CAPTAIN MARVEL (2019)

Captain Marvel is the first big Marvel (live-action) film since Stan Lee's passing and the first thing you will see is a touching tribute to the man in the Marvel logo that is usually taken up by the heroes he helped create. This is the final film before Avengers: Endgame and, really, it's Captain Marvel's biggest challenge. With 20 previous films behind it and the big finale to Phase 3 looming, it seems an odd time to introduce the first female-led superhero that is supposedly the Avengers only chance of defeating Thanos. But Captain Marvel does indeed try its best to ingratiate itself with the MCU history. 

The film is largely a non-linear storyline, with the main plot heavily relying on the slow reveal of important information in protagonist Carol Danvers past. While it delves into her past, the film has so much going on that it really skips over her development too quickly, opting to choose short montages of around four times in her childhood that define her character. The same method is done to explain her connection with another character and, in the end, it leaves the character development at an unsatisfactory standard. When introducing an overpowered character, it's important to ground the character and explain how she is flawed in order to gain more empathy from the audience, but Captain Marvel is light in this area, and she, unfortunately, comes off like a "Mary Sue".

That all being said, Brie Larson does a much better job than I was expecting. The trailers did a horrible job at conveying her character Carol Danvers, and while there certainly are times that she looks to have the acting ability of a cardboard box, there are other times where she has a fair amount of emotional range and displays a great snarky, dry humour, which I very much enjoyed. You could almost say the over-the-top stoicism could be explained by the Kree story arc, but I wouldn't buy into it.

In other casting choices, Jude Law is surprisingly good giving off a rather imposing vibe which works well for a Starforce leader (on par with the dominating influence of Michael Shannon's General Zod from DC's Man of Steel), but his presence is rather minimal in the film. Ben Mendelsohn also has a very emotive performance and is his best performance in quite a while despite being a space comic book superhero film.

But the real standout acting performances come from Samuel L. Jackson and Reggie, who played a young Nick Fury and Goose the cat. the de-ageing process was pretty spot-on and didn't stand out and the pair had a great partnership in terms of the comedy in the film (think Rocket Racoon and Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy). Of course, it was nice for Jackson to finally get a reasonably significant role in a Marvel film. There are a couple of questionable CGI moments in terms of Goose, but that was most likely necessary to maintain it's ethical standing, and still elicited some laughs anyway.

The film is somewhat similar to Disney's Star Wars films, or more specifically Solo: A Star Wars Story. You can expect to find many, many shoutouts, callbacks and Easter eggs in this film. Nearly every major point in the film is either trying to set up future characters for films or remind you of a previous film to try make you feel like it's always been a part of the MCU. Captain Marvel also goes out of its way to answer questions that nobody really asked to be answered. The final comparison to make, is that as a prequel to the MCU you lose a lot of tension in the film because we know what happens afterwards (we all knew Chewbacca wasn't going to kill Han Solo), so you lose that edge-of-your-seat excitement. 

Set in the 90s there are many nods to that era, whether it be to colour grading, score, cinematography, action scenes or set designs, and it all works very well. The soundtrack, on the other hand, is an absolute slap-in-the-face; so loud and jarring, that it feels more in line with Thor: Ragnarok or dare I say it, Suicide Squad. On the other hand, I love that grunge rock 90s music, so I loved to see it getting some recognition, and admittedly it did fit well in the scheme of what was going on onscreen (it just needed to be a bit more subtle).

While Captain Marvel sets up characters for potential future films, it remains close-lipped about Avengers: Endgame. We were already told that Captain Marvel would be important in Endgame so the film provides no new information at all. Which does have the consequence of meaning despite Captain Marvel being the first female-led MCU film in the franchise, it's also a film that you don't have to watch to understand Endgame. It's as if they were preparing for people to not like the film and instead of doubling down and making it required viewing, they gave you an option to skip it.

Overall, I enjoyed the film much more than I was expecting to. Brie Larson still doesn't feel like the best charismatic fit for the role, but she showed some good emotional variation and had some great humour, which I very much enjoyed. Feministic themes were present, but not too in-your-face apart from a couple lines of dialogue and one soundtrack choice during the climax of the film. 

humour but better at the dry sarcasm. It manages to throw a couple of twists in there that if you really paid attention to the MCU history probably won't be a surprise, but to the general public, there is a lot to gain from the film. Lots of laughs and lots of action make up for a rather lacklustre plot.

A DOG'S WAY HOME (2019)

The predecessor to this film, A Dog's Purpose, had me in tears. Luckily, I was streaming it so I could pause it while I gathered my emotions back together. For its spin-off sequel, I was in the theatres on opening day, so I had no escape if the tears were to come this time around. But that was not the case. There were a couple of times when I could feel the lump forming in my throat, but it didn't have the same emotional impact so I was able to keep control of it.

If you have seen the trailer, you have unfortunately seen the entirety of the film trimmed down to 90 seconds. So there is little that I could do to spoil it, but I will try and reduce spoilers to a minimum as per usual.

The simplified version of the plot is that Bella (played by dog actress Shelby) ends up 400 miles away from her owner, and must travel to find her way back home, overcoming obstacles along the way. Now the pacing of the film is a bit off and does feel like it's dragging after a while. This likely comes to the film taking nearly half the film to finish developing the characters and getting the plot started. 

As far as obstacles go, there were some great scenes and other animal actors involved, but there was also a huge portion that revolved around tangents with unnecessary CGI animals. Not horrible CGI, but definitely noticeable CGI that takes you out of the film each time you see it. With some very odd CGI movement and a lot of odd shakycam fight scenes, at times the film actually became laughable.

Perhaps this was because the film is based on a novel, and the novel writer is actually one of the screenwriters, so they wanted to include everything. But everything doesn't necessarily translate to the big screen that well.

As far as the good aspects, Shelby did a great job as the lead role of Bella (a role that I was shocked to find isn't listed under the film's cast list), herself being a junkyard dog that was rescued. Well trained, there were very few occasions that required her to be replaced by a CGI version, and those were the parts of the film that really shone. 

If you are a dog lover and are more than happy to come to see some cheesy moments that will pull on the old heartstrings then you will certainly enjoy this film. But for all others, there are a lot of aspects that will leave you asking whether it was, in fact, worth the price of admission.

Now a driving part of the plot is that Bella is part Pitbull, and Pitbulls are a breed that is considered dangerous in many countries, to the point that they can be euthanised if animal control thinks they might be Pitbulls. It's a contentious issue for dog owners who largely agree that no dog is inherently dangerous (it's all about the owner), and the film tries to tackle this issue but struggles to do more than scratch the surface. There is the talk of it being "racism for dogs" and how Pitbull is a generic, subjective term like "hound dog", but ultimately it doesn't go deeper than that. The fact that they chose Shelby as the lead to portray the Pitbull tells you that they were afraid themselves to go all the way with it. I would have loved to be able to show a more traditional Pitbull on screen involved in all of these heartfelt moments and adventures. That would have truly been a step towards ending the stigma, but Bella looks more Labrador than Pitbull.

All in all, this is a basic film that dog lovers will enjoy. It may not be suitable for the really young members of the family, with a few scary moments, but would otherwise make a great family film with some feel-good moments.

VOX LUX (2018)

Lords of Chaos, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star is Born, there is no shortage of movies in the last year that are taking on the musical personalities. Vox Lux is another to add to the list but instead focuses more on the singular person, rather than the music.

Starring Raffey Cassidy and Natalie Portman as fictional personality Celeste, and Jude Law as her manager, the film is split into two different timelines; one looking at how she got her fame, and then 17 years later following how the life has affected her.

The film opens with a shocking scene in a school that hopes to set the tone for the rest of the film. Stark and uncompromising, it was an assault on the senses and grabs your attention, but fails to really do anything with it from that point on. With media attention from the event, a touching original tribute song becomes a national sensation as the country mourns together, and catapults the young girls into celebritydom. 

The film has several acts but is overall split into two sections, and it is unfortunate that the two halves do not connect together very well. The first reason for this is simply the casting choice. While Raffey Cassidy is a brilliant young innocent child version of Celeste that has been through trauma, and Natalie Portman does a great job as the unstable pop diva Celeste struggling with fame and that same trauma, the decision to cast Raffey Cassidy as Celeste's daughter aswell in the future/current timeline does nothing but create absolute confusion. The 17 year gap between times is bad enough, but to suddenly have the exact same actress portraying a different character in the same room as the character she was previously playing...it was a horrible idea. Was it really too difficult to find another young actress?

This does cause some other issues visually as well, as the differences in facial features become much more prominent when you place past Celeste and future Celeste in so many scenes together. It really tears at the viewer's suspension of belief. Of course, both actresses had some great performances, but the separation of years, and still having them together did nothing but bring about questions as to who was who. And that meant you weren't paying attention to the plot anymore.

There are some interesting themes on display, looking at links between celebrity and idol worship with the likes of terrorism, corruption, and substance abuse, showing the toll that occurs when a youth is thrust into such a role by a society that trying to come to terms with its own flaws. But as with most big budget films, it only skims the surface of the issue, not delving deeper into where the responsibilities lie.

The film tries it's best to remain not biased in its representation and uses the 17-year gap to introduce events that have effected the growth of Celeste as a person. By not actually visually showing us these events, the audience is instead forced to come up with our own perspectives of whether we agree or disagree with the protagonist's life decisions, without any of the emotional bias that would otherwise accompany such scenes. It creates a more straightforward view of the character but it also makes you spend more time figuring out the character rather than paying attention to the dialogue and actions, to which Natalie Portman puts a hell of a lot of effort into. As well as feeling like we have missed out on watching a more exciting part of the film.

Audiences love watching the rise and fall of a character, but Vox Lux shows us neither. We miss near enough all of the significant moments in Celeste's life, instead, being fed it through some oddly placed narration from Willem Dafoe. The story all builds up to...nothing.

As far as the soundtrack goes Sia creates some great tracks that work really well with the style of the show and the aesthetics of the artist, but you can't help but feel like this was the one thing that was being used to carry the film, and as such it lingers on these performances for far too long. Great performances with some great visuals, but they put nothing towards the plot, so it feels like it is all just filler, and that is the worst kind of climax to a film that you can get.

Vox Lux takes a more emotional perspective on the creation of a pop star and creates a genuine character, but the way the film was directed is all over the place, with some rather unconventional casting choices making this film convoluted and directionless.

PADDLETON (2019)

Where on Earth did this film come from? Way out of left-field that's where. Who would have thought a comedy-drama starring Ray Romano would be so emotional. So really, this isn't a comedy. At least not in the way you would expect a Ray Romano comedy to be. This is a drama about Michael (Mark Duplass) and Andy (Ray Romano), neighbours and friends, who go on a trip to get medication when Michael is diagnosed with terminal cancer and wants to end his life on his own terms. 

That is such a heavy premise for a film in this day and age because cancer is a disease that has effectively pretty much everyone, and many of us it has affected multiple times. Personally, I've lost two grandparents to it, and even my mother had it (currently in remission). We all know the realities of terminal cancer, so the film doesn't waste much time in trying to set the scene.

While mostly a by-the-numbers film that follows many cliches, it's the strength of Michael and Andy's relationship that holds the film together. There are no over-the-top bucket list missions; this a couple of guys that have no one else in their lives but each other, and can't afford to go galavanting around the world even if they wanted to. Paddleton is so firmly grounded, that you can't help but empathise with the characters.

You experience Michael's denial, anger, depression, and acceptance, as well as Andy's opposing standpoint at every turn, wanting to keep his friend around longer. Everything feels genuine, and that is where the comedy comes from. Not in your face outlandish comedy, but dry, sarcastic humour that would be found between two best friends put in a sombre situation.

The pacing is topically appropriate. Slow at times, but it really gives the audience a chance to think and contemplate alongside the protagonists. Euthanasia is a controversial topic, so the film is full of dramatic moments despite it not having any action. What will happen at the end of the film is telegraphed very early on, and yet you still aren't ready for it by the time you get there. Paddleton introduces and builds characters that you care about. Real people.

On a side note; props are due to the writers. Ray Romano is clearly portraying an autistic person. Mark Duplass' character has an explanation for his living conditions which he mentions late in the film, by Romano's character is never explained. He portrays a man that lives in a highly habitualized manner, following the same repetitive schedule every day. Even his speech patterns and discomfort towards small-talk and anything sexual are characteristic of those with autism. But it isn't ever explicitly mentioned. It isn't pushing the "autistic people are mathematical superheroes" trope but is simply representing the autistic community in a realistic way. The plot in no way has anything to do with his autism, and yet there it is. 

It almost got me in the end, it almost had me shedding a few tears, but what it did do, was have me contemplate my own position in life. To think about those closest to me, and the things I have been putting off in life. The film ends and still, I sit there in quiet reflection. A tough watch, but definitely recommended. 

THE DRUG KING (2018)

The Drug King is a South Korean crime drama set in the 1970s and '80s following the true life story of a smuggler that becomes a drug kingpin in Busan. 

What garners a lot of appeal in the film straight off the bat is the aesthetic. Whether it be cars, music, or costuming, even the lighting and colour grading is done in a way that creates an authentic vintage look. Lead actor Song Kang-ho feeds into this environment himself fitting in perfectly.

Song Kang-ho, in his portrayal of Lee Doo-hwan is the performance that carries the film, and it's not necessarily through a lack of effort in the writing. Jo Jung-suk and Bae Doona do well in their roles too, but the rest of the supporting cast is, in the end, rather forgettable. The problem comes from a lack of character development. 

New characters are constantly being introduced and dismissed that it becomes rather difficult to try and keep track of who everybody is. Combine that with the characters being one-dimensional (even Song Kang-ho's Lee Doo-hwan falls victim to this), we get no sense of any characters motivations and it takes away from our ability to empathise with them and care about their outcomes.

While based on a true story, it goes without saying that not all of the facts would not be available for an accurate portrayal in the film. So a lot of liberties would have been taken. As such, there are definitely a lot of similarities to other gangster films that have been released in western films. From 1990s Goodfellas to 2007s American Gangster, but most notably, 1983s Scarface. This is a rather simple story that follows the rise and fall of a drug kingpin but from an eastern perspective.

The film starts with some historical context providing facts connecting Japan and South Korean to the drug "crank" but strangely enough has very little else to do with the film. Perhaps added to bring a sense of legitimacy to the content of the film, but it did end up feeling out of place. 

The Drug King has some reasonable pacing but is less than satisfactory when it comes to communicating time passing. Time and location cards are frequently used but are inconsistent and you end up with several montages occurring that leave you with no idea how much time has truly passed. 

What is also inconsistent is the tone of the film. Song Kang-ho switches from deadly serious to hilariously comical at the drop of a hat, and it results in the film moving from a dark and gritty gang film towards the lighter cat-and-mouse films like Catch Me If You Can.

The film is entertaining and enjoyable. However, with so little character building and a final act that feels poorly copied from Scarface, it ultimately makes the film forgettable.  

HIGH FLYING BIRD (2019)

Despite my father wanting me to be, I've never been a huge sports fan. I've been pushed to try cricket, soccer, rugby, padder tennis among others, but nothing really captured me. So when it comes to sports movies, I have very little interest in the sports themselves. What captures my attention is more the interpersonal relationships, underdog stories, and politics behind the game. In the case of High Flying Bird, this is a basketball movie that follows the latter; the politics.

Looking at the American Basketball League (while trying to avoid saying the NBA) from the perspective of rookie players and their agents during an extensive lockout (potentially based on the 2011 NBA lockout that lasted 161 days) during which they were not being paid.

This makes High Flying Bird a bit of an exposé on the greed, animosity, and inequality between all of the associations that are raking in profits off of the talent of the players. The film also includes some documentary style footage from real players recounting their experiences in some well light black and white scenes.

The film is directed by Steven Soderbergh, who is a rather adventurous director, who brought  Ocean's Eleven and Magic Mike to the big screen but is more recently known for shooting films with cellphones. Unsane was filmed with an iPhone 7 Plus, while High Flying bird was shot with an iPhone 8 equipped with an anamorphic lens to gain more cinematic dimensions.

Much like Ocean's Eleven, High Flying Bird is a heist film of sorts, as sports agent Ray Burke (played by André Holland) tries to work through a business opportunity during the lockout, that would disrupt the sport entirely. The specifics into how this is a heist would, unfortunately, count as a spoiler so we won't bother going into any more detail. It is, however, something that occurs late in the film, and is not really alluded to at all, which--while it creates a brilliant twist-- fails to feel earned, and doesn't have the impact that the writers would have wanted.

Visually, the film is much brighter than Unsane, and the colour correction is done well. There is inevitably some warping at the edges and in actions that get too near the camera, but it does help create a more personal and immersed feeling. There are also some glitchy moments during camera movements, where the phone appears to be attempting to autocorrect, which does nothing to the film, but isn't overly obvious unless you look out for it.

In general, the sweeping camera movements are one of the saving graces of the film. As this is a sports film that doesn't really show the sport at all, it includes a lot of scenes of people simply sitting and talking. Not really what I would call exciting, but the camera is constantly moving; tilting, swivelling, and panning to give the illusion of movement in an otherwise drab setup.

The pacing is inconsistent, with a slow opening scene that suddenly picks up speed and then frequently gets bogged down in the middle. It works well in a metaphorical sense, mirroring the stagnant nature of the lockout, but it does make the film feel like it is dragging. the "documentary" style scenes inserted throughout the film have a similar feel, stopping the pace of the film in its tracks (though they do provide some much-needed context when it comes to the use and explanation of terms that the general public would not be aware of) and overall feels out of place.

High Flying Bird is an interesting look behind the curtain of American Basketball Associations. Did it really have enough content for a feature film? I would not say so. Did the payoff make up for the deception? Unfortunately not.

THE WANDERING EARTH (2019)

The Wandering Earth is based on a book of the same name by Liu Cixinand is potentially China's first full-scale sci-fi blockbuster. And what a movie! Currently just passing $600 million at the box office, the film is undoubtedly turning heads all around the world.

The premise follows Earth in the future when the sun dies out and the planet undergoes extensive climate change. The people of Earth band together to build giant thrusters to move the planet out of orbit and sail to a new star system 2500 years away.

Nearly everything about the film is epic. It's true that the film isn't overly thought-provoking, but otherwise, the effects are epic, the scale is epic, and the attention to detail is such quality. 

One of the things that I like about the film, that I've noticed many reviewers are disliking, is the complete lack of the United States. Sure there is a flag here and there, but none of the actors and actresses are American. No token American in the cast. It's a rare thing to find in western cinemas. Being a Chinese film with most of the film located in China, the majority of the actors we see are Chinese, with French and Russian actors thrown in as well to portray the whole "Earth uniting" aspect of the premise. 

The film does away with the western way of sci-fi action films as well. there are no gun-toting singular heroes in this film; The Wandering Earth is all about the team effort necessary to overcome these globally endangering problems. On the whole, I love the decision to do it that way. Sure it focuses on the protagonist family, but near enough every person involved has a contribution to make. The only real downside is the lack of female representation in the film. Only two women in the main circle of the cast, and one of them has pretty much no significant role to play at all.

Visually, the film is stunning. Unique environments, and the amount of detailing that goes into each room and vehicle shows a lot of thought has been put into it, making it feel incredibly authetic, with an aesthetic that is reminiscent of the detail in the set designs of Ridley Scott's Alien. The environments and backdrops were beautifully rendered often having that hazy painted look that is characteristic of classic sci-fi films. 

This is a huge blockbuster with thrilling action scenes, on-the-edge-of-your-seat tension, and a premise that while scientifically laughable, is still put forward in a super engaging manner. The subtitles do disappear quickly so you definitely need to pay full attention, but wow. I was super impressed by this and I can't wait to see what else is to follow.