brought to the big screen. Carried by its completely game cast, and elevated by legitimately smart film making techniques, “Booksmart” may very well be a shift for the entire genre. Even if it isn’t, it will remain a genuine crowing achievement that passes with flying colors. 5/5

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum - Review

 

The John Wick series is one of two things: professionalism and consequences. You’d be hard-pressed to find action films so meticulously obsessed with justifying the events that take place within their world, that aren’t based in some other reality. This series, that Keanu Reeves (“The Matrix,” “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”), director Chad Stahelski (“John Wick,” “John Wick Chapter 2”) and writer Derek Kolstad (“The Package (2013),” “John Wick,” “John Wick Chapter 2”) created, seems determined to be as elaborate and detailed as possible, in both its action and its mythology.

Really, that’s the easiest way to describe what makes “John Wick” different; the films are steeped in a rich mythology following a globe-spanning organization of assassins. There’s the chain of hotels known as The Continental, where it is against the organization's rules to kill one another, even if your target is sitting right in front of you. Most of the transactions play out using golden coins and blood-soaked emblems. At one point in “Chapter 3,” John presents Anjelica Huston’s character with a Rosary proclaiming it to be his “ticket.”

Truly, Reeves is the ticket that sells this entire series. He delivers lines and actions in a way that no actor could, and yet, the details he has woven into Wick’s life and background make him all the more lovable and charming. One moment after he brutally murders a dozen men on motorcycles, he’s enthusiastically petting the dog he hasn’t seen for days. It’s a great small example of how this series takes what could be simple characters and events and makes them memorable with ample attention to detail and world-building.

It’s this kind of world-building that makes these films so engrossing. If it was the same story, but without these overblown accoutrements, it would be far less engaging. Reeves and the team behind this series clearly know this, and “Chapter 3” spends a lot of time continuing to flesh out this world.

This further fleshing out introduces the standout character for “Chapter 3”; the Adjudicator, played with a grim swagger by Asia Kate Dillon. The fact that their character is never even given a name adds to the mystery of the world and the members of the “High Table” that they serve. The Adjudicator also comes to deliver consequences to many of those who have helped John in the past. These are some of the most engrossing sequences in the film, managing to stand toe to toe with the dance-like action scenes because of their deathly serious nature.

Speaking of deathly serious, the action in “Chapter 3” continues to escalate from the previous instalments. By now, most have likely heard of the series’ unflinching approach to violence. If someone gets shot, the camera will very rarely turn away, instead showing the impact of every gunshot, knife throw, and sword slash like few films would. The light touch of reality also continues to set the series apart, as the violence is accompanied by gore, but not to fetishistic levels. It’s probably as much as would be seen if someone was shot in the head, knifed in the eye, etc.

While there isn’t much done to freshen up the action, that’s because Stahelski and his crew have more or less perfected their style of doing things. Everything hits with an impact like no other, whether it be Wick killing someone in a library, on horseback, or even the third act's obsession with reloading. Most of this has to do with the intricate choreography throughout the film, and the heavy use of practical effects and general realism. Cinematographer Dan Laustsen’s (“The Shape of Water,” “John Wick Chapter 2”) work here walks a thin line between a stylish and a matter-of-fact presentation of the film’s violence, and it allows even the film’s slower points still manage to pack a punch.

Slower points? Yes, unfortunately. That’s one of the areas wherein “Chapter 3” starts to show the “Wick” series growing a bit tired. Though, it’s not for lack of effort. The middle of the film just slows down a bit too much. Wick’s journey in Casablanca and across a desert is still excellently shot and well-choreographed, but it feels plain compared to the vents that come before and after. Halle Berry (“X-Men,” “Monster’s Ball”) and Anjelica Huston (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “The Addams Family”), who are introduced in this middle of the film also feel a bit out of place with the rest of this world, as if they were written as extended celebrity cameos than essential characters.

However, while not being as satisfying action-wise, the middle of “Chapter 3” also contains some of the richest story moments and examples of the previously mentioned consequences. It’s also the chunk of the film where the supporting cast is allowed to shine the brightest.

Like previously mentioned, Asia Kate Dillon is a supremely entertaining and solemn menace, paired excellently against the likes of Ian McShane’s (“Deadwood,” “John Wick”) hotel manager; Winston, Lance Reddick’s (“Bosch,” “Destiny 2”) concierge; Charon, Laurence Fishburne’s (“The Matrix,” “School Daze”) Bowery King; and Huston’s Director. Those with roles from past Wick films continue to deliver excellent work on par with the previous portrayals of their characters, with Reddick’s concierge continuing to be a scene-stealing delight.

The only other major new cast members are Jason Mantzoukas (“The League,” “The House”) seen briefly as a henchman of the Bowery King; the Tick Tock Man, and Mark Dacascos (“Hawaii Five-0,” “Iron Chef America”) as gleefully exuberant assassin Zero. His performance is easily alongside Dillon’s as one of the films most memorable characters. The ease with which he slips back and forth between steely-eyed violence to fanboying over meeting John Wick is entertaining and a bizarre kind of wholesome.

“John Wick Chapter 3” may slow down during its second act and have a few characters who feel out of place, but the only reason these small issues stand out is because of the high level of quality afforded to the rest of this film and the previous two. This is still an incredibly engrossing and thrillingly choreographed series, obsessed with its own world and mythology and constantly fleshing itself out. Come for the action, stay for the consequences. 4.5/5

Pokémon Detective Pikachu - Review

 

There are two ways to judge a movie like this: either compared to the general culture and craft of films as a whole, or to the specific category of video game movies. That body of work hasn’t exactly set the world on fire…ever. Sure, there are box office hits like “Rampage (2018)” or “Warcraft,” but you’d be hard pressed to find a game adaptation that the general populous would agree on as being good.

Writer/director Rob Letterman (“Goosebumps,” “Monsters vs. Aliens”) and his team of writers; Dan Hernandez and Benji Samit (“The Tick (2017),” “One Day at a Time (2017)”), Derek Connolly (“Safety Not Guaranteed,” “Kong: Skull Island”) and most notably Nicole Perlman (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Captain Marvel”) have delivered a video game movie that is, at the very least enjoyable and good.

Breaking down exactly what that means is where the trouble sets in, because as enjoyable as it is, “Pokémon Detective Pikachu” has an incredibly rote plot. It is made more enjoyable thanks to the dialogue throughout and the chemistry between Ryan Reynolds as Pikachu and his human companion Tim Goodman, played by Justice Smith (“Paper Towns,” “The Get Down”). The pair not only play off each other well, but their growing friendship is portrayed extremely well and is immediately believable.

The supporting cast is also surprisingly excellent; Kathryn Newton (“Blockers,” “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri”) is a charmingly aggressive wannabe reporter paired with an anxious Psyduck. Chris Geere (“You’re the Worst”) and Bill Nighy (“Pirate Radio,” “Love Actually”) are well performed, if a bit bland, as a father son duo of corporate leaders, though Nighy gets some especially cheesy good material in the later half of the film. Ken Watanabe (“Inception,” “Letters from Iwo Jima”) is good, though his role is almost little more than a cameo. Special shout out to a silent performance by Suki Waterhouse (“Assassination Nation”) than ends up turning into one of the film’s weirdest and best moments.

That is where “Detective” is at its best; the times where the film gets weird. Yeah, it may be comprised of every detective film plot known to man, with every cliché known to man, but the writers are clearly not afraid to spice things up with the weirdness inherent in the source material. There’s a hell of a difference between an interrogation of a small-town thug and a Pokémon mime.

At the very least, this film is worth a view thanks to the top-notch production across the board. Not only do the Pokémon have a look that manages to perfectly blend the cartoony nature of the games and a real-world aesthetic, but the entire look of the film feels as though it was pulled right from the games. The sets have a warped look to them, accentuated by the heavy use of bright colors, giving a true sense of life to this fantastical world. This is only helped thanks to some great camerawork from John Mathieson (“Gladiator,” “Logan”) and a thumping score from Henry Jackman (“Kick-Ass,” “Wreck-It Ralph”).

It is fun to spend time in this world, when the plot isn’t grinding to a halt. A few sequences in the first half of the film seem to exist just to have characters explain parts of the plot, forcing everything to slow down and hurting the pacing as a result. Thankfully, this disappears in the second half, but it doesn’t forgive the problems in the first.

Pacing problems, plot problems; all of that aside, it’s hard to describe this film as anything but charming. The effort that has gone into bringing these creatures and world to life is evident constantly. Not once does it feel like a corporate product and that might just be the film’s biggest surprise; it has heart and soul.

“Detective” feels as though it is built on the very foundation of charm. Every frame seems tailored made to induce even the tiniest bit of smiles; whether it’s Pikachu flipping his empty coffee cups over like empty shot glasses or the many, many, cool Easter eggs and plot twists throughout. The cast, the world, the visuals, every bit of it is chemically engineered charm.

Be warned though, this is still a Pokémon movie through and through. If you’re not already familiar with the concept, there’s very little explaining that goes on to get you up to speed. It’s not impossible to enjoy without outside knowledge, but it’s definitely tailored made for those already indoctrinated with Pocket Monster fever.

Completely and unabashedly weird, “Pokémon Detective Pikachu” is a joyful mess. Its poor pacing and routine plot are accompanied by an almost unnecessary amount of charm from the cast and world, and a sheer sense of love and dedication to its source. material. It’s not perfect, but it is enjoyable. For a movie based on a video game, it is unquestionably super effective. 3.5/5

Long Shot - Review

 

Seth Rogen’s latest feature has remarkably less drug induced chaos than previous works that, along with a myriad of other small changes, makes his latest film “Long Shot” immediately feel distinct, even for someone who’s filmography includes a stoner Christmas flick, a biopic about a master of trash cinema, and an R-rated Pixar parody.

While most of the film’s traits and advertising has heavily relied on Rogen’s image and past films, the film simply does not belong to him. Rather, it is commanded by his opposite, the always excellent Charlize Theron. While Theron is mostly known for her action (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Atomic Blonde”) or drama (“Monster,” “The Road”) roles, her resume has quite a number of substantial comedies littered throughout. Having starred in critical darlings like “Tully” and “Young Adult” and audience favorites like “Hancock”; “Long Shot” gives her a chance to stretch her comedic abilities in a broader way.

Theron is clearly 100% game to jump into every f-word laden, drug fueled scene the film has, and she continues to show why her comedic chops are consistently underestimated. She’s extremely funny but her wit and smirk help to balance the sly sex appeal her character maintains. One of the funniest scenes in the entire film involves her “bossy” attitude and Rogen’s reactions to it during a tryst. If Theron didn’t have such clear and sharp control on Field’s characterization, it wouldn’t work. Thankfully she does, and it works so damn well.

Rogen is putting just as much work in, but the results are completely different. Most of his characterization seems dedicated to reversing Rogen’s real-life teddy bear persona, and instead builds a character who needs to come to grips with his angry, confrontative nature. His evolution over the course of the film works and it shows Rogen’s evolution as an actor. It isn’t anything radically different but is shows that he’s trying to make at least some changes to his typical roles.

Thankfully, the charm between the two leads is only somewhat present at the film’s start, leading to a gradual escalation in their relationship throughout the film. It means the scenes they share alone together or at parties together feel that much more impactful, and they end up being the best parts of the film. One sequence out at a drug fueled party is a highlight specifically because it doubles down on their happy-go-lucky chemistry.

However, it doesn’t really hit a balanced mixture of awkward and charming until Rogen and Theron start working together, meaning the first 15 or so minutes are pretty slow. Rogen’s best friend, played by O'Shea Jackson Jr. (“Straight Outta Compton,” “Ingrid Goes West”) is a wonderfully warm shoulder for Rogen’s Flarsky, but he’s mostly absent in the second act of the film. The time he is there, he’s a welcome sight though, as is the rest of the supporting cast; Alexander Skarsgård (“True Blood,” “Melancholia”) playing the Canadian Prime Minister is good for a few accent-humor laughs, and June Diane Raphael (“The Disaster Artist,” “Bride Wars”) as Field’s assistant Maggie is a surprisingly funny side character.

Bob Odenkirk (“Mr. Show,” “Better Call Saul”), playing a fictional president, is also amusing in his supporting role, but his subplot is a great example of one of the film’s issues. Throughout the film, there are cutaways and moments dedicated to showing the news and their reactions to the events on Theron’s campaign.

However, while about 3/4ths of them seem fairly normal, if a bit tongue in cheek, the clear Fox News parody comes off far too strong. This is a constant throughout the film, as the moral dilemma comes at the hand of a sleazy media conglomerate owner Parker Wembley, played by a damn near unrecognizable Andy Serkis (“The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”). The conflicts involving him and basically just about every joke thrown at the right wing come off as meaner than the rest of the film’s comedy, as if they were thrown it at the end to get some cheap laughs from liberals.

Which is fine, as the jokes completely hit their mark. But given that a major plot point centers around Flarksy’s anger towards the media and his need to quell that anger and see things from multiple perspectives, these segments feel tonally off. Funny still, but tonally at odds with the rest of the movie’s earnest charm that helps to distract from the rom-com clichés.

Notice the word “distract” and not “avoid.” Because really this is the same exact story told in just about every “Cinderella”/“Pretty Woman”-style romance that has existed since the end of time. Where writers Dan Sterling (“The Interview,” “Girls”) and Liz Hannah (“The Post”) instead deviate is in a lot of the small problematic moments that often plague rom-coms, even modern-day ones. Just when a scene seems to be building to a faux jealousy moment because Rogen sees Theron dance with someone who’s not him, it goes in the complete opposite direction. Not only does he not get upset, but he even acknowledges his potentially jealous feelings and takes actions to dispel them from his mind.

When an awkward sexual encounter seems like it’s about to happen, the characters stop for a moment, discuss what they do and don’t want to happen, and make a plan of action to make sure they both get what they want. There are no cheating moments, no he said/she said, and no liar revealed tropes here. Instead, it’s grown adults talking about the issues that arise, and while that doesn’t immediately fix those issues, it nevertheless has them putting forth the effort to try.

It says a lot about the general culture surrounding romances in films that two of the biggest and most groundbreaking romance films of the past few years are both R-rated comedies. Just like “Blockers” did last year, “Long Shot” smartly subverts some of the rom-com clichés by simply making sure they don’t happen, instead of doing them in different ways. It’s so simple, it seems like genius, and that decision, mixed with the great chemistry of Rogen and Theron, helps to make “Long Shot” the best comedy of the year so far.

This ends up delivering a film that might be struggling tonally but is excellent at the ways it addresses and subverts the toxic tendencies most rom-coms tend to show. Anchored by its charming and chemistry infused leading duo, “Long Shot” is a bit slow and tonally confused, but still manages to be extremely funny, and refreshing in its unsatisfaction with letting the typical toxic details of the rom-com genre go unpunished. 4/5

Missing Link - Review

 

With a studio like Laika, it's difficult to know where to set expectations. Sure, none of their movies are bad, but there is a stark difference between “Coraline” and “The Boxtrolls.” So, anyone going into “Missing Link” wondering what to expect would be forgiven if they didn’t have the highest expectations, despite the studio’s illustrious history.

It’s a simplistic story, wherein an explorer agrees to help an undiscovered sasquatch find his cousins in exchange for allowing him to prove to the world that sasquatch are real. Thankfully, the cast is really what sells it, with each bringing their personalities to the role.

Hugh Jackman (“The Greatest Showman,” “Logan”) provides voicework here that rivals his other excellent vocal performances from films like “Happy Feet,” “Flushed Away,” and “Rise of the Guardians.” While his Australian accent, unfortunately, isn’t out to play this time, he delivers every line with wit and grace, creating a wonderful portrait of a bumbling yet posh explorer in Lionel Frost.

Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek (2009),” “Guardians of the Galaxy”) is also good as Lionel’s former flame Adelina Fortnight and while she’s mostly relegated to being Lionel’s voice of reason, she’s nonetheless engaging and amusing.

The real star of the show though is Zach Galifianakis (“The Hangover,” “Baskets”) as the Sasquatch himself, Susan Link. It’s remarkable how much emotion he’s able to work into his lines while also maintaining an easy-going, comedic attitude. Sure, most of his lines play on the “I’m new to this world so I take everything very literally” trope, but it strengthens the character due to his commitment and energy, rather than feeling like a cliché.

Just as was the case in Laika’s previous work, this is a gorgeous film to behold. The fluidity of their animation continues to border on CGI, and the color palette is simply astonishing. It’s a wonderous film with a great sense of scope as well, thanks to cinematographer Chris Peterson. Utilizing multiple bent angles and wide-angle shots, scenes of mountain climbing and travelling large vistas feel just as expansive as they would in real life.

Everything pops with vibrant colors and expansive sets thanks to some truly impressive production design from Nelson Lowry (“Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “Kubo and the Two Strings”) and Lou Romano (“Kubo and the Two Strings,” “Up”). Even seemingly drab sets like a marble country club or an American mining town are given visual life thanks to complete commitments to their distinctive color schemes. It’s a wonder to behold and should be viewed on the biggest screen possible.

However, be forewarned, do not go see this film expecting action or intrigue. This is a simplistic story that has been done before and done better as well. That’s not to say it's awful by any means, it's just somewhat bland. It’s predictable as hell, and the antagonists have little to no depth to their characters, simply appearing and disappearing when needed.

This is a film carried by the strengths of its dialogue and visual humor. While things aren’t always jam-packed with jokes, this is a frequently visually funny film. It excels when slapstick comes into the fray and the chemistry between Galifianakis and Jackman is top tier. This is a film meant to be watched for characters and not for the plot. It’s slow and meandering, but not in a boring way. Rather, it’s an easy-going film, letting you just sit back and spend time with these characters.

This results in a movie that, while not anything jaw-dropping, is worth a trip to the movies. Its artwork and incredible animation are reason enough to see it on the big screen, but its cast and their interactions really do make the most of an otherwise uninspired plot. It’s not terribly exciting or of an otherworldly level of quality, but it is quaint, charming and pleasant. 3.5/5

Hellboy (2019) - Review

Despite maintaining a relatively obscure existence, this is not Hellboy’s first foray into mainstream entertainment. He’s guest starred in video games like “Injustice 2,” had a few direct to video animated films, and was the subject of two PG-13 films in the early 2000’s from Guillermo del Toro. However, this latest film has no involvements from del Toro or his original cast and is instead coasting in on its R-rating and its new Hellboy: actor David Harbour (“Stranger Things”). However, is that enough?

Harbour, who’s made waves recently due to his enthusiasm for the role, isn’t working any kind of magic here. His Hellboy is just a big lumbering whiner, and while that works for some of the film, his pessimism and complaining nature continue past the point when he’s supposed to have grown out of it. This results in a character who’s sapped of just about any charm Harbour could bring to him since he just becomes progressively more annoying.

The rest of the cast doesn’t do him any favors either. Daniel Dae Kim (“Lost,” “Insurgent”), Ian McShane (“John Wick,” “On Stranger Tides”), and Sasha Lane (“American Honey,” “Heart Beats Loud”) seem to be only good for shouting lines at each other in various irritated tones. Most of their characters follows arcs that just plain don’t make any sense.

Milla Jovovich (“The Fifth Element,” “Resident Evil”) is the only one who seems to be doing anything of note. Whether that’s because of her ample experience in these kinds of cheesy genre flicks or not is unclear, however she is the most enjoyable actor to watch in the entire film.

Part of the blame lies with the actors, but a larger chunk has to be because of the script. While it isn’t incomprehensible, writer Andrew Cosby’s (“Eureka”) script sure is trying its damndest to be. Most of the plot revelations literally require other random characters to be pulled in from nowhere to tell the main cast what to do and how to do it.

Sure, most of these sequences look cool, like the house of Baba Yaga, but it doesn’t save the film from the fact that the writing and plot are so poor, that they couldn’t even find ways to naturally let it play out.

By the way, this “Hellboy” film is rated R. Don’t worry if you didn’t know that, because the film won’t let you forget it. While previous superhero films have dabbled in the rating of blood and gore, “Hellboy” makes them look like Saturday morning cartoons by comparison.

Literal waves of blood and gore can be seen on screen and they aren’t the least bit effective. It’s cool, at first, but the lack of restraint in any capacity eventually dulls the impact and makes it boring. When the film does a zoom on a shattered skull in the third act, it doesn’t mean anything because it’s almost the fifteenth time it’s been done.

Most of the gore isn’t that impressive either. For once it seems like the CGI is better looking than the practical effects, and that’s saying something considering the CGI looks pretty bad. Most of the visuals benefit from practical sets and a thick layer of darkness, but when they’re absent, the cracks start to show.

Monsters and most of the gore look like early PlayStation 3 games, and the practical effects look like they’ve been hobbled together out of Party City supplies. The only exception is Hellboy himself, and it seems like most of the budget must have gone to making him look excellent, because damn does he look excellent.

Even without these problems, the film at its core is a headache to watch thanks to some laughably bad editing from Martin Bernfeld (“Power Rangers (2017),” “Project Almanac”). The cuts back and forth come so frequently and quickly that it becomes almost nauseating. It’s as if the no one told the directors that, just because you have the shots, doesn’t mean you have to use all of them. Things cut so frequently and with such random nature, it’s as if the cuts were made at random, by throwing a dart at a dartboard.

This “Hellboy” is mostly a film of excess, and that’s where its problems lie. There isn’t just an excess of gore, an excess of plot devices, and an excess of editing, but there’s a lack of trust in the audience. Seeing Hellboy pull up to a building while “The Devil You Know” plays isn’t clever, it’s just groan inducing. The number of times people re-explain Hellboy’s internal conflict to him border on idiotic.

This is a movie where the creators felt their ideas were just so clever, they wanted to make sure they were obvious to the audience, by over explaining them every chance they got, in any way possible.

Apart from some decent-ish makeup and a cheesy good performance from Milla Jovovich, there is literally no reason to see this film. Its painful editing and unnecessary levels of gore would be bad enough, but it’s the way it treats itself high and mighty. It talks down to the audience, constantly trying to over explain a script that is barely coherent by itself. If there’s any desire for a Hellboy adventure, just rent both del Toro films. They’re legitimately incredible fantasy adventures. As for this version: stay the hell away. 1/5

Shazam! - Review

 

Superheroes are, by definition, completely stupid. Even the more realistic ones are built upon the idea that regular everyday humans can have the power of flight, invisibility, and impeccable beach bods. Despite how much the more recent DC films and the MCU as a whole have captured the various building blocks of the comic book, that kind of gleeful stupidity or whimsy hasn’t existed in a superhero movie since the 90s. DC’s response to all that? Just say the word.

That word is, of course, “Shazam!”, which is the name of the super-powered man-child played with gleeful abandon by Zachary Levi (“Chuck,” “Tangled”). It’s genuinely incredible how Levi manages to make this, walking embodiment of every 14-year-old’s dream of what an adult is, not come off as annoying. His performance is a ball of comedic mastery, with tightrope precise comedic timing, with the ability to still nail the epic superhero scenes.

His teenage form, Billy Batson, played by Asher Angel (“Andi Mack”) is just as charming as Shazam himself. Both have a wonderful sense of continuity, and it really does feel like the same person on the inside, which is a testament to the talent of both of them.

While his roommate and best friend Freddy, played by Jack Dylan Grazer (“IT,” “Me, Myself & I”) gets a larger chunk of the runtime to skip school and cause various shenanigans with Shazam, the remaining family members are shortchanged. This is a shame because each of them is charming and memorable in their own ways. The third act does bring them all back together in a genius way, but it would have been nice if they had each gotten more room to establish themselves.

Mark Strong (“Kick-Ass,” “Kingsman: The Secret Service”), who plays the villain, Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, does his job well; strutting and scowling like you’d expect from a big budget supervillain. His character does represent one of the film’s biggest weaknesses; the tonal shift associated with the character. They are only a minor issue though, as they’re ironed out after the first act.

Narratively, there isn’t anything particularly new about “Shazam!”, but it does its job well enough. Really, it’s the small moments of downtime and the power of Shazam himself that allows for the creativity of the filmmakers to shine through. Director David F. Sandberg (“Lights Out,” “Annabelle: Creation”) has clearly been let loose here, and his film feels less like the strictly structured superhero films of the modern day, and more like a kid, joyously smashing his action figures together.

There is one plot hole midway through the movie that may catch most off guard. Really, it boils down to one character blaming another for something that the other one was clearly responsible for. And the clear illogical nature of the character’s argument is never brought up. While it is minor, and plot is clearly not the film’s highest priority, it’s something that should have been either ironed out or addressed.

What is the clear and very highest priority of Sandberg, and his cast and crew, is fun. It is genuinely bizarre how much fun “Shazam!” is at times. It’s such a gleefully stupid and silly movie that practically begs you to make fun of it. There’s a genuine irreverence to the entire proceedings that make it a sheer blast. The cliched nature of the villain and his minions is poked at with every turn, and it serves to create a stronger identity at the core of the film.

Yes, it is funny, but it’s also a beautiful picture of whimsy and the joy of childhood. The comparisons to Tom Hanks’s 1988 film “Big” are apt, but this whimsy works because of the superhero genre itself. This is, again, a genre where people who can fly and talk to fish are considered normal. And while poking fun at those tropes has been done in films before, what sets “Shazam!” apart is the joy and excitement it has about those tropes.

Primary colors and scale are at the center of the visual identity of “Shazam!”, and it helps set the film apart. While just about every superhero film is set in a city, Sandberg and his cinematographer Maxime Alexandre (“Earth to Echo,” “The Crazies”) make the city feel big. Maybe it’s the child perspective or the use of scale with the surrounding buildings, but the world of “Shazam!” feels bigger and more consequential than your average superhero film, strengthened by an incredibly vibrant color palette.

The film is excited to show off Shazam, his powers, and his origin. It’s excited to show you the final confrontation, and it’s excited to show you just how bonkers things can get. It’s genuinely weird to say that this kind of excitement and sense of whimsy has been missing from the genre for quite a while, because the way “Shazam!” uses it, it feels like you couldn’t make a superhero film without it.

David F. Sandberg’s tribute to childlike wonder and whimsy manages to leap directly over its first act tonal shifts, its majorly minor plot hole and its routine narrative to create a film that wants to celebrate the idea of superheroes. It does this with flying colors, blasting past previous DC flops with a burst of primary colored joy and crackling humor, bolstered by a wonderful cast, and setting a very high bar for the future DC films to come. Apparently, all you need to make a great DC film is to be like Shazam and get in touch with your inner child. 4.5/5