Movie Review -- No Time To Die

 Time, Mr. Craig? Is it really that time again? It seems as if you only just arrived. You've done a great deal in a small time span. So it's only fitting that you go out with a bang, wouldn't you say? Yes the time for No Time To Die has finally come. After nearly two years of anxious waiting this damned film finally saw theatres and at last we can take in what is Daniel Craig's last outing as agent 007. His filmography in this series has been uneven so far, so does No Time To Die end his run on a high note? Let's take a look.

After an opening scene split into two parts – a flashback and a scene that happens right after the end of Spectre – NTTD picks up five years later with a retired James Bond living in Jamaica. He's approached by the CIA – and discouraged by MI6 – to assist in the search for a missing scientist who's developed a nanotechnology weapon that can kill pre-programmed targets. The trail leads him to some shadowy organizations and forces him to reconsider his lover Madeleine Swann. Honestly, this is a plot that has more in common with Mission Impossible films than Bond films: a generic spy movie premise, fanciful sci-fi situations, a story that focuses on the hero's personal life, and the highest stakes possible.

Nevertheless there is still the old 007 familiarity that accompanies No Time To Die, from the gunbarrel opening to the customary supporting characters and everything in between. Seriously, there are a ton of references and callbacks in this film, including but not limited to musical themes, models of cars, lines of dialogue, and portraits on walls. Try to spot them all! We even get the welcome return of post-kill one-liners and those henchmen who are based around one particular gimmick. And of course there's some great action scenes throughout put on dazzling display thanks to the capable cinematography and the often simplistic, yet lived-in looking set design. I especially loved the last 40 minutes or so: it includes this one gunfight in a stairway that's up close, consists of long shots, and is relentlessly intense. It beats any action scene found in Spectre by a mile.

While the acting is fine across the board the characters are a bit of a mixed bag. For instance, Rami Malek delivers the creepiness as villain Lyutsifer Safin (real subtle with the name there...) but after his chilling introduction his subsequent appearances have diminishing returns, not helped by the fact that his endgame remains a little unclear. Lashana Lynch shows up as Nomi, the new agent 007 since Bond's retirement. Her character's not so bad though she could have used a bit more development. On the other hand we have Ana de Armas as the inexperienced, yet effervescent agent Paloma. Her appearance in NTTD is brief but delightfully fun.

But perhaps the most surprising performance comes from Daniel Craig himself. In contrast to Craig's usual Bond exploits, No Time To Die's Bond is much more talkative, jokey, and expressive than the cool, steely agent we've seen before. Although some might argue this is because Bond's personal life plays a bigger role in NTTD, it still doesn't quite seem right.

As far as overall quality goes I'd rank No Time To Die squarely in the middle of Daniel Craig's 007 films. (Expect an updated Bond films rankings sometime soon!) While it doesn't hit the highs set by Casino Royale and Skyfall, it's at least better than Quantum of Solace and its predecessor Spectre thanks to its more exciting action, more colourful characters, and more memorable story. If it weren't for Craig's atypical performance, the fantastic premise, and the bloated length – not to mention the forgettable theme song – this could have been truly great. But as it is No Time To Die is a suitable end to the Craig era of Bond. Mission accomplished.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Tenet

 

  Man, has it really been six months since my last movie review? It's been a while, hasn't it? Time sure does fly. I wish I could have all this lost time back. If only I could go back... Go back... Time... Christopher Nolan. Yeah, today's movie is Nolan's latest, Tenet, a film in which the infamously metaphysical, space-bending director goes all in and finally makes a straight-up time-travel film. So is it any good? Let's find out.

  Tenet is about an unnamed secret agent who, after a botched hostage rescue mission, is recruited into a secret organization called Tenet. The Protagonist is tasked with leading an investigation into objects and weapons whose temporal disposition has become “inverted” – i.e. they move backwards through time. By tracing these objects' origins he hopes to avert a worldwide catastrophe. This is a great idea for a film; we get loads of twisted action scenes with cars speeding backwards, bullets flying back into guns, people having awkward fights with inverted people. There's also occasionally the same scene shown from different points of view simultaneously depending on which characters are inverted or not. And this is in addition to the frequent cutaways of concurrent scenes that Christopher Nolan films are notorious for. This all makes for a mind-bending and cerebral plot that can be kind of hard to understand if you're not paying the utmost attention. But if you're into non-linear storytelling, Tenet is right up your alley. Its two-and-a-half hours goes by rather briskly.

  Bringing this plot to life is a talented cast which, in true Christopher Nolan fashion, sees the return of some familiar faces from the director's previous works. Back from Dunkirk is Kenneth Branagh as the intimidating Andrei Sator. (Michael Caine also lends a mandatory, albeit brief, appearance.) The other actor that really shines in Tenet is Elizabeth Debicki as Kat, Sator's estranged wife who's desperate to free their son from his criminal clutches. Robert Pattinson looks right at home as the unflappable and dependable agent Neil. The only disappointment in the casting lies with John David Washington as the Protagonist. There's a line early on in the film where one character tells him that their conversation has to be to-the-point and without any small talk. Apparently Washington obeyed this line like the word of God because his character is more-or-less a blank slate, largely devoid of personality.

  The production values on Tenet are on par with what you'd expect from a Nolan film. The compositions and cinematography – combined with the backwards-moving events – make this film a real treat for the eyes and will leave you wondering just how much of this stuff was done in-camera. Knowing the director the answer is probably all of it! While Tenet is one of the best-looking Nolan films out there, the film's sound design is more of a mixed bag. The pulse-pounding score from Ludwig Goransson fits well with its hair-rising horns and electronic compositions. However the sound mixing needed some more work; the sound effects and (sometimes) the music is too loud, making it hard to make out dialogue during action scenes. At first I wanted to chalk it up to the fact that I saw this movie in a really loud IMAX theatre, but I've heard other critics are making similar complaints.

  Overall, Tenet is a visually stunning, daringly fanciful sci-fi action flick with some flaws. The main character isn't all that memorable and the plot verges on confusing. But I will say that if you want to see time-travel done differently this one is well worth checking out. Time well spent.

Grade:

Movie Review -- The Gentlemen

  While I have seen a few Guy Ritchie movies, his direction never left much of an impression on me. So when I went to go see his latest film, The Gentlemen, I didn't know what to expect. From what I can tell, he's famous for his crime comedies of which The Gentlemen is definitely one. So is it worth a watch? Let's find out.

  The Gentlemen tells the story of Britain's marijuana kingpin Mickey Pearson. He wants to sell off his underground empire and retire but there's plenty of schemers and blackmailers out there who want a piece of the pie. A great big mess ensues. It's a story with lots of twists and surprises, mostly because it doesn't take itself too seriously. The film's playful and humourous tone is highlighted by sharp, tangent-laden dialogue. In this regard, The Gentlemen is roughly similar to Pulp Fiction except much faster-paced. Try not to blink because this plot is on the move and it's easy to miss things.

  One thing you can't miss, however, is the acting: it is superb throughout. Colin Farrell gives a memorable comedic performance as the nonaligned MMA instructor Coach. Charlie Hunnan is confident and in-control as Pearson's badass consigliere Raymond Smith. Ironically, it's lead actor Matthew McConaghey's performance as Pearson that stands out to me the least. He certainly isn't bad in this movie, but he comes across as restrained. For me the actor who steals the show is Hugh Grant as the cocky, self-assured, and slightly deranged private investigator Fletcher. What's really great is that for the first half of the film Grant serves as a narrator-of-sorts so you get to hear his take on all the events unfolding.

  This narration is given life through the film's energetic directing and editing. Scenes playfully jump back and forth, sometimes out of order and with plenty of flashbacks. And since the narrator – sometimes narrators – isn't always reliable, we even end up with a few “what if” scenarios. Even the aspect ratio and filmstock aren't immune from being messed around with.

  All in all, Guy Ritchie has crafted a very enjoyable experience with The Gentlemen. If you like your comedies with a bit of a rough edge – or conversely, if you like violent gangster films that have a great sense of humour – then I'd very much recommend it.

Grade:

Movie Review -- 1917

  Now this is how you start off a new year! Historical films about wars have always intrigued me and I'm pleased to see people are increasingly interested in the First World War. But a First World War movie directed by Sam Mendes, the same guy who made Jarhead and Skyfall? Sign me up, Sarge! Let's bust some caps at those Huns!

  1917 takes place on the Western Front and focuses on two British soldiers, Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) who are tasked with relaying a message across occupied territory to a cutoff unit: that they're walking into a German trap. And so the two men are in a race against time to warn the oblivious battalion before it – along with Blake's brother – is wiped out. It's a movie reminiscent of both Saving Private Ryan – due to a comparable plot and up-close action – and '71 with its survival-against-all-odds motif. (Dude, if I wrote an article comparing those two movies it would be called '17 vs. '71. Neat, huh?) The story takes you places with some really tense moments, grim moments, and sad moments. There are a lot things that happen in 1917 but the pacing is excellent and things never seem as if they're being rushed along. I found 1917 to be a film that feels longer than it really is, but I mean that in a good way: by the time it winds down you'll have the impression that you've truly been on an adventure.

  This is given a huge boost by the film's immersive cinematography by the great Roger Deacons. I can't think of another movie that deserves the all-in-one-shot treatment more than 1917. If you've ever wanted to see WWI trench warfare up close then you need to see this film. A lot of the time it seems as if you're there yourself; the camera stays at ground level and never strays too far from the main characters. Along the way you'll end up seeing these scarred, barb wire-strewn battlefields just as our lads did more than one hundred years ago, complete with their filthy conditions and gruesome wreckage as rendered by the meticulous and highly detailed set design. It all lends an air of authenticity to the whole picture.

  This authenticity is upheld by the talented cast of all-British actors, with lesser-known ones portraying Blake and Schofield. The big-name cameos are fleeting and don't distract from the story you're watching. Tom Arnold does a fine job with the film's score, giving scenes a gloomy yet restless feel to them.

  It's funny: whenever I see a truly great film my review of it ends up being a short one. But what else can one say about a technical masterpiece of cinema like 1917? It plays on a level of immersive realism that I've scarcely seen before and is the best war movie since 2017's Dunkirk. In fact it might just be a bit better. Well done, Mr. Mendes.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Cats

  And now for something completely different. Musicals aren't normally my bag but after hearing all the criticism going around about Cats I knew I had to check it out. Plus I had nothing better to do last Friday night. So is Cats a worthwhile means of passing the time? Let's take a look...

  And let's never take another look again. The felines in this movie look freakin' disgusting! If you haven't seen them then let me explain: they have human hands, feet, proportions, faces, limbs, fingers, and toes. Really the only cat-like things to them are the ears, whiskers, tails, and fur. So basically the cats just look like pygmies in really lazily slapped together cat costumes (if you've got fetishes then you'll really like this movie). Except they aren't even really that: the “costumes” are really just CG effects, and not very good CG at that. The computer generated effects are about on par with Monsters, Inc. which was 18 years ago. The actors' faces are very sloppily pasted on to the motion-captured digital bodies whose feet don't seem to be interacting with the ground properly (just watch their feet as they walk, you'll know what I mean). And last but not least, the four-legged freaks don't even land on their feet half the time.

  So who are these weirdos exactly? The main character Victoria is played by ballerina Francesca Hayward in her film debut which mostly consists of her not saying much for long stretches at a time while keeping that same dumbfounded facial expression throughout the film. The rest of the cast boasts some rather big names but there's two that really stand out for me. The first is Judi Dench as Old Deuteronomy because (a) she can't sing to save her life and (b) she's easily the most bizarre and creepy-looking creature in the whole film. The other notable character is Gus played by Ian McKellen who gives off this whole oblivious-grandpa-who-is-still-having-a-good-time vibe. Pretty much everything he says and does is hilarious and he's easily one of the best parts of the film.

  I guess I should mention the plot. It follows the recently abandoned Victoria as she's introduced to the world of the Jellicle Cats, a gang of stray cats in London who occasionally take part in a song and dance competition with the hopes of being reincarnated. It's a plot that's rather thin and goes off on a lot of tangents for the sake of giving the audience more songs to listen to. Some of the songs are alright, like the one about cat burglars that steal things from peoples' homes. Also Taylor Swift is here for about four minutes and her song is pretty good too – even though her English accent isn't quite up to par. However most of the songs are just “meh” – a lot of them have choruses/verses that are repeated too much – while the silly 1970's synthesizer filler music sounds weirdly out of place. And the whole movie is capped off by a fourth wall-breaking scene that takes forever to end.

  Cats's directing is a real letdown. There are a few nice-looking compositions, but most of the dance scenes are ruined by an overly-shaky handheld camera that makes it hard to see the choreography. Things don't get much better in the editing room. There's a ton of awkward cutting to random characters' faces during singing parts as if the movie is unsure of who the audience is supposed to look at. As if that wasn't bad enough, the sound balancing is inconsistent. Sometimes the lyrics are impossible to make out during choruses while some other songs sometimes have the music drowning out the singer's voice. This movie is a mess!

  And that's about all I can stand to say about Cats, a gross-looking, poorly-directed, sloppily-edited excuse for a movie. The only things that save this film from being utter trash is Ian McKellen and a couple decent songs. I don't want to be too harsh on Cats because, as mentioned before, musicals aren't really my thing. But that doesn't change the fact that Cats is one of the worst movies I've seen this decade.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

  Another year, another Star Wars movie. Today I'm reviewing Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker, the last of the new sequel trilogy. After the double disappointments that were 2017's The Last Jedi and 2018's Solo can this latest entry redeem the current generation of this epic space fantasy series?

  Short answer: too little, too late.

  Taking place a few months after The Last Jedi, The Rise of Skywalker has both Resistance and First Order fighters searching for wayfinders that may lead to the origin of a mysterious broadcast from the not-so-dead Emperor Palpatine (this ain't no spoiler; he was in the trailer), who seeks to reestablish his Galactic Empire under Sith rule. This leads to... honestly there's an ass-load of stuff that happens throughout this movie. The riveting early scene introducing Palpatine notwithstanding, the first half of this film jumps around a lot with action scene after action scene, one right after the other. We're shown so many locations and so many MacGuffins that I couldn't help but tune out the finer technical details of things as the film ground on.

Remember what I said about TFA and TLJ, how they're remakes of the original trilogy films? TROS is no exception, a quasi-ripoff/remake of Return of the Jedi, especially in the last act. Here we get to see the return of:

• a planet-exploding weapon (What is this? The fourth time now?!),
• a jedi returning to an old master's retreat to do some more training,
• Lando and Chewbacca spearheading the attack in the Millennium Falcon during the final battle, and
• a jedi going alone to confront the bad guy leader as he eggs him (or in this case, her) on to kill somebody.
• (Trust me there are far more similarities that I can't mention without spoilers.)

  Return of the Jedi coincidences aside, The Rise of Skywalker's plot is very up and down. We learn the origin story of both Rey – which is pretty neat – and Snoke – which is totally lame. What's also lame is that the main characters are pretty much invincible; their ability to survive landspeeder crashes without a scratch, raid/board a star destroyer with only a handful of guys, and blast through a whole platoon of stormtroopers without even having to stop and take cover robs many of the action scenes of tension. There's one subplot that was established back in Episode VII that Rise of Skywalker hints at resolving but by the film's end this plot thread is still left hanging. Did the writers simply forget about it? I guess they were too busy working on the really disappointing and predictable ending and the half-dozen or so “what the hell” moments that occur in the film's last five minutes.

  The characters are about the same calibre as the previous two films: Rey is as to-the-point and lacking in personality as ever while Kylo Ren continues to be the best and most interesting character in the whole trilogy. While he's just as conflicted as he was before this time he's without a master and seeing him act with more agency – especially in relation to Rey – is a treat thanks to a focused performance from Adam Driver. John Boyega is around to shout Rey's name a whole lot. And of course it's always a delight to see Ian McDiarmid play the role of Emperor Palpatine once again. There's also Carrie Fisher back as Princess Leia one last time via unused footage from Episode VII; as you can imagine this doesn't make storytelling easy with her character so it's a good thing Maz Kanata (the goggles chick) follows her around and (apparently) reads her mind.

  As with other recent Star Wars films, Rise of Skywalker is a very well-produced film. The effects look great (better than the last two), the compositions are splendid, the music is top-notch, and the fight choreography is precise. In short, it's a nice-looking and nice-sounding film. The tone is somewhat more balanced than last time: there's slightly fewer cute critters to make the kids laugh. Some of the jokes are quite funny while some are simply bizarre and gratuitous.

  And that's Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker. I may have been a bit harsh on it, but the fact is that I don't hate this movie. Most of it is OK, that is until you get to the disappointing ending. It's a finely-crafted film and I believe that the only lazy thing to it was the writing. This movie remains trapped in familiar territory and simply doesn't bring anything new to the series – which is my main complaint about the sequel trilogy as a whole. But in case you're wondering, yes The Rise of Skywalker is better than The Last Jedi. But that's not saying much.

  Still, if you've ever wanted a Star Wars movie in which someone says the word “ass” then this is the one for you!

Grade:

Movie Review -- Midway

Hey, guys. I’m in the middle of moving again so I’m afraid I’m going to have to keep this review short. Thankfully I did find a moment to escape to the movie theatre to see Midway, an American war movie detailing the events surrounding the pivotal Battle of Midway in 1942. Is it as stunning a victory as the real-life event or does it land as a dud? Let’s take a look.

The film begins with the attack on Pearl Harbour. A leadership shuffle results in Admiral Chester Nimitz commanding the Pacific Fleet. He charges his intelligence officer Edwin Layton with keeping tabs on the Japanese plans and avoiding another disaster. Together they keep the Pacific Fleet busy in the following months as the navy’s pilots, led by the daring Lt. Richard Best, wreak havok on the high seas. And that’s only some of what goes on in this flick; there’s a lot of plot stuffed into this movie and some of it is ultimately inconsequential to the big picture. This includes the Doolittle Raid, the submarine Nautilus, and some film director on Midway Island.

Similarly there’s also a ton of characters in Midway and there’s only a few truly interesting ones to latch onto, chief among them Nimitz, Layton, and Admiral Yamamoto. Richard Best, played by Ed Skrein, is OK but his accent sure sounds weird.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about Midway is the obvious CG-heavy effects. The Pearl Harbour attack scene looks downright terrible, like watching a cartoon. Moreover, pretty much every scene taking place at sea is green screened, lending an air of fakery to the picture and makes the battle scenes a little less exciting. It’s a shame that director Roland Emmerich – the guy who made 1996’s Independence Day – has only gotten lazier and lazier with his visual effects.

All in all there’s two movies that come to mind when I think of Midway. There’s similar subject matter to be found in Pearl Harbor (2001), which while way sappier at least has some exciting action and characters that stood out more. I’m also reminded of 1962’s The Longest Day in the overabundance of plot/characters and the whole old-fashioned war movie feel. But at least The Longest Day had some impressive real-world visuals.

So what does Midway have? Pretty much the only neat things I’ll remember are the dogfights, the submarine parts, and any scene showing the Japanese perspective. But these are all things that have been done better in other movies. In short Midway is, in a word, average.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Joker

  Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there? Entertainment companies are invoking censorship to appease Chinese communist totalitarianism, Bohemian Rhapsody got nominated for Best Picture, and even Star Wars movies are becoming boring now. It's a funny world we live in and sometimes the only sensible way to live in this world is with a smile on that face. If laughter is the best medicine then let's see how this year's Joker treats us. So without further ado let's dance with the devil in the pale moonlight.

  All joking aside, Joker is definitely not a comedy, it's about as grim and gritty as they get. With its serious and unnerving tone, Joker reminds me a bit of 2017's Logan in that it's the rated-R story of a character we've always wanted to see done justice. Joker takes place in the harsh and unfriendly Gotham City of 1981 and I've got to say the attention to detail is astounding with the claustrophobic and messy sets and period-appropriate aesthetic. The story follows Arthur Fleck, a lonely part-time clown and aspiring stand-up comic who takes care of his aging mother. He also has a multitude of mental conditions and as events unfold he steadily loses his grip on sanity. While the story starts off conventionally enough, it soon becomes apparent that this is a dedicated character study of the Clown Prince of Crime and his origin. It's a fascinating tale, one that arguably doesn't require the ties it has to the Batman mythos.

  The star of the show is Joaquin Phoenix, and he is outstanding. His Oscar-worthy, frighteningly energized, and hypnotic performance – for which he reportedly lost 50 pounds – represents a total commitment to what is a textbook example of a villain-protagonist: Arthur Fleck is a captivating guy and while you will sympathize with him from time to time he is definitely not a person you want to be. Robert De Niro stars as a talk show host that Fleck and his mom like to watch. At first it may not seem like he's properly cast to play a comedian but soon you realize that he's believable as a smug, elitist entertainer who intermittently tries to show some morality.

  When I first saw trailers for this movie I jokingly referred to it as “Taxi Driver but with clowns”. It turns out that I wasn't that far off: both films take place in roughly the same time period with comparable settings and lonely characters that aren't quite right in the head. Both films have finger guns pointed at the head, Robert De Niro, a pretty girl who's just out of reach, and a big shot rich guy running for public office. Oh yeah, and those endings... All in all, Joker is a masterpiece thanks to its finely crafted tone, excellent performances, and socially relevant themes that you could debate for weeks on end. If you want a comic book movie that isn't all about loud and flashy superheroics, watch Joker. This more grounded and down-to-earth version of the character is well worth your time.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Ad Astra

  Every once in a while a friend will invite me to go see a movie I know absolutely nothing about. Ad Astra is one of those movies; I went in almost totally cold. The only things I knew was that it took place in space and that it has Brad Pitt. So is that all there is to this out-of-this-world odyssey or is there something more to discover? Let's take a look.

  In the somewhat-near-future accomplished astronaut Roy McBride must go on a secret mission to make contact with his previously presumed dead father Clifford whose experiments in the outer Solar System may be the cause behind dangerous power surges that threaten the Solar System's stability. Along the way Roy must come to terms with his father's absence and his emotional responses which are highly regulated by Space Command. It's an intriguing premise reminiscent of Heart of Darkness – or perhaps The Thin Red Line when you consider all the introspective narration going on – but it isn't paced all that well. There are a few action scenes jammed in that seem like they were added to keep the film from being boring because the plot does take its time in small steps.

  The plot also has some giant leaps in logic. For example, how does Roy not end up in jail for the things he's done? Why do all the planets have the same level of gravity? And speaking of Gravity, how do the astronauts survive such punishment? But the silliest moment of all is when the movie expects you to believe that duct tape can effectively seal a shattered helmet against the vacuum of space, as if this is some kind of goofy comedy.

  Brad Pitt's performance as Roy McBride is dead serious, however. His acting is very understated as he's portraying a very repressed astronaut who tries staying focused only on his job. Tommy Lee Jones portrays his reclusive, solitary father Clifford McBride which is a fine choice. When I think of crazy old man, Tommy Lee Jones is one of the first actors to come to mind. While these are fine performances, it is unfortunate that their characters aren't terribly interesting.

  At least Ad Astra is pretty to look at. It's a finely-shot film with eye-catching visuals, compositions that would look right at home in an art gallery, and excellent special effects that rival other space movies like Interstellar. While much of the sets appear cold and utilitarian they're given life by the dynamic lighting. Ad Astra's use of lighting, whether it's the coloured glow of nearby planets or the flickering fluorescent bulbs of neglected spacecraft, makes its scenes more rich and enveloping the way few other movies do.

  In short, Ad Astra is an ambitious movie. Unfortunately the grand story it tries to tell isn't all that original and will leave you wanting. In spite of some decent performances and some beautiful visuals Ad Astra winds up being merely OK. In one line in the movie Roy says, “below the surface there was nothing.” Couldn't have said it better myself.

Grade:

Movie Review -- It: Chapter 2

  Has it really been two years since the remake of It came out? I remember it being a well-put together picture with plenty of good scares, some good acting, and a charmingly creepy setting. I also remember that it was only half the story told in the novel (and TV miniseries), showing only the Loser Club's harrowing struggle against a supernatural evil in 1989 as children. So how does the modern-day second outing stack up against the retro one? Let's find out.

  It is 2016 and a new string of It-pattern murders are popping up which prompts Loser Club member Mike to gather the other, now grown-up losers (who are all rich now) back to Derry, Maine, to finish off the killer clown Pennywise once and for all. It's a story that ties in nicely with the first with a lot of flashbacks. However, a lot of these flashbacks end up retconning the previous film, railroading in a bunch of the kids' confrontations with It that weren't shown or even mentioned in the first It. But that's nothing compared to It: Chapter 2's biggest problem: it's way too long! If you're going to make me pay to sit still in one place for nearly three hours then you'd better deliver something that'll make my resisting of going to the bathroom that whole time worth it (or perhaps an intermission like the good old days?). Instead there's not one but two generic inspirational speeches, each Loser has to go searching for old tokens, the ending takes forever to wrap up, and the characters all split up and confront It alone... twice! They could have easily trimmed 45 minutes off and the film would have been better for it.

  Tone is everything in a horror movie and the tone in It: Chapter 2 is sometimes unfocused. Don't get me wrong, there are a bunch of decent scares, Pennywise's kills are rather brutal, and the visual design and effects on the film's various monsters are freaky. But unlike the last film comedy pervades almost every scene. Oftentimes just as something frightening is about to happen somebody does something that ends up being funny rather than unsettling, thus ruining the tone. In other scenes the jokes work fine – and they're downright hilarious at times – but overall It: Chapter 2 is far less scary than its predecessor.

  What Chapter 2 does copy from the first is a great cast that all have good chemistry together. While Bill Skarsgard does just as good a job as before in the role of Pennywise, new faces such as Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, and Bill Hader give splendid performances of their own. Stephen King himself even makes a cameo appearance as a pawnshop owner who is disappointed in novels that have lousy endings. Henry Bowers, the bully from the last film, returns to menace the Losers some more but his presence in this film is kind of wasted.

  I also couldn't help but notice that there's some gaps in logic. For example it's established early on that since she previously saw It's deadlights Beverly knows how each of the Losers is going to die. But after the first death, this ability never comes into play nor is it mentioned again. Also, we see that in 2016 body parts are washing up in Derry's river and has made front page news in that town. So why has it not made national news? And when you think about it It kind of sucks at catching people. He wastes time messing around with his prey and as long as you can run and avoid falling for his tricks then you'll be fine, even if you're just a kid.

  Regardless, It: Chapter 2 is simply OK, a far cry from the one we got two years ago. It runs for much too long, the script could have used another edit or two, and the experience isn't as scary as the one before it. Basically a handful of good scares, a bunch of laughs, and a few standout performances are all that keep this one afloat.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

  You know what? I haven't seen all that many Quentin Tarantino movies now that I think about it: just Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Basterds, and some snippets of Kill Bill here and there. So to rectify this I took the opportunity to see his latest one on the big screen, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. So is it worth a watch? Let's take a look.

  Set in 1969, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a story about Rick Dalton, a TV Western star-turned movie actor whose career is just starting to decline. He confides in his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth who also has trouble finding work due to an incident on The Green Hornet set and rumours that he murdered his wife. Together they try to find their way through the changing face of showbiz while also dealing with some troublesome hippies. It's an interesting story with a methodical pace. If you can cope with its marathon two hours and forty-one minute running time it still manages to be a fun film to watch. But of course the pace certainly picks up towards the end just in time for the hilariously over-the-top ending.

  If you're a fan of 1960's pop culture then you've got to see this movie. The attention to detail is incredible. The 50-year-old cars, fashion, and everyday objects are accurate to a T with all the women in miniskirts and short shorts and all the men with cigarettes in their mouths. There's also too many pop culture references to count. Hardly a minute goes by without hearing a classic song, old-timey advertisement, or radio/TV chatter. And is it any surprise that the soundtrack rocks? (There's not one but two Deep Purple songs!) If Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has one thing going for it, it's that it's a marvellous period piece film.

  Anyone who knows Tarantino movies knows that the 1960's – with the classic music and films – is a period that suits this director just fine. His well-known use of extended suspense comes into play, even going so far as to let a television's creepy music serve as the scene's scoring at one point. Tarantino's trademark awkwardness returns in the form of drawn out conversations and unconventional hygiene right in the camera's face. You'll also find his trademark out-of-sequence cutaways as well as an amusing mid-credits scene. However Tarantino's signature use of over-the-top violence is relegated to only a couple scenes.

  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's acting is stellar. Leonardo DiCaprio does a fantastic job as the stuttering, borderline-alcoholic nervous wreck Rick Dalton who is easy to sympathize with. He's got great chemistry with the other lead Cliff Booth, played by Brad Pitt in a very comfortable and fun performance that recalls just a bit of Fight Club's Tyler Durden. Lastly we have Margot Robbie as the fabled Sharon Tate. Robbie gives a charming performance, often forgoing dialogue and relying more on facial expressions, getting her point across just as – if not more – effectively.

  All in all, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood reminds me a lot of 2016's Hail, Caesar!, another comedy-drama about classic Hollywood. But for me OUaTiH blows HC out of the water. It may be longer and slower-paced but I found it far more intriguing and fun, not to mention better written. If you can bear the length then Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a must-see.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Spider-Man: Far From Home

  (Warning: this review contains spoilers for Avengers: Endgame.) Spider-Man: Far From Home is the twenty-third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the eleventh such film in the past three years! However it is the first MCU film to not have a Stan Lee cameo, which I guess you could say is one of the few unique things Far From Home has going for it!

  Ok, ok, I'm being slightly facetious. I've found that one's enjoyment of the new Tom Holland Spider-Man films depends heavily on one's acceptance that they're deliberately trying to be different from Spider-Man media we've seen in the past. If you can make your peace with the fact that the tone is lighter than air, the life lessons are less poignant (i.e. barely there), the target audience is probably younger than before, and the characters only vaguely resemble their comicbook counterparts then you'll find the new Spidey stories easy to like.

  This one follows Peter Parker and his classmates a few months after all the people who died in Avengers: Infinity War suddenly came back to life in Endgame – this conveniently includes most of the characters in the Spider-Man movies. I've got to say the world is getting along pretty well despite the trauma of having half of its population disappear and then suddenly reappear five years later. Anyways, Peter is troubled over the passing of his man-crush Tony Stark (AKA Iron Man), but still goes along with his classmates on a tour of Europe where he plans to take a break from superheroing and confess his feelings for MJ. (When did he start crushing on her?) However he is forced to work with SHIELD and Mysterio to battle the Elemental monsters, but not everything is as it seems.

  Honestly though, the best way to sum up Far From Home's plot is that it's a teen road-trip comedy – and a Disney Channel one at that – featuring superheroes. It even plays the obligatory “Vacation, all I ever wanted” song. It starts out rather standard but gets better as it goes, especially after the “twist” happens. As for the comedy, it's fast-paced, silly, and mostly OK. Some of the jokes rely too much on predictable Disney-esque slapstick (and the main character's awkwardness) but some jokes I found genuinely funny. One could consider it a G-rated Deadpool of sorts. There's even a little tongue-in-cheek humour to be found such as when the badguys congratulate themselves by explaining their plan... to themselves.

  Like I said earlier the film uses the characters differently from the comics. Aunt May is more like wine aunt. MJ is more like Daria. Flash Thompson is more like narcissism personified. Ned Leeds is more like a whipped boyfriend. And Peter is more like Iron Lad, AKA Tony Jr., AKA Iron Fanboy. While some of these changes are fine (MJ), some handicap the characters' development. Look no further than Peter Parker himself. He's still a dweeb who has no commitment or conviction in his superheroing, he still sucks up to Tony Stark even beyond the grave, and he still makes a ton of dumb mistakes. First and foremost, Peter really sucks at keeping his identity a secret mostly because he keeps changing into his costume with the door wide open and he – as Spider-Man – meets with friends and family members in full view of the public. This guy's been in four movies so far and he's hardly grown or changed one bit. At least they got Quentin Beck, AKA Mysterio, right. Jake Gyllenhaal is believable as a guy who is both a likeable mentor but also just a little bit crazy. And when it comes to showing off great special effects, they couldn't have picked a better character than Mysterio.

  I'll end this review by stating that the mid-credits scene commits a cardinal sin in that it sets up a film that is so much better than the one the audience has just watched. This scene really puts Far From Home into perspective: it's truly a momentary and inconsequential episode that arguably didn't need to be a major motion picture. Its breezy tone, lower stakes, and lack of lasting change or consequence would've made it more suitable as a 3-part episode of some TV show or something. Don't get me wrong; I liked this movie but it is by no means essential viewing.

P.S. – The end credits scene sucks. Don't bother.

Grade:

100 Film Reviews Special: Top 10 Worst Movies I've Reviewed

Back in April I celebrated my 100 movie reviews by counting down the top 10 best films I'd written a review for. I think it's only fair that I do the same for the not-so-great masterpieces of crap that I've had to sit through. And so for your reading pleasure here are the top 10 worst movies that I've ever reviewed. (By the way, all of these reviews you can find posted here on Arnold's Benediction.)

10.  Project Almanac (2015)

Now, to be fair Project Almanac isn't a horrible movie but it is a very forgettable one. In fact right now I'm struggling to recall things that I can say about it. All I remember is that the characters were a bunch of self-absorbed brats who used time travel for their own personal gain (though really, who can blame them?) and the ending left a bunch of lingering questions. I have mentioned this film a few times on this blog so if you want to do some time travelling yourself just head on over to that search bar. Sorry, that's all I've got for this one.

9.     Apollo 18 (2011)

“There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon.” There's also a reason I've never watched this movie since it landed in theatres: it's dull. It's a shame that with such an interesting premise – a found footage horror movie taking place on a lunar mission in the 1970's – Apollo 18 could turn out to be so boring and forgettable. I remember the cinematography being good and the plot being threadbare, but not much else. I guess some found footage movies are better left unfound.

8.     Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Now this is what you call a hot mess. At the time I still thought well of 2012's Amazing Spider-Man so my expectations were good for this one. But as the end credits started rolling on this 2014 sequel I knew I had just witnessed a stinker of a film. It has a lot in common with another disappointing spidey flick, Spider-Man 3 (2007). They've both got intriguing relationships, good acting, and decent action but they've also got an overloaded plot with too many villains and unnecessary references to Peter Parker's past. But Amazing Spider-Man 2 is less watchable and has an irritating amount of sequel-baiting for a follow-up that never came to pass. I would say that it's a good thing that the Spider-Man movies got rebooted again in 2017 but honestly my appetite for the webslinger on the big screen has diminished significantly. So yes, it's possible that this movie was so bad that it killed my enthusiasm for Spider-Man movies. Way to go, guys.

7.     The Lone Ranger (2013)

A heroic, high-flying western made by the same guys who did the Pirates of the Caribbean movies was an undertaking that had a lot of potential, but also a lot of warning signs. Unfortunately The Lone Ranger contented itself with emulating the lamer POTC films with its bloated length, confused tone, and overstuffed story. But it added to the list of old familiar problems by having a total wussie of a main character who puts the moves on his brother's widow mere days after the man's death. It is true that The Lone Ranger is a great looking movie – the cinematography is superb and the sets and costumes are fine crafted down to a T – and the end train-chase sequence is thrilling, but ultimately it isn't enough to lasso victory from the jaws of defeat. The rest of the film is simply too much of a chore to sit through.

6.     Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

1996's Independence Day was some good cheesy fun. As a kid I loved it so much I remember watching it with some friends for my birthday party once. Its hefty scope, likeable characters, and ground-breaking special effects made it a must-see for its day. It's certainly a shame that its 20-years-later sequel gets none of those things right. Instead we get an overblown scope that makes the whole thing look silly, dull characters who lack charisma, and run-of-the-mill CG effects that we've since grown numb to. Add to that a ton of expository dialogue, subtract anything that might get you emotionally invested, and round it all off with a cynical amount of sequel-baiting (good luck with that) and you'll end up with this fine mess. Pretty much the only things I did like about Independence Day: Resurgence was the interesting setting and Jeff Goldblum. In short, Resurgence is just another one of those “remember me?”, almost a franchise, CG-laden, snorefests that Hollywood loves to crank out these days. Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here.

5.     Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

Oh right, I keep forgetting that this series continues. And I really don't see why it does either. It's sad. By the time Dead Men Tell No Tales came around the well of pirate-related ideas had pretty much run dry. The bad guys in this movie are ghosts, which seems rather underwhelming given the multitude of creatures and monsters seen in previous instalments. What this movie does carry over from its predecessors are the never-ending plot holes and the boring romances. Not even the performances of Johnny Depp, Goeffrey Rush, and Javier Bardem are enough to make this film worth watching. I think the perfect word to describe Pirates of the Caribbean at this point is draining. We've had our fun with pirates, but now it's time to let it end. Please just stop.

4.     Jason Bourne (2016)

Oh my gosh, it's Jason Bourne! Was it any surprise that this movie sucks the big one? The warning signs were all there. First off, it's a Bourne movie that's come long after audiences' appetite for these films has dried up. Next, it ignores the not-great-but-still-better-than-this Bourne Legacy (2012) by not including the much more likeable Jeremy Renner. And third, the title's laziness is a pretty good indicator of how copy-paste the rest of the film is going to be (it's rarely a good sign when after a bunch of sequels the latest instalment's title is simply the character's name). The titular agent is an empty shell of a man. He wasn't much interesting to begin with but in this outing Matt Damon simply looks tired of doing this again as indicated by his meagre dialogue. Well if they bothered resurrecting this dormant series they probably came up with a good, gripping story, right? But no, it's the same plot as all the others. A shady high-ranking CIA dude who's at risk of being publicly exposed tries to hide evidence of his wrongdoing by sending an assassin to go kill off his former agent Bourne who tries forming an uneasy partnership with a female agent on the inside. It's lazy, so lazy that the previous two sentences you just read were copy-pasted straight from my review of Jason Bourne. If the film's writers can do it then so can I! And don't get me started on the incomprehensibly choppy action scenes that're fit to give you motion sickness just like it did to me. All in all, the only part of Jason Bourne that gave me joy was that I got to use the phrase “hardcore Bourne-ography” in my review. Other than that, it's trash.

3.     God's Not Dead 2 (2016)

The first God's Not Dead is a film so bad that it's a blast. I've seen it several times with friends and we've laughed ourselves silly. But God's Not Dead 2 is a film so joyless and dull that I've not seen it since it slumped into theatres. That's probably because it actually tried (a tiny bit) harder to portray more believable situations and people. Gone are (most of) the evil atheist stereotypes, gone are the terrible folks of other faiths who beat their family members senseless, and gone are the Duck Dynasty cameos. On the other hand we see the return of one-sided arguments, pointless subplots, dull acting, and Reverend Dave having the worst luck in the world. Oh yeah, the Newsboys are back too. Can't forget that. On the whole, God's Not Dead 2 is kind of boring and plays like a movie that could've been straight to DVD. And as it says in the Book of Tony, being boring is one of the wickedest sins any film doth committeth.

2.     After Earth (2013)

How? How did this happen? I'll tell you how: Will Smith wanted to show how off how cool his son Jaden is so he hastily wrote a dull, unimaginative story that was somehow supposed to spawn a trilogy of films because that's what all films try doing nowadays. Here's an idea: just make a good movie, worry about sequels later! Bringing on M. Night Shyamalan to direct certainly didn't do the lifeless script any favours either with his propensity for unenthused narration, uninspired sets, boring monologues, and numerous flashbacks. There's also some plotholes and illogical nonsense. For example, how come the whole “Earth's gravity is stronger than home's” stuff isn't brought into play? What does Cypher expect a toddler to do against a man-eating monster that's invaded his house? Why does the Ursa – the aforementioned monster – stick its victims on trees instead of eating them? But ironically it's the acting that stands out as the worst part of After Earth, a film meant to showcase the two lead actors. Will Smith gives an unaccountably emotionless performance as he spends most of the movie sitting in the same chair, talking directly to the camera. Meanwhile, Jaden Smith comes off as a whiny dweeb who falls asleep at least five times throughout the film. He tries but he severely lacks the charisma his father has (y'know, in other movies!). At the end of the day After Earth isn't the worst sci-fi movie ever made, but it will be remembered as a laughingstock for years to come.

1.     Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

And here we are, the worst movie I've ever written a review for: Transformers: Age of Extinction. Is anyone surprised? For years now it's been en vogue to roast Michael Bay's Transformers series of films as nothing more than overhyped, big-budget, brain-dead drivel. While I normally try to go into a movie with an open mind I must confess I knew this was going to be a bad one. The most I expected was that perhaps this fourth Transformers movie would be slightly more refined than previous instalments, maybe a few lessons learned, kinks ironed out. But no, how naive. The trademark horribleness is in full force here with the familiar kooky humour, irritating robots, dizzying camera movement/editing, mindless action scenes that go on for way too long, preposterous romances, puzzling casting, blatant product placement, in-your-face US flags, and explosions ad nauseum. Optimus Prime screams manically like a coked-up Vietnam vet and we're supposed to believe that Mark Wahlberg is a nerdy inventor. The goodguy transformers suck and they fight eachother more than they do the badguys. And to top it all off the film is obscenely boring, no thanks to the overabundance of action and humourless comedy. You'll have gone numb to the dazzling effects and never-ending action by the time the climax comes 'round. Not even robot dinosaurs were able to pull me back into this mess. That's the biggest thing I want everybody to know about Age of Extinction: the boredom it induces. We all like to poke fun at the Transformers series but do you really remember how it felt the last time you sat through one of these things? It was a chore, an utter waste of time. I'm never going back. You can't make me.

Movie Review -- Dark Phoenix

  This is the end, my only friend, the end. Dark Phoenix marks the end of the 19-years old X-Men series as run by 20^th Century Fox and it's been quite a ride, hasn't it? We've had some ups – Days of Future Past, Logan – some downs – Origins: Wolverine, Apocalypse – and everything in between (I didn't think The Last Stand was all that bad!). And to cap it all off we've now got the twelfth and final film which takes another stab at a classic comic storyline already tried in an earlier film back in 2006. What could possibly go wrong?

  Let's start with the film's title. Why doesn't it say X-Men in it? This isn't exactly a solo movie that's all about Jean Grey; Dark Phoenix is supposed to serve as the conclusion to the “new”, soft-rebooted series that began with First Class (2011). What, are the producers trying to disassociate this film with the others or something?

  Anyways the story takes place in 1992 and the X-Men are now international celebrities, but not all is well. Professor X's motivations/intentions as the face of mutantkind are called into question and during a rescue mission in space Jean absorbs an extraterrestrial force that amplifies her powers far beyond what she's used to. A shape-shifting alien race travels to Earth to reclaim this force. Trouble ensues and relationships are put to the test. It's a plot that borrows a lot of elements from 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand: the same locations, the same external forces, even some of the same deaths. As with that film, Dark Phoenix raises a bunch of ethical debates which cause friction amongst the team, which is interesting to see. It's just a shame that the dialogue is a bit heavy on the oversimplification.

  It's also a shame that Quicksilver gets the shaft. Remember the whole he's-the-son-of-Magneto thing? Totally forgotten. And as was the case with Days of Future Past, he gets written out rather early on account of how overpowered he is.

  Speaking of characters getting the shaft, Jennifer Lawrence really lets down this time around as Mystique. She acts like she barely gives a damn about anything. There might be a bit of truth to that considering how much time she doesn't spend in her blue mutant makeup.

  Some of the acting is quite good, especially from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Sophie Turner. But having been set in yet another decade, Dark Phoenix suffers from that old familiar problem of the soft-rebooted X-Men series: the returning characters look way too young. Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, and Nightcrawler haven't aged at all since 1983. Quicksilver looks just as he did in 1973. Xavier, Magneto, Beast, and Mystique were all born the 1930's and yet they look just as they did in the 1960's! After four movies they still can't get aging right. Is immortality a superpower common amongst all mutants? Am I really watching a series of Highlander films?

  But the rotten turkey award has got to go to Jessica Chastain as Vuk, the aliens' leader. Her delivery is so awkward and her dialogue is so Care Bears-esque that it's impossible to take her seriously.

  The scope of Dark Phoenix's production is a mixed bag. The Hans Zimmer score sounds excellent, but a lot of the film's other elements gives the impression of a relatively a low-effort affair. For example, the action is of notably smaller scale than in previous instalments. And even though this is a movie set in the 1990's hardly any attempt was made to make it look so. There isn't a single Nirvana song, which is pretty much obligatory for 1990's period piece films nowadays. If you walked into the theatre a few minutes late you could be forgiven for assuming that this takes place in the present day. And to cap it all off, we don't even get to see what the aliens truly look like. From beginning to end Vuk and all her minions look just like regular people! How lazy can you get?

  That's not to say I hated Dark Phoenix. There are some genuinely cool scenes, sympathetic characters, decent songs, and emotional moments on display. I'd say it's slightly better than 2016's X-Men: Apocalypse in that it has a more focused cast, is more emotionally commanding, and is less unintentionally funny. That being said its lesser scale, toned-down action, and silly villains keep this phoenix firmly mired in ashes.

Grade:

Movie Review -- John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum

  Screw Avengers: Endgame. This is the movie I've been looking forward to seeing in 2019! John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum is the latest instalment in what I consider to be the best new action franchise of this decade. The previous film in the series (reviewed February 2017) utterly blew me away and its ending gave this third film plenty to work with as far as story goes. So did Parabellum match the high calibre of its predecessors or has this series fired its last bullet? Let's take a look.

  Chapter 3 starts off right at the end of Chapter 2, with hitman John Wick on the run from countless assassins due to his actions in the previous film. With badguys coming at him from all sides John desperately tries to clear his name with the High Table. It's a plot that continues the world-building we saw in Chapter 2. We meet a few more important characters and we learn a lot more about how the whole secret-society-of-assassins works. For example, being a hitman apparently requires you to frequently mutilate yourself in front of your bosses. We also get some insight into John's origin as well as his real name.

  We're also presented with a load of action scenarios new to the series, such as a chase scene on horseback, a knife fight in the middle of a knife store/armoury, and (basically) ninjas. It's the good old over-the-top action we've come to love about this franchise, and while it doesn't go as far as slapstick territory the film definitely has a sense of humour at times as evidenced by the abundance of attacks to the crotch. The only thing I wasn't too keen on was how it was unclear whether killings in full view of the public were being noticed or not.

  Keanu Reeves returns as the title character and he's in as good a form as ever. However I did notice that the character of John Wick seems a little less sympathetic this time around. All the trouble that he's now in: he brought that upon himself and now he's dealing with the consequences. It's also unclear what his motivation is. In the previous films he was out for revenge or he was doing things that he was obligated to do, but in Parabellum it isn't all that convincing or clear of what it is that he's got to live for. Familiar characters have returned from the previous films – yes, even the dog with no name. Lawrence Fishburne is once again the Bowery King, hamming it up and loving every minute of it. Even Charon, the concierge, gets to kick some ass this time. There's also Halle Berry who plays one of Wick's old assassin buddies. Her acting is merely OK, but at least she's pretty good in the action scenes.

  And when it comes to John Wick movies that's what people go to see isn't it? Yes, the series trademark action makes its triumphant return with its spectacular choreography and breakneck speed thanks to returning director Chad Stahelski. The fight scenes and shootouts are exhilarating: close up and not too shaky, unlike the viewer who will be trying their best to not blink! The rest of the movie has that familiar, modern visual style the series is known for. Even visual elements such as lens flares – which I usually dislike – are used to heighten suspense. Parabellum's sound design also deserves a lot of credit. The thunderous gunshots, the explosive shattering of glass, and the enhanced punch/kick sounds all serve to make the action scenes that much more visceral and impactful.

  And that about sums up John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. It's an intensely fun experience that ups the ante in terms of action spectacle, and a worthy addition to this great franchise. If you didn't care much for the other John Wick films then this one probably won't win you over. But for everyone else, prepare to have your socks knocked off yet again.

Grade: