The Lion King Review

The Lion King is directed by Jon Favreau and features the voices of Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chitwel Ejifor, Alfre Woodward, Billy Eichner, John Kani, John Oliver, Beyoncé Knowles Carter and James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa.

The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.

The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.

The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.

The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.

The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.

You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.

The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...

D

Thank you for reading.

Stuber Review

Stuber was directed by Michael Dowse and stars Kumail Nanjiani, Dave Bautista, Iko Uwais, Natalie Morales, Betty Gilpin, Jimmy Tatro, Mira Sorvino and Karen Gillan.

The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.

The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.

The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there.  I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.

The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.

The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.

The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.

The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...

B-

Thank you for reading.

Yesterday Review

Yesterday was directed by Danny Boyle and stars Himesh Patel, Lilly James, Kate Mackinnon and Ed Sheeran.

The film is about a struggling musician who, after being in an accident, wakes up to discover no one remembers the music of the Beatles apart from him. So, understandably, he claims their songs as his own, takes the credit and gets all the recognition - while also achieving the level of fame he has always dreamed of. But could he run the risk of being exposed as a fraud? Or worse, losing the love of his life?

The performances were fine, Patel and James both do good jobs of portraying likeable everyday people, and they do have a believable chemistry together. But they are in the end forgettable. MacKinnon seems like the film's source of comic relief, and I thought she did a very good job with her character, she was funny and kept the film entertaining when things started to slow down, and through it was a small part she certainly made the most of it. Lastly Sheeran's work in the film didn't seem as much like a performance as a marketing ploy to get younger audiences in. And when he is on screen he just shows up, says a few lines that don't advance the plot, then goes away. And it's like that with Sheeran every few minutes for the whole runtime.

The film was written by Richard Curtis and it's clear that he has written it with the intention of it being a romantic comedy with a success story and a twist to give it some distinction from his previous work. There are some moments where that has slightly paid off, but despite its interesting concept and ambitions, it's very predictable after a while, there is nothing you don't see coming, and it just gets tiresome as you wait in vain for a truly interesting idea to reach its full potential.

The film was shot by Christopher Ross and there are some noteworthy moments, one being a surprising overuse of Dutch angles that felt out of place in a romantic comedy. Those kinds of angles are usually used in action movies to give the viewer a feeling of unease. I also thought it was somewhat interesting that while the main character is struggling to remember Beatles lyrics, we are shown an exact image of what it is he is saying. And on a slightly negative note, the blackout sequence which sets up the film's main events (Patel going slowly through the blackness) feel like nothing more than a recycled, and less impressive, version of a similar sequence from the 2017 horror film, Get Out. I doubt that it was anyone's intention to make the scenes similar, but when you look at the two, it's hard not to notice.

The music was composed by Daniel Pemberton, and unfortunately it didn't stand out to me at all. I was more concerned with what would happen with the Beatles songs. Firstly, Patel manages to sing the songs moderately well, but there's one very jarring alteration made to one of the songs that just comes off as desperation. It's as if someone  had no idea what to do with all the rights to all of this music so they ended up doing the first thing they could think of, but without actually thinking it through.

The one flaw that really damaged my experience with this film, is that in the world where the film takes place, where the Beatles never existed, there are moments where it's mentioned in passing that several other familiar things don't exist either. I think this movie would have been far more interesting had this aspect been explored further, if there had been several things taken out of existence instead of just one. I certainly feel like that was the even better film trying to get out of this one.

The conclusions I draw from this are that: Yesterday has average performances; an ambitious  but predictable script; some interesting ideas in the cinematography, plus one shot that seems recycled from another film; an unmemorable score with unwarranted alterations made to beloved songs; and a flaw that if it had proper attention paid to it, perhaps could have been used productively to make a better film.

Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Yesterday...

C

Thank you for reading.

Spider-Man:Far From Home Review

Spider-Man: Far From Home was directed by Jon Watts and stars Tom Holland, Samuel L Jackson, Zendaya, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei and Jake Gyllenhaal.

The plot of this film revolves around Peter Parker and his friends as they take a trip around Europe, which is interrupted when Nick Fury shows up to request Parker's help with a new threat that has emerged. He teams up with a man named Mysterio, and on the side has to figure out how to fully take on his superhero duties, while also making time for his real life.

The performances have good but varying results. Tom Holland once again demonstrates how well he can play Peter Parker/Spider-Man by taking the awkward nerdy aspects of the character and using them to great comedic effect, and when he has to portray the character in a more serious light, he doesn't overplay it, or do it in a way that ruins the film's relatively light-hearted tone.

Zendaya as MJ was quite amusing, her scenes with Holland are definitely a highlight of the film and she proves herself to be a worthy addition to the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Mysterio with a lot of charisma, and he does have some genuine chemistry with Holland; and Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury with the signature likeability that he always brings to his roles.

The film was written by Chris McKenna and Eric Sommers, and while their script has been written with the same emphasis on high-school life and humour as the previous instalment, what stood out to me was how the script was able to take almost anything and find a way to make it entertaining - it could be a small situation someone has to get out, or a big battle scene, or even something as simple as teenage drama. All of this was very engaging, consistently enjoyable, and rarely felt like it dragged.

The film was shot by Matthew J Lloyd and he does have some noteworthy work in the film. There's a very hallucinogenic sequence which I found interesting to look at as it felt like an old idea was being tried in a different way in a superhero film. Some of the action and stunts are shot from some unusual, if tired, angles.

The score was composed by Michael Giacchino it appears to be some kind of tribute to the other Spider-Man scores. I felt he maybe achieved his aim once, and for the rest of the film the score thinks it's something it's not; and the music rarely shines because of that. The only other notable moment that is music-related is when Parker is in a bar and a song is playing in the background and the lyrics are (perhaps) alluding to something that has been said many times in the film. If it was intentional, well done. If not, then it was just a happy accident that worked in the music's favour.

There are actually several disappointments in this film for me, one being the villain's motivations - they just seem petty and although I could understand where he was coming from with them, when your motives are that bad, you're going to be hard to feel sympathy for. Next we have the villain's plan: this is a film that to some extent knows how silly it is, and has fun with that most of the time, but the villain's plan and how it gets carried out just eventually becomes over-complicated and too frustrating to follow. And lastly, the film gets far too overindulgent with the fact that many key characters die in a film set in the same cinematic universe as this one. Especially during the first 20 minutes when we just can't escape the face of one of the characters who died, it goes from being an interesting cross-reference to being annoyingly overindulgent.

The conclusions I draw from this are that: Spider-Man: Far From Home has enjoyable performances, a consistently entertaining script, some interesting visuals and angles in the cinematography, and a score that achieves its aim then proceeds to be something it is not. It has a villain with petty motivations, a too-complicated plan, and overindulges in areas that are best left alone.

Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Spider-Man: Far From Home...

B-

Thank you for reading.
                  
       

Child’s Play Review

Child's Play was directed by Lars Klevberg and stars Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman and Bryan Tyree Henry, and features Mark Hamill as the voice of Chucky.

The plot concerns a mother and son who move to a new home, and as a present the son comes into possession of a very high-tech doll. But the doll goes against its programming, becomes self-aware and goes on a murderous rampage.

The acting is surprisingly good, but for different reasons. Firstly you have Bateman who gives a committed and enjoyable, if clichéd, performance as Andy. Bryan Tyree Henry plays a police officer who provides the film's comic relief when it needs it. But in the end it all does come down to the doll, Mark Hamill as Chucky. He definitely succeeds in giving all his scenes a feeling of unease, which makes him very watchable and entertaining. But despite all  that I felt there was something Hamill didn't do, something lacking that could have made his performance even more enjoyable. He's good, but there is definitely a feeling of opportunity missed.

The film was written by Tyler Burton Smith, and what is most impressive about his script is how it manages to elevate the quality of the film. The script is mostly new material and that generally works in its favour. There are new characters, who are given more to do, there's some very inventive kills throughout, and some memorable dialogue. Plus some dark humour and a fair amount of set up for some of the key characters before the main events start occurring. I thought all those things went together really well to make an above average script.

The film was shot by Brendan Ugeama and if there's one thing he has managed to accomplish with his cinematography it's the images of the doll standing in the shadows. I thought those work very well because they create quite an unnerving sensation in the viewer because he's simply standing there waiting, there's little to no light, and yet it's very clear what he is capable of and that he could suddenly jump and do anything at anytime.

The music was composed by Bear McCreary. I feel that the score works and doesn't work at the same time. There are parts of it that sound like it understands the film's darker tones rather well, but then another part will come along that demonstrates that maybe the darker tone aspect was understood a little too well, for a film that is a horror but does posses some silly ideas. And when the music tries to play to the sillier side of the film, especially with a song sung by the villain (!), I found that part of the score to be annoying and confusing. The song sounds as if it wants you to be frightened, but it sounds too much like an obnoxious nursery rhyme to even be remotely scary, just aggressively annoying  The music is good work most of the time, I just feel that the film needed music of a slightly better standard to help to contrast the horrific and comedic tones.

One flaw that I feel diminished the film takes place in the final few minutes. Without getting into specifics or spoilers, something happens that I feel damages one of the original film's key values and for a film like this, it's also kind of unnecessary. This sequence did maintain my interest in the film, but it wasn't without its problems. I would best describe it as an entertaining, but overblown climax.

The conclusions I draw from that is are that: Child's Play has surprisingly good performances; a very well written script; some unnerving shots; a score that has its moments but needs work with the tonal elements; an aggressively annoying song for and sung by the villain; and a flaw that I feel damages one of the original's core values, but does give us an entertaining but overblown climax.                                              
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Child's Play...

B

Thank you for reading.

Toy Story 4 Review

Toy Story 4 was directed by Josh Cooley and features the voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, Tony Hale and Keanu Reeves, plus many others.

The plot concerns the toys' life with their new owner, Bonnie, who makes a toy fork who comes to life and decides that the conventional toy life is not for him. So Woody and the rest of the toys go to find him, and encounter some friends both old and new along the way.

For performances I thought most of the actors worked best with scenes that were best suited to their abilities. As always, Tom Hanks as Woody creates a very good screen presence, especially when the film needs to be dramatic or heart-warming, but he does also try to have some light-hearted fun when given the chance. Annie Potts as Bo is given more screen time than she has had in any of the previous instalments and does her best with the material she has. Her efforts are appreciated, but come off as only mildly engaging as she is surround by unquestionably superior talent. From the new cast Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele definitely stand out. They have great chemistry together and enjoy some funny lines and moments. And it's refreshing to have new characters who are so enjoyable to watch.

The script is by Stephany Folsom and Andrew Stanton, and is certainly impressive to say the least. There's the usual likeable brand of humour that these film are known for, but this one feels slightly different due to its emphasis on emotion. And to its credit, the film feels very fast-paced and rarely drags, and when it does occasionally slow the pace, it picks up relatively quickly. Another first is that I feel for the first time in this franchise we get a few characters that are fleshed out well and not just given basic details. Plus the ending is unexpected but still a surprisingly appropriate way to bring the film to an end.

The cinematography is by Patrick Lin and Jean-Claude Kalache and unfortunately nothing about the film's visuals stand out for me, but then again when it comes to films like this I feel it's the animation that does the talking for the visual aspects. Speaking of which, the animation is stepped up in a big way from the last film in the franchise, and it's definitely noticeable, especially in the way certain rooms are lit - from flashy and upbeat to dark and depressing.

The score was composed by Randy Newman, and his work here sounds decent enough, but resembles too much what he brought to these films before. The music goes well with the scenes it accompanies, but I feel that sometimes Newman tries a little too hard to make the viewer emotional; sometimes it can just start to work, at other times it doesn't and you just ignore it for a few minutes. I would have to call it decent enough but a bit recycled and emotionally manipulative.

The one flaw that I feel this film has is that, while all the previous instalments had original plots and ideas for their stories, this one has a similar plot to the second one. If it was possible for the writers to come up with an original plot all those years ago, then why couldn't the same have been done here? This is something of a step down for the franchise, so let's hope any future films made by this studio don't make the same mistake.

The conclusions I draw from this are: that Toy Story 4 has good voice performances; an impressive script; unremarkable cinematography that is somewhat made up for by good animation; a decent if manipulative score; and a minus point for being driven by a recycled plot.

Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Toy Story 4...

B+

Thank you for reading.

Brightburn Review

Brightburn was directed by David Yaroveskey and stars Elizabeth Banks, David Denman, Matt Jones, Meredith Hagner, Gregory Alan Williams, Becky Wahlstorm and Jackson A. Dunn.

The plot concerns a couple who have spent years raising an alien child, who looks exactly like any other human being, as their own. But they then have to deal with the consequences of their actions when in adolescence, the boy starts to develop powers that he uses to cause mass destruction around his hometown.

For performances, Elizabeth Banks does moderately well throughout, including the film's climax where she has to portray genuine fear and desperation at a believable but not over-the-top level, and I thought she did that quite well. And in the matter of Dunn as the titular antagonist he was especially good at portraying the cold, psychopathic and inhuman side of his character. And he remained credible throughout the film.

The film was written by Brian and Mark Gunn. What impressed me most about the script was how well the horrific scenes and the more character- and plot-driven scenes were balanced out. It demonstrated to me that the film could have its ambitions without having to sacrifice things that are arguably more important. Speaking of the film's more horrific moments, they are handled quite well, most of them being built up with just the right amount of tension, and when it pays off it feels worth it.

The film was shot by Michael Dallatorre and I feel that he has done a fine job, in fact it's in this particular area that I feel the film maybe got carried away with its lack of restrictions. There are a few shots of extreme graphic violence that I felt was the film's way of saying oh, look what we can do, isn't  this terrifying. I found it unsettling for about a second, but when the shot chose to linger on some of these disturbing images, it just felt like an unnecessary way of provoking the audience.

The score was composed by Timothy Williams, and what I found with his score is that much like another film I reviewed recently, due to all the things going on around it, the score became difficult to appreciate. The only time it manged to grab my attention was when it got inescapably loud and employed the use of musical stings; which to me just feels like a cheap way to get the viewer to jump out of their seat.

The most significant flaw I feel the film has is in its climax. To its credit, it did manage to keep me invested in what was happening, but it did so with methods that had already been used in the film several times already. Therefore any shock value was gone and the audience was by the end immune to any jump-scares the film can produce. I will also give it credit for making some bold choices in the final few minutes.

The conclusions I draw from this are that: Brightburn has two good performances, especially from a newcomer; a script that balances horror, character, and plot without sacrificing anything; some shots in the cinematography that go from unsettling to uninteresting; and a score that is effectively drowned out by everything happening around it and resorts to cheap tactics just to get some attention. And there is a flawed, but bold, climax.

Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Brightburn…
C
Thank you for reading.