Supergirl: Season 1 Review

(WARNING: SPOILERS)

Disney Retrospective: The 60's and 70's

For Disney Animation, the 60’s marked the sad end of an era with the passing of the man who started it all. 1967’s The Jungle Book was the last official Disney animated film to be produced by Walt Disney himself, who died in 1966, 10 months prior to the film’s release, due to lung cancer. But thankfully Disney Animation managed to move on despite the loss of the man who was responsible for getting the studio to where it is today. Things weren’t always easy, but the company managed to endure during these years, at least as far as their animated features were concerned, even amidst all sorts of corporate changes behind-the-scenes. And while it may not seem like it to some, there are plenty of noteworthy films from this initial ‘post-Walt’ era. So today on Rhode Island Movie Corner, I am continuing my ‘Disney Retrospective’ series with a special double-header post as I’ll be covering the Disney animated films from both the 60’s and 70’s. The main reason why I’m doing it this way instead of just doing one post for each decade is simply because there were only 3-4 films that were released during each of these two decades. So with that in mind, I decided to do just one post covering both. And I’ll also admit that one of the reasons why this particular post is being released earlier than anticipated is because this post is in direct response to three recent videos from Screen Junkies’ Honest Trailers series, CinemaSins, and HISHE that harshly bashed the original Jungle Book prior to the release of its recent remake. I mean it’s bad enough to have one of these videos tarnish the legacy of this animated classic but all 3 were released on the same frigging day. So because of that, I immediately decided to fast-track this ‘Disney Retrospective’ in order to give the original a much more positive evaluation. So let’s not waste any more time and delve into the Disney animated films of the 60’s and 70’s.

ONE HUNDRED AND ONE DALMATIANS (1961)

When it comes to One Hundred and One Dalmatians, the most iconic part of this particular Disney feature is its main villain, Cruella de Vil. This film, as well as the two live-action Dalmatians films starring Glenn Close in the role of Cruella, has turned the character into one of Disney’s most iconic villains and rightfully so. Her madcap demeanor and villainous plot to skin puppies for their fur make her quite the diabolical baddie that we love to hate and also mock by singing that catchy melody that is named after her. Aside from her, the main protagonists (in other words, the duos of Pongo and Perdita and their owners Roger and Anita) are very likable and the film also has its fair share of memorable side characters, most notably Cruella’s bumbling henchmen Jasper and Horace. These characters, as well as plenty of humorous moments during the second half of the film, make up for its admittedly rather dull first half. For the record, I don’t ‘dislike’ this part but even with that said, my favorite part of the film is the second half in which Pongo and Perdita head out into the country to save their puppies with the help of their fellow London dogs. This film was also the first of the Disney animated features to utilize the style known as xerography, developed by longtime Disney collaborator Ub Iwerks. Basically this meant that the animators’ drawings were transferred directly to animation cels with the use of a Xerox camera without having to go through the inking process, which proved to be quite a cost-effective technique for the studio following the commercial under-performance of Sleeping Beauty two years prior. And while it does result in the animation being a little less polished compared to previous Disney films, it’s still pretty solid for the time and does a really nice job in regards to bringing the city of London to life in animated form. All in all, 101 Dalmatians is a very enjoyable flick, especially for dog-lovers, featuring one of the company’s most iconic villainesses.

Rating: 4/5

THE SWORD IN THE STONE (1963)

Despite what the title might suggest, The Sword in the Stone is not full medieval swordplay. Instead, one could say that the tale of how a young lad named Arthur became the ‘King Arthur’ of legend by pulling the sword Excalibur from a stone is more ‘educational-based’ than other Disney films. A lot of the film consists of Arthur learning various lessons from his ‘tutor’, the wise wizard Merlin. And while some may argue that this means that the film feels a bit too much like schoolwork, as someone who grew up with the Harry Potter franchise I think that the film is quite enjoyable in regards to all of the magical scenarios that Arthur and Merlin, a likable lead duo, get into, from avoiding a carnivorous pike while as fish to turning into squirrels and attracting the attention of a pair of female squirrels. Oh and by the way, Arthur is voiced by three different actors in this film, which results in so many damn voice shifts, sometimes even in the middle of a line of dialogue, that you’d swear he was going in and of puberty. There’s no real ‘villain’ in the film save for a rival magician of Merlin’s named Madam Mim. However, she’s more or less an afterthought due to the fact that she doesn’t appear until the final third and isn’t even really connected that much to the main plot of Arthur’s kingship. Still, the fight between her and Merlin, where the two continuously transform into different animals, is definitely a highlight. So in short, The Sword in the Stone is admittedly a more straight-forward affair compared to other Disney films and the fact that the film focuses more on ‘learning’ may result in some finding it to be rather boring. However, with a great lead duo in Arthur and Merlin and some fun and zany sequences involving magic, this is still a pretty darn enjoyable entry in the Disney canon.

Rating: 3.5/5

THE JUNGLE BOOK (1967)

As noted earlier, The Jungle Book was the last official Disney animated film to be produced by Walt Disney, who died ten months prior to the film’s release. But even with that in mind, this film is a very entertaining adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s classic tale of the man-cub Mowgli and his adventures in the jungle. The animation is pretty darn good and definitely does its job of immersing you into the world of the jungle. And yes, I’m well aware that this is one of those Disney films that re-uses a lot of its animation in multiple sequences; heck, certain shots were even used in other Disney films like Robin Hood. I’ve never been too bothered by this, for the record. The film is full of memorable characters, from the lovable bear Baloo to the wise panther Bagheera to the sinister snake Kaa to the zany ape King Louie to the film’s intimidating villain, Shere Khan. But probably the best part of the entire film is its soundtrack, with the majority of the songs written by the Sherman Brothers*. This includes King Louie’s toe-tapping dance number “I Wanna Be Like You” and Baloo’s iconic theme “The Bare Necessities”, which was actually written by a different musician, Terry Gilkyson. In short, The Jungle Book is a very fun installment in the Disney canon. This is mainly due to the film’s fun cast of characters and a soundtrack that adds a fun sense of theatricality to it all. So while it may be the last Disney animated film that Walt Disney ever produced, and one that he unfortunately never saw completed, I believe that this film is an excellent swan song for one of the greatest visionaries of all-time.

And hey, the remake was pretty darn excellent as well.

Rating: 4.5/5

(*I very much disagree with the film’s Honest Trailer which claims that “Bare Necessities” is the only noteworthy song in the entire film.)

THE ARISTOCATS (1970)

The Aristocats was the first official Disney animated film released in the post-Walt era, though it was actually the last one that he ‘approved’ prior to his death… and it’s one of the weakest installments of the Disney canon. I hate to say it, but I really didn’t get much out of this film. It’s one of the duller entries in the canon and the characters are fairly bland, despite having a solid voice cast that includes a few Disney regulars like Phil Harris (Baloo from The Jungle Book and Little John from Robin Hood) as O’Malley, Eva Gabor (Bianca from The Rescuers) as Duchess, and Sterling Holloway (the original Winnie-the-Pooh and Kaa from The Jungle Book) as Roquefort. It also has one of the weakest Disney villains of all-time in the form of the cats’ owner’s butler Edgar, who’s basically just a bumbling moron who constantly finds himself getting into slapstick situations because he’s so gosh-darn inept. Actually, it really feels like this screenplay was severely underwritten. There’s not much of a plot and none of the characters go through any major arcs. Like what if Duchess and her kittens were forced to step out of their comfort zone when they are taken from their life of luxury and are stranded out in the countryside? Or what if O’Malley’s alley cat status was more prominent in the story to the point where it strained his relationship with Duchess and her kittens but he eventually decides to leave that kind of lifestyle all behind because he has come to care about them? Well too bad because there’s none of that kind of character development here whatsoever. I mean if you’re one of those who has fond memories of this film as a result of watching it a lot growing up, all the power to you. But aside from one decent song (“Ev’rybody Wants to Be a Cat”), decent animation, and a pretty funny and meta ending tag, this is definitely one of my least favorite Disney animated features.

Rating: 2/5

ROBIN HOOD (1973)

Out of all of the Disney animated films that were rather ‘notorious’ for re-using animation from other Disney films, Robin Hood is probably the most ‘infamous’ of the bunch due to the fact that the film had a small budget of only $1.5 million. The musical sequence ‘Phony King of England’ features numerous re-used shots from films like The Jungle Book, The Aristocats, and even Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But even with that in mind, Robin Hood is still a very fun medieval adventure complete with some zany action sequences. There’s literally one scene where Maid Marian’s attendant Lady Kluck takes on a whole bunch of soldiers set to the USC and University of Wisconsin fight songs. Ultimately though, the best part of this film are its characters. Robin Hood and Little John are both likable and charismatic leads and Robin Hood (voiced excellently by Brian Bedford, who sadly passed away recently) has a sweet romantic relationship with Maid Marian, even though the film kind of forgets about her during the climax. The real stars of the show, however, are the main villains; Prince John, the tyrannical but cowardly ruler who constantly sucks his thumb when things don’t go his way, and his assistant Sir Hiss the Snake. These two are like an old married couple, constantly bickering with each other, and as a result, they’re definitely one of the funniest villain duos in Disney history, up there with duos like Yzma and Kronk and Captain Hook and Smee. In short, Robin Hood may not be as ‘complex’ in story as some of the other Disney films but that’s not much of a problem in my book thanks to the film’s fun cast of characters and its overall light-hearted and zany atmosphere that will have you humming “Oo De Lally, Oo De Lally” the whole time.

Rating: 4/5

THE MANY ADVENTURES OF WINNIE THE POOH (1977)

Who doesn’t love A.A. Milne’s iconic character Winnie the Pooh? He’s one of the most lovable characters in pop culture history. A month ago when I did my retrospective on Disney Animation’s post-2000 filmography, which included the new Winnie the Pooh film from 2011, I mentioned the many ways in which this franchise played a big part of my childhood, from watching episodes of the animated series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh on VHS back when that was still a thing to a particularly fond childhood memory of mine of getting to ride the ‘Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh’ ride at Walt Disney World with Pooh himself in 2002. To reiterate what I had said in that post, I strongly believe that this franchise should play a key part in every kid’s childhood. Part of that, of course, should come in the form of Pooh’s 1977 feature film debut, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh. Actually the film is a series of featurettes that Disney had produced back in the late 60’s and early 70’s. They are, in order of how they are played during the film, 1966’s Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree, 1968’s Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (notably the last animated Disney short that Walt Disney himself ever produced), and 1974’s Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too. These three segments were followed by an additional featurette, 1983’s Winnie the Pooh and a Day for Eeyore, which ran before that year’s re-release of The Sword in the Stone. But as for the first three featurettes, they were packaged together into a feature-length film in 1977.  

This film is just as great as it was when I was a kid. One of the biggest reasons why, of course, is because the characters are so iconic and lovable; the small-minded but cheerful Pooh, the timid Piglet who does try to be brave whenever he can, the caring but occasionally temperamental Rabbit, the gloomy donkey Eeyore, and the kooky and bouncy tiger Tigger (T-I-double-guh-er) just to name a few. The film may not have much of a cohesive ‘plot’ but that’s totally fine because you just love spending time with these characters. And then there’s also the film’s memorable collection of songs from who else but the legendary Disney duo that is the Sherman Brothers. There’s the classic title song, Tigger’s zany anthem ‘The Wonderful Thing About Tiggers’, and the song about those scary creatures known as ‘Heffalumps and Woozles’ which, in true Disney fashion, serves as the basis for one truly trippy as hell sequence where Pooh comes across them while dreaming. I mean I could go on and on about this film but I’ll just say this. I love this franchise, I love its characters, and I love this film. Some may not consider The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh to be one of Disney’s best films but as for me, this is definitely one of my personal favorites in the Disney library and is most certainly a must-see for kids that adults will no doubt enjoy as well.

Rating: 5/5!

THE RESCUERS (1977)

Back when I did my ‘Disney Renaissance’ retrospective back in November 2013 before the release of Frozen, one of the films that I had covered in that post was this film’s sequel, The Rescuers Down Under, in which I noted that not only was it one of the best animated sequels of all-time but also a highly underrated entry in the Disney canon due to it being a severe underperformer at the box-office. I only briefly mentioned the first Rescuers there so now here’s a more in-depth review of what I feel to be a ‘solid’ but not ‘terrific’ Disney animated film. Like I said before when I reviewed the sequel, one of the biggest strengths of these films is the lead duo of Bernard and Miss Bianca. They’re such a likable duo and are excellently voiced by Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor, respectively. This film also has a pretty memorable nut of a villain in the wicked Madame Medusa and some noteworthy henchmen of hers as well, including her bumbling lackey Mr. Snoops and her alligators Brutus and Nero. My only real complaints with the film are that, especially when compared to the sequel, this film’s story is rather ‘uneventful’ and the animation is a bit too drab as it is primarily set in the Bayou. Sure it’s an interesting locale for an animated film but it still results in a pretty darn gloomy-looking film, especially when compared to the other Louisiana set Disney film, The Princess and the Frog, which was released more than three decades late. So in short, I do think that this film is good but I can’t really list it as one of Disney’s best as ultimately I prefer its, to be perfectly frank, much better sequel.

And yes, the original cut of the film had an infamous still of a topless woman in it… Just goes to show how weird animation can get sometimes.

Rating: 3.5/5

So that’s the end of this Retrospective on the Disney Animated films of the 60’s and 70’s. Like I said in the intro, admittedly this one came out earlier than expected and that’s because I was quite angry at all of the videos that brutally bashed the original Jungle Book a little over a week ago. So in response to all of those videos, I decided to get this post completed so that I could paint the animated classic in a much more positive light. But as a result, that means that I went out-of-order with these remaining Retrospectives. I originally intended to start from the beginning of the Disney canon and end at the 80’s, which would’ve been the last one to do seeing how I’ve already covered every major Disney animated film since 1990. So with that in mind, expect the next Disney Retrospective to be on the studio’s films from the 80’s. After that, I’ll go back and start at the beginning with the Disney films of the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. Until then, what are your thoughts on the Disney films discussed in this post? Be sure to sound off in the comments below.

The Jungle Book (2016) review

As many of you know, Disney’s current schedule of upcoming live-action releases is almost entirely consisting of live-action remakes of their animated classics. These last few months in particular have seen the company announce numerous proposed films, including a new Winnie the Pooh, a new Mary Poppins film, and The Sword in the Stone, just to name a few. This of course is following the highly successful box-office runs of films like Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland and 2014’s Maleficent. However, this new practice of theirs has attracted a considerable amount of controversy amongst certain audiences for the same reasons that basically affect any announced remake, namely the question as to why one would attempt to remake a beloved film like the many animated classics that Disney has produced over the years. I, on the other hand, am a little more optimistic that a fair amount of these ‘Disney remakes’ are going to turn out fine. That mindset developed for me after I watched last year’s live-action version of Cinderella, which ended up being my #3 favorite film of 2015. Not only was the film full of gorgeous visuals but it was also big on heart and the end result was a film that both honored the original animated classic that inspired it while also doing enough to distinguish itself as its own entity. You could pretty much say that it is solely because of that film that I’m generally optimistic about these upcoming Disney remakes. Because if you ask me, if at least a few of these remakes happen to be as well-made as Cinderella by filmmakers who clearly show a lot of affection towards the original film, then that would mean that the fact that all of these remakes are getting announced is nowhere near as bad as some may claim.

Which brings us to the latest in this line of ‘Disney remakes’, The Jungle Book. It of course follows in the footsteps of the company’s 1967 animated adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s iconic novel of the same name. Unfortunately, that version is forever connected to a tragic point in the history of Disney Animation as it was the last Disney animated feature that Walt Disney himself produced prior to his death in 1966, just ten months before the film’s release. But even with the loss of the studio’s visionary leader, the original Jungle Book became an animated classic and served as a very fitting swan song for the man who was responsible for some of the most famous animated films/shorts of all-time. This new version is directed by Jon Favreau, who in the past gave us hits like the first two Iron Man films, the modern holiday classic Elf, and his most recent effort, the charming (and also hunger-inducing) indie flick Chef. And just like Kenneth Branagh last year with Cinderella, Favreau very much succeeds in regards to how his take on the classic story of the man-cub Mowgli both honors the original film that inspired it while also making its own mark in film history. The new Jungle Book is easily one of the best-looking films of the year, which is even more impressive considering the method in which the film was made. But those visuals are only the icing on the cake as this remake very much succeeds in capturing the heart of the original Disney flick without being a complete rehash of what came before.

The film of course follows the same general plot of both the original Kipling novel and the 1967 Disney animated version. In the middle of the Indian jungle, a young orphaned baby boy is found by the panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley). Realizing that he has no mother or father to look after him, Bagheera brings him to a wolf pack, which includes the boy’s ‘adoptive mother’ Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) and the pack’s leader Akela (Giancarlo Esposito), who then proceed to raise the young man-cub, Mowgli (Neel Sethi), as one of their own. Mowgli’s peaceful life with the pack is soon threatened, however, when the vicious tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who hates man after being threatened by them via man’s great asset, fire AKA what the animals refer to as ‘the red flower’, threatens to kill him and anyone who dares to protect him. Realizing that he is in danger, Bagheera and the wolf pack agree to have Mowgli brought to the nearby man-village so that he will be safe from Shere Khan’s wrath with his own kind. But while on the way to the man-village, Mowgli soon finds himself coming across all sorts of characters, from the laid-back bear Baloo (Bill Murray) to the devious and hypnotic snake Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) to the imposing ape King Louie (Christopher Walken), all while being simultaneously hunted by Shere Khan.

You want to know the most interesting thing about this film? It was shot entirely on a soundstage. Just like all of its animal characters, all of the jungle locales in the film are basically done entirely in CGI. And while some may argue that this would make the whole film ‘too artificial’ as a result, it actually does really work in regards to make everything look so photo-realistic even when knowing that most of it was created by computers. As for the film itself, it takes on a much darker tone compared to the original animated film, which does sort of make sense because the predator animals in this story could be considered as being more menacing in a live-action setting. However, it doesn’t get too dark to the point where it would completely draw younger audiences away. And aside from three new renditions of the songs ‘The Bare Necessities’, ‘I Wanna Be Like You’, and ‘Trust in Me’, the film avoids going the same musical route of its animated predecessor. All in all, this results in the film’s overall tone and plot being a generally equal mix of both the original animated film and Rudyard Kipling’s original novel. But of course this film is more than just pretty visuals, even though said visuals could very much make the film a worthwhile theater experience all on their own. At the end of the day, Favreau very much succeeds in capturing the heart of the original animated film in this new live-action setting. He does this through many things, including the multi-layered characters who are just as memorable as they were in the original animated film and the story’s strong themes of friendship and courage.  

As Mowgli, newcomer Neel Sethi is the only major live-action actor in the entire film. And considering that he had to go through the entire film shoot interacting with locations and characters that weren’t primarily added in until post-production, he definitely pulls off the act of managing to make it all seem natural quite well. At the same time, he also succeeds in making his Mowgli both likable and also very clever, the latter of which is represented by the many ‘inventions’ that he comes up with throughout the film. As for the animal characters, this film features a pitch-perfect voice cast as every actor/actress is an excellent fit for their respective roles. Bill Murray’s generally laid-back demeanor perfectly fits Baloo, who in this version is more sarcastic than his animated counterpart but is still a loyal friend to Mowgli through thick and thin. Ben Kingsley more than brings the right gravitas to the role of the noble panther Bagheera while Idris Elba provides one heck of an intimidation factor in the role of Shere Khan, who in this version gets a bit more backstory as to why he hates man. Some of the animal characters actually get more to do in this film compared to the animated film, particularly the wolf-pack and Mowgli’s ‘adoptive mother’ Raksha who, despite everyone telling her otherwise, very much treats Mowgli like her own son, resulting in a particularly emotional scene near the beginning when Mowgli decides to leave for the man-village. As for the characters of Kaa and King Louie, who each have one major scene in the film, Scarlett Johannsson’s alluring voice fits perfectly in the part of the hypnotizing snake while Christopher Walken’s wackier persona is fitting for King Louie. At the same time, however, this King Louie is considerably different than the one from the original film, as he is just as menacingly imposing as he is in size.

Now before I list my rating for this film, let me be clear about something first. While I’m about to give it a rating that’s ½ a star higher than my rating for the original Jungle Book, that doesn’t automatically mean that I view this new film as the ‘superior’ version, which is a claim that quite a few critics have been making these past few days. Just like with the new Cinderella, I view this new Jungle Book as a complement to the original film and not something that’s meant to ‘replace’ it. The original Jungle Book is still an undeniable classic (and one that, for the record, is far better than what Screen Junkies recently made it out to be) and this new version helps introduce the story of the man-cub Mowgli and his adventures in the jungle to a whole new generation. And it very much is an excellent new take on this classic story. From a technical perspective, it’s one of the most visually breathtaking films in recent memory which is saying a lot considering that the film is basically 95% CGI. But at its core lies the same heart that defined the original with a terrific cast bringing these classic characters to life. So yes… this isn’t the end of Disney’s live-action remakes. There are a lot more on the way, perhaps even a bit too many at this point. However, both this film and Cinderella are more than enough proof that they can be done and, more importantly, be done very, very well. So in short, contrary to what popular opinion may be, I am genuinely excited to see what Disney comes up with next in regards to re-imagining some of the classic films and stories that have defined many a childhood.   

Rating: 5/5!

Demolition (2016) review

(Note: The following is a full review of one of the films that I had previously covered in my ‘2016 SXSW Film Festival Recap’ post. For a quick refresher on what I said in that post, click Here. But for now, here’s my review of my favorite film from this year’s festival, Demolition).

I’ll admit that when I first went down to SXSW a few weeks ago, initially I wasn’t sure if I was going to see Demolition there, the newest film from Jean-Marc Vallee, the director of recent award-winning hits Dallas Buyers Club and Wild. However, on the second day of the festival I went to a panel featuring Jake Gyllenhaal that was moderated by director David Gordon Green, who’s working with Gyllenhaal on a film called Stronger centered around a survivor of the Boston Marathon bombings. During this panel, Gyllenhaal talked a bit about Demolition and even showed the trailer for it. And it was in that moment when I decided to finally see the film, which premiered that very same night at the Paramount Theater. And I’m glad that I did because it ended up being my favorite out of all of the films that I saw while at SXSW. On that note, I’m fairly surprised that this film has only been getting mixed reviews from critics. At the moment, it has an even 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So in other words, this is definitely one of those cases of a film that I believe is way better than what that rating suggests, though at the same time I do recognize that it won’t work for everyone. Demolition is quite a fascinating film as it somehow manages to be a well-balanced dramedy despite the fact that, on the surface, its overall execution makes it seem like it wouldn’t. While the overall plot of the film is serious in nature, director Marc-Vallee injects a solid amount of humor into it by means of the crazy shenanigans that the main character gets into after the accident that changes his life forever. And ultimately it does work, resulting in a story that is both funny and emotionally poignant when it needs to be.

The film immediately opens with investment banker Davis Mitchell (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his wife Julia (Heather Lind) getting into a car crash while they’re driving into New York City, resulting in the death of the latter. This loss ends up being extremely rough for both Davis and Julia’s parents; her father Phil (Chris Cooper), who is Davis’ boss at the company he works for, and her mother Margot (Polly Draper), who wasn’t speaking to Julia at the time of her death. While at the hospital, Davis tries to get some Peanut M&M’s from one of their vending machines. However, the machine ends up malfunctioning on him in that moment. This then leads to him actually writing a complaint letter to the company who manufactures the machines, Champion Vending Company. Ultimately, Davis ends up writing four letters to the company in which he begins to delve more into his life. His letters end up catching the attention of the company’s customer service representative Karen Moreno (Naomi Watts) and the two strike up a friendship, with Davis also befriending Karen’s delinquent son Chris (Judah Lewis). It is during this time where Davis tries to adjust to life without Julia. Initially feeling rather hollow for reasons he can’t explain, Davis soon embarks on a personal journey which sees him beginning to deconstruct the life that he once knew, both figuratively and literally.  

This film pulls off quite the balancing act in regards to being both a drama and a comedy. Now obviously the idea of a film about a guy who loses his wife in a car accident being ‘a comedy’ is one that on paper shouldn’t work in any way whatsoever. After all, the loss of a loved one is no laughing matter. However, somehow, someway, this film manages to make its comedy work because it comes from how Davis initially deals with life after the accident and not from the accident itself. The majority of the events in this film occur just because of one slight incident involving a vending machine that most of us would get over pretty quickly. But Davis gets so worked up over it that he actually writes a letter to the vending machine company. What then follows is a series of crazy shenanigans that Davis gets into, which mostly consist of him tearing stuff apart. But then the film’s third act hits and that’s where the film really starts to delve into the more dramatic and emotional parts of the story. And while it may seem like this shift is rather jarring, it actually isn’t. And ultimately that’s because we’ve been having such a great time watching Davis get into all of these shenanigans that by the time he really starts to cope with the loss of his wife, he does have our sympathy. As a result, the emotional catharsis that he reaches by the end of the film is very satisfying. I mean sure, his ways of coping are pretty extreme and are by no means how most people would react in a situation like this. Still, it is pretty interesting to watch at the same time because it very much goes against the norm.

Now that Leonardo DiCaprio has finally won his Oscar, I’d say it’s about time to give Jake Gyllenhaal an Oscar of his own because he’s been long overdue for one. He probably won’t win it for this film but Gyllenhaal absolutely shines in the role of Davis, arguably one of the best performances of his career. He has great comedic timing for the more humorous parts of the film but when it gets to the more emotional moments of the plot, he shines there too and allows us to sympathize with him even if his coping methods are rather out there. Equally terrific are Naomi Watts and Chris Cooper as Davis’ new friend Karen and father-in-law Phil, respectively. Davis and Karen are very much kindred spirits in a way as both are shown to dealing with some messed-up things in their lives. Gyllenhaal and Watts share a nice chemistry without their characters ever delving into anything resembling a romantic relationship for the entire duration of the film. As for Chris Cooper, he delivers what is quite frankly the most emotional performance in the entire film. He perfectly captures the personal turmoil that his character is going through having just lost his daughter, which very much connects to what happened to Cooper in real life when his son died from epilepsy in 2005. And in the scenes where he angrily confronts Gyllenhaal over how he’s been behaving recently, you really do understand where he’s coming from because even though Davis is the main character, in some ways we can be just as frustrated with him as Phil is. Because yeah, Davis’ ways of coping with his wife’s death are strange… very strange.  

I find that when it comes to dramedies, most of them end up being more dramatic in tone with little to no humor to be found. Demolition is one of those rare dramedies that I feel is perfectly balanced in both genres. Because while there is a good amount of humor in this film, it’s not primarily meant to be a ‘comedy’. After all, you would never consider a story in which a man copes with the loss of his wife a ‘comedy’ now, would you? No you wouldn’t but Demolition actually does succeed in implementing comedy into its story by the admittedly rather kooky ways in which Davis acts following this tragedy. But the great thing about the comedy in this film is that it doesn’t overshadow the emotional drive of the story and the film’s final act wisely does away with the comedy and really gets down to the nitty gritty. And because the film’s more comedic moments allowed for us to like Davis as a character, we very much feel for him when he finally reaches emotional catharsis over his situation. Of course part of that is thanks to Jake Gyllenhaal’s terrific performance in the role, as he too finds the right balance between comedic timing and emotional vulnerability. Thanks to his performance, the equally excellent performances from his co-stars, the strong direction of Marc-Vallee, and Bryan Sipe’s well-written screenplay, Demolition is a fantastic film that succeeds in being both knee-slapping hilarious and emotionally poignant at just the right moments.  

Rating: 5/5!

Hardcore Henry (2016) review

(Note: The following is a full review of one of the films that I had previously covered in my ‘2016 SXSW Film Festival Recap’ post. For a quick refresher on what I said in that post, click Here. But for now, here’s my full review of the first-person action film, Hardcore Henry.)

Hardcore Henry is a particularly unique entry into the action genre. The brainchild of director Ilya Naishuller, the frontman of Russian indie rock group Biting Elbows, and inspired by the band’s music videos for their songs ‘The Stampede’ and ‘Bad Mother******’, both of which were shot in a similar manner, Hardcore Henry is a 100% first-person action film. All of the action in this film is witnessed, and in this case mostly committed, from the perspective of the titular Henry, effectively placing the audience in the middle of it all. In other words, you know all of those first-person shooter games like Call of Duty and Battlefield? Well this is like playing those games… while on crack. Yes, Hardcore Henry is very much a film that lives up to its ‘Hardcore’ title with its balls-to-the-wall action and its extremely hyperactive pacing. However, I wouldn’t necessarily say that this is a good thing. I mean, sure, I will give the filmmakers credit for at least sticking to their guns and delivering us a no-holds barred action extravaganza. And again, at the very least this film can at least lay claim to the fact that it’s a pretty darn original entry in the action genre in terms of its overall style. However, this ends up being one of the most extreme cases of style over substance as the story and characters are basically just an afterthought in favor of endless action. Sure the action may be impressive for a film shot in this style but it really doesn’t matter if everything else is woefully underdeveloped.

As the film begins, the audience is placed into the perspective of Henry, a man who wakes up in a laboratory being given cybernetic limbs by his scientist wife Estelle (Haley Bennett). Estelle tells Henry that he has recently been in an accident, hence the loss of his limbs, and that he also has amnesia. However, before Estelle and the other scientists can install a speech module for Henry, they are suddenly attacked by mercenaries led by the mysterious telekinetic Akan (Danila Kozlovsky). Henry and Estelle escape from the airship that the laboratory is located in but when they land back on Earth in the middle of Moscow, more of Akan’s mercenaries come and abduct Estelle. Henry is soon rescued by a mysterious man named Jimmy (Sharlto Copley), who offers to help him take on Akan and his army in order to save Estelle. The only problem? Henry’s battery is running low on energy and at best he’s only got enough energy to last for about 20-30 minutes. This results in Henry embarking on a journey throughout Moscow as he fights through dozens of bad guys, with the help of Jimmy and a few other people as well, in order to not only ‘stay alive’ but to also rescue Estelle and to stop Akan once and for all before he can create a whole army of soldiers who are just like Henry and unleash them upon the world.

As I said before, this film does at least deserve credit for trying something new in the action genre. I mean, I can’t really think of any other action film that has been done from a first-person perspective. With that in mind, this film does go all the way with it and in that regard, it very much succeeds in making you feel like you’re Henry and you’re fighting all of these bad guys like a total badass. Not only that, but the film definitely does have some really impressive and cool action sequences, like a fight scene near the end of the film in which Henry fights a whole slew of henchmen that’s set perfectly to Queen’s ‘Don’t Stop Me Now’. But even with all of that said, at the end of the day this style may prove to get old for some people after a while. That’s because the film does sort of stay on the same note throughout its runtime to the point where it actually gets rather repetitive at times. That and it should be noted that the film’s first-person style, which is ‘sort of’ similar to the found-footage style seen in films like Cloverfield and Chronicle (though to be perfectly clear, this is NOT a ‘found-footage’ film), could be very nauseating to watch for some viewers. I’m not someone who’s easily prone to nausea but I will admit that when I saw it at SXSW, I had to walk out of the theater after it was done because it was so intense. This film, and subsequently the action, goes by so fast that it actually kind of requires a second viewing of it just to notice everything that happens in it. The only question, though, is whether or not you’d care to watch it again.

Because where this film may shine in regards to its action, it severely lacks in terms of its plot and characters. To put it simply, this is easily one of the most mindless action films that I’ve ever seen. Because the action is so frenetic, we as an audience are never given much time to take a breather because this film keeps on going and going like the Energizer Bunny… on crack. And as a result, most of the characters are incredibly underdeveloped. For one thing, the main villain Akan is apparently a Jedi because of his telekinetic powers. How did he gain these powers? It’s never explained… well, at least not in the film. There’s a prequel comic focused on Akan, which covers his backstory, that was given out for free when I saw the film at SXSW… but I haven’t read it yet and to be frank, that stuff should’ve just been in the film. However, I will at least give Danila Kozlovsky credit because he actually does make Akan a pretty fiendish and even rather charismatic villain despite having jack to work with. Ultimately though, the real star of the show is Sharlto Copley as Jimmy, who to be perfectly frank is the only major character in this film who gets any shred of character development… and even then, his main role in the film is mostly just telling Henry where to go. Without giving too much away, a recurring plot-point in the film is that Jimmy is continuously killed but yet somehow keeps coming back albeit with different personalities each time, from a coked-up sex addict to a ‘peace-loving’ motorcycle riding hippie to my personal favorite, a World War II admiral who looks and sounds like he came straight out of Inglourious Basterds (“Jolly Good!”).

Fans of the action genre will probably get a kick out of this film and rightfully so as it does deliver a pretty distinctively original action style that could potentially be used in the future by other filmmakers if they ever decide to use it. But if they ever do, hopefully those filmmakers come up with a much stronger story to go along with it because this film doesn’t do that at all. The film’s non-stop nature means that there’s little-to-no-time for any sort of breather and as a result, none of the characters, aside from Sharlto Copley’s Jimmy, are ever fleshed out. We as an audience are basically just stepping into the shoes of a blank slate. And as impressive as the action may be at times, the fact that it’s all-shot in first person will be nauseating for some people and it may even eventually tire them out because it does get rather repetitive after a while. Again, I will give the film credit for being unapologetically, for lack of a better term, ‘hardcore’ and all but it’s so ‘hardcore’ that it becomes quite erratic at times. Now I’ve seen arguments that this film doesn’t really need a deep story due to its action and overall sense of adrenaline. But that same argument was made towards Mad Max Fury Road and after seeing this film, I will never be as critical towards Fury Road in regards to its writing ever again because at least that film had a plot and characters that were actually worth a damn. This is just action and violence for the sake of action and violence.  

Rating: 2.5/5

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice SPOILER POST

“Black and Blue. Fight Night. The greatest Gladiator match in the history of the world. God vs. Man. Day vs. Knight. Son of Krypton vs. Bat of Gotham.”

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)