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

Avatar: A World Beyond Imagination

Avatar is an epic science fiction film directed by James Cameron. The plot of the film revolves around Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a marine who arrives on the planet of ‘Pandora’ to follow in his brothers’ footsteps and join the Avatar Program. Once Sully dives into the native’s culture he realises that they are a wonderful people and that he is on the wrong side of the conflict; he then goes native.

The story of his film is one we have all seen before, solider goes undercover and learns about another group of people and then switches sides, think Dances With Wolves. There is a timeless quality to the narrative. The Na’vi’s world is deep and rich and every inch of it seems rife to explore, it is stunningly designed, and each character design is a marvel to look at; James Cameron truly did something special with this film.

Sam Worthington is serviceable as the lead, but he is in no way memorable. It is a surprise to no one that Worthington has been in nothing of note since about 2010, his time has very much passed. My main issue with his performance is that anyone could play that character, he doesn’t make the character his own. This problem is only made more evident when you compare his performance to some of the heavy hitters in the cast such as Stephen Lang and Sigourney Weaver. Stephen Lang plays the film’s antagonist Colonel Miles Quaritch, a man who wants to wipe the Na’vi out as he sees them as a threat and as standing the way of what he wants.

Lang is easily one of the best things about the film as he is a great menacing villain and one that has something about him. When Cameron brings out the inevitable 4 sequels, that no one has asked for or wants, I would love to see Lang return; with some type of Science Fiction magic obviously.

Overall, I think the strongest thing about this film is its world. It is this world that I want to see more explored not the characters. I hope the sequels reflect that. If Cameron can show us more of this world then I think they could be hits. The thing that stops me from grading this film higher is the fact that the main character is bland and in no way unique.

Pros.

Stephen Lang.

Beautifully Designed Creatures And Characters.

Fantastic World Building.

Cons.

Pacing Issues.

Sam Worthington.

3/5

Reviewed By Luke

Lady And The Tramp: Disney’s Golden Age?

‘The Lady and The Tramp’ is an animated musical romance film. The plot follows Lady (Barbra Luddy), as she comes to terms with the fact that she might get overlooked when her master’s new baby arrives, during which time she ends up falling in love with Tramp (Larry Roberts).

This film is classic Disney, it came out during that Golden Age for Disney which saw the release of things like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty. I have seen this film but twice in my life, once when I was very young and then much more recently last weekend. I have to say it is not how I remember it and, not in a good way.

No, I am not going to go on about how it is outdated and then talk about the racist cat song: because ultimately that was just a feature of a lot of films from that time period. Instead I am going to talk about how I felt it was lacking a lot of the warmth and heart that a lot of those other classic Disney films have.

Lady and Tramp are both likable as protagonists, but I never found myself caring about them. There are two scenes in the film’s third act that both deal with the supposed death of a character. One of these scenes features Tramp being taken away to the pound to be put down, the other sees Trusty (Bill Baucorn), almost sacrifice his life to save Tramp. Out of these two scenes the one that should have more emotional impact is the one where Tramp faces death as he is one of our main characters, that we spent a lot of time with, but this just isn’t the case.

What’s more this film has no real business calling itself a musical, it doesn’t feature many songs at all. Moreover, the few songs that the film does have are not at all memorable and are mostly flat.

Overall, this film wasn’t what I remembered it to be, it lacked a lot of the warmth and the heart I remember it having, for the few good moments it has and the heart warming ending I will still give it an above average score, but it really isn’t a must see.

Pros.

The Classic Disney Animation.

The Happy Wholesome Ending.

Cons.

You Don’t Care About The Main Characters.

It Lacks Any Real Warmth.

It Doesn’t Have That Disney Magic.

3/5

Reviewed by Luke

Chicken Run: Who Is Really Escaping Who

‘Chicken Run’ is a stop-motion animated comedy film, focusing on the efforts of a group of Chickens to escape the farm they live on before they get turned into pies. ‘Chicken Run’ is Aardman Animation’s first film as such, it set the benchmark for the studio.

Though many love this film, I think it is a weak start for the studio. I think though the film is serviceable and, not offputtingly bad, it pales in comparison to Aardman’s later works.

Stop-motion animation for me is hit or miss, sometimes in the case of things like ‘Fantastic Mr Fox’ it can work well and enhance the film overall, whereas in films like ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ it can be vile and off-putting. This film I would say is more like the latter than the former the stop-motion animation, for the most part, is good, much like the studios later work with Wallace and Gromit, but there is something off about the human characters; specifically their faces.

The two main human characters are Mr Tweedy (Tony Haygarth), and Mrs Tweedy (Miranda Richardson), they’re both serving the antagonist role; while they’re meant to be threatening, they’re not meant to be creepy. However, there is something about the stop-motion animation with these characters that gives them an unsettling look; there is something about their cold dead eyes and manic facial design that is deeply off-putting and, I can only assume that this was unintentional; as this is not a horror film.

However, the stop-motion animation of the chickens is fine, so at least that is a small mercy. My issue with the chickens is that I don’t find them likeable, they never connected with me, the humour that characters like Fowler (Benjamin Whitrow), provide does nothing for me at all, it doesn’t land.

A lot of the chicken characters are annoying stereotypes this is best shown in Babs, (Jane Horrocks), who is there to provide comedic relief but the whole joke is that she is dumb. Overall I found this to be a very charmless film. What’s more, the fact that they include Mel Gibson as an American Rooster called Rocky feels forced in as though having a big Hollywood name on the poster would sell more tickets. It feels like more of a Dreamworks decision rather than an Aardman Animation one.

Overall this film will do fine entertaining small children but, anything beyond that is a harder sell. The main issue with this film is that it lacks any kind of charm at all. At least Aardman Animations film’s after this improved.

Pros.
It Is Watchable.

Cons.
It Is Strangely Creepy.
The Humour Doesn’t Work.
The Characters Are Unlikable.
Mel Gibson Feels Out Of Place.

1.5/5

Reviewed by Luke