Change Your Image
tonyum
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Air (2023)
A slam-dunk by Amazon and Ben Affleck
One of my favorite film genres is the "based on true events" genre (these are films like Bohemian Rhapsody, Saving Mr. Banks, and King Richard), in which a crew of directors and writers take true social moments that marked the world, and use their writing skills and the talent of Hollywood celebrities to bring these past events to life for modern audiences.
This concept, while not the most in-depth or creative idea ever made, is one that I find very fascinating, mainly because of the talent and great writing involved in bringing these stories to the big screen, even in spite of a few setbacks.
While Air, one of the most recent installments of this genre, may not be the most outstanding example of this type, nor is it my favorite, I still consider it to be a great time, and a fine addition to the list of films associated with the category it belongs to.
The first thing to note, and one that makes the film stand out amongst its peers, is that it is not necessarily about the, at the time, young Michael Jordan and his successful basketball career as a team rookie and how the young-adult player eventually became a noble star, but rather the people around the young Michael Jordan who pushed him to become an icon, such as his mother Deloris Jordan (interpreted in the film by Viola Davis), his father James Jordan (played by Julius Tennon), Nike's then-CEO Phil Knight (played by Ben Affleck), and marketing executive Sonny Vaccaro (the main character played by Matt Damon). This makes the film's overall story very unique in comparison to others of the same genre, as not only is it very original, but it helps us get a geniune feel about the full story of Michael and the Jordan shoes rather than just a part of it and giving what are oftentimes more untouched parts of Jordan's life, and the characters that played those parts, a chance to shine and be developed and explored at the pace of an average three-act cinematic release.
Beyond its creative story, Air excels in the acting from its talented cast, particularly from Jason Bateman, Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Chris Tucker.
It also excels in the aesthetic department, using plenty of references to 80s culture in a way that fits the time period portrayed but also making sure they do not overstay their welcome.
The editing is also very fascinating, especially with how the movie indicates the main idea and overall relevance of the next few scenes through chapters in a written document (presumably the document that describes Nike's licensing deal with the Jordan family).
Lastly, I found the movie to be pretty funny, especially from Chris Tucker's Howard White, Affleck's Phil Knight and Jason Bateman's Rob Strasser.
If there is one negative that I have with the film is that the pacing is rather slow in some parts of the movie, which makes following the story far more of a slog than anything.
Overall, though, while Air might drag at times, it more than makes up for it with its original story, good humor, well-done editing, great aesthetic, and great acting. I'd recommend this film to just about anyone, regardless of if you're a fan of Michael Jordan or not.
The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023)
Wahoo
If there is one thing that my username gives away is that I am a huge Mario fan, and you would be right. I love Mario and have been attached to the series for more than 15 years, having played many of the mainline games and spinoffs (both old and new), and growing up with the DVD release of the Super Mario Bros. 3 cartoon series.
However, while I have consumed massive chunks of the pieces of media the iconic Italian plumber has put his mark on, one piece of Mario media that I have not consumed much of are his motion pictures, and there is a very good reason why: they range from either average at best animated productions to terrible trainwrecks, and it seemed that the most recent installment in this piece of Mario media, 2023's The Super Mario Bros. Movie, seemed like it could end up being in either boat, if not then perhaps an in-between area of quality.
Surprisingly, however, The Super Mario Bros. Movie, while not the most majestic piece of art ever conceived, is an enjoyable, if flawed, film, and is a good step in the right direction for the entire mustachioed man franchise.
The first thing to grab my attention about the film is the stunning animation. On the surface, it may not seem too different from other Illumination movies, but on a closer look, it's much more unique than its peers, utilizing a unique form of 3D animation that is essentially normal CGI, but with live-action/more realistic textures (a style that I don't really see often used in current animated movies), while also still staying true to the fantastical and cartoony essence of the games.
Speaking of which, the film, unlike its infamous live-action counterpart, is also greatly loyal to the original source material, using a lot of elements, characters and set pieces from the original games, but also not over relying on them and also slightly reworking some of these past elements and set pieces a bit to make them fit more naturally with the context of a movie version of the Mushroom Kingdom. For example, the coin blocks from the original games being reworked into blocks that allow Toad citizens to withdraw coins for them to spend on things in the kingdom, with the coin blocks themselves working nearly similarly to their game counterparts (jump and punch up and a coin will pop out for you to collect), but this time with a slightly different purpose.
The movie itself also has a decent story, that, while does suffer from being a tad bit too simple (though to give it some credit, Mario has always been rather simple), doesn't rely on overused kids film clichés (minus I guess the general concept of a human being transported to a fantastical world in search of a family member) and, for the Mario series, surprisingly subverts some expectations in its execution, such as Luigi this time being the one in need of rescuing as opposed to Princess Peach, which, depending on your view, is a noteworthy change.
The acting from the lead cast was also really great, with Chris Pratt and Charlie Day doing a decent job as their respective Mario brother (though I will agree with the popular consensus that Chris could've perhaps sounded more Italian when voicing Mario, but for a more stereotypically-Brooklyn interpretation of the character, he does a much better job than most who have attempted such an interpretation, such as Marc Graue in Hotel Mario for instance), Keegan Michael Key being a fairly funny Toad (even if his character is the most underdeveloped one and the one with the weakest chemistry amongst the cast), and Jack Black just steals the show as Bowser, with him portraying both the threatening monstrous tyrant from the main line series and the dumb and soft yet lovable comedic villain from the Mario RPGs (a portrayal I love, by the way). I even kind of liked Seth Rogen's Donkey Kong, whose performance I found to be much more different compared to some of Rogen's other roles, as in most of the other movies he has starred in, his acting mostly consists of him acting like the "funny normal and relaxed guy", whereas in here, he plays a much more distinct "buff and confident tough guy" (on the topic of the portrayal of DK, I also liked his brief rivalry with Chris's Mario around the end of the second act).
Lastly, I really adored the film's score, with its use of classic Mario tunes, and while I do think they shouldn't really be there, I didn't really hate the pop culture songs present here (although moments like playing "Take On Me" during the "Entrance to the Kong Kingdom" sequence are stuff where I did wish some other song (whether it'd be from pop culture or more original) was playing during the scene).
However, while The Super Mario Bros. Movie might be good, it does have several issues. For starters, the movie's pacing is perhaps a bit too fast, with the film often rushing one scene to get to the next one at a majorly quick pace. This is especially noticeable in the middle of the second act, where Mario, Peach, and Toad head to the Kong Kingdom, and journey through several other worlds and kingdoms (most of which are obviously from other Mario games, such as Rock-Candy Mines from New Super Mario Bros. U or Cascade Kingdom from Mario Odyssey), however, instead of showing them arriving in these kingdoms, completing levels, defeating enemies and interacting with the worlds' locals, they instead just skip all of this journey by showing the trio just walking around and journeying these locales in a montage that lasts only a few minutes.
Scenes such as the aforementioned montage and a few others go by far too quickly, which makes the story, characters, and overall writing seem much more basic and underdeveloped than it really should be, which isn't the worst thing in the world and most certainly not a dealbreaker (like I said before), but it does make the writing feel a lot more lacking, especially in comparison to other animated films.
Another thing that I did not really enjoy while watching the film was the humor. While there were a few jokes here and there that made me laugh, such as the quirky dialogue exchanges between the villains Bowser and his second-in-command Kamek (excellently portrayed by Kevin Michael Richardson) and some lines from the character of King Penguin (a new character from the movie voiced by Khary Payton), the majority of the humor is rather weak, consisting of cheap quip-based comedic bits, tiring running gags, and dragged-out slapstick, which failed to make me chortle on several occasions.
Overall, though, while The Super Mario Bros. Movie may have some flaws, which keep it from standing as strong as its video game roots or even other adaptations of the source material, remains a decent time, with a fun, if very rushed and incomplete, story, great grasp of the source material, stellar animation, good score, and solid voice acting. For my recommendation, I would personally recommend it to Mario fans, first and foremost, as it is clearly made for them, though if you do find yourself in a more casual audience, but do not mind films with boatload of references to past moments of its franchise, dull humor, or rushed storylines, then I'd personally recommend this movie to you too.
Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)
Ein toller Film für Geschichtsfans und Filmfans (A great movie for both history fans and film fans)
Coming fresh from the 2023 Academy Awards (okay, I admit I'm a bit too late on that front), I decided to review the 2022 war film All Quiet on the Western Front, based on the 1929 novel of the same name by Erich Maria Remarque, a movie that, while not perfect, is an amazing watch and, to me, one of the finest examples of how to do a good war movie.
My favorite part of the picture is definitely the cinematography. All the establishing shots from the film, where we see the places in which the characters are staying in or doing their duty, capture the melancholy and dread of war, with the usage of shaky cam creating a very immersive viewing experience, almost as if you are really there during the war and witnessing all of the events that are currently happening in the movie. I also really like the unique touch of how the frame's coloring becomes more darker or saturated depending on the tone of the scene (as in, when things start to get very tragic or tense, the frame's coloring is fairly dark, and when things start to lighten up or get slightly less gloomy, it's more saturated and colorful).
All Quiet's amazing cinematography is complemented by its fantastic score by Volker Bertelmann, which represents the tension, depression and pride expressed by many people during the war.
I also adored the makeup for the soldiers when their faces get dirty. They were so good in fact, that I didn't even think it was makeup, but rather the actors got dirty after faceplanting in the ground and the filmmakers left it in for the sake of realism.
While the film's portrayal of the great war isn't exactly anything that makes it stand out amongst its peers, it does show some things which I personally haven't seen in movies "documenting" the events of the time, such as the use of gas bombs and masks or the task where specific soldiers pick up the tags of their dead partners, along with still portraying everything else about the First War that continue to fascinate me, such as the use of trenches or the studying of several ideas such as the strong nationalism present during the war or the idea that "a soldier who isn't in the war anymore has little use in life in the future".
The acting is also incredible, especially from Felix Kammerer, who delivers a heartfelt performance as Paul (the main character of the film and novel), and Devid Striesow, who does a fantastic job at being the mysterious and threatening, but determined General Friedrich (one of the few major additions to the movie who previously wasn't in the book).
If I were to say one negative that I had while watching the movie is that some of the characters, with the exception of Paul, Stanislaus (Albrecht Schuch's character), and some members of the German government present in the film, could have used some more character development, as they have very one-note personalities and aren't given any form of depth or aren't explored profoundly and given many distinctive likable and unlikable traits, which ends up making it slightly harder to feel sad for them when they die during the events of the war. This flaw is especially noticeable near the beginning, where after Paul and his friends join the army and have their view of the war shattered by the unfortunate realities of trench warfare, one of the friends is killed at night. This scene is supposed to be very emotional, but the aforementioned friend character had little development present in the film, so there's very little reason, in my opinion anyway, to like or feel sad over his death, thus making his death a lot less emotional.
But overall, with an amazing cinematography, fantastic score, great makeup, interesting portrayal of the war and great acting, All Quiet on the Western Front is a fantastic time for just about any film or history fanatic. While it does have some notable flaws in the character development department, it is nonetheless a worthwhile watch.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
And just when you thought I was done, I pulled myself back in
So, we're back to talking about Francis Ford Coppola and his acclaimed filmography. This time, however, the film we're going to be checking out is a little bit different than all the 10/10 movies I've reviewed from Coppola: The Godfather Part III, originally released in 1990 and then rereleased in 2020 as a Director's Cut version under the title The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone, a film that, while liked amongst many, is often considered the weakest of the Godfather series of films (yes, this isn't really the "Part III" of The Godfather, Coppola said so himself), and, yeah, I kind of agree with that opinion. However, while I do think it is the most flawed of the three movies, I still really enjoyed it, for various reasons.
For starters, I really liked the characters, mainly Vincent Mancini (Michael Corleone's illegitimate nephew played by Andy García), who's very charismatic, interesting (mainly due to how his fiery temper and ways of solving problems with violence in contrast to Michael's more peaceful approach to things), and is very decently developed, and Joey Zasa (Vincent's rival, the major antagonist of the picture and Joe Mantegna's character), who's a very entertaining villain, in part due to how douchey he acts towards others (mainly Vincent), but also due to how intimidating he can sometimes be, with his several unique and creative ways of trying to kill Michael and his family.
The old characters are also really likable, especially Michael himself (still excellently portrayed by Al Pacino), who goes through a pretty emotional arc about him questioning his past actions and wanting people to forgive him for his sins, while also trying to move on from his life as a mafia leader and trying to lead a new life as a legitimate businessman and also learning about the importance of family and how he should support their decisions.
The editing, despite most of it being your typical movie editing, is also relatively unique amongst the rest of the Godfather franchise, as, alongside the traditional editing, there are these occasional sequences which show some miscellaneous events that occur in between the scene before and the following scene via newspapers to indicate a passage of time, which, while not unique to The Godfather 3, isn't something you commonly see in a Godfather movie.
However, The Godfather 3 doesn't just improve on the production or expand on the old characters while introducing some new ones, as it does so while keeping the zest and charm of the previous two, such as still containing the amazing cinematic score by Nino Rota, the interesting themes of family, power, and tradition, while also tackling a new and fairly interesting theme revolving around the use of violence against those we despise or don't trust, and the revival of the emotional core of The Godfather I (something that was sadly missing from The Godfather II as I discussed a while ago), allowing us to really connect with these characters (whether they be old, new, good, or evil) on an emotional level and feel what they're feeling, with the best example of this being the ending, in which Michael ends up being shot by one of Zasa's men and Michael's daughter Mary (played by Sofia Coppola) ends up being hit by a second bullet shot by the same guy, subsequently killing her, with the scene ending with Michael cradling her body and crying and screaming in agony, and when Mary dies, we feel the surprise, suspense and genuine distraught expressed by Michael in this scene, and we feel sad alongside him because we really didn't want to see this happen and feel bad about this specific incident.
While these pros are really great, that's not to say that the film has a couple flaws, most notably the plot itself oftentimes getting boring, with a decent amount of focus on uninteresting subplots and conflicts, such as Michael wanting his son to finish law school but his son wants to be an actor, or Vincent and Mary's boring (not to mention creepy, given that they're cousins) romance story. This isn't even to mention that it can also get very confusing by the second half, as, after Joey Zasa is killed, the movie keeps introducing new villains (whether they be affiliated with Zasa and his plan to take down the Corleone family or not) along with other new conflicts such as the papal conclave and something to do with a real estate agency in the Vatican which Michael gained shares from after he made an exchange with the head of the Vatican Bank, which does give the movie some added tension, sure, but this added tension comes at the cost of making the second half a lot more exhausting to watch.
Another notable flaw, and I think it's about time I address the elephant in the room, is Sofia Coppola's acting as Mary Corleone. While I mean no disrespect to Sofia and am very proud of her partaking in one her father's works, her acting in this movie is pretty poor, as she shows little emotion on her voice and the expressions on her face tend to be rather lifeless and bland.
But overall, while The Godfather Part III/Coda might have some notable flaws that make it an overall inferior experience compared to the ones that came before, such as a convoluted and boring plot and a poor performance from Sofia Coppola, I still think it's an overall great package, with plenty of what made the first two films so spectacular, along with great characters and good editing. I'd recommend it to casual moviegoers and fans of either Coppola or just the last two Godfathers, even if the latter two will be kind of disappointed by this film's inferiority compared to the last two.
Morbius (2022)
An overall awful experience, but for its many bad qualities, it does what few bad movies manage to accomplish
So today, I've decided to take a look at Morbius (2022), a film that is known for many things, including it increasing the widespread of one of the most quoted "they didn't say that in the actual movie" lines ever in recent years ("It's Morbin' Time"), it opening up the floodgates to a huge cesspool of memes that included posts related to said quoted line, and, as a result of the popularity of these two instances in social media, the studio rereleasing it the same year it first premiered, which then ultimately led to it becoming one of the first movies to bomb twice in the box-office.
But Morbius's contributions to current-day society isn't the only thing that makes it beyond fascinating. As a movie on its own, Morbius delivers a terrible experience, and yet somehow, it manages to reach a special kind of bad, one that's rarely ever seen in cinema: that being that "it's so bad, it's somehow good, though only really partially good, as it still has some qualities that make it bad".
The film's first problem, and it's actually quite easy to notice it, is the editing, with many scenes being interrupted by new scenes set in different locations and the characters doing other things that they previously were, only for these new scenes to suddenly end and then they cut back to the original scene we were watching, almost as if the additional scenes that were spliced in the original scenes should've been placed some time else in the movie; other scenes play as normal, only for the film to cut to a black screen, only for it to resume playing the scene; and some other scenes (specifically the ones that film the characters walking behind the camera) seem very obviously trimmed out, given that the character that's behind the camera is in one part of the background, and then on the second shot, he or she is in another part of the background, with no smooth transitions in between.
The bad editing is also accompanied by pretty poor cinematography, with the film oftenly relying on Shaky Cam shots that really have no reason to be shot in Shaky Cam, mediocre designs for the two main vampires (especially Morbius himself, who looks like he's from a PlayStation 3 game), underdeveloped and uninteresting, though fortunately not unlikable or annoying, characters (with the exception of Michael and Milo, but that's for later), and terrible acting from the lead actor Jared Leto, who sounds very uninterested and bored throughout the movie and shows little emotion in his face beyond surprise or just a normal-feeling expression.
The film also tries to do a twist villain in the form of Milo (Michael Morbius's (the lead character, by the way) childhood friend and Matt Smith's character), however it doesn't really work, as after they play the prologue (which depicts Michael and Milo meeting in a nursery home and becoming friends, and after Michael leaves the nursery home to study in New York, Milo receives a letter from Michael, until the wind blows the letter away from the nursery home and ends up in the hands of a bunch of bullies who were walking by, to which Milo tries to get the letter from them but ends up being picked on for being handicapped), they pretty much establish that Milo is someone who was harassed and picked on as a child, and wants to get cured immediately from his condition, so he will inevitably use some of Michael's formula, which cures the blood disease he and Michael have, to cure his condition and avenge society for the way they treated him, becoming both a villain and an evil-er Living Vampire character (due to the side-effects of the formula) than Morbius in the process. While not all of these predictions came true in the end, most of them did, which subsequently makes this twist very predictable and for Milo's villain act to be generally weak (though, if I've learned anything from the 2018 Venom movie is that the Sony Spider-Man Universe isn't really good at writing villains, so this isn't the first time this has happened to a film that takes place in this universe).
And finally, let's talk about the two fairly infamous post-credits scenes, which show Adrian Toomes (AKA The Vulture), played by Michael Keaton, being released from a jail cell he spawned into and then joining Morbius, presumably leading to the Sinister Six movie. You may be asking "Why would Keaton's Vulture there if he's from the Marvel Cinematic Universe?" Because of something Spider-Man did, specifically Doctor Strange's botched spell from Spider Man: No Way Home. However, this whole scene doesn't really make much sense if you really think about it, as Strange's spell from No Way Home brought everyone who knew Peter Parker's secret identity into the MCU, so why would Toomes be kicked out of the MCU and into the Sony Spider-Verse when he should remain in the MCU because of the spell? More importantly, Toomes accuses Spider-Man of bringing him over to the SSV, and asks Morbius to join him so they could both take him down, but how does Toomes know Spider-Man screwed up the multiverses? And how does Morbius know who Spidey is when he's never made an appearance in the movie? One last thing that's also really confusing: Where did Toomes get his vulture suit he's seen wearing at the post-credits in this universe? In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, his suit was made out of alien technology left over from the invasion of New York in The Avengers, but this never happened in this universe, so how did he get it here?
While most of these flaws are somewhat problematic, I can't say I didn't have a good time watching it either, as it does have some redeeming qualities, most notably Matt Smith's performance as Milo, who brings a ton of energy and charisma to the picture in contrast to Jared Leto's rather dull performance.
On the topic of Milo, while he is a poorly written twist-villain, both him and Michael Morbius himself are decently developed characters, with a good amount of depth, personality and overall decent chemistry, at least compared to everyone else in the movie.
However, I think where Morbius really shines at is the fact that, while it still delivers a bad experience, some aspects of it are so bad, they're good, such as the aforementioned bad editing, poor cinematography, bland secondary characters, bad acting from the lead actor, and bad vampire designs, and even some aspects I didn't mention such as the laughably terrible dialogue, which sounds like something you'd expect to hear in an elementary school play rather than a 167.5 million dollar film released in theaters in 2022.
So overall, while Morbius is an overall awful experience, with terrible editing, poor cinematography, bad vampire designs, boring side characters and bad acting and I would most definitely not recommend it to any Marvel fan, comic book fan or even any casual viewers, I think a lot of its duds help it step to the level of being so bad, it's entertaining, though with a predictable twist and confusing post credits, it doesn't really live up to the same level of entertainment as other "so bad, it's good" movies, like The Room (2003) or Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959). However, even with it not quite scratching the surface for the category, I would still recommend it to anyone who's a huge fan of "so bad, it's good" movies just for it having some things that make a terrible film truly deserving of such a title, along with it having a couple of positives, like Matt Smith's great performance and how well-developed the characters of Michael and Milo are.
Turning Red (2022)
Not the strongest output from Pixar, but a worthwhile watch nonetheless
It's about time we made another review on a Pixar film. This time being one of their more recent films, Turning Red, a movie that is highly polarizing amongst animation critics and Pixar fans, and while the movie does have a couple of flaws that prevent it from being talked about as highly as the other works from Pixar, it is still a worthwhile film to check out, at least in my opinion.
Now the premise itself is quite simple and strange, but entertaining, nonetheless. Essentially, it's about an ordinary young girl going through a phase in her life in which every time she has some sort of emotional outburst, she turns into a red panda. It's obviously a giant metaphor for period cramps, and while I don't necessarily relate to this aspect of adolescence, since I'm not a woman, I do still think this story is very relatable to those who go through with period cramps and some of its issues.
It also talks about puberty and issues that come with it in an interesting and respectful way, showing off how puberty can make one's id and pleasure much stronger, and because of that, he or she are unable to focus on things he/she was able to focus on back when he/she was younger and tend to get worse grades in school, but also start to act more like a unique individual, with a love of different things compared to when he/she was a child, a different set of responsibilities and enough courage to rebel against his/her parents.
The film's animation is also pretty good, as all the characters are animated in CGI, as per usual with Pixar, but the way they're designed in CGI is inspired by the Cal Arts art style. While this isn't exactly Pixar's first foray into making more cartoon-looking humans, it still presents a fascinating combination between a form of animation and an art style that I've never seen animated, nor even thought could work, in CG. Although, I do have to ask, why does it sometimes use these anime expressions and effects? It's not a big deal, but it feels strange in a movie about Chinese mythology.
But my favorite aspect of the movie is definitely the morals. The first one, about how a parent should let their kid be and not pressure them into someone they're not, while a very simplistic moral, is also very important to talk about. But the second moral, in which it states that you shouldn't take the bad of you away, but instead deal with it is incredible; sometimes, you'll get angry easily or think about doing unreasonable things to others, but that's fine, as having a darker side is just part of life, and you shouldn't feel ashamed about letting it out. It's a great moral, and much better and more complex than just a predictable "be yourself" message.
If there is one thing that's bad about Turning Red is that it can get extremely cringey, such as them often saying a bunch of 2000s slang, the scene shortly after the beginning where Meilin Lee (the main character) is doing a bunch of weird movements and poses while the title is there, or the fact that, at the climax, Meilin, in her panda form, twerks (yes, that really happens). While this isn't a deal breaker, it does make the movie a bit harder to watch, at least for me. If you're fine with that sort of stuff, then more power to you.
But overall, I think Turning Red is a pretty good experience that's just short of being great. Despite its annoying level of cringe, it's still a good time, with a great story, great themes, amazing animation, and fantastic morals. I'd personally recommend it to about anyone, especially young teenage girls, and some Pixar fans.
Glass Onion (2022)
Like glass, it's sharply written; but like an onion, it's fairly sour and is only good at best to chew on
Continuing from our last review on the first Knives Out, it's time to check out its standalone sequel, Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery, a film that, despite doing a lot to improve on the first movie while also keeping what made it so great, it also takes away a lot of stuff from the original, making it an overall slightly weaker, though still good, experience.
Starting off with the things that didn't change too much, the most obvious one is how the twists are still just as strong as ever, some of which may even top those of the first film, from Duke (the first victim of the murderer played by Dave Bautista) being revealed to have died due to a pineapple allergy instead of poison in his drink; to how Benoit Blanc (still played by Daniel Craig attempting a forced southern accent) learned about Miles Bron's (Edward Norton's character) murder mystery game in the Glass Onion not through a weird box, but through a client of his, played by Janelle Monáe, who wanted Benoit to come to the island to investigate her sister's, who was originally a business partner of Miles, death; to just how the whole murder was done. Speaking of how the murder was done, unlike in Knives Out, where the reveal was kind of obvious, the twist of who the murderer was in Glass Onion was far more surprising, not because of how each suspect was more hatable than the last, but because the movie initially establishes that Miles was supposed to be the victim of the Glass Onion murder, and the film has several hints as to why that was supposed to be the case, so when the film ends up revealing that Miles was actually the murderer, it's beyond surprising.
I also still really like Benoit Blanc here, as he's his same old suave and clever self, with this film in particular also developing his character a bit further, showing some other emotional sides of him that weren't expressed frequently in Knives Out, making him much more sympathetic and endearing.
I also didn't mind the film's more colorful and humorous tone, as, while it is a big departure from Knives Out's darker and more intense atmosphere and not all of the jokes land, it still manages to feel like it's a part of the Knives Out universe, so this change in tone, for me anyway, is not that bad.
However, like I said in the beginning of the review, Glass Onion has a couple of flaws that make it only slightly worse than Knives Out.
For one, unlike Knives, which mainly told parts of its story through flashbacks, something that I thought was both really cool and unique, Glass' story is told through the usual three-act structure (setup, main conflict and resolution). While this isn't an ungodly terrible change, it's pretty disappointing to say the least, as it lacks the charm and creativity of Knives' approach to storytelling. There is one flashback, detailing how Benoit learned about the murder mystery game and how he and his client, who went to the Glass Onion with him, solved the real murder of Duke, but it's placed in the middle of the movie and it's not as good as the flashbacks in Knives.
The film also suffers from some pretty bad pacing, as the real mystery itself doesn't start until the middle of the film, and before that, there are plenty of corny jokes and exposition dumps which, while I will admit the exposition does have a point in the film, as it helps introduce several plot points which later become key into solving the mystery, it still makes the first 40 minutes a slog to get through, and while the movie does pick itself up shortly after these sluggish 40 minutes, this part of the film still feels like sluggish 40 minutes.
Overall, while Glass Onion is a good movie, it pales in comparison to its much better predecessor. Sure, it delivers a sharply written mystery full of great twists and a well-developed lead character, along with a pleasant and colorful color palette, but it also, simply put, lacks the charm and wit of the previous Knives Out installment, and it suffers from some pacing problems. If I were to recommend it to anyone, I would definitely reccomend it to fans of the first film who would like to see more of Benoit Blanc's murder mystery capers. I would also recommend it to anyone who just wants to watch a fun mystery and have a Netflix subscription, though if problematic pacing is something that bothers you, than you are better off watching something else.
Knives Out (2019)
A grand, if slightly flawed, old time solving mysteries
So, to continue our journey of not reviewing anything Coppola that most of the time gets instant 10/10s, it´s time to check out Knives Out, the first of the Knives Out series, originally starting its production in 2012, but wouldn´t be released to the public in 2019. While more than seven years is a long time to make just one movie, at the end of the day, the long production cycle was totally worth it, because Knives Out, despite presenting a couple of shortcomings, mostly due to it presenting common flaws with most other films like it, it still manages to be a delightful mystery story, with plenty of cool ideas, great cast of characters and providing a pretty good, if slightly predictable, twist.
Probably what fascinates me most about this film is how a lot of its narrative and character needs and wants are explored in flasbacks to tell the events before the murder and, subsequently, the actual beginning of the plot of the movie, which is really interesting, as most of what should be reserved for the first and a bit of the second acts of the film are instead interspliced with what´s remaining of the second act, with the movie itself already opening up with the characters finding about the murder instead of opening up with a set-up to the film. While this type of way to tell a story has been done before, such as in Pulp Fiction (1994), it´s rarely done in films nowadays and it is still fairly interesting.
I also really like the characters in this film, with the star of the show obviously being Benoit Blanc, who´s very mysterious, but also suave, careful and very inteligent, containing a lot of typical British archetypes, essentially making him a Southern Sherlock Holmes, but still having enough to stand out as his own character (though Daniel Craig´s forced Kentucky-like accent could use some tightening up here and there). Marta Cabrera is also a really good and memorable character, especially due to her inability to lie, and if she ever does, she throws up, with Blanc and the cops using this fact to further investigate the crime. As for the other characters, specifically the Thrombey and Drysdale families, they are all really unlikable, but in the best ways possible, as they are often rude, money driven, and racist, but it´s all intentional as any of Harlan Thrombey´s (the victim) relatives could be the murderer, as they have their own reasons to want to kill Harlan and are each terrible people in their own right, which elevates the tension and keeps you on your toes to see who the murderer really is.
Speaking of the reveal of the murderer, while it´s overall fairly weak (more on that later), it contains a lot of interesting twists, such as how did the medical examiner´s office catch on fire when Marta and Ransom (Harlan´s grandson played by Chris Evans) drive there, where it turns out that Ransom himself set in on fire to destroy any evidence that will invalidate the claim that Marta was the reason behind Harlan´s death, or when Marta finds Harlan´s housekeeper, Fran (played by Edi Patterson), is seen drugged at an abandoned laundromat, where she says "you did this" to Marta, but Fran was actually saying "Hugh did this", referring to Ransom.
In fact, the whole film overall has really good and creative twists, wether they´re revealed in the flashbacks or in the actual main story itself. I won´t go through all of them, but let me just say that they are legitimately mind-blowing, even after rewatching this movie for this review.
However, Knives Out has a couple of flaws. For one, the reveal of the murderer (more so person whose tactics led to Harlan killing himself, as the film reveals that the murder was actually a suicide) is, like I said earlier, pretty weak, as the film kind of gives away that Ransom was the culprit, as he was the only one not interviewed by Blanc and the police officers in the first ten minutes, he was the only one not to be equally surprised and frustrated at the fact that Marta gained everything in Harlan´s will (instead he laughed at everyone for being so confused), and he said to his family that them being removed from the will was "the best thing that could happen to them" as he was driving away from the Thrombey´s house while escorting Marta. Sure, the movie itself doesn´t reveal any major clues until the finale, as stated before, but even if the clues revealed throughout the film until the finale aren´t that obvious, they still make the culprit´s identity fairly on the nose.
Another problem with the film, though also a problem with the detective and mystery genre in general, is that the twists and reveals are far less surprising on future rewatches, so if you´re watching this movie for the second or third time around, then you already know that Ransom is the main culprit and why. Obviously, this wasn´t that big of a problem with me, because I was still somewhat surprised by all the twist throughout the film, but that´s only because my last time watching this film was a year ago, and I bet that if I did watch this movie more times, I would´ve already been able to predict its outcomes.
But overall, in spite of a couple of flaws, Knives Out is still a delightful mystery, with an interesting way of telling its story, good characters and great twists. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who´s a fan of mystery movies or novels, though other people 18 or over will also find some enjoyment out of it.
Dead Poets Society (1989)
Carpe diem, because this movie surely does seize its moment
Taking a short break from Francis Ford Copolla movies, I present to you Dead Poets Society, released in 1989 by Touchstone Pictures, a film that, while not my personal favorite, is still a grand old time that I´d still recommend you to watch.
The highlight here is, of course, the character of Mr. Keating, who´s just great to watch in every scene he´s in, from his initially odd, but later fascinating ways of teaching; to his loveable personality; from his memorable philosophies, most notably "carpe diem" (seize your moment); to the excellent performance by Robin Williams, in his debatably best movie roll; Mr. Keating is just a lovable character to be around.
In fact, nearly all of the lead characters in the movie are likeable and well-acted, as we see them struggle with life and school, but find their true callings once they learn how to seize their moment, and eventually become happier, braver and not afraid to do things they otherwise were discouraged of doing, which are very powerful character arcs; obviously, not all of them become better people once they seize their moment, but even this turn to the dark side works in favor of the film, as it shows that the "carpe diem" philosophy can make someone as innocent as a well-behaved student into a power-obsessed individual who can forget that society has limits.
The movie also has a great and deep look into the idea of poetry, in the sense that it´s not something that´s practiced because "it´s cute", but because it´s part of the human race, and that we do poetry because we are passionate, which isn´t something that you usually expect to be told in a movie like this.
The film also has a very realistic portrayal of the modern school system, where children and teens are often bossed around and told to follow rules rather than freely learn topics in their own unique way, while their creativity and individuality are reduced by authoritarian teachers and principals, who impose order and discipline in a place that doesn´t need it whilst following outdated traditions in the system of education. However, the movie doesn´t go too far with this representation, as the teachers in here aren´t portrayed as evil or villain-like, unlike many other school movies, but rather as antagonists who don´t think they´re doing wrong because they were told to follow a broken system and were never taught how to make their classes better and their students less depressed, so really, the true bad guys aren´t the teachers, but rather the whole education system.
If there is one flaw that I have with the movie is that one of the subplots, focusing on the character of Neil Perry, is pretty cliché and unoriginal, as it is yet another one of those stories where the children have to do what their parents say (in this case, Neil wants to become an actor after learning about the philosophies of carpe diem, while his father forces him to attend Harvard to study medicine), which makes the film´s story a tad bit more predictable than it really should´ve. Yes, it does fit into the movie´s themes about seizing your moment, and its resolution is rather shocking, but it´s still just really uninspired, and even cak then it was kind of cliché.
But overall, aside from one very unoriginal subplot, Dead Poets Society remains a great watch, with likeable characters, great performances, an interesting philosophical study of "carpe diem", a fascinating look into poetry, and a dark critique of the school system. I´d personally recommend this to anyone, especially teachers, students and Robin Williams fans.
Apocalypse Now (1979)
The beauty... The beauty
Continuing or streak of reviewing Coppola movies, we have Apocalypse Now, released in 1979. A film that, although not nearly as influential or beloved as the first two Godfathers, remains to many as one of the greatest movies of all time, and is, alongside Godfather 1 and 2, one of my personal favorite films of all time.
The main thing that I love this movie is that, unlike a lot of other war stories, Apocalypse Now does a deep, but very memorable and interesting, portrayal of both sides of the war, with the vietnamese being serious, careful and armed to the teeth, whereas the americans are careless and sex-obsessed. This may initially seem kind of concerning and maybe offensive, but that´s until you realise that this was how these sides behaved back in the Vietnam War in real-life, so it´s not trying to deliberately be anti-american or pro-vietnam, but rather portraying them realistically in the context of the Vietnam War, with neither side being treated as in the wrong or right, further examplified by the fact that the vietnamese aren´t necessairly the main villains of the movie, but rather a mentally-disturbed american colonel named Walter E. Kurtz, (played amazingly once again by the great Marlon Brando), who during the war forms an empire who worships him and wages a guerrilla war against other american forces, showing not only how much war can change someone´s philosophy and ideology, whilst also documenting how much one man can affect the course of an international battle, but also showing that even the countries individually can turn against themselves and be their own enemies, something that´s never really explored in war movies today and back at the time.
However, its themes and story aren´t the only things to love about the film, as there are plenty of iconic scenes, from the stage with the sexy female actors, to the helicopter strike scene, where they play Wagner´s "Ride of the Valkyries" on speakers, from the beginning scene, where the main character, Ben Willard (played by Martin Sheen of all people), arrives home exhausted but also depressed after he served his duty in the war, to the ending, where they say the classic "... The horror ... the horror ..." line. Nearly every scene is so nearly perfectly executed and worth remembering in their own way.
And there are other things to love about this movie, such as the atmosphere, which is mostly dark and edgy, but occasionally colorful; the superb acting from almost every actor, with the main highlights being, again, Brando and Sheen; the soundtrack, with some music even coming from the north-american band The Doors; the loveable and memorable characters; and I could go on about why I love this movie so much, but I don´t really have much time right now.
To conclude, Apocalypse Now, while nowhere near as excellent as The Godfather duology (I´ll get to the third one eventually), remains one of my favorite films of all time, due to it doing nearly everything in the book right, with the only flaws boiling down to minor nitpicks, much like a lot of Francis Ford Coppola´s filmography. It´s definitely the best war movie I´ve seen, and I highly recommend you check it out.
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Still an order you cannot refuse
Carrying on from our last review, it is time to review not only another masterpiece under director Francis Ford Coppola´s belt, but what many people consider to be one of, if not the greatest film sequel of all time, The Godfather Part II. Now, this one is fairly interesting, since it is deemed by many as one of the rare occasions where a sequel is deemed better than the original, and while I can defiently see why, for me anyway, Godfather II isn´t really much better than Godfather I.
This does not mean it´s bad. Far from. It´s still a fantastic experience.
The main reason why I like it it´s because of the fact that, unlike most movie sequels, which just continue the story of the first one while expanding its universe and lore, Godfather II is both a sequel, showing Michael Corleone (still excelently portrayed by Al Pacino) succeding his father´s role as the new don and showing how this new role affects himself and the others around him, and a prequel, showing a young Vito Corleone migrating to New York and establishing his new business there and eventually becoming the mafia boss he became in the first one.
These stories are both wonderfully told and provide several improvements to Godfather I´s story, with the sequel part talking about several interesting themes about succession and toxic family tradition along with a well done documentation on the Cuban Revolution, fantastic cinematography, memorable death scenes that rival that of the ones in the first movie, great acting and a nice Miami setting to boot, with the prequel serving as a great origin story to Don Vito, my favorite character from the first one, whilst expanding on certain character traits of his and a great lead actor in the form of Robert De Niro.
This is all good fun and all, but for everything this sequel does right compared to the first one, it does unfortunately do one very thing weaker compared to the first one, and that´s its emotion. One of the main things I loved in Godfather I is how emotional all of its scenes were and how it made you sympathize with the mafia of all criminal organizations, and while this sequel tries its best, its emotional core is much weaker compared to that of the first one, as the characters aren´t as likable as the ones in the first movie and the death scenes are nowhere near as impactful, resulting in a much more sour experience than last time.
But overall, The Godfather Part II is still a must watch for anyone above 17 or 18, with a lot of what made the original Godfather so fantastic and having some new things to like about it. However, it is pretty weak in terms of conveying emotions, which results in a movie that´s not worse than the first one, but not better by any means; it´s just as good as the first one, which still means it deserves a 10/10.
The Godfather (1972)
A masterpiece you can´t refuse to see
Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most influential and beloved film directors of all time, from the fantastic stories his movies tell to the great characters he directs and shows on the screen. Many film enthusiasts, myself included, think highly of his works, even to this day, and while I would gladly love to talk about all he did right, I today gather you all around to talk about his magnum-opus, the 1972 crime film The Godfather, based on Mario Puzo´s 1969 novel of the same name.
Now, there are several reasons as to so many people love this movie, but what I most enjoy about it are the immensely lovable characters, with a special mention to The Godfather himself, Vito Corleone, played by Marlon Brando, who carries the film with his lovable and caring personality hidden under a dark and mysterious mafia boss figure, his distinctive speech mannerism, further enhanced by Brando´s amazing performance, his very relatable and deep character arch, and all of his creative "orders they can't refuse"; when Vito dies, you really feel sad about it, along with the other characters, who are also really likable and unique in their own ways. It´s honestly quite shocking that Coppola was able to make the mafia family so easily relatable, but that´s what´s so fascinating and astonishing about Godfather.
Something that is also quite phenomenal is it´s story, which not only deeply analyses the criminal family scenario like no other crime drama, but also tackles profoundly the idea of letting go of old habits and embracing the new, and exploring why some people don´t support this ideology, while documenting the brutality of gang warfare in a very respectful way.
The score by Nino Rota is pure perfection, with its somber, suspicious and tense vibes, as is the cinematography by Gordon Wills, Francis Ford Coppola´s direction, and everything else that makes The Godfather not only one of my favorite movies of all time, but also cinematic perfection and of the many reasons why Coppola is such an acclaimed director.
As you can guess, I simply cannot reccomend this film enough. Watch it by all means necessary, wether it be on Blu-ray, Digital Versatile/Video Disc, streaming it, you really must watch this (as long as you are appropriately aged, that is). Trust me, you won´t regret it.
Toy Story (1995)
To infinity, and beyond
It´s about time we review another Pixar film, but the question is which one? Well, how about their first one. Toy Story, released in 1995, was the one that started it all, and not just the Toy Story franchise and Pixar as a whole, but the medium of 3D animation (the premiere form of animation and the only animation medium that makes money nowadays), and what a bang it started on.
Its obvious selling point is the animation, which was not only groundbreaking at the time, like I said before, but it really captures the essence of a toy with the models´plasticky look, and it´s greatly detailed in some areas.
Another great thing is the story. While the trope of "character doesn´t like the new guy who gets more attention than him" is a very common trope found in kids films today (even the general concept of toys coming to life itself was very common back in the day), this is the one that pulls it off the best, with several underlying themes of identity crisis, hopelessness, friendship and the true meaning of a toy, wether old or new, while also telling the best redemption story of a jerk character (even if Woody can be a bit too mean and shouty in some instances, but it´s better than the deleted "Black Friday Toy Story reel" Woody).
Speaking of which, the characters are endearing and unique in their own way, with distinct, memorable and charming personality, further enhanced by the amazing performances by actors such as Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and the fantastic humor.
The last great thing about this movie is the classic Randy Newman score, consisting of several unforgettable songs like "You got a friend in me", "Strange Things", "I Will Go Sailing No More", I could go on.
If there´s one thing bad I could say about Toy Story 1 is, while this was the first fully computer-animated movie, the animation, while still amazing and still good to this day, can look a bit dated in some areas, such as the models for the humans and dogs and a couple of facial expressions. That said, however, it´s still overall great and up-to-date (so to speak) with our modern standards. And hey, some of these dated moments gave us some good memes and YouTube Poops in the future, so there´s that.
But overall, Toy Story is fantastic in almost every area, with a great story, good visuals, a great sense of humor, great messages, an amazing score and one of the most likeable and memorable cast of characters that I´ve seen in a kids movie. While it may not top its first two sequels, it´s still a grand old time even to this day, wether you´re a kid or an adult.
Ice Age (2002)
A great icy fresh start to a series milked dry
Ice Age is a franchise that needs no introduction, aside from the fact that it has been going and going and going (and it´s still going). But today, let us not reflect on the present day, and instead, remember the past, with the series´first installment, made by the now-defunct Blue Sky Studios as their first foray in cinematic productions. And, even though it might have been their first, it is certainly also one of their best.
Its strongest point is its main trio, who do a great job at bouncing off each other and are individually well-developed through their own character arcs, all of which are profoundly told with no dialogue. This great cast only adds to this film´s engaging, unique and rather wholesome plot about family and frienship, while tackling rather deep topics such as migration and hunting for survival. What also helps the narrative is the animation, which despite its wrinkles, is very detailed and animated in an interesting way, with different prehistoric animals having distinct character animations that correspond to their natural instincts. Lastly, and quite obviously, this film´s memorable Scrat scenes, which are hilarious and serve as a quick but fun little break from the main story.
If there is one minor flaw with the film is that Manny and Sid meet each other way too early in the movie. While this is a problem with other animated kids films that were out at the time, like Shrek, but it´s still kind of a con, and I would rather have the movie take a little more time in the beginning to flesh the characters out a little more.
But overall, while the Ice Age franchise nowadays may be seen as plague to the industry, churning out more and more movies probably till the sun explodes or gravity stops working, with each one having a more nonsensical story than the next, it´s first attempt remains one of the strongest animated productions of the century currently even today, despite its age (not pun intended). I personally reccomend it for anyone of all ages, wether you are a kid or an adult.
8 rue de l'Humanité (2021)
The pandemic might not be good, but this movie sure is
French cinema has always been one of, if not my favorite, type of cinema, due to the movies made over there having amazing cinematography, creative imagery, fantastic acting, and well-executed and well written stories. However, I didn´t really expect that one of my personal favorites from France would be a cheesy comedy, let alone one that talks about a time better left forgotten. But, somehow, it did.
This film´s humour is definitely, and unsurprisingly, one of it´s major strenghts. A lot of the gags in this movie are hillarious, even during the second and third time. If I were to count every single moment I laughed while watchin it, I would be here all day.
Beyond that, this film also contains a lot of what´s good about French movies, like an interesting and well put together story that shows how much people can change drastically during lockdown, while also documenting both the positives and negatives of a virus pandemic, and capping everything off with a tear-jerking ending.
The characters are also really great too, being memorable, funny, and interesting in their own way.
Lastly, the cinematography in this movie, as to be expected from France, is great, from the fact that this whole film takes place in a circular area, to the beginning being mostly shot through POVs. It´s all really neat stuff.
If I were to say something bad about this movie is that it can turn off some younger viewers, due to the massive amount of swearing, but it´s not that big of an issue; it´s not a kids movie, after all.
Overall, this is a great movie, and definitely worth a shot. If you have Netflix, then watch it, I beg you!
Treasure Planet (2002)
Treasure worth seeking out even to this day
I bet everyone has seen or at least heard about the classic 2D animated Disney, and I can't blame you all, as many of these movies tell great stories, have superb animation, iconic characters and lots of memorable songs. From Snow White, to Aladdin, Beauty and Beast and The Lion King, these movies have defined generation and, to this very day, remain as some of the most iconic staples of animation.
However, one of the least talked about movies in this library of classics is the 2002 sci-fi adventure film Treasure Planet, based on the book Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson, which despite receiving generally positive reviews from critics and audiences, the film was a box office bomb, and ultimately fell into obscurity. But let me tell you, right here right now, that is no way to treat this amazing, if slightly flawed, romp.
The story is... pretty basic. No, seriously, this film's story is nothing you haven't seen before. It's basically about this kid who goes on a pirate adventure with some people he meets along the way to recover some treasure to help save a place from financial closure.
Yeah, it's pretty basic and a little unoriginal. Despite this, this film's story still manages to entertain me, mainly because of how it combines elements from Sci-Fi, Adventure and Pirate movies, and it combines both of them flawlesly, with none of the genres getting in the way of each other. I also really like the characters in this and how entertaining and well-developed they are, particularly Long John Silver, who might be one of my favorite Disney villains of all time, mainly because he's not really a villain; sure, he likes treasure and is built up as being a huge threath, but he also acts as a supportive and caring figure to our main protagonist. This movie's themes of optimism and getting over past failures are also really good and rarely tackled in a Disney movie. Lastly, the animation in this movie is topnotch, filled with imaginative sets.
If I were to say one bad thing about this film, it would be that, despite how good the animation is, the CG effects clash horribly with the main 2D animation and they don't really hold up too well, even if they might have been jaw dropping at the time.
But, even with the dated CGI, Treasure Planet remains one of the most underrated Disney movies of all time, and while not as good as most of their earlier works and a few of their later features, it is still worth a watch, even today.
Cruella (2021)
Could´ve been the best Disney live-action remake had it not desperately tried to keep up with the competition
Now, if I were to be completely honest, I was never the biggest fan of the Disney live-action remakes, excluding the not so recent Lady and the Tramp remake, as a lot of them are just inferior to their animated counterparts in almost every single way, while really showing how bad of an idea remaking stories originally told through animation with live-action elements can be. So when I heard that there was going to be a remake of 101 Dalmatians that specifically focused on Cruella´s origin story coming out soon, I knew I was not going to like it, especially since Disney already remade 101 Dalmatians back in 1996, which was acclaimed by some people and to this day is renound as being one of the better Disney live-action remakes. But color me surprised, becasue I actually ended up enjoying it.
One of the best aspects of this movie by far is the fantastic soundtrack that, unlike a lot of Disney movies, uses pop culture songs. You might think this would be a problem, since there aren´t that many Disney movies that do this, but the songs in this one are used affectively, seemingly fitting in with the scenarios the film presents, while also giving off this sense of mischief and chaos.
Another compliment I can give to this film is Cruella herself, who, unlike Maleficent in the 2014 film, is very much simpathetic, as we really feel for her in her journey to get back at those who deemed her wrong, which is complimented very well by the amazing acting from Emma Stone. Not only that, but her character arc, that being starting off as a rebelious but weak kid, to a selfish sociopath, to a much more decently mannered individual, is really interesting and adds a bit more dimension to her character.
Lastly, the crime scenes in this movie are really entertaining, having great cinematography, thrilling action, witty humour, and the direction feels a lot like a callback to several heist shows, like Money Heist or the Netflix Lupin series.
However, while this movie is really good, it´s sadly bogged down a bit by one flaw. What flaw, exactly? Well, if Maleficent (2014) is a product of Disney´s Wicked envy, than Cruella (2021) is most definitely a product of Disney´s Joker (2019) envy, and that is all evident in this film´s plot. Think about it: In this film that goes onto detail about the main villains tragic backstory, a wimpy social outcast who was born with a deformity is shunned by her local community, where she assumes a job that she hates, only for her to end up closer to her idol, an egotistical content creator who cares about no one. Eventually, her idol ends up doing something mean to her, so she becomes an insane vandal so society can think more of her by the end. Meanwhile, throughout the story, it gets revealed that one of the antagonists is possibly related to the main character.
Despite this movie´s attempt at copying one of the most successful modern DC movies of all time, it´s still a really good time. I´d definitely recommend this to fans of the original 101 Dalmatians or for people just looking for a good time. Either way, you´ll like this movie at the end of the day.
Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021)
One of the best Spider Man movies in recent years
Now, ever since I was a kid, I've been a huge Spider-Man fan, particularly when it comes to the films, wether it'd be Sam Raimi's charming theatrical productions, the MCU's amazing CGI spectaclars, or Mark Webb's... harmless adaptations, they were all great (back in the day at least). So when I heard that the inevitable third installment in the MCU trilogy was not only bringing back Tom Holland and Zendaya back on the big screen, but along with them Andrew Garfied, Alfred Molina and Tobey Maguire, I was extremely excited, and went to watch it right when it first launched. Needless to say, it did not disappoint.
The story is actually really interesting. Following off of the events of the last movie, Mysterio is arrested in public after being stopped by Spidey, but before he was sent to jail, he reveals Spidey's true identity to everyone around New York city. Not only that, but Peter Parker ends up being recognized as a criminal, which obviously brings serious consequences to him and his future, so he meets up with his Avenger friend, Doctor Strange, to cast a spell on veryone who knows Peter to forget that he's Spider-Man, but that brings in its own set of consequences, as all of the Spider-Man villains from other dimensions to MCU Spider-Man's dimension, and so it's up to Spider-Man to stop the villains one last time, with the additional help from two other Spider-Men from other dimensions.
It's obviously no Shakespeare, but it's a really awesome story, and far better than the "It's a wonderful life" route I was initially thinking this story would take, what with the main character being transported to an alternate reality where all his loved ones forgot about his existence and what not. It's also very interesting in the sense that it offers an unique twist to the "stop the baddies" plot by having the villains being cured of their powers instead of being defeated. This already great story is greatly complemented by the amazing acting from both the new and old Spidey actors, especially from Alfred Molina as Doc Ock, the great sense of humor coming from the interactions between the three Spider-Men and the between villains, and the massive amount of fan service, such as J. Jonah Jameson (played by the legendary JK Simmons as always), the F. E. A. S. T building, all the antagonists from the first two trilogies (even if there was no The Amazing Spider-Man 3), etc.
Obviously, no movie is without a sin, and this film is no different, as there's an excessive amount of unimpressive CGI, especially with Tom Holland's suit. Not only that, but it also has a whole lot of pop culture references and attempts to be hip with the kids, like Donkey Kong Jr., TikTok, Minecraft Spider-Man skin, and it's all just starting to feel like pandering at this point, just as much as Avengers Endgame.
But overall, I'd say this is a great, if slightly flawed Spider-Man flick. I'd most definitely reccomend it to Spidey fans, fans of the MCU, or just casual film viewers. Trust me, you won't regret watchig it.
King Richard (2021)
A tennis game worth remembering
I´m personally not a tennis guy. Don´t get me wrong, it is a fun sport, but all in all, it just never clicked with me. I was also not super into the Williams sisters, in spite of their popularity amongst the public. So when I heard that they made a movie based on said sisters and their relationship with their father, Richard, I wasn´t super excited.
That said, however, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the movie itself was actually really good, and dare I say one of the best movies of the year.
Its biggest strenght is its likeable characters, particularly Richard and his two daughters, as the latter are very confident, optimistic and well-meaning, but also careful (most of the time at least) and capable of demonstrating vulnerability and occasional demotivation, and while Richard may have some moments where he´s kind of an annoying overprotective parent, he does at the end do this because he loves his family more than anything.
The film also contains several themes racism at the time, such as some of the tennis courts the Williams use being described as being very low-quality, to the neighbourhood in the film being very brown (not pun-intended) to look at, which is rather endearing to see a movie nowadays tackle something like this, even if it is tackling a different time period.
Venus´ journey throughout the film is also very captivating. You get to see so many of the chapters through her life that made her into the person we know today, her life struggles, and the big tennis game at the end of it all, that wraps everything up in such a tearjerker, but satisfying ending.
Lastly, I would like to talk about Will Smith´s acting in this, which is just superb. He´s so calm, lovable, charismatic, but can also display anger, disappointment, sadness, worry, etc. And all of these traits are displayed and conveyed naturally, as if he´s really feeling these emotions, showing no signs of phoning it in for a quick paycheck, which only compliments his character´s likability.
As for cons, there really aren´t that much, to be honest, it´s that good. While I was originally going to say that this movie only was able to score 40 love, it is more than good enough to score a full game. Definitely reccomended for both tennis fans and for those who love the Williams sisters, though if you are just looking for a good time or are just a fan of movies, then you might also want to check this out if you want.
Duel (1971)
Amazing start for an amazing director
Nowadays, when we think of Steven Spielberg, we usually think of charming adventures starring cute aliens, thrilling dinossaur epics, or maybe wacky 90s cartoons that touched a generation of audiences. But I want to take you to a different time. A time where these stories were yet to come out, and the world would get a taste of Spielberg´s fantastic directing skills with the 1971 feature length production Dune, which tells the tale about a typical american businessman driving his car through California, until he is terrorized by a tractor-trailer, and he begins to go more and more insane throughout his journey.
It´s a rather simple story, don´t get me wrong. But that´s not necessairly a bad thing, especially given that many movies of today are quite complicated to follow, since they´re focused more on CGI effects being shoved into your face and develop some kind of lucrative franchise. Besides, while the story is quite simple, it´s surprisingly very deep, tackling themes such as social Darwinism, psychological need versus social need and the battle for the self-proclaimed strongest, while also proposing a more utopic future. It is also quite funny, in the sense that it overexagerates an otherwise banal situation, and the score by Billy Goldenberg, along with the top notch acting by Dennis Weaver, only complements the irony. Lastly, the cinematography in this film is surprisingly stellar, especially for a TV movie. There are a lot of POVs, high-angle shots, low-angle shots, establishing shots, the overall brown and grey color pallete, all accentuating the true tensity of the situation.
As for cons, well, there are none that I can really think of. Yeah, this movie is that amazing, and while it may not be my personal favorite Spielberg movie, it is right there in the top 4, right up there with E. T, Jurrasic Park and Jaws, and it definetly deserves to be considered a cult classic amongst the realm of cinema.
Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017)
Good, but not what I was expecting
Now, I know I haven´t mentioned this yet but I alove the Star Wars movies, and, let´s be honest, who doesn´t love them, I know people don´t really like the prequels and a bit of The force awakens, but I still like all of them despite the Force Awakens being critisized by most people and Rogue One being my least favorite of the series. But now, is time to talk about The last Jedi.
The plot takes place after The force awakens where Rey is off to be trained by Luke Skywalker, meanwhile, Kylo Ren is I think dealing with decisions in his life if he either wants to stay in the Dark Side and kill his mom, or if he wants to abandon the Dark Side and join the good side, Finn is currently on a mission and Poe Dameron has to deal with a new leader after Leia gets injured. Fwww, that is a lot of plots for one movie, but I´ll talk about that in just a second.
Now, you might be thinking, why exactly is this in the good 2017 marathon, well, because it´s a pretty good movie, it has lots of good action scenes, the acting is fine for a Sci-Fi blockbuster, it does have some funny moments and does expand the world and characters of the Star Wars universe, like giving Kylo a backstory and having a galaxy centered around cassinos and horse-racing, yet still, while this is a good movie, there are still some issues: First off, the plots aren´t very good, for starters, Rey and Luke´s plot felt dissapointing, mostly because in the whole plot, Luke doesn´t train Rey as the trailers said he was and Luke is just portrayed as a grumpy old man who barely listens to what his young cricket has to say, granted, Yoda does appear in this plot but it´s not made up for the fact that this plot is extremely dissapointing, Kylo´s plot is also dissapointing because instead of Kylo joining the good side like the trailer said he would, he just kills his master and becomes bad again after a lightsaber fight with Rey, Poe´s plot serves no purpose to the story other than showing that George Lucas ran out of ideas, to have a repetitive moral of being yourself and to have a tense near death of Leia that says that Carrie Fisher herself isn´t in Star Wars, oh wait, she already died, so what was the point of having her come back to life in the first place, and Finn´s plot serves no purpose to the story either other than to come up with an inviormental message about not abusing animals and to deliver a romance that´s completely pointless other than to add the inviormental message. Another problem is that there´s a lot of filler in this movie, like, for example, the part where they were chasing the snow wolfs who barely appeared in the movie.
To conclude, The Last Jedi is a good movie, yet it´s not enough to be recomended, while it has it´s pros, it´s definetly not what we expected since the announcements, if you want to watch it for yourself, then go for it, but I suggest watching it on Netflix rather than wasting your money on a Blu-ray or DVD.
Cuphead (2017)
An awaited game is finally here
Hi everyone, today we´re going to review the second good thing of 2017, Cuphead.
The game started being produced back in 2010 by Chad and Jared Moldenhaur and was announced in 2013 along side the announcement of the Xbox One, though the game was only releasedin 2017 for Microsoft Windows and Xbox One, and boy, was it worth the wait.
The plot of this game is about two brothers (Cuphead and Mugman) palying on the Elder Kettle´s backyard when the two stumblle upon a cassino owned by The Devil himself, He makes the two paly a match of gambling or whatever that game is, and they lose, so now they´re on a quest to collect soul contracts from The Devil´s debtors.
The Pros: Oh my, does this game have a lot of it, but let´s go one by one. 1. This game has really good soundtrack, as it does match the 1930´s style the game has, and heck, sometimes, the soundtrack could consist of Samba (like the case with Cagnye Carnation and Rumor Honeybottoms) which are even better to hear. 2. The gameplay is pretty fine, it does a good job parodying the 80´s shoot´em up games and can be pleasent for newcomers. 3. The 1930´s cartoon references are amazing, most of the cartoon references are inspired by Fleisher Studios, but it does have references to other cartoon companies like Disney, Warner Bros, and a lot of animators like Grim Natwick and Ub Iworks. 4. It does have a good concept, sure, it kinda rips off Hansel and Gretlle, but it does put a different twist to that story by having soul contracts and The Devil, making it more original in the market. 5. The whole idea of turning levels into bosses sounds really good, sure it may seem weird at first, but once you get the hang of it, you do start seeing the positive side of the idea.
The Con: 1. It´s way to hard, I honestly don´t know what the fridge we´re the developers thinking on the making of this game, sure, I did complain about The Fractured But Whole being to easy, and don´t get me wrong, I still do, but the difficulty spike of this is really unfair, why, well, for starters, enemies don´t stop respawning, the bosses have multiple attacks making the bosses a chore to complete, and finally, there´s no healing in the levels, sure, you can buy more hit points, but for one thing, you need to pay to get extra HP, making you unable to buy new shots and charms, and the extra HP doesn´t help much, because you´re still going to die at one point and you won´t be able to heal, yes, you can revive the dead player in multiplayer, but you´ll still get one HP from reviving, making it possible to die later on and the other player may die as well, so yeah, I apreciatte the game´s difficulty, but it needs to be more fair.
To conclude, Cuphead is a great game, it´s not recomended mostly because of the difficulty spike, but if you like old animation or old school gameplay, than I guess it´s worth a shot, I´ll se you all later in a galaxy far far away.
Coco (2017)
mexicans are sure proud
I know I´ve been more against 2017 as a year, but in four reviews of different things that were really good to prove that 2017 might be a hidden gem, and whatbetter way to start off than with the best animated movie oof 2017, Coco.
The plot is about Miguel who lives with a family of shoemakers, but Miguel strugles more of being a guitarr player than being a shoemaker, so he runs away one day and tries to get a guitarr from his idle, Ernesto De La Cruice, but ends up getting sent to the world of the dead, now he must find Ernesto in order to back home safely.
Now for the pros and the cons: The pros are: The story is pretty emotional, the way the world of the dead is crafed is creative, is emotional, the animation is top notch, the jokes were funny, it has an amazing plot twist that can get dark, and of course, the songs are downright catchy.
The only con I have with the movie is because it´s pretty cliché, I mean, not only does this have a few similarities to the book of life, but this also rips off movies like Happy Feet, which is a character wanting to be someone that he wants to be rather than being what the others around him are, and other Disney and Pixar movies like Aristocats and Finding Nemo, which is about the main character getting far away from home, he comes across diferent characters and must find his way back home.
Overall, while being a cliché movie, Coco is a great movie, if you have enough bucks to try and rent or watch this movie, trust me, you won´t be dissapointed.
Peppa Pig (2004)
This show needs to be turned into bacon
So, Peppa Pig, a cartoon I wanted to review for a long time, why? Because this show is the worst cartoon I´ve ever seen! Ok, ok, I´m sorry for that, let´s just talk about why is this show terrible.
The Characters: Oh jeez, the characters are just painfull, but let´s go through them by group, and what better way to start off with the narrarator. Usually in a kids show, a narrarator is used to help children understand what´s going on, thus giving an opportunity for them to learn. Peppa´s narrarator, on the other hand just keeps repeating everything that just happened in the show, as if the children watching the show are blind or just too dumb to get anything that´s going on. Now then, let´s talk about the babies, who are easily the worst characters in the show. Why? Because they cry for stupid stuff, sure, they´re babies, but, usually in a cartoon, the babies or any other character should cry when something really bad happens to them, that way, we feel sorry for these characters, the babies in Peppa Pig just cry for stupid stuff like ice cream, a kite, a dinossaur, to even a freaking rainbow and it just gets annoying. The kids are just a bunch of brain-dead rude people that don't know about things they should´ve known when comparing to their age, also, they just keep calling Daddy Pig fat and keep arguing with each other, but they´re fight is saved somehow because of Daddy Pig saying that they´re just friends and it´s solved, which confuses me a bit, given that there are better ways to prevent an argument from happening. Speaking of Daddy Pig, the adults are really mean and really stupid, for starters, they don´t know how to be responsible towards their children, since they let them get off scot-free for their terrible behavior, and, much like the kids, keep calling Daddy Pig fat, even though they are fat themselves, given that all of them have the same body proportion and design.
Speaking of which, the animation is incredibly lazy, the desings are just copy/pasted for each character, the backgrounds just consist of Microsoft Paint hills, clouds, grass, and puddles, and the character movements are stiff, with the only form of smooth movement coming from the lip movements.
The messages are really terrible in this, they just consist of: It´s okay to be rude to your parents because you won´t get in trouble, cry for everything because everyone around you will help you out, steal someone´s car and you don't get in trouble, it's okay to use the hands in soccer, because you´re the goalkeeper, now tell me, aren´t these lessons a horrible influence to your kids. Some of the lessons the show teaches can be downright dangerous, such as befriending harmful insects and arachnids, stick your hand on any surface like the ocean or a puddle of water, and even that all of the world's countries never had any conflict with each other (the latter of which is just a flat-out lie, if you know what I mean).
So that´s why I personally consider Peppa Pig the worst cartoon ever, now, if you do like this show then I respect your opinion, but for me, this is the worst show ever.
South Park: The Fractured But Whole (2017)
A great game based on a great series
Well, this is it, my first videogame review ever.
Now, if you want to know my history with South Park, then I´ll say that the show is great and you pretty much know why, as for the PS1 games and Tenorman´s revenge, they´re games I never played but I won´t because they don´t look like i would enjoy them, and as for The Stick of truth, that´s a game I would rate a 9.5/10 and you´ll see the reasons later.
The plot of this game is about The Coon going back in time where The Stick of truth left off, he goes there to unite the other Coon friends to go on a mission to save a cat called Scrambles before the Freedome Pals get a better franchise than them, while this is going, the New Kid finds out that a crime chef has been putting drugson peoples drinks to cause crimes, and now the Coon & friends and the Freedom Pals must join forces to stop this crime chef.
What more do I need to say, this game was funny, had a good story, has the best character variety in a South Park so far, the controls are fine, the animation is pretty acceptable to consoles like the Xbox One or PS4, the grid combat system was well made and I really enjoy the Time travel farting abilitie the New Kid has. Really the only issue I have with the game is that the story can make it seem like a ripoff of Stick of truth, but speaking of that, this game is not as good as The Stick of truth: 1. The fact that you can make your own team during battle can give the game more strategy and that makes combat a bit easy to win, 2. The story of the game is way too serious, unlike The Stick of truth which is silly and that´s what made it work, in here, there is no silly stuff happening and rather more action and that almost makes the game a not South Park game and that says something, 3. You can´t block any moves that give you damage, that means that you will get loads of damage and you will sooner or later die, and that makes combat infuriating because you can´t make your foe´s attack damages low because you can´t block, 4. The puzzels feel way too easy to complete because in these puzzels, you just have one thing to do and that´s really it, the only thing that improved from The Stick of truth was that it had more characters to play as but that´s just one compared to four reasons this game isn´t as good as The Stick of truth.
Overall, while this isn´t both a perfect game and not the best South Park game ever, it´s still a game that you should check out even if you don´t watch South Park.