Stephen King's Doctor Sleep

This was unexpectedly good. It was not Oscar-winning good, but it was a thoroughly entertaining horror-thriller. Kudos to writer/director Mike Flanagen for being faithful to Stephen King's tone and the source materials, and paying sincere homage to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, but yet still successfully adapting the story to be in continuity with both film and novels, and therefore suitable for the big screen. Most importantly, Flanagan eschewed the typical Hollywood jump scares and screeching strings for a tense, taut and highly atmospheric film that brought its chills through the music, the direction and the acting. This was a well-acted film. Ewan McGregor was convincing in his trauma and Rebecca Ferguson made for a delicious villain. At 152 minutes, the film occasionally felt long, and with Flanagan's history with The Haunting on Hill House, it was hard not to imagine that this film would have benefited as a 4-5 part mini-series. That would have allowed the story to breath a little better and the characters and mythology to be developed deeper.

Flanagan did a good job in balancing the continuity from both Kubrick's film and King's novels, taking the concept from the novel and streamlining it for mass consumption. King's books always had the tendency to meander and Flanagan managed to retain the concept and create a tense horror-thriller.

This film had its horror moments, but none were of the jump scare varieties. It was  just a pervasive sense of creep and dread throughout, with great direction and cinematography by Michael Fimognari. Lots of lingering shots, long shots, twistya and camera angles. The music by The Newton Brothers also helped, focusing on bass and beats to drum in the dread.

McGregor was an unexpected choice to lead this film, but he nailed it. He is an underrated actor who is almost always reliable despite the film he is in. And in this case, he got the paternalistic aspect down pat. His arc was a bit more rushed and would have benefited if this story was a mini-series, but nonetheless, he ably carried the film and Danny Torrance's trauma.

Ferguson was a delight, and it did seem like she was having fun in her role. She was deliciously evil and bordering on campy. Her styling, reminiscent of The Babadook meets Amy Sherman-Palladino, was distinctive and unnecessary which really made it sort of in-jokey. It was only a pity that her big climatic scene did not let her chew on the scenery more.

New actress, Kyliegh Curran, was good but unfortunately this was not much of a breakout role for her. Although the potential is there.

Adaptations of King's works have always had a spotty history and in general there were more misses than hits, in both television and film (and even his novels). However, Doctor Sleep fell firmly in the latter (as was the source novel), and was both a worthy sequel to Kubrick's The Shining and a good film in its own right.

Frozen II

Well, this was a definite crowd-pleaser...for children. It was blatantly engineered as a child-pleasing, money-grabbing sequel that lacked originality in terms of both story lines and animation quality.

The singularly best thing about Frozen II was Idina Menzel's singing, but even the songs this time round lacked the catchiness and showtune-ness of the original (the end-credits, pop-cover versions sounded like it would have fit right in to the film). 

On its own, it was a pleasant enough film with some action, some laughs and some drama; but as a follow-up to one of the biggest and creatively original animation, this was a let down. It was unexciting with a simple, predictable plot that was shoe-horned into this premise, the comedy was juvenile as was the drama.

Sure, it was good to teach children about respecting the environment and the rights of the indigenous people, and hopefully this was what the tykes got after watching it, but not sure if the message was strong enough to get through given that their messaging was less explicit than the girl-power theme of the last film.

Character-wise, none of our main cast had any real character growth or development which was a key feature in the first film and common in these animated sequels barring Pixar's Incredibles 2 and the Toy Story franchise (though Toy Story 4 was already showing fatigue but more likely than not might still get the Best Oscar over Frozen II).

The voice-cast was great still and of the newbies, Sterling K Brown stool out. Evan Rachel Wood got to sing which was always nice, but really inconsequential. Was the only reason for casting her because she was a named-star that could sing? Perhaps, pitting a broadway songstress against Menzel would have been more impactful for the climatic song.

Speaking of songs, I wonder which Menzel tune will get the Best Original Song nomination? I doubt the other new songs have a chance, although Jonathan Groff's power-ballad was a fun interlude on screen (the Wheezer cover - without the animation - showed its blandness).

Just a thought: they should really get Panic! at the Disco to duet with Menzel if Into the Unknown gets nominated!

This film was squarely aimed at children and their parents' money and Disney was unabashed about it. So bring the children and give Disney more money, they will surely enjoy themselves. Parents, stay home and watch The Mandalorian and wait for Christmas for the "final" Star Wars (still giving money to Disney).

Pain and Glory (Dolor y Gloria)

An intimate and honest, semi-autobiographical film by Pedro Almodóvar that was confidently directed and honestly written. Almodóvar depicted the journey of a creative genius stymied by physical and emotional pain as he recalled and re-experienced significant life moments that may or may not have contributed to his creative block. Almost every scene of this film was purposeful and every frame was emotionally dense; audience transference was inevitable. Kudos to Antonio Banderas for a searingly strong but yet highly restrained portrayal. His journey from the start to the end of the film was sincere and arresting, with the emotions playing over his face and body throughout. Penelope Cruz also stood out, albeit in a more limited, but highly emotive, role.

The film unfolded in a measured pace but was never slow or dull. There was always an overlying question of "Why?" hanging over every scene and vignette, which was then followed by a "How?". The answers to these questions usually revealed themselves by the end of that story, although sometimes it could be rather oblique and only cleared up a couple of scenes later. However, by the end of the film, the whole narrative crystalised beautifully.

In its core, Dolor y Gloria was a story about love. It beautifully and examined various themes and types of love in its near 2-hours run time,focusing not only at romantic love, but also maternal love, first love, fraternal lover, the love after a breakout, lover amongst friends and, importantly, loving yourself. The film also touched on addiction, self-blame and self-discovery. A deeply rich and emotionally resonant film that could only be made possible from a writer/director who had lived a life.

Having said that, it would have been less realised if Almodóvar cast a less accomplished lead than Banderas. Banderas looked and felt like a man who had experienced all the above emotions and feeling. A highly nuanced performance that was one of his best. It was less showy than Joaquin Phoenix in Joker or Christian Bale in Ford v Ferrari, but equally as powerful as the former.

Cruz played a supporting role, and depending on how the field is like this year, she may have a shot at a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Like last year with Roma and Cold War, Parasite and Dolor y Gloria are two exciting foreign-language films that should break through and land nods in the major categories. It is a definite shoo-in for Almodóvar for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, and also for Best International Film, with Best Picture a slightly longer shot.

Ford v Ferrari [IMAX]

This was a real crowd-pleaser of a dad/bro-movie. It was a great racing film that straddled both box-office appeal and critical adulation. James Mangold's direction was excellent and the editing was tremendous, as was the sound design and editing (a contender for Oscar nominations for all three fields). All that together, resulted in adrenaline-pumping, nail-bitingly exciting racing scenes that was superb in an IMAX theatre. However, none of that would have mattered if not for the film's fantastic leading men. Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale exuded undeniable charisma and anchored the film with their naturalistic, lived-in performance. Their easy, bromantic chemistry was palpable and authentic, and that was key to maintaining the audience's attention throughout the entire 152 minutes. Although, at times, the film did feel long but that feeling usually dissipated once the car-scenes kicked in. However, the real breakout star of the film was the natural - and naturally sizzling - chemistry between the Walsh Bale and his on-screen wife, the lovely, Irish Caitriona Balfe. They both should do a film together. And, mark my words, Noah Jupe will be the next Tom Holland.

Mangold scored a critically acclaimed film with his last film, Logan, and he continued his streak with Ford v Ferrari. He smartly cemented the story on the two men, rather than the titular two companies, and, with his writers, found the emotional resonance of their characters. Bale had the more emotionally-complex arc whereas Damon's character, having not much of a backstory or actors other than Bale to act off, had the less emotionally-charged role even though he seemed more like the lead actor to Bale's lead/supporting (both actors will be entering the Lead Actors race, though I'd bet Bale might get the nod more than Damon).

The driving scenes and the races were the secondary stars of the film, and absolute kudos to Mangold and his creative team. The editing, sound design and sound editing were fabulous. The IMAX really helped in this regard too. They were exciting to say the least.

Bale, in a rare, non-American and non-physically transformative role - other than a constant hunch - was great to watch as we see his character grow and evolve and even mature a little bit. His scenes with Balfe were an unexpected highlight. These two actors should star in a WWII romantic epic.

Damon, with less to do, actually succeeded in his convincing, all-American hero depiction of Carroll Shelby as he played off mostly Bale and Tracey Letts (hilarious!) and Josh Lucas (a convincing and conniving villain).

Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders scored the film beautifully, alternating between jazzy/bluesy notes for the quieter more emotional-heavy scenes, and exhilarating bass/strings-heavy sets for the action sequences.

Phedon Papamichael was the cinematographer, and he got some great shots especially of the racing and the night scenes.

This was a highly enjoyable and entertaining film, with great acting, good laughs, exciting races/drive sequences and a good story. One of the best racing film since Ron Howard's 2013 Rush with Chris Hemswoth and Daniel Bruhl. Definitely worth it to catch on the big screen and the IMAX, and a sure contender for below-the-line oscars; Bale and Damon are also in the contention for Best Actor, whereas Best Film and Director nods may be a bit harder to get.

Terminator: Dark Fate [IMAX]

This was a genuinely fun action-adventure movie. Great set pieces with excellent action sequences and choreography by director Tim Miller, and bolstered by a good action soundtrack by Junkie XL, it really did set the heart and adrenaline rushing (that was a good car chase!). However, for maximum entertainment, do check your brain and logic at the door.

The much simpler and straightforward story, compared to the most recent few installments, still defied logic and basic common sense, but who really need that if all you are waiting for was the next action scene. The writing could be sharper and smarter, and they could have actual female writers in that large writing team of theirs to write proper dialogue for the three female leads. Nonetheless, kudos to James Cameron and Miller for actually having three strong female leads in the first place.

Miller's action direction was fantastic and he has a great eye for it. The action scenes were smooth and unchaotic, but when it came to the dramatic beats the film just grind to a halt. And you find yourself waiting impatiently for Miller to set up for the next big set piece. Compared to Deadpool, Miller lacked a good script and charismatic lead actor/character to carry the downbeats.

Admittedly, all five leads are definitely not going to get any acting awards, but at least they were entertaining and did what the role and story required of them. And it will be unlikely any of them, or the film, will get nominated for a Razzie.

A kick-ass Linda Hamilton was an absolute great fun to watch.

Mackenzie Davis has the built to be intimidating and the excellent fight direction by Miller showed that she did appear to do most of the scenes herself, but she lacked screen presence and charisma.

Similarly, Natalie Reyes was not as convincing in her role, especially in the latter half of the film when the predictable "twist" was revealed.

As for the boys, Arnold Schwarzenegger's participation was always welcomed in this franchise, But at least in this installment he was actually more relevant to the narrative and not just shoehorned in for fan-service. Furthermore, his self-referential mockery was less grating and seemed more thoughtful than usual.

Lastly, was our villain, Gabriel Luna as the Rev-9. Man, it was great to have a really bad-ass villain that seemed unstoppable but Luna lacked Robert Patrick's apathetic nonchalance that made the T-1000 fearsome and scary.

Junkie XL's action score was great to propel and energise the sequences, but in the down-moments, it seemed rather generic and flat.

This film should definitely be watched on a big screen for full enjoyment but IMAX was not really necessary. And 128 minutes later, I would not mind a sequel to find out where the story goes next.

The Farewell

I can see why this film would be beloved by an American/non-Asian audience. It was - to them - likely an interesting glimpse into a foreign culture, tradition and familial values, and the comedic clash of East-meets-West, though genuinely funny, might seemed fresh and exciting in their white/black-tinged world.

However, from an Asian perspective, this film offered nothing new that Asian-cinema has not witnessed or produced in better measures.

Although there was a sincere warmth and honesty in the story, director/writer Lulu Wang's treatment of the material felt amateurish and generic. The storytelling was heavy-handed and littered with expected and predictable tropes of its genre.

Nonetheless, the acting shone through especially from the lesser-known cast. Awkwafina did impress in her first serious-dramatic role, but not in the sense that she was a revelation, instead more like that she was better than expected. Then again, she shone more in the comedic moments rather than the deeper, more introspective, serious beats. Her overall characterisation was more that of an entitled, self-obsessed millennial as seen through my Asian eyes.

The veteran actors, on the other hand, were outstanding. In particular Tzi Ma and Diana Lin 林晓杰 as Awkwafina's parents. But the breakout role, and definite star, of the film was first time actress Zhao Shuzhen 赵淑珍 as the granny at the center of the plot. She stole all her scenes with her easy, unbridled charm and effortless sincerity. It was not impossible to imagine that the actress herself had gone through something similar in her own personal life.

Non-Asian audience, and even those - like Awkwafina - who are Asian in skin but not brought up in that environment, will enjoy this film a lot for its exploration of the immigrant story and reconciliation of one's cultural, traditional past and present day societal norms. This film was not perfect but at least it had sincerity and aimed to educate without mocking. A potential Best Screenplay nomination is in sight.

For Asian audience, go watch it too to support cinema, and to enjoy the film's honest moments and the genuine laughs it brings.

Joker

Wow! Forget about the MCU, Black Panther or Logan. Joker has redefined, possibly even transcended, the superhero/villain film genre. It was absolutely possible to take it as a standalone, character-study, independent of its comic-book pedigree. And it was brilliant.

Joaquin Phoenix was the ace in the deck. He was immensely riveting, insanely transformative and immersive and utterly unforgettable. Just give him the damn Oscar already. Truly, he was in practically every scene of this film and you cannot take your eyes off him. His eyes were magnetic, his body language was (and the dances!) hypnotic and his voice - and that laughter! - was uniquely indelible.

Joker was an in-depth character study that went beyond the supervillain origin story tropes. Director Todd Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver found a way to humanise and authentically translated the downfall of Arthur Fleck the man and a rise of a Joker the villain.

The story itself, was well-paced and although it had its comic-book cliches and the third act meandered into socio-political overtones that felt concurrently overhanded and underbaked, the narrative itself still managed to be surprising and unexpected especially in terms of how certain outcomes were reached.

The best moments of the film were the musical interludes, either from the haunting and oppressive strings of Hildur Guðnadóttir's or Phillips' song choices, where Phillips' just followed and circled around Phoenix as he moved, danced and simply commanded the camera and the screen and our attention. 

Lawrence Sher's cinematography had its moments too, with a couple of standout scenes that were shot and lit beautifully. And together with Phillips' direction and Guðnadóttir's score, their work together helped to support Phoenix and translate his phenomenal characterisation from paper to screen.

Phoenix owned this film and our attention. He was equal parts pitiable, sad, scary, lovable, charismatic, menacing, evil, good and all were mostly done through his eyes and face and body. He and Christian Bale could possibly be the two most method-actors out there now, and he could be the best on-screen Joker of all time (sorry Heath Ledger).

For now, the Oscar is his to lose (if all things being equal, but we all know the Oscars is more than just performance-oriented). As for the supporting cast, Francis Conroy was well-cast as were Robert De Niro and Zazie Beetz although Beetz had nothing much to do. But all three had good chemistry with Phoenix.

Joker was a riveting film elevated to greatness by Phoenix. It deserved to be watched and the concerns surrounding its validation of a sociopath are unfounded as long as the audience watching it have some level of intelligence to be able to differentiate between art and life.

The Goldfinch

Somewhere within this overlong and overwrought 149 minutes slog laid a genuinely interesting and possibly emotionally intense story that deserved better. 

It was a meandering, unfocused and hollow experience only briefly and occasionally lit up by good actors doing their best to lift the material. And unfortunately this did not include Ansel Elgort or Oakes Fegley who played the lead. 

Nicole Kidman was surprisingly effective as was Sarah Paulson, but Jeffrey Wright seemed to be replaying his Bernard host-role from “Westworld”. 

Not even Roger Deakins’ cinematography could elevate this John Crawley dud. 

Perhaps they should have gone to Netflix or Amazon and turned the novel into a mini-series event. 5 or 6 episodes, or even 3 two-hours ones, would have allowed the story to breathe and sufficiently explored the emotional complexities in Donna Tartt’s novel.

An oscar-baiting film on paper that just could not deliver.

Ad Astra [IMAX]

A film about one man’s search for the meaning of his existence and his place in Life, and also about the relationship with his father and how parental influences affect us. A meditative, philosophical contemplation disguised as a space-opera action-adventure by James Gray in his most accessible film to date, think First Man by way of The Tree of Life with touches of Gravity and Solaris, and glimpses of Interstellar. Brad Pitt, in possibly his best film role to date, gave an engaging, immersive and sincere performance that was highly nuanced and incredibly affecting. A superb supporting cast, especially Ruth Negga, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland and Liv Tyler, with stunningly gorgeous cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema and excellent music by Max Richter, make Ad Astra a clear, all-categories Oscar contender.

Gray directed and co-wrote this film which in essence was a simple story of boy looking for father. But through the 2-hours, we got an exploration into the boy and the man he became. The voice-overs may often be an easy - and cheap - trick to help propel narrative and expose a character’s emotional drive, but here, Gray effectively integrates organically most of the VOs into the story. However, it really was Pitt who sold the authenticity and sincerity of those moments. As Gray directed the tight close-ups of Pitt’s chiseled jaws, Pitt’s eyes were emoting and expressing the hell out of his monologues (think Elizabeth Moss’ June/Offred in those The Handmaid’s Tale close ups).

The film itself was incredibly well-paced. From an exciting prologue that deftly introduced our hero, it swiftly moved into the main narrative. Big set pieces followed one another swiftly that were brilliantly shot and edited to give the needed adrenaline surges and serotonin relieves. Backstory and character motivations were also smartly interlaced throughout without breaking the pace nor the momentum. Editors John Axelrad and Lee Haugen did a tremendous job!

Pitt was outstanding. Together with his work on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, 2019 is proving to be his comeback year. And he is easily in contention for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor nominations. Although the win might more easily come from the latter depending on how the rest of the year unfolds. Pitt’s handsomeness was neither distracting nor a factor in his character. Yes, Gray focused a lot on Pitt’s face - he is almost always in a space suit with/without a helmet - but it is to Pitt’s credit that he sold it. We were immersed only in his character’s journey and experience, Pitt the actor sinks into the background. We sometimes forget that Pitt gave us 12 Monkeys, Benjamin Button, The Tree of Life, Burn After Reading and Moneyball - a career that has spanned almost 30 years and a multitude of different characters.

Negga, now finally done with Preacher, can start leveraging her Oscar nomination and venture into films. Her minimal screen time was both powerful and magnetic.

Jones and Sutherland, the old stewards, did some scenery chewing but never more than required. Their scenes with Pitt tended to support and not steal the spotlight from him.

Tyler, coming onto the film scene once every few years, was effective and still as beautiful. A great, ?intentional, throwback to Armageddon.

The cinematography by van Hoytema was gorgeous, echoing his works on Interstellar\ and Dunkirk. Those wide angle moments were sublime and the interior shots were claustrophobic when necessary but oddly open when required. That opening scene and the scenes on Mars and the climatic set piece were outstanding.

Richter scored the music and it was mood and atmospheric-appropriate. Not excessively rousing or orchestrated, nor new and imaginative, but more subtle and internalised; very closely tied to the emotional landscape of Pitt’s character.

Simply put, this was a great film. IMAX was definitely worth it and a repeat viewing is not out of the question.

Hustlers

A fairly enjoyable film that was boosted by a fantastic - and fantastic-looking too! - Jennifer Lopez in possibly her best role in years! Unfortunately, the rest of the film failed to live up to the heights of J Lo. Constance Wu, in the lead role, was unengaging and uncharismatic, and placing her next to J Lo really highlighted the difference in ability and screen chemistry.

Similarly, although the film, written and directed by Lorene Scafaria, went beyond the typical debauchery and skankiness usually associated with stripper-flicks, whenever Scafaria dipped into more serious territory of capitalism, sisterhood, motherhood, survival and friendship the pacing faltered and the air just went out of the film. Until J Lo reignites the screen.

There could have been a better film within this if they had focused on the central relationship between Wu's and Lopez's character instead of the hustling. The flashback narrative structure served to only highlight the boringness and predictability of the central story, whereas the one thing that the audience are keen to find out more, namely the above-said relationship, got teased out to a rather unsatisfactory conclusion.

Scafaria seemed more interested in telling the story of the hustle rather than furthering the depths of these potentially complicated characters, but yet the hustle itself seemed as rote as that of a bloated Lifetime movie.

There was humour in the film too, and it was scattered around. I guess that could have been more due to the contribution by Will Farrell and Adam McKay rather than Scafaria, because oddly enough, on hindsight, one cannot really remember the specifics of the comedy.

Wu's character, the audience surrogate, was written very well - on paper - but its translation onto the big screen by Wu was a bore. Her costuming and look itself did her no favour, and obviously the costumer focused more on J Lo than recreating an authentic Asian look. I honestly doubt and Asian stripper would looked and dressed like Wu in 2007. She looked like she was stuck in the 70s or 80s instead. Added to that, the fact that Wu was just very uninteresting and did not play her character as someone worth rooting for.

Actually, there were no one character that was worth rooting for. Maybe except Doug. Poor Doug.

Scafaria had created for Wu a central lead character that had a great back story with so much potential emotional depth, but in the end, they only gave us someone who was essentially going through the motions without a sense of authenticity or lived-in-ness.

Having said that, Wu did deliver towards the end, but it was too little too late. What a shame.

Thankfully, we had J Lo. Man, we all should look like her at age 50.  And boy, the chatter is real, J Lo has a chance - albeit likely a long shot depending on how else the year goes - of some award recognition. A Golden Globe nomination for sure, but Oscar...we will see. She was electrifying, magnetic, charismatic and dosed out in just the right amount without being overbearing. She easily commanded the screen and out-classed and out-acted everybody. Then again, the latter was not hard, considering the rest of her cast mates were more well-known for their television screen roles and music career than acting per se. J Lo was the ferocious beating heart of this film and her screen entrance will be one for the books.

Another highlight of the film was the music. The songs featured were a homage to naughties and early teenies, and helped to move the narrative along despite the absence of a score.

J Lo should get back into serious film-making as we eagerly anticipate her 2019/20 awards campaign. Just as we anticipate Hollywood try to get a female-driven, female-led ensemble heist/hustler film done right. Steve McQueen's Widows was still the closest for now.

Weathering With You 天気の子

Makoto Shinkai's follow-up to 2016's phenom-hit Your Name continued the director's gorgeous visual and animation aesthetics, and blatant - but excellent - emotional manipulation with a killer piano score, as the story integrated Japan's hyper-modernity with its ancient shinto religion and manga-esque fantasy genre.

However, unlike Your Name, the film's central story (and romance) lacked emotional depth, thematic complexity and was narratively simple. Although the characters were very likable and very easy to root for, their relationship just felt too basic and thinly sketched, lacking the necessary emotional baggage to strengthen their emotional arc.

The resulting film ran just under 2 hours, but at times felt draggy. The prologue and epilogue were excellent bookends for the story, the former effectively setting up the intrigue and the latter closing the chapter.

The first act was fun and well-paced, getting to the premise and establishing characters efficiently, but the second act was unnecessarily complicated with multiple subplots existing for comedic reliefs at the expense of deepening the central premise and mythos. The third act then ultimately felt rushed and hence the climatic weight felt lost.

Although the introduction of the main characters from Your Name into the storyline was a nice touch, and seemed to suggest Shinkai may be starting a whole new in-universe franchise.

Nonetheless, despite its flaws - which were just more obvious because of the looming spectre of Your Name - Weathering with You was an enjoyable film. It was stunning to look at with breathtaking landscapes and stunning rain-animations, and had a killer piano score and charismatic, likable characters.

It Chapter Two

This was one of the funniest film of the year, and I am sure that was not what director Andy Muschietti and writer Gary Dauberman were aiming for. But unfortunately, that was the outcome.

It was genuinely funny due to Bill Hader (go watch Barry!) who was the only standout actor; he and James Ransone were a great comedic duo and they deserve a buddy-comedy film after this. But besides the real, good laughs from them, the rest of the film was filled with ridiculousness and over-the-top, exaggerated "scares" that deflated any sense of dread, fear or trepidation that led up to it. The over reliance on (bad) CGIs and blatantly telegraphed jump-scares (can it still be called jump-scares if the audience knows when to jump?) was pathetic for a horror film.

Most tellingly, you know you are in trouble when a horror film's more horrific moments are a gay-bashing in the cold open and domestic violence sequence in the opening minutes of character-introductions. Nothing after that in the bloated, over-wrought, 169 minutes ever came close to those cringing, eyes-shutting moments. And I honestly doubt that Muschietti and Dauberman had the smarts to have the wherewithal to establish a subtext that nothing in the world is scarier and worse than humanity/humans/men.

Not that there were not anything good about this film. For one, it was more faithful to the source material than the 1990 two-part miniseries; secondly, it did - effectively - foreshadowed the final form of It throughout the film such that when It becomes that it was not such a sucker-punch like in the miniseries.

As for the characters, the bonds of the adult members of The Loser Club was better demonstrated and genuine in the TV series than in this film. One of the best things about It Chapter One was the bond between the characters, but here it was lacking. They were obviously split into groups with Hader and Ransone as the comedic pair, Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy and Jay Ryan as the inevitable love-triangle, and Isaiah Mustafa as the always-alone Mike.

Chastain and McAvoy were just there with minimal acting required on their parts (just like in X-Men: Dark Phoenix) and Aussie Ryan's introduction to an international audience was more through his abs than his acting capabilities per se.  Also, there was nary any chemistry between all three of them to make any relationship worth rooting for.

Lastly, nobody can replace Tim Curry's Pennywise as the ultimate personification of fear and nightmares. Bill Skarsgard crafted his own unique Pennywise but it was so visually distinctively evil and crazy that its scariness was more dependent on Skarsgard's body language and all the CGI layered over him. You cannot really be scared of something that looked so blatantly evil and mad. Go watch Skarsgard in Castle Rock  instead.

Curry, on the other hand, was just an innocuous clown with dead eyes and a crazy grin standing there waving to you...until he struck and - BAM! - coulrophobia for life!

In the end, despite the faults of the miniseries, inevitably at the conclusion it was a much stronger presentation of It than this two-part film franchise. It was scarier, more haunting and more honest.

And Tim Curry is what nightmares are made of.

Ma

Octavia Spencer does crazy creepy very well and very unnervingly, but unfortunately her performance was the only thing good about this not-even B-grade (C-grade?) horror camp-edy although I am sure it was marketed as more of a psychological thriller. It had laugh out loud moments but more due to the unintentional hilarity of bad script and bad acting, rather than genuine comedy. Its premise had so much potential but it was squandered away on a pedestrian, generic, utterly predictable plot. In spirit, it had similarities to 2016's Don't Breathe, but whereas that film subverted expectations, Ma's director Tate Taylor and writer Scotty Landes lacked the courage to even dip their toes in that pool.

As aforesaid, Spencer was great. She really owned the film and the screen, but as an executive producer, she should really have pushed for her character to go beyond. We have faith in her to do that and at least then the film might have been more interesting.

Diana Silvers led the cast of teenagers and she was mildly interesting, but was much better and interesting in Booksmart. 

As for the rest of the teenage cast, there were moment whereby it seemed that the film might subvert the generic roles as expected, i.e. the jock, the bitch, the cute/nice boy and the joker, but alas, Ma ain't no The Cabin in the Woods and Taylor/Landes did not have the balls to do that.

The adult cast, other than Spencer, were generally adequate. Yes, even Allison Janney. Juliette Lewis did her best but has yet to recapture the glory of her Cape Fear days; Luke Evans, getting ubiquitous these days but may need to be more selective in his roles, was uninteresting; at least Missi Pyle just camped it up unabashedly.

Like I said, this film had so much potential. A Josh Whedon/Drew Goddard version of this might have been great, but sadly we only have Spencer's creep-tastic performance to reminiscence on.

Booksmart

A fun and funny, familiar yet fresh, raunchy but not rude, end-of-high-school buddy comedy that was well-paced and competently directed by first-time director Olivia Wilde albeit a tad over-tropey and predictable. 

Nonetheless, the excellent and natural chemistry of the two leads, Beanie Feldstein (who almost stole the show from Saoirse Ronan as the best friend in “Lady Bird”) and Kaitlyn Dever (an electric mix of a young Juno-esque Ellen Page and an Amy Pond-era Karen Gillan), drove the story and helped immensely to accelerate through the dull bits especially in the weaker second act. 

The film started strong but once the narrative got going, Wilde and her team of all-female writers seemed to have gotten lost in executing and obviously subverting the patriarchal tropism of the genre, which then, ironically, made those moments became less smart and just a bit more annoyingly preachy. 

Luckily, they all managed to craft a deserving final act; through the 105 minutes there were some chuckles but the genuinely good laughs came at the end which really helped to salvage the film. 

As a director, Wilde has potential. Just based on this film, she may be more suited to television storytelling than movie. She can tell a good story but seemed to lack originality and a personal vision. 

“Booksmart” was a fun, feel-good film that will likely find a bigger audience on streaming than in cinemas, although its actresses Feldstein and Dever are due for their breakouts.

Toy Story 4

Even Pixar could not escape sequel/franchise fatigue, and although “Toy Story 4” was lots of fun - it had the usual laughs, action, heart and moral - but beneath all that beautiful, slightly unoriginal, storytelling laid a sense of fatigue and impatience especially for those of us who had been following the adventures of Woody, Buzz and gang for the past 24 (!) years. 

We are all now older but it seemed that the story never really grew any more older after that fitting end in “Toy Story 3” 9 years ago. This felt more like an attempt to relaunch the franchise for a new generation rather than a continuation for the original Andys (and Mollys). 

Nonetheless, this was a fun and absorbing film, maybe a little less heartbreaking/heartwarming, a little less exciting and a less laugh out loud, but like the previous three entries, it introduced new characters to the universe without ever feeling overcrowded, although the adventures of Rex and Ham were missed. But Tony Hale’s Forky was a delight, Christina Hendricks’ Gabby Gabby was sympathetically scary and Keanu Reeves’ was very Keanu -esque. Annie Potts’ Bo Peep has been missed and gotten a whole new image fittingly in-line with Disney’s new girl power princess movement. Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key’s wisecracking Bunny and Duckie were thankfully restrained to a minimum, although they did get a great mid-credits scene. 

And stay till the very, very end for a little funny Easter egg.

Yesterday

Danny Boyle and Richard Curtis did a Magical Realism rom-com and result was a shiny, glossy, well-produced, excruciatingly Boyle-esque film that was shallow and empty with a pair of incompatible and boringly flat lead characters.

It coasted on the infectious nostalgia of The Beatles and with Kate McKinnon as the only other saving grace. And really, why Ed Sheeran?! Nothing against him or his songs (love them!) but he ain’t really an actor and to be featured in such a prominent role, it just felt extremely distracting. 

Although nothing was more distracting then the absolute lack of chemistry between Lily James and Himesh Patel. It was so hard to buy into their love story when we can barely believe that they are friends, much less lovers. James, we know, has talent but it barely shone here; and this was not a great introduction for Patel. 

This film had a great concept but the whole story seemed to only exist for one quintessentially Curtis piece of dialogue, but sadly the words were great but not the situation nor the delivery. 

For a better use of The Beatles’ catalogue, go watch Julie Taymor’s trippy “Across the Universe” which had a more believable central love story between Evan Rachel Wood and Jim Sturgess.

Wild Rose

A feel-good, charming little film about dreams, life, responsibility, home, passion, family, friendships and country music. Uplifting and touching, this film was three acts and the truth with a star-cementing performance by Jessie Buckley (or star-making, if you didn’t catch her in the Tom Hardy series “Taboo”). 

Buckley was raw and passionate and honest, and the choices her character made was as hard to watch as it was satisfyingly resolved. Her journey was not easy, and us the audience was brought along for the ride, but the payoff was worth it.

Great direction by Tom Harper with a simple yet beautifully honest screenplay by Nicole Taylor. 

Julie Walters and Sophie Okonedo were both also phenomenal. Okonedo brought a sincere warmth and humanity to an otherwise possibly bland and idealistic character; and Walters totally nailed the emotional challenge of a parent and she really delivered in that final scene. 

That epilogue...what a great bookend! Country music is really my guilty pleasure.

Parasite 기생충

For 2 years in a row, the Palme d’Or has gone to two fascinating, socially-relevant, Asian family drama. “Parasite”, like last year’s “Shoplifters”, was an utterly riveting and emotionally-poignant film. It was smartly written and sharply directed by writer/director Bong Joon-ho and can be best described as a black comedic, scathing social satire/family drama. 

The story started out simple enough but it constantly surprises and zigs instead of the expected zags, and the emotional weight crept stealthily just beyond until it hits like a ton of rocks! The third act was not where one would expect the first act to end up. 

All the while, Bong peppered the story with genuine warmth, tightly tense moments and laughs - big laughs; like really big, laugh out loud moments. 

Only perhaps the epilogue was a bit too on the nose but then again, it would not be surprising if even that goes over the general audience. 

The whole cast was fabulous, from the main family to the supporting characters. Not one person felt extraneous or made to perform beyond their capability. 

This film was Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” and “Us” brought to a higher, smarter, tighter level; scathing social commentary that entertained but yet capable of making the audience uncomfortable without appearing overly preachy or didactic. 

The whole tone of the film tethered along this fine wire of drama, comedy and bleak social commentary with an unyielding, constant feeling of unexpectedness and unnerving tension.

Spider-Man: Far From Home

A fun, entertaining, easy-watching film that inevitably felt like a MCU-lite entry. Like the first film, it definitely felt more younger-skewing than the main MCU films, but also at times felt less a superhero film than a teenage, road trip comedy romp. 

The world-threatening and personal, emotional stakes felt low and empty throughout the film, especially since Jake Gyllenhaal’s Mysterio’s introduction to the MCU was such a bungled effort. There was, distractingly, a constant sense that this film failed to live up to its potential given that fans would know what Mysterio is capable of which thus kind of negate the whole purpose of Act One; also by introducing Mysterio as from an - spoiler - alternate universe right after we had the phenomenal “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” but then not exploring that felt like a great big lie and cheat. 

Thankfully Tom Holland and Zendaya are still insanely charismatic and fit their characters to a tee. However, it was a pity that the Holland-Jacob Batalon bromance - a highlight of the first film - got shortchanged this time round. 

Gyllenhaal was wide-eyed, crazed and wasted, and Samuel L Jackson and Cobie Smulders obviously had contractual obligations. 

Stay all the way to the end. The mid- and post-credits were more exciting than the 2 hours before that, and effectively set up the next Spider-Man film and the MCU saga.

The Lion King

This was my third favourite iteration of the beloved, original classic. 

First, of course, is the 1994 original, then the Julie Taylor-directed 1997 musical spectacle, and lastly this 2019 CGI version. 

Technically, the almost-photorealistic, VR/AR and mo-cap technology used here were astounding, but aesthetically, it was highly distracting with its glaring artificiality (for one Pride Rock and the surrounds have absolutely no wind or even a slight breeze?!); emotionally, the near 2-hours film was empty and soul-less, and rode along the goodwill coattails and nostalgic fondness of the original and/or the musical.

There were beautiful still shots interspersed throughout but the obvious directorial choices by Jon Favreau to absolutely minimise showing the animals directly speaking to the camera was annoying, frustrating, distracting and ultimately led to its emotional and dramatic emptiness. 

Narratively, this 2019 film was an amalgamation of the 1994 original and the 1997 musical with some new, original moments (and musical interludes) in this film. The new stuffs mostly worked, especially when it pertained to Pumbaa and Timon, but it also only served to remind how much better the original, traditionally-drawn animation was. 

The less than convincing voice acting by most of the cast, save the indomitable James Earl Jones (reprising his magnificent Musfasa), Chiwetel Ejiofor (adeptly and menacingly taking over from Jeremy Irons), John Oliver (nailed Rowan Atkinson’s hilarious Zazu), Florence Kasumba (scarily terrifying as Shenzi and nowhere as darkly comedic as Whoopi Goldberg), and Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan (Timon and Pumbaa effectively stole their scenes again and effortlessly brought the most laughs), did not help the film at all. 

Musically, the new score by Hans Zimmer was effective but not really memorable; better were the Lebo M’s musical-inspired tracks. 

Elton John’s and Tim Rice’s songs have also been rearranged and it mostly, kind of worked, although - hate to say this - Beyoncé butchered “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” and her new song “Spirit” was out of place both tonally and narratively. Also, the new John and Rice song at the end credits failed to excite. 

This film had so much going for it, especially after Favreau’s success with “The Jungle Book”, but as much as technology has advanced it will still take a lot more years to do perfect a live-action remake of talking, singing and emotionally-resounding animals. 

Now, we dread and await The Little Mermaid and hopefully, James Cameron’s Avatar saga will save the genre. 

Anna

A fun, silly film that was an entertaining jaunt of escapism. At 118 minutes it was perhaps just a tad too long, but writer/director Luc Besson, for all his faults and same-ness throughout the years, knows how to tell a good story. Mix in an interesting narrative structure and the predictability of the unexpected became fun and engaging. Then again, Anna is no Leon, Nikita or The Fifth Element, but at least a step (or two or three) up from Lucy and Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (granted, the latter was campily fun).

But, as with any Besson films, stylistically you know what you are getting. The action sequences are always smoothly choreographed, clearly shot and exudes a sense of possible impossibility which makes it exciting to watch.

Whereas the story almost always certainly take on a secondary role and almost always cliched, overly-dramatic, falsely elevated stakes and misogynistically feminist. And therein lies Besson's genius, he populates his films with great supporting actors to support the usually not-so-well-respected lead actor(s). Just like Gary Oldman in Leon and The Fifth Element, Ethan Hawke and Clive Owen in Valerian and Morgan Freeman in Lucy, here we have Dame Helen Mirren who was almost unrecognisable and yet still acting circles around Sasha Luss and the two boys, Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy.

Mirren, in a role that seemed modelled after a Russian Edna "E" Mode, seemed to be having much fun camping up in her role here.

If Luss is lucky, her career might take off like Milla Jovovich, or it could just bob along like Cara Delevingne's.

Evans and Murphy was good enough in their roles as the love interests, although as pro-feminist as it is to think that for once the men are the pawns, a little deeper thought will just show that men still treat women like objects to be manipulated and the only way that they can be manipulated is when a woman weaponises her sexuality.

Although something could be said for Besson's casting decision of having Mirren, Evans and Murphy play characters not of their nationality, and only having the Russian Luss - our protagonist - remain Russian. Especially in the context of a spy thriller, confused identities and matryoshka dolls.

Given the current climate of prestige television and event series, Besson should seriously consider turning his talents to that medium. With Anna narrative structure, this would play well as a 30 - 50 minutes, 4 - 6 episodes, limited series. It even has a built in seasonal or anthological potential. Think: Russian Dolls or Orphan Black or Henna.

Men in Black: International

This was another bland and uninteresting summer sequel. The only saving grace was the undeniable chemistry between Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson. And even then, director F. Gary Gray failed to capitalise on it, resulting in a supposed action/buddy-comedy that was lacking in both excitement and laughs.  The story, written by Art Marcum and Matt Holloway, was predictable, uninspiring and silly with such minimal stakes for a planet-saving organisation that the possible dire outcome never felt important or threatening. It started promising with the introduction of Thompson's character, but thereafter, the writing just got lazy.

Usually for such summer blockbusters, if they know the script is weak then they would obfuscate the lack of quality with lots of kick-ass action sequences and CGI extravaganzas. But strangely enough, even with the director of The Fate of the Furious, at the helm we had no adrenaline-rushes or awe-struck moments. That one chase-sequence felt unpolished and un-exciting.

Hemsworth and Thompson already proven they had excellent chemistry in Thor: Ragnarok and this entire film should have leaned into it. A buddy-cop comedy with an alien twist. That was what made the first film with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones so darn good! And the frustrating thing is that we all know Hemsworth can do comedy, see Endgame and Ghostbusters. Not only can he rock a suit, but he can also deliver the laughs. Thompson can then be the straight-lady. Perhaps a reboot rather than a sequel should have been the way for this franchise.

Liam Neeson had the best line, a callback to his own franchise that re-launched his career. but sadly it was the first line of the film and the next 114 minutes after that was forgettable.

Maybe, except when Hemsworth also self-referenced the caped-character that catapulted him to fame.

You know the film is in trouble when the best bits are only two moments when the actors make fun of their own - read: better - shows.

Kumail Nanjiani is a good comedian, but this whole talking/wise-cracking animated side kick trope has always been annoying and brings back undesirable flashbacks to Jar Jar Binks. And here, it is no difference.

Lastly, we need more Emma Thompson. She makes everything that much better just by being in a scene. Gosh, an Emma and Liam MIB would be brilliant!

This was clearly a cash-grab by Sony to keep the MIB IP going, but surely, they could have tried a bit harder and make a good film. It is not like they had bad actors. Maybe just the wrong script and the wrong director for the project.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix

When you go into a film with extremely low expectations, even a terrible film can be acceptable. And, boy, this was a bad film. 

The writing and directing, both by Simon Kinberg, were bad. They were not necessarily the worse ever, but really, it was amateurish. The screenplay was clunky and cringe-worthy, with so many bad lines that any chuckling was more from the eye-rolling hilarity of it all than genuine comic relief.

Then we have Kinberg’s directorial debut. Granted, it was a decent job for a first timer, but he lacked vision and an eye for details. Scenes and narrative moved along with no sense of purpose other than to reach the end; action sequences were messy and hard to follow. Not one scene in the 114 minutes really stood out other than the prologue (sadly, the rest of the film failed to maintain that level of showmanship). 

But at least Kinberg had the decency to keep the film under 2 hours. Then again, it cannot be too difficult when the film itself lacked a clear narrative arc, the supposed climax failed to even ignite and lift-off and all your characters are squarely one-dimensional and uninteresting. 

The one singular problem with this Dark Phoenix was that it had no tie-in with the rest of the franchise; not thematically nor narratively. Its sole reason to exist appeared to be an attempt to reboot the Dark Phoenix saga, rather than maintaining the larger X-Men franchise.
 
Nonetheless, the one good thing to arise (hah!) was how fascinating it was to see and admire how great actors can elevate a mess just through their sheer talent, presence and being. And by that I am referring pointedly to Michael Fassbender and Jessica Chastain, and to a lesser extent in this case James McAvoy (too similar to his Split persona) and Nicholas Hoult (he was brilliant in The Favourite). 

Fassbender and Chastain should have had more scenes together. Their presence was a masterclass in body language and tonal adjustments (not much you can do otherwise with bad writing and an inexperienced director). 

Then, in comparison, you have everybody else, including leading lady Sophie Turner, who existed purely in service of the narrative and nothing else. They were just chess pieces being moved around to advance the story. The difference was stark and at times it felt like two different movies were going on at the same time. 

On one hand, we have this cache of Oscar-caliber actors doing their utmost to lift the script from the doldrums of mediocrity, and on the other hand, were a bunch of whippersnappers still trying to make it in Hollywood. Sorry Tye Sheridan, at least you were better in Ready Player One, whereas Turner was not even close to late-seasons Sansa Stark here, much less original-Phoenix Famke Janssen.

Oh and let us not forget about Jennifer Lawrence. She could not possibly have appeared less interested to still be in this franchise, and it was blatantly clear to the extent that Mystique's arc, so crucial to the story, ended up being such a non-event. Makes one miss the brilliance and potential of X-Men: First Class where it was a Lawrence, Fassbender and McAvoy trifecta.

When will Hollywood ever get Dark Phoenix right? Will they even try again? Obviously it has to start with casting, but even Janssen then could not save a bad (Kinberg) script. 

If Marvel does go for Round Three, hopefully they keep Hans Zimmer on for the music. At least the score was a constant comfort throughout.

Rocketman

Disclaimer: I'm an Elton John fan. Actually flew to NYC to catch his Farewell Yellowbrick Road Farewell World Tour at MSG. He was amazing!

This was a fun film. As a jukebox musical, Rocketman was top-rate. Elton John's songs are iconic and catchy and really helped to hold the story together. It will really translate well to a stage musical. However, as a biopic - and dramatically speaking - it was weak. The emotional beats were absent and the actual narrative too thin.

Dexter Fletcher directed an energetic, if otherwise formulaic, musical film that was clearly an "authorised" depiction of John's public persona. In truth, there was nothing deep nor personal about John that was gleaned from the film.

Nonetheless, the execution was good. The costumes and music were brilliant, and the actors were great. Taron Egerton gave his best performance so far and did bear a close resemblance to John himself; Jamie Bell and Richard Madden were also perfectly cast. It was almost impossible not to tear up when Your Song comes on. But unfortunately, such emotional resonance was rare in this film.

Egerton always had that cheeky, charming quality that effortless exudes out of him, but in this film, he managed to imbue in his portrayal a sense of emotional vulnerability. It is a pity that the script did not support him to further explore John's emotional landscape vis a vis his relationships with his mother and father, his professional partner Bernie Taupin and his one-time lover John Reid. Such a wealth of drama that was not mined.

In particular, John and Taupin's friendship was a major missed opportunity, given Egerton and Bell's great chemistry together. That first act when they first met was possibly the strongest act of the film.

Madden looked great and similarly, he and Edgerton had a palpable chemistry. It was only a pity that his route to villainy was so boring and linear.

Bryce Dallas Howard was unrecognisable as Sheila, and she was actually rather good in her limited role.

Kudos to Julian Day for the fabulous Costume Design. If anything, this might get an Oscar nomination.

And also maybe a Best Song nomination for John for the end credits song (I'm Gonna) Love Again.

This had been an utterly enjoyable 2 hours. The songs used were definitely all recognisable and catchy so even the casual pop-music fan would be drawn into that and appreciate the film for that. However, it would have been more fun if they had gone to Across the Universe or Mamma Mia route and used Elton's songbook and set it against an original narrative. That would have been awesome and provided more dramatic and emotional possibilities.

Aladdin

Aladdin was entertaining and yet, inoffensively bland. There was nothing shining, shimmering splendid about the film except, surprisingly, for Will Smith's Genie, and Alan Menken's timeless score/music. Smith - as terrifying as it was to see him all in blue - both honoured Robin William's indomitable Genie and absolutely made it his own. He was a constant highlight.

Sadly, the rest of the film failed to deliver a fantastic point of view or showed us a a dazzling place that we never knew. The overall production value looked cheap, with CGI and production designs that would not looked out of place on network TV (too much budget spent on Smith's Genie?). Seriously, at times, it felt like I was watching a slightly glossier version of the late (and under-appreciated) Galavant.

Actually Galavant might actually have been more fun in total.

Guy Ritchie was an odd choice to direct this live-action musical. He excelled in the action sequences but failed to effectively capture the dramatic and emotional beats. The first act was a slow drag of exposition and it did not help that Ritchie's two leads, Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott, had barely any chemistry together which just made that first half-hour or so very tedious.

Massoud was bland and lacked the charisma and wide-eyed charm which was so abundant in the animated Aladdin. The Aladdin here just did not feel like he deserves to get the girl.

Scott fared better with a meatier role now updated for the millennium and was also blessed with the better voice. However, her new solo felt shoehorned in as a blatant attempt to be relevant. Although, that being said, this film still grossly failed the Bechdel Test.

The film picked up considerably when Genie appeared. Phew! Smith was brilliant, and this was perhaps his best role in years! He did the impossible with his iteration of Genie: the spectre of Robin Williams was not to be seen; Williams influence his undeniable but Smith's Genie was all his own.

It was great to see a Disney and Hollywood film with a representative cast where the only white dude was Billy Magnussen (who seems to be the go-to actor when casting for a handsome white himbo). However, the diversity ended right there. It would have been more appropriate to have a non-white director at the helm (and co-writing in this case) especially if there were going to be even more cultural misappropriation with the Bollywood-esque sequences and overall aesthetics.

Imagine what this film would have looked like if Gurinder Chadha (of Bend It Like Beckham and the upcoming Blinded by the Light) or Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding and Queen of Katwe) were directing it instead of Ritchie.

Nonetheless, Menken's music was superb. The timeless tunes with Tim Rice and Howard Ashman remained timeless, although Massoud's vocals did his tunes no justice (and honestly neither did Zayn Malik and Zhavia Ward's over-wrought version of A Whole New World over the end-credits). And the new tunes, written with Pasek & Paul (of La La Land fame) fitted well into the musical framework.

In the end, Aladdin never really transported you to Agrabah. It was a 128-minutes entertainment that just makes you feel a bit nervous about Lion King and even more terrified for The Little Mermaid.