Shazam: Big 2.0

Shazam is a superhero film directed by David F. Sandberg, it is the 7^th instalment in the DCEU. The plot follows Billy Batson (Asher Angel), a young foster kid who has spent most of his life trying to find his biological mum after she abandoned him at a fair. One day an old wizard calls upon Billy to take up the mantel of Shazam (Zachery Levi), and stop the evil that the 7 Deadly Sins have bought into the world, as well as defeat evil scientist Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong).

Of all the DC Comics heroes Shazam is probably the one that I am the least familiar with, as such it was neat to learn his origin story. I think the story choice of having Billy be a foster kid that constantly runs away from foster homes to look for his mum, who he believes is the only family he needs, only to have it turn out that his mum deliberately abandoned him is an inspired choice. This choice was surprisingly dark for a family film and I appreciated that. What’s more this gave the moment when Billy finally excepts his foster family far more emotional weight.

As anyone who has ever seen Chuck can tell you Zachery Levi might be the most charming man on the planet, he was great in the Thor films though he only had a small part and he is terrific here in a larger superhero role. He perfectly captures the Big mentality, being a kid’s brain in the body of a grown man, as he plays the character with a healthy does of innocence and naivety. When his big hero moment finally comes it feels earned.

Furthermore, Mark Strong does a great turn as the villain, his character is threatening and menacing and dominates the screen every time he appears. Strong proves once again that he is one of the most versatile actors currently working. The boardroom scene is one of my favourites of last year, you will know why when you watch it.

I think this might be the most underrated and perhaps the best DCEU film. The emotional stakes are pitch perfect, Zachery Levi is magnificent, and the film isn’t afraid to get dark, which it does several times to great effect.

Pros.

Zachery Levi.

The darkness.

The humour.

The emotional stakes.

The wider universe.

Cons.

None, I have seen this several times and it holds up each watch.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Cat Returns: Studio Ghibli Gone Bad?

The Cat Returns is a Japanese animated film directed by Hiroyuki Morita. The plot revolves around Haru (Chizuru Ikewaki), who ends up saving the life of the Cat Kingdoms Prince Lune (Takayuki Yamada), without knowing who he is. After this she is perused by the King of the Cat Kingdom, who is intent on her marrying his son. She then has to venture to the Cat Kingdom, to try and escape the whole situation.

This is the third film in my Studio Ghibli odyssey, and I have to say it is the worst thus far. Of the three films I have seen so far, this is the shortest, which you would think is a mercy, but it is not. There is nothing wrong with the start of the film or with Haru herself, she is fine, it is everything that happens from the Bureau onwards that is the problem. I understand that the Japanese culture might be slightly different from what I am used to, but all the elusions to bestiality made me feel uncomfortable. There is no other way to say it than Haru is attracted to her Cat protector and despite the film turning her into a cat midway through, don’t ask me why, it still feels wrong.

Narratively, the film is a mess, when compared to something like Princess Monokoe or My Neighbour Totoro, is a complete dumpster fire story wise. Things just happen with no rhyme or reason and the plot is so thin that when these things happen you are left saying wait what. I genuinely believe if this film did not have the Studio Ghibli name attached to it, then it wouldn’t even be considered watchable let alone good.

None of the film feels satisfying either, you don’t care about any of the characters, as they aren’t developed, they are just kind of there, the ending as well adds very little to call it an anti-climax would be an understatement.

Overall, this film just wasn’t for me, I am a cat person, but even still I found precious few things to like about it. I was left feeling uncomfortable and vaguely confused by it and one thing is for sure, that is an hour and 15 minutes of my time I am never going to get back.

Pros.

It’s only on for 75 minutes.

Haru is okay.

Cons.

It makes no sense.

The bestiality undertones.

It was a slog to get through.

1.5/5

My Neighbor Totoro: The Spirit Next Door

My Neighbour Totoro is a Japanese animated fantasy film directed by Hayao Miyazaki. The plot focuses on a family that moves to a new house, which is also home to a number of spirits. The two young girls of the family Satsuki (Noriko Hidaka), and Mei (Chika Sakamoto), make friends with the spirits and their colourful leader Totoro. The film deals with the interactions between the family and the spirits.

This film is childhood innocence incarnate, the girls and their relationship with Totoro is so wholesome and pure it reminds me of all the fun I had with my imaginary friends when I was child. Totoro himself is both huge and terrifying, but also cute and cuddly. He is one of the most interesting animated characters I have seen in a long time and that is mainly because we don’t know a lot about him.

Despite all this sweetness and light, there is a hidden darkness behind it all. The mother of the girls is in hospital for unspecified reason and there is a constant threat that she is going to die; which is heart-breaking for the girl’s sake. There is also a scene in the film where it looks like the little girl might be lost or hurt and it genuinely puts you on edge. I think this added aspect gives older people something to enjoy, which makes it a good film for parents and kids to watch together.

There is one scene in the film that bothered me, I don’t know why it was there and it made me uncomfortable. This is of course the bathroom scene, where the dad and two girls are naked in a draw out scene, you don’t see anything, but it is incredibly unnecessary. The scene adds nothing to the film as a whole and it makes you question why it was left in the final cut.

Finally, I loved the colour and animation style of this film and I thought that much like the other Studio Ghibli film I have seen recently Princess Mononoke, every scene could be a painting. The art style is different enough to give to a distinct personality, but there is also a familiarity to it.

Overall, I liked this film it reminded me of my childhood, my only issue with it was that one-bathroom scene that I thought was totally unnecessary. Totoro is incredibly cute.

Pros.

The art style.

The child-like wonder, but also the more adult moments.

Totoro himself.

Cons.

That scene.

The cat bus thing was scary and haunting.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Crazy Rich Asians: How To Miscast Your Lead

Crazy Rich Asians is a romantic comedy film directed by Jon. M. Chu. It is based on the book of the same name. The plot follows economics lecturer Rachel (Constance Wu), as she travels to meet her boyfriend Nick’s (Henry Goldings), parents. Once she arrives in Singapore, she is shocked to find out that her boyfriend belongs to one of the richest families in the country.

I haven’t read the books, so my reaction is based only on the film. I thought that this was a fairly standard rom-com, I understand how it is important from a cinema diversity standpoint as this film features an almost entirely Asian cast which is something quite rare in Hollywood. However, as a rom-com this film left me going ‘eh’.

The love story between Rachel and Nick is as you would expect it to be, she feels out of place in this rich world, Nick’s mum Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), doesn’t approve of their relationship, it all seems hopeless, they break-up, they realise none of that matters and then get back together in the end, this is pretty much your standard fish out of water rom-com plot line.

The far more interesting plot line is that of the failing marriage between Astrid (Gemma Chan), and Michael (Pierre Png). Michael is resentful that he doesn’t have any agency of his own as his business ventures keep failing, he also doesn’t like the fact this wife is rich from her own money, he is deeply insecure and it says a lot about relationship power dynamics and masculinity; it also works as a nice parallel for Rachel and Nick at the start of the film. This sub-plot between two supporting character is more interesting than the main story!

As for the main two characters, Henry Golding is as effortlessly charming as always, he has charisma for days and that is needed here, as his on-screen partner Constance Wu has none. It is very hard to root for Rachel as Wu does very little to make her warm or endearing, Wu seems to think that she herself is great and that is why you should care about any character she plays, she seems to refuse to shot scenes that make her appear even slightly vulnerable. This is true of her other projects as well and it just makes her come across as a very cold person, which is not want you want from the lead character in a rom-com. She is also outperformed by Awkwafina, who plays her sidekick/best friend in the film.

Overall, I wish this film had cast someone else as it’s leading lady, or at the very least had given Gemma Chan more screen time as she is by far the best actress on screen. Golding is charming, but that only carries the film so far.

Pros.

Gemma Chan.

Henry Golding.

A step forward for Hollywood.

Cons.

Deeply average.

Constance Wu is woefully miscast.

2.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Onward: A Tale Of Two Brothers

Onward is a computer animated urban fantasy film directed by Dan Scanlon. The plot sees two elf brothers Ian (Tom Holland), and Barley (Chris Pratt), go on a mythical quest to find a rare gem that can bring their dead father back to Earth for one day. The themes of this film are family and being proud of who you are as a person/ being more confident.

On the surface this seems like just another fantasy animated film, the themes and motivations feel samey, but the emotional impact of the film as a whole is what elevates it over mediocrity. I don’t have any siblings, but even I was feeling something when at the end of the film Ian went without his chance to meet his father so Barley could say a proper goodbye to him instead; I can only imagine how impactful this scene would be if you actually had siblings to draw parallels with.

I think Ian and Barley as characters are perfectly fine, they’re serviceable enough, they won’t join Pixar’s pantheon of beloved animated characters, that’s for sure. Pratt seems to be doing his best Jack Black circa 2005 impression, which is okay, and he is probably the character I like the most. I like the energy and good nature the character has; he is the only character I was invested in.

Ian on the other hand I found annoying, I don’t know if it was the writing or Tom Holland’s performance, but I never warmed to his character, even by the end of the film I still felt very little for him. To me, the character seemed overly whiny, he complained and bitched and moaned at every turn, I get that his character is supposed to be sad, but he sucked the fun out of every scene he was in. What’s more Ian treats his brother like dirt for a good 3 quarters of the film, he doesn’t care about his brother getting to see their dad, no he never considers that, just what he wants and his time with their dad, moreover he openly calls his brother a screw up, even though all his brother has done up until that point is try and help him. So yeah in a film about brotherhood and brotherly love, to have your main character treat his well-intentioned brother, as a moron he would rather not have to deal with is a weird character decision.

Overall, this is not a great film, nor is it a terrible one, it is just fine. There are some neat Shrek esque ideas of display here, but they are never really tapped into, the emotional impact is good, but Ian and the side characters aren’t, it is a textbook example of a mid-tier Pixar film.

Pros.

The emotional impact/ wholesomeness

Chris Pratt’s Jack Black impression.

Neat fantasy elements.

Cons.

Ian is whiny and annoying.

I was never really blown away by any of it.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Sonic The Hedgehog: The Hero We Need!

Sonic The Hedgehog is an action-adventure comedy film based off the beloved 90’s videogame figure. The plot follows Sonic after he flees his home world and takes up residency on Earth, there he meets Donut Lord (James Marsden), who accidentally tranquilisers him causing him to lose his rings, which Sonic needs to travel between worlds. While all of this is happening the US, government calls in a specialist to check out all the strange goings on, Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey), who them seeks out Sonic to capture him and use him for his own odds and ends.

Can I just say that as someone who grew up playing Sonic in the early 2000’s this film is a triumph they nail Sonic (Ben Schwartz), Robotnik and the world, more over that post credits scene when they introduce Tails had me giddy with excitement. I am actively looking forward to a Sega shared universe and if all of the entries to the universe are as good as this, we might finally have something to rival the MCU.

My only complaint about this film is that occasionally it focused a bit too much on it’s human characters, while Marsden did a good job the same can’t be said for his in-film wife Maddie/ The Pretzel Lady (Tika Sumpter), who added nothing and was incredibly underdeveloped, the scenes that focused on her and her sister Rachel (Natasha Rothwell), dragged on and on and took away from the overall enjoyment of the film. The joke of Rachel not liking Donut Lord/Mike is used for all it is worth and it is never once funny.

However, Carrey’s turn as Robotnik more than makes up for the lack of comedy and he is phenomenal and hilarious. I didn’t realise until I was sat watching this film how much I had missed seeing Jim Carrey on the big screen, as he was a favourite of mine when I was growing up. Carrey brings some real menace to Robotnik, but also makes him super over the top in the best way, he perfectly walks that line between scary and funny.

Sonic himself looks great and reminds me of the Sonic from my youth, Ben Schwartz does a great job voicing him, he brings a lot of energy to the character and also makes him warm and likeable; there are elements of the latest iteration of Paddington mixed in the there I am sure.

Overall, there is a lot to love about this film, it is not only a great videogame movie, but also the perfect start to a wider universe. Loved it! If you’re a fan of Sonic or, a newcomer to the character I guarantee you will have a good time with this film.

Pros.

Setting up the world.

I missed Jim Carrey.

The post credits scene.

Sonic himself.

Cons.

Any scene with Maddie or her sister.

4.5/5

Peter Rabbit: Stone Cold Killer

Peter Rabbit is a 3D live-action/computer-animated comedy film directed by Will Gluck. The plot of the film takes inspiration from the Beatrice Potter books of the same name and sees Peter and his family trying to steal from the garden of Thomas McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson), whilst also trying to stop the romance developing between him and the rabbits beloved Bea (Rose Byrne).

What can I say about this film? The only positive I will give this film is the fact that there is nothing else quite like it, it is bizarre in both a good way and a bad way. The good way is due to the fact that Beatrice Potter is interacting with the rabbits she created, so that worked for me in a meta way. However, in the bad way we have baffling decisions like having their be a cockerel character, who openly says things to the extent of, ‘he only had kids because he thought the world was going to end tomorrow and that now he is stuck looking after them’ and ‘he hates his life’. Fear not by the end of the film he loves his life as a single father, but my question is why was this put in? The cockerel is not a main character he is incredibly throw away, so who were his ‘jokes’ aimed at, they certainly weren’t child friendly, so maybe the parents? However, I doubt parents very much would like a lot of what he was saying.

Moreover, the film decides to make Peter evil. I get that he is having a fun war of escalation with McGregor, and McGregor tries to kill Peter, but he is the villain, so it is okay for him to do it. However, Peter (James Corden), who is the hero of the tale tries to kill McGregor both by trying to make him die of an allergic reaction as well as by torturing him with bear traps, it’s sounds like I am joking, but I am not. Why is the hero of a kid’s movie doing this, why?

Furthermore, this film is aggressively dumb and teaches kid’s bad lessons. One of peter’s sister constantly throws herself of things, breaking her ribs, but it’s okay because she has more ribs to break her fall the next time she does it. In no way should this be taught to kids because not only is it not true, but it is the sort of things they might see and try and imitate.

This review has already gone long, so I am not going to go on about James Corden and how the world should leave him behind, he isn’t as annoying as usual here, but it is safe to say that still means he is incredibly annoying.

Overall, the only reason to watch this film is out of morbid curiosity, there are some hilarious moments, not a single one of them is intentional. I wouldn’t let kids watch this because it has a lot of harmful messages and because it is just trash.

Pros.

Funny when it is not trying to be.

Freakishly bizarre.

Cons.

Peter Rabbit tries to murder people.

James Corden.

Who is this film for?

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Mamma Mia: Couldn’t Escape If I Wanted To.

Mamma Mia: The Movie is a jukebox musical romantic comedy film directed by Phyllida Lloyd. The plot revolves around Sophie (Amanda Seyfried), who, a few days before her wedding, wants to find out who her dad is, so she invites 3 men to her wedding who could all be her potential father, so she can in her own words, “get married knowing who she is”.

On watching this I found it to not be as good as the sequel, Here We Go Again, a lot of the drama in this film I found annoying, Sophie’s character is stressed as she doesn’t know what she is going to do about the 3 men she invited to the wedding, one of whom is her father, here’s an idea why don’t you sit down and have a conversation with them, no that would be too simple. However, that said no one is really watching these films for the intricate details of the plot, they’re watching them to listen to the Abba soundtrack.

Most of the Abba songs you know and love are in this film, Super Trooper, Waterloo, Dancing Queen are all there, one of my personal favourites Fernando, yes I like it because of that scene in Malcolm In The Middle, isn’t in it, which I found personally disappointing, but that’s all just a matter of personal taste. The film is still incredibly fun and entertaining to not only watch, but also sing and dance along with. All of the cast give good performances: Meryl Streep (Donna) as well as the 3 dads Colin Firth (Harry), Stellan Skarsgard (Bill) and Pierce Borsnan (Sam), are all the standouts, they each have a lot of fantastic moments that make you laugh and smile, Firth especially.

The dance choreography is all done quite well and there are many lavish numbers where it can be seen and appreciated; this is especially true of the beach scene; you will know which one I mean if you have seen the film.

Overall, this is an incredibly fun film that will make you laugh, cry and want to dance. Abba’s songs are timeless and never seem to go out of style, you will find them stuck inside your head days after you have seen this film, so be prepared for that. The only thing that stops me from giving it full honours is that I believe it was upstaged by its sequel in a few ways, as a result I have more fondness towards that film.

Pros.

The songs.

The dance.

The laughs.

The love.

Cons.

It is not as good as its sequel.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke.

The Current State Of Doctor Who: Please Someone Put It Out Of It’s Misery!

*Bonus Content

Doctor Who is a British institution it has been so far decades, but what I want to talk about today is how the series has been since it’s 2005 revival, the steady decline. I have watched Doctor Who since I was a kid, I loved Eccleston and Tennant’s Eras, I stuck around during the Smith years, I skipped Capaldi and I came back for Whittaker.

For me what makes Who Who is off world adventures, unique and memorable aliens, and story lines and characters you care about, these I would stay are the staples of good Doctor Who that feature in most iterations of the show. However, New Who seems to have an identity crisis it is so hellbent on being new and different that it is hemorrhaging viewers like it’s going out of style.

Remember what I said a few lines up about what makes good Who? Well let’s look at some of the recent episodes of Doctor Who and see if they stack up. Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor seems to have a fear of going off world as most of the episodes of these newer series are set on Earth, that shouldn’t be a bad thing in and of itself as there are plenty of cool things they could do with it, but oh my they don’t.

Then you have memorable aliens, New Who seems to like to have most of it’s villains be humans, so it can make overt and blatant political points, but to it’s credit when they do have new alien villains they do work well such as in the Nicola Tessla episode. Although something that New Who seems to do, most likely to play on audiences’ nostalgia is bring back classic monsters and I’m sorry but it is just cheap. You can’t have your cake and eat it; they want so badly to be new and fresh and yet they still play up the nostalgia to get people to stick out the new series. What’s more when they do bring these classic monsters back, they ruin them, here’s looking at you Dalek New Year’s Special.

Finally we have characters and storylines that you care about, now I have no issue with Whittaker’s portrayal for the most part, I think she can shine when the writing is good, but the issue here is that it very rarely is and this leads to the new Doctor having a sycophantic personality. Moreover, the companions are fine, but there are too many of them, this stops anyone of them from getting meaningful development outside of tropes and clichés. In terms of storylines, we might have one good storyline such as ‘Fugitive of the Jadoon’, followed by a never-ending wave of trash like ‘Praxeus’. The writing is horrific and often far too on the nose, yes before you say it I know Doctor Who has always been a political show, but it was done in a subtle way, now it has become a weekly lecture about the evils of humanity and how we are terrible and for me that just isn’t fun.

So across my criteria current year Doctor Who is a failure.

I hope the BBC end this before the ratings drop much lower, current Who is already an embarrassment of what it used to be, but surely it can’t get any worse.

I will be back to do a review of the new season when it ends!

Luke

Toy Story 4: Saying Goodbye

Toy Story 4 is a computer animated comedy film directed by Josh Cooley. The plot continues on from the ending of Toy Story 3 with the toys now having moved on from Andy and are now loving life under Bonnie. However, one of the toys feels as though he doesn’t fit in this new world anymore and questions where he does belong, this toy is Woodie (Tom Hanks).

I firmly believe this film doesn’t need to exist, Toy Story 3 wrapped the character arcs up for everyone in such a nice and satisfying way we didn’t need to revisit them, maybe in 30 years when the series will inevitably be rebooted, or remade, but we didn’t need another sequel. Pixar billed Toy Story 4 as an epilogue, a whole film that would serve as the end. So, it is by that definition I will judge this film.

I thought this film was good, but not great, by far it is the weakest instalment in the quadrillage. This film is very much Woodies film and yes, he has always been the main character of these films, but he has just been one part of a larger ensemble. Here he is the main focus. As such characters like Buzz (Tim Allen) and Jessie (Joan Cusack), are not really in this film, they have sort of appearances here and there, but they are given nothing of note to do, Jessie especially.

In terms of characterisation Woodie goes on quite the journey, he starts the film trying to make Bonnie into the new Andy, when he realises, he can’t do that and Bonnie makes Forky (Tony Hale), a new toy to replace him, he realises he needs to move on. In many ways Woodie is the audience in this film as he realises the time has come to say goodbye. They tie into this Bo Peep (Annie Potts), coming back into Woodie’s life, she is the one who got away and she shows him, very much the film shows us that it is okay to move on.

Audiences of my generation have grown up with these films and now we are being told it is okay to move on and leave the Toy Story films behind and I think there is something beautiful about that. Though I think this film was deeply unnecessary and was most likely a cash grab it still had heart and it still had soul, I liked seeing where it left Woodie and I hope they leave him there.

Ps. Please Pixar don’t make Toy Story 5!

Pros.

The ending.

Woodie’s Arc.

The new characters are good for a laugh.

Cons.

Side-lines Buzz and Jessie.

You can’t shake the feeling this film doesn’t need to exist.

3.5/5