Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) review

In 2014, Disney released their then-latest live-action remake of one of their animated classics, Maleficent. The film served as a reimagining of the studio’s 1959 film Sleeping Beauty, but as the title suggests, the focus was shifted from the titular ‘Sleeping Beauty’ AKA Princess Aurora to its iconic villainess, Maleficent. However, instead of just simply maintaining the character’s villainous nature from the original film, Maleficent ended up going a radically different route and turned the character into a tragic anti-hero whose actions served as an act of revenge against those who wronged her while also forming a genuine mother-daughter relationship with Aurora. As you might have guessed, this new characterization didn’t exactly go over well with everyone, thus contributing to the film’s overall mixed reception. And yet, that didn’t stop it from being a massive hit at the box-office where it grossed over $758 million worldwide, effectively continuing the financial hot streak of Disney’s live-action remakes. Thus, half a decade after the original’s release, the ‘Mistress of All Evil’ (and yes, I will use that title in this instance even though this version of the character isn’t a villain) is now back in a new film, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, albeit with a notable change in director. Whereas the first film served as the directorial debut of production designer Robert Stromberg, this film is directed by Joachim Rønning, who’s fresh off directing the fifth Pirates of the Caribbean film with long-time directing partner Espen Sandberg (though, to be clear, this one is Rønning only). And while Mistress of Evil does continue to go with its polarizing heroic rendition of its main character, those who were fans of the first film will find this to be yet another solidly entertaining dark fantasy all bolstered once again by Angelina Jolie’s truly excellent turn in the title role.

It has been five years since the powerful Dark Fey Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) saved Princess Aurora (Elle Fanning) from the death-like sleeping curse that she had inflicted upon her as a baby due in large part to the motherly affection that she had developed for the young Princess. Since then, Aurora has dutifully served as the ruler of Maleficent’s kingdom, the Moors, and on one faithful day, her dashing suitor Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson, taking over for Brenton Thwaites from the previous film) asks for her hand in marriage. Despite Maleficent’s objections over this due to her own past experiences with love, Aurora convinces her to travel to Phillip’s home, the Kingdom of Ulstead, and meet with his parents, King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer). However, this doesn’t end up going very well as Maleficent soon begins to feel threatened by Ingrith, especially after she claims that this union will result in her becoming the mother that Aurora ‘never had’. Thus, when Maleficent lashes out at this remark in a manner that seemingly curses King John into a perpetual sleep like she did with Aurora, she becomes vilified by Ingrith, who promptly begins to mount an all-out war against the Moors. During this time, Maleficent also ends up coming across other Dark Feys, led by the duo of Conall (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Borra (Ed Skrein), who find themselves in disagreement over this impending conflict. Whereas Borra is hellbent on wiping out humanity to save their kind, Conall believes that Maleficent’s the only one who can use her powers to unite the two sides.

One of the things that these Maleficent films have always excelled at is their phenomenal production design. Sure, just like practically every other recent live-action Disney remake of the past few years, they mainly utilize CG to craft their environment and the non-human creatures that inhabit it, but they still succeed immensely when it comes to bringing the truly unique fantasy world that they’ve created to life. Plus, when compared to the ‘arguably a bit too dark’ aesthetic of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland (not counting its follow-up Alice Through the Looking Glass since it did, at least, brighten things up considerably), these two films manage to achieve a good mix between dark and atmospheric and bright and colorful. But just like the first film, Maleficent: Mistress of Evil stumbles a little when it comes to its story. While it does notably have the benefit of not having to adhere to any specific bit of source material since it obviously did the whole Sleeping Beauty arc in the previous film, everything here is still rather basic in terms of plot. But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of this film is that there aren’t as many scenes with Maleficent and Aurora together, which I only bring up because the whole mother-daughter relationship between them was very much the heart of the first film. Thankfully, they aren’t separated for the whole film and the biggest scenes that directly involve the two of them are easily amongst its best moments. Plus, despite boasting a longer runtime than its predecessor (Mistress of Evil runs a little under two hours whereas the first was only an hour and a half long), the film still retains the solidly breezy pacing that served the first film nicely.

But, of course, the biggest highlight of these films is the continuously excellent work by Angelina Jolie in the title role. Even if you aren’t a fan of how these films eschew Maleficent’s villainous characterization from the original Sleeping Beauty, there’s no denying that Jolie perfectly nails the role in every possible way. She obviously has the look down, excellently maintains the character’s classic mannerisms, and in the context of these films, has a solid on-screen camaraderie with Elle Fanning that impeccably illustrates the strong relationship between Maleficent and Aurora. It is this relationship that has arguably made Fanning’s take on Aurora superior to her animated counterpart, and this is well-reflected in the sequel thanks to a noticeably matured turn from Fanning performance-wise. Another key returning player from the previous film is Sam Riley as Maleficent’s raven confidante Diaval, and while the character does get somewhat sidelined in the same way that the film doesn’t have a lot of scenes between Maleficent and Aurora, Riley still excels at making Diaval a fully endearing sidekick. Speaking of sidekicks, the film also makes the wise decision to downplay Aurora’s three pixie caretakers; Knotgrass (Imelda Staunton), Thistlewit (Juno Temple), and Flittle (Lesley Manville). In retrospect, I admit that I may have been a bit harsh on these three in my review of the original Maleficent back in 2014, but I still stand by what I said about how they ended up being one of the weaker aspects of that film due to them being portrayed as far ditsier than their animated counterparts. Sure, the trio of Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather had their silly moments (e.g. their squabble over the color of Aurora’s dress), but the first Maleficent arguably went a bit too far with their humor in its attempt to show that Maleficent was a far better caretaker for Aurora than they were. Thankfully, that’s not as big of an issue this time around because while these three do still maintain their bumbling personas, they don’t play as big of a role in the story this time.  

There is one notable change regarding the returning cast of characters, however, as Harris Dickinson takes over the role of Prince Phillip from Brenton Thwaites due to scheduling conflicts for the latter. Thankfully, this change doesn’t affect the film in any notable way as Dickinson has solid chemistry with Fanning and it also helps that Phillip has a larger role in the story this time (even if it’s still a generally minor supporting role) whereas Thwaites’ Phillip only appeared in two major scenes near the tail-end of the previous film. As for new characters, the biggest addition, of course, is Michelle Pfeiffer as Phillip’s mother and, subsequently, the film’s main antagonist, Queen Ingrith. And while it would’ve been nice to have some more scenes where Pfeiffer and Jolie interact with each other directly (if only for the opportunity to see more of these two iconic actresses together onscreen), Pfeiffer brings a great commanding presence to the role that fits nicely with the backstory and motivations that she’s given. Finally, closing out the new cast of characters is the duo of Chiwetel Ejiofor and Ed Skrein as Maleficent’s fellow Dark Feys Conall and Borra. Both are natural fits in their respective roles, with Ejiofor being the noble leader and Skrein being the fierce warrior. However, you may be surprised to learn that Ejiofor doesn’t factor into the film as much as its marketing may have implied to the point where Skrein arguably ends up having more screen-time than him.

As I’ve been alluding to throughout this review, the overall reception of these Maleficent films is primarily dependent on one’s views of their radically different portrayal of the title character. Thanks to her role in the original Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent has consistently been regarded as one of the greatest villains in a Disney animated film. In contrast to that, the Maleficent films make her the main character of the story and portray her in a generally more heroic manner. Thus, if you’re not a fan of this characterization, you’re better off sticking with the original Sleeping Beauty and various other bits of Disney media that maintain her villainous status; in fact, you’ll probably wonder why this sequel decided to go with the Mistress of Evil subtitle even though it isn’t an accurate descriptor for this iteration of the character. But for those who were fans of 2014’s Maleficent, you’ll be pleased to know that this film does continue to maintain many of the aspects that made its predecessor such a big hit with audiences. Its visual effects and production design are still second to none, Angelina Jolie continues to prove why she was born to play the title role, and it’s easy to appreciate these films’ commitment to their female-led narratives. The only major downside to this film is that it doesn’t provide as many heartwarming moments between Maleficent and Aurora as there were in the first film, which is why I admittedly wouldn’t call Mistress of Evil a ‘superior sequel’. Ultimately, though, this does not prevent the film from being yet another solid live-action outing from Disney.

Rating: 4/5

The Lion King (2019) review

In 1991, Walt Disney Animation began production on two different films that would be the studio’s next big projects after the one-two punch of that year’s Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin the following year. Of the two films, the one that the studio ended up placing most of its focus on was an adaptation of the story of the Native American woman known as Pocahontas, and because it ended up attracting most of Disney’s prominent animators, the other film was primarily developed by the studio’s ‘B-Team’. Ironically, though, the B-Team would end up producing the more critically acclaimed affair; we, of course, know their project… as The Lion King. When it was released in the summer of 1994, The Lion King quickly became one of the biggest films of its time. It currently stands as the highest-grossing traditionally animated film of all-time at over $968 million worldwide, which also means that it was Disney Animation’s highest-grossing film for nearly two decades until it was ultimately out-grossed by Frozen in 2013. It’s also notably the best-selling VHS title of all-time with over 32 million copies sold. But now it’s joined the ranks of other Disney classics as the latest in Disney’s line of live-action remakes… however, calling this one ‘live-action’ would technically be false. Instead, this new version of The Lion King is a CGI remake of the original as it mirrors the style of the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book through its use of photorealistic environments and characters. The two films even share the same director in Jon Favreau AKA the man who effectively launched the MCU with the original Iron Man and is also responsible for modern classics like Elf and Chef. And while this one is sure to be a controversial release because of how it ultimately ‘remakes’ its predecessor, fans of the original Lion King will still probably find this to be an incredibly fun and gorgeously animated interpretation of an all-time Disney classic.

In the vast kingdom that is the Pride Lands of Africa, Mufasa, the King of Pride Rock (voiced by James Earl Jones) and his queen Sarabi (voiced by Alfre Woodard) celebrate the birth of their son, Simba. As he begins to grow up, Simba (voiced as a child by JD McCrary and as an adult by Donald Glover) eagerly anticipates the day when he will take his father’s place as King. However, unbeknownst to Simba, his uncle Scar (voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor) secretly plots to get rid of both him and his father so that he can take over the Pride Lands. To do so, Scar puts Simba in increasingly terrifying situations that eventually results in a devastating tragedy, and when Scar has Simba fooled into thinking that the accident was his fault, Simba ends up running away from his home. After a while, he meets the happy-go-lucky duo of Timon the Meerkat (voiced by Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa the Warthog (voiced by Seth Rogen), who end up taking him in and showing him the benefits of their carefree lifestyle. But as Simba matures into adulthood, his childhood friend Nala (voiced as a child by Shahadi Wright Joseph and as an adult by Beyoncé) comes back into his life to warn him that Scar’s takeover of the Pride Lands has led it to ruin. Thus, Simba must now overcome the demons of his past to save his home from his diabolical uncle and to properly take his place as the new king of Pride Rock.

This new take on The Lion King is easily the closest that any of the recent Disney remakes have gotten when it comes to closely replicating their original counterparts. This isn’t a case like Maleficent, which retold the story of Sleeping Beauty from the titular villain’s perspective, or Pete’s Dragon, which nixed the original’s musical numbers in favor of a more traditional narrative. For all intent and purposes, this is the same exact story from the 1994 film with the same exact outcome. The only major differences from a narrative perspective come from minor deviations in dialogue and a different intro for Nala after she’s become an adult. As such, this could quite arguably be the most controversial Disney remake yet because of how tightly it adheres to the original film without really doing anything differently. And yet, at the same time, because it’s still The Lion King, it could potentially be argued that, at the very least, the film does maintain the original’s strong script and hits the biggest emotional moments just as effectively (i.e. that one scene that we always remember from this story). Nothing significant from the story is lost and nothing is added in that would drastically change anything. Ultimately, though, the biggest selling point of this film is its visuals. As noted in the intro, this film carries over the same method that Favreau used on The Jungle Book in which everything in it (save for Mowgli) was digitally created. And while some may take issue with the fact that the overall drive for realism results in certain moments from the original being toned down, it’s still an impressive feat of VFX work from the same team that won an Oscar for their work on Jungle Book.

Another key aspect of this film is its voice cast, as Jon Favreau selected a top-notch voice cast to portray these iconic characters. JD McCrary and Donald Glover (who have notably worked together before) headline the project excellently as Simba as a young cub and adult lion, respectively, thanks in large part to the terrific camaraderie/chemistry that they have with their co-stars. McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph are phenomenal together as young Simba and Nala, and while adult Nala’s role in the story isn’t really expanded upon too much when compared to the original film, Beyoncé does do a solid job in the role. Meanwhile, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a damn good replacement for Jeremy Irons in the role of Scar as he perfectly maintains that same, great sinister persona that was pivotal in making Scar such an iconic Disney villain. But as for Mufasa, the filmmakers clearly knew that there was no way you could replace the legendary voice that portrayed the character in the original film. Yes, James Earl Jones is back once again to reprise his role as the King of Pride Rock, and he is still just as commanding and awesome as he was in the original film. And to close out the main cast, we have Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen, who serve as phenomenal replacements for Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella in the roles of Timon and Pumbaa. As many others have noted, they’re the biggest standouts of the film and their riffing is the primary source of the remake’s new material, whether it’s an entertaining fourth-wall gag or a downright brilliant homage to another Disney classic.

I have the feeling that this is the one Disney remake that some people were expecting me to be completely against. After all, the original Lion King still stands as my favorite Disney animated film of all-time. Well, to that I say… you’ve read my reviews of the other recent Disney remakes, right? If I haven’t made it clear before, I’m perfectly fine with this new trend of live-action remakes of classic Disney films (even though this one technically isn’t ‘live-action’) because I recognize that the old films will still be there when all’s said and done. More importantly, their legacies won’t be tarnished by a ‘lousy’ remake because they’re quite frankly better than they’re often given credit for. However, even with that said, I fully recognize that I won’t even remotely be able to convince any of the ‘live-action remake’ critics that this one is worthwhile because it’s almost literally the same as its traditionally-animated counterpart save for a CGI makeover. And because the CG is highly intent on maintaining a sense of realism, this means that this version of The Lion King is a lot more grounded compared to its predecessor (e.g. don’t expect Timon to don a hula skirt and ask some hyenas if they’re “aching for some bacon”). Despite this, Jon Favreau does do an excellent job of maintaining the same spirit of the original even with a different visual aesthetic. And at the end of the day, that visual aesthetic is the main reason to watch this film because it’s clear that the visual effects team went above and beyond to create an impressively photorealistic-looking film to the point where it could potentially pass as some kind of nature documentary. As such, while some may view this as the most pointless Disney remake yet, there’s no denying that it’s one of the best-looking films of 2019.

Rating: 5/5!

Doctor Strange (2016) review

For nearly a decade now, the Marvel Cinematic Universe has continuously expanded its, well, ‘Cinematic Universe’ with every new film that comes out; not just in characters but also the world in general. When the franchise first started in 2008, the action was restricted to Earth as primarily seen in the first two Iron Man films and The Incredible Hulk. But then came Thor in 2011. That film was the first in the MCU to go off Earth (not counting the parts of it that WERE set on Earth) and start to explore the cosmic side of the Marvel Universe, namely the Nine Realms which include Thor’s home world of Asgard. And then the cosmic world of Marvel was explored even further, past the Nine Realms, in Guardians of the Galaxy. It just goes to show that Nick Fury’s speech about ‘being part of a bigger universe’ from the first Iron Man was very much true. But for their latest endeavor, Marvel Studios now delves into the mystic side of the MCU with Doctor Strange, starring Benedict Cumberbatch in the title role of a famed neurosurgeon whose life changes when he discovers a group of mystic warriors and subsequently becomes one in the process. The film is brought to us by director Scott Derrickson, who to some may seem like an odd choice to direct a superhero film given that he’s mainly been known for his work in the horror genre with films like Sinister and The Exorcism of Emily Rose. However, this is Marvel Studios we’re talking about, who have an extensive history of ‘out of left field’ choices when it comes to directors (e.g. James Gunn, the Russo brothers, etc.). And once again that method pays off in what is another highly entertaining MCU flick with the usual things you’d come to expect from the franchise at this point along with some of the most impressive visuals that the superhero genre has ever seen.

Dr. Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a world-renowned neurosurgeon living in New York. However, one night he ends up in a severe car crash that affects him in the worst way possible; by crippling his hands. Being the self-absorbed perfectionist that he is, Strange begins to invest in various forms of surgery in the hopes of fixing his hands, but they all prove to be fruitless endeavors. With no other options left, Strange learns of a man named Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt) who became a paraplegic but then somehow regained the use of his legs. When Strange seeks out Pangborn for answers, he ends up directing him to Kathmandu, Nepal to find a place known as ‘Kamar-Taj’. Once he gets there, Strange learns that this is the site for a ‘school’ of mystics led by a sorcerer known as the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton), who shows him the full extent of their powers. Sorcerers like them can control their environment and travel across dimensions, including the ‘astral plane’, and whereas the Avengers protect Earth from physical threats, they protect it from inter-dimensional threats. And so Strange begins to train under the Ancient One alongside other students like Karl Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor), eventually proving to be quite gifted in the mystic arts. But soon Strange finds himself having to combat a dangerous threat in the form of Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), a former student of the Ancient One who has stolen vital information from Kamar-Taj’s archive to summon magic, and a certain dark force, from the dangerous realm known as ‘the Dark Dimension’.

Obviously, the big thing that everyone’s been talking about in regards to this film are its visuals. And yes, all that hype is warranted. While the MCU films have always done an excellent job with visual effects, this film easily outshines them all. All the ways in which the characters utilize magic, especially the ways in which they manipulate the environment, produce some truly eye-catching, surreal, and in some cases, very trippy visual effects. As some have described it, they have quite the Inception vibe to them and they lend themselves well to some truly epic action sequences. As for the rest of the film, it’s pretty much exactly what you’d expect from an MCU film at this point. It’s got great humor, with a lot of the best jokes coming from how characters react to the surreal nature of the mystic arts, but said humor never overshadows the plot and the overall story. On that note, admittedly this story may seem a bit familiar to some people (I’ll delve into the majorly implied comparison momentarily) but the execution by Marvel and director Scott Derrickson is just as great as any other Marvel Studios film. Even better, it’s becoming more and more clear that the decision to ditch the controversial Creative Committee, which was responsible for a lot of the studio’s most polarizing decisions in the past (e.g. the Edgar Wright-Ant-Man incident), is starting to pay off. Before, Marvel tended to get a lot of flak for allegedly limiting the control that directors had over their films. But now that the committee’s gone, I think it’s safe to say that we won’t be hearing any more issues of ‘creative differences’ anytime soon.

This film features arguably one of the best ‘character arcs’ of any MCU film to date. As some will no doubt point out, Dr. Stephen Strange has a lot in common with Tony Stark. He starts off as an arrogant celebrity who must dial back on his ego to become the hero he’s meant to be. Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent in the role and the fact that the film kind of speeds through his origin story helps keep the whole experience from being too much of a case of ‘been there, done that’. Chiwetel Ejiofor is arguably a bit underused as Mordo but he does have one of the biggest character arcs in the entire film that will no doubt pave the way for future MCU films. Rachel McAdams, who plays Strange’s co-worker/ex Christine Palmer, does have solid chemistry with Cumberbatch and gets some of the best bits of ‘interacting with weird stuff’ humor but overall she’s just the love interest. Benedict Wong as Kamar-Taj’s archive keeper Wong… is one of my favorite MCU side characters ever. Just watch the film to see what I mean because he’s brilliant. And then there’s the controversial casting of Tilda Swinton, a white actress, in the role of The Ancient One, a traditionally Asian character in the comics. Anyone who follows me knows that I don’t like to address ‘whitewashing’ controversies in film so I’ll just say that Swinton does do a great job in what is a very layered role. And finally, of course, there’s the one part of any MCU film that gets the most attention, and not always in a good way, the villain. I’m pleased to say that Mads Mikkelsen’s Kaecilius is one of the better MCU villains. Granted, he’s still not exactly the franchise’s best but Mikkelsen does get decent enough material to work with and, at the very least, he plays off his foil, Dr. Strange, quite well.

Well, at this point anyone who knows me as the MCU fan that I am probably predicted that I was going to love this film without even having to read much into the review. And yeah… you’re right. But at the same time, this just goes to show how Marvel Studios has continued to deliver quality content time and time again. And sure, technically some parts of this film’s story are a little standard at this point given everything that’s happened in the superhero genre. But, at the same time, the things that this film introduces into the Marvel Cinematic Universe open up a whole world of the one thing that the Ancient One sees in Dr. Strange’s future… ‘possibilities’. From a visual perspective, this film features some of the most eye-popping visuals that the superhero genre has ever seen. I mean, it’d be a genuine shock if this film doesn’t get an Oscar nom for Best Visual Effects. And of course, as with any MCU film, the humor is well handled, the action sequences are amazing, the story is solid, and the characters are excellent as portrayed by the always great MCU ensemble. Again, to some people this may come off as being a bit too familiar in certain parts. This is, after all, the 14^th Marvel Cinematic Universe film. But at the same time, that also means that Marvel Studios is now 14 for 14 when it comes to their filmography. I think it’s safe to say that this is a streak that is practically unmatched by any other film franchise, past and present.

Rating: 4.5/5

The Martian (2015) review

Ridley Scott is without a doubt one of the most prolific directors working today in Hollywood. He’s directed numerous cinematic classics over the span of nearly four decades, from a pair of critically acclaimed sci-fi films in 1979’s ‘Alien’ and 1982’s ‘Blade Runner’ to 2000’s Best Picture-winning swords-and-sandals epic ‘Gladiator’. But in recent years, some may argue that Scott’s filmography has experienced a decline in terms of quality. His 2010 collaboration with his ‘Gladiator’ star Russell Crowe, ‘Robin Hood’, ended up being a critical/commercial disappointment upon release. He fared better, for the most part, in 2012 with ‘Prometheus’, a ‘prequel’ to the ‘Alien’ franchise that he had originally kick-started, but the film has since become one of the most polarizing films of the last few years. After that, his next two films, 2013’s ‘The Counselor’ and last year’s ‘Exodus: Gods and Kings’, both ended up getting generally trashed by critics. This year, however, it looks like Scott has a major success on his hands with his newest film, ‘The Martian’. Based off of the 2011 novel of the same name by Andy Weir, ‘The Martian’ centers on an astronaut who must survive on Mars after he gets left behind by his crew. What follows is a highly engaging and smartly written story of survival highlighted by a terrific lead performance.

The film opens up with the crew of the Ares III while they are in the middle of a manned mission on Mars. When an intense dust storm hits their area, they are forced to evacuate. However, during the return to their ship, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is separated from the group when he gets knocked away by debris. Presumed dead, the rest of his crew, led by Ares III commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain), end up leaving the planet without him. But, unbeknownst to both them and NASA, Watney actually did survive and is now trapped on the Red Planet. With no way of contacting NASA and being forced to deal with the limited resources of his crew’s artificial habitat, which wasn’t designed to last for the amount of time it would take for another NASA mission to return for him, Watney is tasked with finding a way to grow food ‘on a planet where nothing grows’. Being an experienced botanist, Watney begins to ‘science the s*** out of the situation’ while also working to get back into contact with NASA. Once he manages to achieve both of these goals, the staff at NASA, as well as Watney’s crew, begin working on a way to get Watney home safe and sound.

This film has been getting a lot of attention for being ‘scientifically accurate’, from the way that Watney is able to produce water while on Mars to a scene in which he has to patch up his helmet when it cracks. And while it’s undoubtedly a very smart film, it never tries to overcomplicate matters. Some of the film’s scientific elements may fly over the heads of some people but at the same time it never talks down to them. Also, for a film that’s, at its core, a story of survival against all odds in one of the harshest environments imaginable, it’s actually not that intense, at least when compared to 2013’s big space survival film ‘Gravity’. Yes the main character is in a difficult situation and there are definitely some tense moments layered throughout the film but it ultimately maintains a generally light-hearted tone throughout, which is primarily due to Watney’s optimistic attitude, his witty video logs, and his clear disdain for Commander Lewis’ library of disco music. All of this results in a film that’s actually quite funny at times, which is something that one wouldn’t normally expect from director Ridley Scott as most of his other films are much more serious in tone.  

Obviously the key to the entire film is Matt Damon’s performance in the lead role of Watney and Damon more than succeeds in that regard. Damon of course is on his own for the majority of the film’s run-time and pretty much single-handedly carries the entire film on his back. As Watney, he’s very likable, even when he acts rather cocky, and you genuinely do root for him to succeed. Damon’s so good in this that the film’s ‘weakest’ points are basically the instances where he’s not on-screen. Now, for the record, I’m not completely criticizing the scenes of the film that focus on either some of the major employees at NASA, including NASA head Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) and engineer Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor), or the other members of Watney’s crew (Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, and Aksel Hennie). The ensemble cast is great all around but perhaps there are just a bit too many characters to keep track of. Sure the film actually does manage to credit all of the major supporting characters in the film but at the end of the day, it is Watney who gets the most amount of character development. Again I’m not holding that against the film too much but admittedly the best scenes are with Watney and when he’s not on-screen, that’s when this almost two-and-a-half hour film tends to drag.

‘The Martian’ is a science-fiction film that very much emphasizes science over fiction. It’s a very smartly-written story that conveys its science in a way that’s easily accessible to the audience without ever becoming too convoluted. The film is consistently compelling throughout its hefty 141-minute runtime and is even rather humorous due to its light-hearted tone and witty screenplay courtesy of Drew Goddard. But at its core, it carries the simple themes of optimism, ingenuity, and the will of the human spirit to overcome adversity even when the odds are stacked against them. And as I’ve stated earlier this year in my review of ‘Tomorrowland’, we definitely need more sci-fi films like that; ones that convey messages/themes of hope and optimism over fear of the apocalypse. Matt Damon absolutely shines in the lead role of Mark Watney and is backed up by an excellent ensemble cast, even if at the end of the day he’s the one that gets the most attention and scenes without him tend to drag a little. Simply put, ‘The Martian’ is easily the best film that Ridley Scott has made in years; a very well-crafted sci-fi adventure/survival film that might even compel future generations to take up an interest in space.

Rating: 4.5/5

(P.S. This film has one of the most perfect end-credit songs ever!)

86th Annual Academy Awards: PREDICTIONS

Seeing how we are only a few days away from the 86^th Annual Academy Awards, which will be held on March 2^nd and hosted by Ellen DeGeneres, it’s that time again to do some predictions over who might be going home with an Oscar this upcoming Sunday. Now, I won’t be covering all 24 of the Oscar categories and that will mostly be for one of two reasons; A.) I may not be that familiar with the topic, such as sound mixing, sound editing, and makeup or B.) I haven’t seen most of the films in that category. In the case of the latter, I’m mainly referring to the Short Films (both live-action and animated), documentaries (feature and short-subject), and the foreign films. Also, in some categories, I’ll be listing some snubs that I feel occurred when these nominations were announced because there were a few noteworthy ones this year (as is technically every year). With that said, let’s get started…

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

*GRAVITY

*THE HOBBIT: THE DESOLATION OF SMAUG

*IRON MAN 3

*THE LONE RANGER

*STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Possible Snubs: I’m kind of surprised that ‘The Lone Ranger’ got a nomination in this category (it also got one for Best Makeup) seeing how, you know, most people hated it. I didn’t, but for all of the reasons why I did like it, none of them were really for the effects. In its place, I would’ve given the nomination to a film like ‘Oz the Great and Powerful’, ‘Man of Steel’, or ‘Pacific Rim’. But even if one of these films did get that nomination, it’s kind of unlikely that they would win because…

My Pick: GRAVITY

Yeah, it’s obvious, isn’t it? It’s almost certain that ‘Gravity’ is going to win this award because its effects were one of the most praised elements of the film. There’s really no competition here. I mean, out of these other four, the only other one that I feel could come away with an upset is ‘The Hobbit’ because of the excellent effects for the dragon Smaug. But at the end of the day, this one’s pretty much in the bag.

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

*AMERICAN HUSTLE

*GRAVITY

*THE GREAT GATSBY

*HER

*12 YEARS A SLAVE

My Pick: THE GREAT GATSBY

A bit of a wild card pick here, because I know that not everyone was as big of a fan of this film as I was (if you recall, this was my fifth favorite film of 2013). But if ‘The Great Gatsby’ were to win one of these awards, I have a feeling it would be in either one of the two categories it’s nominated in; this or Best Costume Design (maybe both) because both the Costume and Production Designs for the film were truly great. I have a feeling ‘American Hustle’ might take this one (and for the record, the film did have an excellent production design) but for this category, I give my vote to the one and only… Gatsby!

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

*HAPPY (‘DESPICABLE ME 2’)

*LET IT GO (‘FROZEN’)

*THE MOON SONG (‘HER’)

*ORDINARY LOVE (‘MANDELA: LONG WALK TO FREEDOM’)

Possible Snub: While this is not exactly a snub, I do kind of have to talk about what was previously the fifth song in this category, ‘Alone Yet Not Alone’ from the film of the same name. Never heard of it? Don’t worry because when this nomination was first announced, I didn’t know about it either. However, a few weeks ago, the nomination was revoked because one of the writers of the song, Bruce Broughton, had contacted members of the Academy for some support; Broughton being a former governor of the Academy and currently a committee member of the Academy’s music branch. The song itself was actually pretty good (it had a really sweet melody), but there’s nothing that can be done now; it’s no longer nominated. With that said though, why then is the Academy just going to stay with only four songs in this category? Why not just give the open spot to another song, like Lana Del Rey’s ‘Young and Beautiful’ from ‘The Great Gatsby’ or ‘Oblivion’ from M83 and the film of the same name. Heck, I would be fine if they gave it to ‘A Little Party Never Killed Nobody’, also from ‘Gatsby’. Anyway…

My Pick: LET IT GO (‘FROZEN’)

‘Ordinary Love’ won this year’s Golden Globe for Best Song, but I’ll admit that I’m not that big of a fan of it. I mean, I get the whole thing about U2 and their connection with Nelson Mandela but at the same time I don’t think it’s the ‘Best Song’ of the year (from a film perspective, of course). That honor, I feel, should go to Robert and Kristen Anderson-Lopez for the standout single from Disney’s ‘Frozen’, ‘Let it Go’. It truly is one of the best songs from any Disney film in recent years; in fact I’d say it’s the best since the last Disney film song to earn an Oscar, ‘You’ll Be in My Heart’ from ‘Tarzan’. As for the other nominated songs, my runner-up pick would be ‘Happy’ from ‘Despicable Me 2’. I have not seen the film, but boy does that song have a catchy beat.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

*THE BOOK THIEF

*GRAVITY

*HER

*PHILOMENA

*SAVING MR. BANKS

Possible Snubs: Um, where Hans Zimmer for ‘12 Years a Slave’? Now that was one of the best scores of the year. It was a simple score, but one that had so much powerful emotions in it at the same time. Also, while I haven’t seen the film, how about Alex Ebert for ‘All is Lost’? You know, the score that won this exact same award at the Golden Globes. Ah well…

My Pick: GRAVITY

This was actually a rather hard category to predict because I was torn between not two, but three of the scores that were nominated (the only three whose films I actually had seen). There’s Thomas Newman’s score for ‘Saving Mr. Banks’, which had some really beautiful melodies in it that, to quote my friend Matt, will make you want to watch ‘Mary Poppins’ again. There’s also the score from ‘Her’ by Arcade Fire which was really poignant and moving. But in the end, my vote will go to Steven Price’s score for ‘Gravity’, a score that goes along quite well with the intensity of the situations that occur within the film. I especially love the final selection from the score, which shares the name of the film, primarily for the epic choral performance at the end of it. For the record, I would be fine if any of the three scores I just mentioned win this award but if I had to pick just one, this would be that one.

BEST ANIMATED FILM

*THE CROODS

*DESPICABLE ME 2

*ERNEST AND CELESTINE

*FROZEN

*THE WIND RISES

Possible Snubs: No nominations for a Pixar film this year? I say that especially when considering that ‘Monsters University’ was a really good film. Sure, it wasn’t Pixar’s best film, or even the Best Animated Film of the year for that matter, but it was far better than the previous Pixar film, ‘Brave’, which for the record wasn’t bad but at the same time I wasn’t a fan of it winning this award last year because it wasn’t the best Animated Film of 2012.

My Pick: FROZEN

I’ve heard many reports that predicted that the Academy is likely going to give this award to ‘The Wind Rises’, seeing how it’s to be Hayao Miyazaki’s last film (I think; it hasn’t really been clarified if this is true yet). Now, I’m sure that ‘The Wind Rises’ is an excellent movie, as is the rest of Miyazaki’s work. However… I haven’t seen it. So, in its place, I’ll go with my pick for the Best Animated Film of 2013, ‘Frozen’. This one has really grown on me in the weeks since I first saw it in theaters. It truly is one of the best Disney films to come out in recent years and I feel that it will stand toe to toe with some of the most revered films in the Disney lineup. I’m really happy to see that it’s become the biggest hit for Disney Animation since ‘The Lion King’, as it has grossed over $980 million at the time I’m writing this and I have a feeling it will join that fabled billion dollar club in the next few days. But to all of you ‘Frozen’ fans out there, I ask that you please be prepared in case ‘The Wind Rises’ wins this award because there is a chance that it might win it. Don’t worry though, as these two films are the definite front-runners, so we’ll just have to wait and see who takes it on March 2^nd.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

*BEFORE MIDNIGHT

*CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

*PHILOMENA

*12 YEARS A SLAVE

*THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

My Pick: TIE (12 Years/Wolf)

I couldn’t pick just one in this category. I would be fine if it went to either John Ridley for ‘Twelve Years a Slave’ or Terrence Winter for ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’. Both featured excellent screenplays for their own unique reasons. With Ridley, it was for not skimping on any of the horrors and struggles that slaves faced during that time. With Winter, it was for writing a screenplay full of witty and hilarious dialogue. Both of these films earn my vote.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

*AMERICAN HUSTLE

*BLUE JASMINE

*DALLAS BUYERS CLUB

*HER

*NEBRASKA

My Pick: HER

Spike Jonze had a lot to work with in regards to ‘Her’. I mean after all, this is a story about a man who falls in love with the female voice of his computer’s operating system. Even with that strange premise, Jonze managed to make the characters feel real and yes that even includes the A.I. Samantha. He won this award at the Golden Globes, so I’m rooting for him to win it at the Oscars this year.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

*SALLY HAWKINS (‘BLUE JASMINE’)

*JENNIFER LAWRENCE (‘AMERICAN HUSTLE’)

*LUPITA NYONG’O (‘12 YEARS A SLAVE’)

*JULIA ROBERTS (‘AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY’)

*JUNE SQUIBB (‘NEBRASKA’)

Possible Snubs: I haven’t seen ‘August: Osage County’ and I’m sure that Julia Roberts was excellent in it, but in her place I would have given the nomination to Margot Robbie for ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, as she made quite an impression for what was most definitely her breakout role.

My Pick: LUPITA NYONG’O

One thing about this year’s acting nominees is that there are pretty much direct front-runners in every single category (both lead and supporting). In the case of Supporting Actress, the front-runner seems to be Jennifer Lawrence for ‘Hustle’. Now, I love Jennifer Lawrence; she’s a great actress, she’s one of the most likable actresses working today, and she was great in ‘American Hustle’. But for this year, my vote goes to Lupita Nyong’o for her role in ‘12 Years a Slave’. She makes one hell of an impression in what was only her film debut with a very powerful and emotional performance. I’m fine if J-Law wins for ‘Hustle’, but I feel that this award should go to Nyong’o instead.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

*BARKHAD ABDI (‘CAPTAIN PHILLIPS’)

*BRADLEY COOPER (‘AMERICAN HUSTLE’)

*MICHAEL FASSBENDER (‘12 YEARS A SLAVE’)

*JONAH HILL (‘THE WOLF OF WALL STREET’)

*JARED LETO (‘DALLAS BUYERS CLUB’)

My Pick: MICHAEL FASSBENDER

Thankfully, Fassbender was not robbed of an Oscar nom like Leonardo DiCaprio was for ‘Django Unchained’ last year, both of whom portraying vicious slave owners in their respective films. Jared Leto is being tapped as the frontrunner for this award, but I haven’t seen ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ so I have to base this on the films I have seen and of the other four nominees in this category, my vote is for Fassbender. He really got into this role and even if he doesn’t win here, I have a feeling that this will not be the last time Fassbender gets a nomination.

BEST ACTRESS

*AMY ADAMS (‘AMERICAN HUSTLE’)

*CATE BLANCHETT (‘BLUE JASMINE’)

*SANDRA BULLOCK (‘GRAVITY’)

*JUDI DENCH (‘PHILOMENA’)

*MERYL STREEP (‘AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY’)

DEFINITE Snub: This category has the biggest snub of this year’s Oscars in my opinion; Emma Thompson for ‘Saving Mr. Banks’. Her performance carries the whole film and was easily the highlight of the film. Who would I switch out to have Thompson put in this category? Meryl Streep; it’s nothing against her (like with Roberts, I can’t say anything about her performance because I haven’t seen the film) but this is her EIGHTEENTH (!!) Oscar nomination. It’s kind of getting old seeing her get nominated almost EVERY year. She won this award for ‘The Iron Lady’ two years ago, beating out more deserving nominees like Michelle Williams for ‘My Week with Marilyn’ and Rooney Mara for ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’. But as for this year’s nominees…

My Pick: AMY ADAMS

I’ve given ‘American Hustle’ quite a bit of flak, calling it one of the most overrated films of 2013. I still stand by that even though I’ve warmed up to the movie a bit more after a second viewing. But out of all of the members of Hustle’s cast who are nominated for an Oscar, Adams is the most deserving. It was her who stood out the most in the entire movie, more so than Jennifer Lawrence, Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner (by the way, you have to feel bad for Renner because he’s the only one of these five who hasn’t gotten a single nomination for his own work in the film (not counting the ‘best ensemble awards’). The front runner in this category is Cate Blanchett for ‘Blue Jasmine’ but like with Jared Leto (and his lead co-star; more on that in a second) for ‘Dallas Buyers Club’, I haven’t seen ‘Blue Jasmine’ so based on the films I have seen, Adams earns my vote. For the record, I’ll be fine if any of the cast members from ‘Hustle’ win an Oscar, but I feel that she is the most deserving out of all of them.

BEST ACTOR

*CHRISTIAN BALE (‘AMERICAN HUSTLE’)

*BRUCE DERN (‘NEBRASKA’)

*LEONARDO DICAPRIO (‘THE WOLF OF WALL STREET’)

*CHIWETEL EJIOFOR (‘12 YEARS A SLAVE’)

*MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY (‘DALLAS BUYERS CLUB’)

My Pick: CHIWETEL EJIOFOR

This category’s front-runner seems to be McConaughey for ‘Dallas Buyers Club’. While I haven’t seen the film, I won’t be complaining if he wins because it will help signify the successful career resurrection that he has had. So… based off of the performances I have seen, my vote is for Ejiofor. Like his co-star Lupita Nyong’o, his performance was very powerful and emotional and he got all of this across saying very little in the entire film. My runner-up pick would be DiCaprio; not only because he brought his usual A-game to the role of Jordan Belfort, but the poor guy has been long overdue for an Oscar.

BEST DIRECTOR

*DAVID O. RUSSELL (‘AMERICAN HUSTLE’)

*ALFONSO CUARON (‘GRAVITY’)

*ALEXANDER PAYNE (‘NEBRASKA’)

*STEVE MCQUEEN (‘12 YEARS A SLAVE’)

*MARTIN SCORCESE (‘THE WOLF OF WALL STREET’)

My Pick: ALFONSO CUARON

I’m just going to come out and say this; Gravity is not my pick for Best Picture but at the same time, I’m more than happy to give my vote for Cuaron in regards to the Best Director Oscar. It was a project that he spent four years on and considering how it turned out, he is very well-deserving of this award. Besides, not every film will win Best Picture and Best Director at the same event (just look at last year’s Oscars; Ang Lee won the Directing Oscar, but ‘Argo’ took home Best Picture). Even if I don’t think ‘Gravity’ is the best film of 2013, Cuaron definitely was the standout when it came to directing.

BEST PICTURE

*AMERICAN HUSTLE

*CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

*DALLAS BUYERS CLUB

*GRAVITY

*HER

*NEBRASKA

*PHILOMENA

*12 YEARS A SLAVE

*THE WOLF OF WALL STREET

My Pick: 12 YEARS A SLAVE

Quite simply, it would be a travesty if this didn’t win Best Picture. It truly was the best film of 2013; a hard film to watch, but that’s what you’d expect for a film like this; one that doesn’t skimp on any of the horrifying aspects of its subject matter. My runner-up pick is ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’, but I’m rooting for this film to win it because it’s the most deserving.

12 Years a Slave (2013) review

Since 2011, around 5 to 10 films earn Best Picture nominations at the Oscars. It’s common to expect some major upsets to happen during Oscar night, but it seems like the race for this top honor usually comes down to two films almost every year. Some of the most recent examples of this trend include ‘Argo’ and ‘Life of Pi’ last year, ‘Hugo’ and ‘The Artist’ in 2011, and ‘The Hurt Locker’ and ‘Avatar’ in 2009. This year is no different. Having been both a critical and commercial success since being released back in early October, Alfonso Cuaron’s ‘Gravity’ has been receiving major attention during ‘Oscar season’. However, the film that everyone says WILL be the film that wins Best Picture this year is Steve McQueen’s ’12 Years a Slave’. The tale of a free man forced into slavery can be brutal at times, but you can’t deny its status as one of the best films of the year. It achieves this status by not letting up and showing the full detail of the horrors of slavery and is backed up by an outstanding ensemble cast.

’12 Years a Slave’, based on the autobiography of the same name from 1853, is the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who, in 1841, lived as a free man in Saratoga, New York with his family, making a living as a violinist. One day, Solomon is approached by two men named Brown and Hamilton (Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam) who offer him a job in their ‘traveling’ circus. Solomon accepts the offer but after a night in Washington D.C., Solomon suddenly finds himself sold into slavery and unable to tell anyone that he is a free man. With a new name, Platt, and status as a ‘Georgia runaway’, Solomon now has to endure his new life as the film follows him on his 12-year journey as the property of various owners, including the kindly preacher William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the cruel and vicious Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender).

Most slavery movies might end up avoiding showing some of the severe extremes that slaves went through. This film does not do that; it clearly emphasizes how horrible it was for those who were in slavery at the time. More importantly, it shows that it could corrupt even the nicest person. As you might have guessed, there were people like Edwin Epps who were down-right sadistic and cruel but then you have someone like Solomon’s first owner, William Ford. This preacher is actually nice to his slaves, and yet he’s still a slave owner. Even someone as nice as Ford was involved in this horrible act. That’s the reason why this film works so well; it doesn’t skimp on anything. Because of this, the film is incredibly hard to watch, mainly in part to how McQueen shoots it. He lets a lot of shots run for a while; one scene in particular involving a hanging is very effective and intense. But that was exactly how life was like for slaves back then.

This film also has a terrific ensemble cast, and two actors in particular are surefire contenders for acting awards at the Oscars. In the lead role, Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a very quiet and reserved performance as Solomon Northup. He does a fantastic job at conveying the character’s emotions simply through his facial expressions, which makes his performance all the more powerful. That is because his character realizes that if he even tried to say anything, he would be beaten or worse, killed. Equally outstanding in this film is Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps. This may be an utterly despicable, heartless, and repugnant human being (his wife Mary (Sarah Paulson) is equally sadistic), but Fassbender just gets into the role and manages to get a lot out of it. These two headline an outstanding cast, most of whom appear in minor roles, including Brad Pitt as a friendly carpenter and Paul Giamatti as a slave trader. But there are some who really stand out in more substantial roles, like Benedict Cumberbatch and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey, a fellow slave who befriends Solomon and is lusted after by Epps.

Everyone is saying that this film will win Best Picture at the Oscars, and if it does, I won’t be surprised because this film is easily one of the best of 2013. It’s extremely hard to watch at times, but its unrelenting nature truly reflects what really happened back then. A terrific ensemble cast is led by two heavy contenders for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor in Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender, respectively. This is a really big deal in the case of the latter because it would be a travesty if this turns out like last year’s Oscars, where Leonardo DiCaprio got snubbed for his outstanding work in ‘Django Unchained’. That better not be the case this year with Fassbender, who has been snubbed by the Academy before. My friend Matt gave this film a proper nickname, ‘White Guilt: The Movie’. I guarantee you’ll be feeling that while watching this movie, along with a few other emotions.

Rating: 5/5!