Mockingbird In A Blizzard
By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: James Mangold
Cast: Matt Damon, Christian Bale, Caitriona Balfe, Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe, Tracy Letts, Josh Lucas.

When Ford v Ferrari begins, it starts with the sound of a roaring car engine. Shortly, it fades, and we see a closeup of Carroll Shelby on the driver's seat, in the heat of the race. "There's a point at 7,000 RPM where everything fades. The machine becomes weightless. It just disappears," Shelby says. It's certainly one heck of a way to start a film. By then, I was already intrigued by what this film has to offer. What first drew me to Ford v Ferrari was the fact that it was a biopic, and I was interested in any kind of biopic. Second, it was because of its director James Mangold; I wanted to see what he'd do next since Logan. Third, and perhaps the main drive of why I wanted to see it: Matt Damon and Christian Bale, a duo that perhaps I never knew I needed until now. To tell you the truth, I know next to nothing about racing, it was never something I tend to watch on TV, but that definitely won't be a major obstacle for those new to racing and wants to give Ford v Ferrari a go, because beneath the surface, it offers so much more than that. If anything, it's bringing back the classic underdog tale, the type that we don't see often nowadays. 

Ford v Ferrari begins with former race driver Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon), who due to his health condition, is forced to retire from racing, and currently owns his own motor company. Elsewhere, Ford Motor Company is on the verge of bankruptcy after lack of success in their sales. In order to boost their image, Ford takes it upon their hands to improve their automotive and compete in the upcoming 24 hour Le Mans race ("We know how to do more than push paper," Henry Ford II says at one point). Ford eventually takes notice of Shelby's reputation and recruits him to build a car that is able to not only race at the 1966 Le Mans, but is fast enough to beat the juggernaut that is Ferrari, a constant winner of Le Mans for the past years. Shelby eventually takes in former war veteran and mechanic Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to assist him. Knowing Miles' extensive knowledge, experience, and above all else, passion of the automobile; Shelby also enlists Miles as the car's driver. Despite Miles and Shelby's best intentions, representatives of Ford raise concerns over Miles' recruitment, believing that his temperament does not present Ford's ideal image as a driver; eventually causing an internal rift between Ford and Shelby.

Christian Bale and Matt Damon no doubt drive the film right home. Their chemistry is superb, and is the thing that really kept the film on its two feet. Christian Bale as Ken Miles is the devoted family man, and undoubtedly the film's heart. Bale steals every scene he's in, whether it's him scolding his co-workers for not understanding the car on the inside out, or when he's in the quiet moments with his family. Miles is sort of the film's wild card, he's not always in the best terms with other people and he's someone who would rather do things his own way; but once he's in the driver's seat, that's a whole other story. It's no surprise that Bale always brings his A-game, and this film is no exception. Matt Damon, on the other hand, is the much more stern yet still light-hearted Carroll Shelby. Like Bale, Damon always knows when to step up his game. Damon is given great moments that gives him that charming charisma, especially when it comes to comedic timing (which, if you've seen The Martian or literally any video about his staged feud with Jimmy Kimmel, you know that with a good script, Damon can certainly nail comedic timing). While Ken Miles is the heart of the film, Carroll Shelby is the soul of it. Together, these two make a mighty fine dynamite duo. Their chemistry is a joy to watch, and the film just elevates whenever they're on screen together. Caitriona Balfe and Noah Jupe are also the film's standouts, providing some of the film's emotional and little moments. 

Image source: IMDB
  
At its core, Ford v Ferrari is really a story about friendship, and it's not as cheesy as you think. Again, part of this is due to Bale and Damon's charming chemistry. Their constant banter is a delight to watch. While the film has many scenes that will sure invest race car fans, it's a character driven story about a struggling race driver with a family to provide, who is passionate about what he does and knows each and every car inside and out; but isn't considered a suitable representative of a brand by the very company he works for. It's a story about a developing friendship that endures even the most intimidating obstacles, and how it becomes an everlasting bond between two people who in the end, are equally determined and ardent about something they truly thrive for. Ford v Ferrari relishes in both the quiet and epic moments. It has scenes like Ken Miles driving with excitement written all over his face, and in the next, Miles is hearing a race on the radio and pointing out the driver's flaws while he tinkers in the Shelby garage with a sorrow look. While this film packs plenty of exciting races that will sure entice the audience, it doesn't shy away from the slow moments, especially when it focuses on Ken Miles' relationship with his family, particularly with his son. 

 The racing sequences are beautifully shot and create a good amount of tension and fun. While it may seem like it's gravitating towards the typical structure of a race segment that's present in previous films, Ford v Ferrari changes the game and sells the scenes with plenty of innovative shots, exquisite set design (the amount of work they did to even recreate almost every single detail of the infamous Le Mans track is insane), and an investing buildup. It's a lot more reliant on practical stunts than CGI, making it much more genuine, with each racing segment getting better than the last. Mangold directs the scenes flawlessly, putting the audience on a whirlwind ride on the 24 hour Le Mans track. The scenes incorporate the perfect amount of pure adrenaline rush while building tension. It rarely ever feels like it's dragging, rather like it's constantly taking the audience by the hand have them gripping for dear life from the very beginning until the very end. In addition to the visuals, the sound design is also excellent. Once the races begin, the sound goes all out on injecting the right dose of momentum at the roar of every engine, and at the lurch of every turn. There's nothing quite like the feeling of being in the driver's seat of a Ford car and hearing its glorious sound on the big screen.

Image source: IMDB

Sure, the film doesn't go straight to the races in the beginning, but if it did, we wouldn't be as invested to the characters if we don't get to see their motives. You might feel a slight drag during the first act, but it's efficient enough to provide a clear backstory to the characters and establish the overall conflict. Business meetings and corporate paperwork don't exactly scream "thrills", but at least it knows how to make it investing enough so that we know what's at stake here. Because in the end, the real conflict isn't between two companies, but between the dreamers and the businessmen. There's the side that wants nothing but to feel the roar of the engine and the rush of the road, then there's the side that's more concerned with corporate presentation than the genuine thrill of the race. Aside from character, one of Ford v Ferrari's delights is the humor. This was one of those films where I genuinely laughed, especially when it comes to the ongoing back and forth banter between Ken and Carroll, like a particular scene where they engage in a small fight while Ken's wife watches comfortably from the front lawn with a 'I can't believe these two idiots' look on her face.

What makes Ford v Ferrari stand out is how they execute a seemingly by the books type of story and turn it into an elevated masterwork. It may have the typical formula for biopics, and some aspects actually make your eye roll; but the film knows how to hit the right beats in order to execute it in an excitingly fresh way. Whether or not you're a fan of racing, Ford v Ferrari is a guaranteed good time. Heck, I don't even watch racing, and I still enjoyed the film. Ford v Ferrari knows how to make itself accessible, and as a whole, be a really great film. Don't let its long runtime intimidate you, the film just flies by, and before you know it, you're left wanting more. It knows how to build stakes, develop relationships, and imbue fun elements to drive it right home. Anyone looking for a hell of a good time with the racing segments will no doubt be satisfied, this film has plenty of those. But to anyone who's also in for a good story, they'll be content, maybe even more than satisfied with what it has to offer. It knows when to have fun, but it also knows when to turn the brakes and have their characters breathe a little. In those moments, that's when we get to know the characters, their overall personality and their motives. And once those characters go behind the wheel, we're fully invested in their road to victory.

Image source: IMDB

Overall verdict: Ford v Ferrari manages to be accessible to anyone, be it a racing fan or not. Contrary to its title, it isn't exactly a story that revolves entirely around the corporation rivalry between Ford and Ferrari itself, but rather about the people working behind the company to make what seems to be impossible into something truly possible. It's really an underdog story about two people with a strong bond. It's also a story about loss, redemption, and family. Ford v Ferrari may be all about the races, but it's also about the characters and their process towards victory. The chemistry between Christian Bale and Matt Damon are one of the main driving forces that really took the film to its home-run. Their constant banter and shared passion over racing added much needed heart into the story. The racing sequences are excellent, it really knows how to take audience on a thrilling ride from start to finish. It doesn't feel dragged out, rather you feel the tension of every second of the race. These sequences are brilliantly shot and with little CGI present, it makes the sequences all the more thrilling. Yes, it might feel as if Ford v Ferrari ticks most of the checks from Racing Biopic 101, but it's the execution that makes it so much more. 

Stars: 4.5/5 

 

By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Mike Flanagan
Cast: Ewan McGregor, Rebecca Ferguson, Kyliegh Curran, Cliff Curtis, Zahn McClarnon, Carl Lumbly, Bruce Greenwood, Jacob Tremblay. 

Stephen King is on a roll this year, with three of his novels being adapted into films in the same year. First, it was the unfortunately dull Pet Sematary (although I would still highly recommend King's novel), then the rather solid IT Chapter Two, and now, we get yet another King adaptation that's had a near 40 year gap with its predecessor. The novel itself is three decades apart from the original. At first, it probably seems nearly impossible to follow up with a sequel that is just as iconic as the original novel, or even Kubrick's film adaptation, for that matter. There's a reason The Shining, both film and novel, is regarded as one of the most iconic horror story that is still appreciated today. Kubrick's film had it all: a brilliant performance by Jack Nicholson, a splendid visual canvas, a vast set design, and of course, a can full of ghosts. With such a wide space of a hotel, you'd think that they would drench the entire thing with ghosts and ghouls popping out here and there, but that isn't the case with The Shining. There's something far more ambiguous, a sense that something is on edge and is waiting to be awakened. Decades later, Stephen King marks the return of Danny Torrance in his sequel, Doctor Sleep, which was a very poignant character study of overcoming trauma and recovery. Now, director Mike Flanagan is bringing this story to life, mixing in the ambiguity of Kubrick's film and the intricacy of King's novel.

Taking place decades after the events of The Shining, Doctor Sleep tells the story of the now adult Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor), who like his father Jack, is a heavy alcoholic when we first see him. Haunted by the ghosts that inhabit the Overlook, Dan seeks alcohol as a way to draw out the demons of his past. Despite his attempts to hide his "shine", Dan eventually finds a new purpose in using his ability when he moves to a small town, whilst also starting his journey to sobriety. Meanwhile, a cult-like group called the True Knot, led by Rose the Hat (Rebecca Ferguson), prey on innocent children who possess the shine by torturing them and feeding on their shine, or "steam" as they call it. During this time, Dan forms an unlikely telepathic bond with Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), a young girl with a more powerful shine than him, and perhaps the most powerful one that he's ever seen. Rose the Hat eventually takes notice of Abra's powerful shine, prompting Dan to help protect Abra from being captured by the True Knot; and fully call upon the ability that he's been repressing since his childhood. 

Image source: IMDB
 
Ewan McGregor is fantastic as Dan Torrance. McGregor adds so much to this role, and some of that also comes from Flanagan's outstanding directing and script. Even if Dan's journey as an adult is heavily integrated with his traumatic childhood, his characterization in Doctor Sleep brings many new layers and development to his character. While Jack Nicholson's performance as Jack Torrance in The Shining was one that portrayed a man who's on edge, McGregor's performance as Danny was one that portrayed a much more restraint person, one with a guarded expression, as if he's afraid of reacting to such things. McGregor also adds much needed charisma into Dan. But once the film really shifts its gears, that's when McGregor truly shines. Alongside him is newcomer Kyliegh Curran as Abra Stone, and she too is stellar. Abra is the complete opposite of Danny, yet she couldn't be a more perfect partner in crime. Abra is more open and confident with her gift than Dan ever was, and Curran's performance brings a fine dose of levity and heart. But the standout here is definitely Rebecca Ferguson as the film's antagonist, Rose the Hat. She can swiftly shift from charming to menacing when she needs to; and when that happens, Ferguson's performance is nothing more than top notch.

Doctor Sleep is no Terminator: Dark Fate. It's a compelling story that justifies its existence. Stephen King had masterfully crafted the continuation of Dan's story in his novel, and it has set the perfect basis for the film to adapt upon, and director Mike Flanagan knows that; very, very well. Let's talk about Mike Flanagan for a second, because he's able to take the reigns from Kubrick effortlessly. If you're familiar with any of his previous works, be it Oculus, Gerald's Game (another Stephen King adaptation), or The Haunting of Hill House, you know he's perfect for the job. If anyone could do the sequel to The Shining justice, it's Flanagan. Doctor Sleep, much like the child portion of It, feels so much like a character study that happens to be sprinkled with bits of horror over it. It essentially takes laser focus on Dan Torrance's struggle to prevent himself from turning into his father. Doctor Sleep follows the reigns of those character focused Stephen King adaptations like The Shawshank Redemption, or even its own predecessor, The Shining. It takes its sweet time to really flesh out his character, because if we're to root for him, we have to know his character inside out, and the more fleshed out our protagonist is, the more we care for him. And in return, we're just as invested in his journey as an adult as we were when he was a child in The Shining. Danny's personal struggles are deeply explored here. He doesn't want to end up like his father, but eventually succumbs to alcoholism to draw out the literal ghosts of his past.

If you compare both Doctor Sleep and The Shining, they both have vastly different color palettes. The Shining has a much more vibrant color compared to Doctor Sleep, which is ironic considering that it's a horror film about a man's downfall into insanity. You notice that Doctor Sleep doesn't really follow the same style this for the most part, since it's emphasizing on someone who's already at rock bottom rather than one who's in the process of gravitating towards it. The cinematography too, is simply stunning. It takes a similar approach to the way The Shining did it, which was with most characters front and center whenever it chose to focus on their arc. Doctor Sleep however, does have more versatility in their shots. Some scenes have an effortless camera tilt that gives the shots a little more flair, and isn't always static. The interesting thing here is that they emit a feeling of wonder, yet at the same time, tension. It even gave a scene like a character gliding in the air a bit of a horror-fantasy feel. This is helped wonderfully by the haunting score of The Newton Brothers, which doesn't overstay its welcome too much. In fact, this is also possibly one of the film's homages to The Shining. There's a lack of that tension-filled music that usually indicate an oncoming dire threat or jumpscare. While some scenes have those, it's also reliant on silent tension of the scene itself (it's instead replaced with the constant sound of a steady heartbeat), which helps make the scenes so much more unsettling.
 
Image source: IMDB

Those who are unfamiliar with The Shining might be wondering if they have to watch its predecessor in order to understand Doctor Sleep. The answer to that is yes and no. Doctor Sleep manages to be a story of its own, and perhaps if you're really not in the mood to look to much into it, you can pretty much understand the story that Doctor Sleep is trying to tell for the most part. It's not too reliant on its predecessor, but it does act like a sequel for the first 20 minutes, since it is a flashback and it focuses on the things that happened right after the events of The Shining. Moreover, there are things that will mean a lot more if you have watched The Shining, particularly in the third act (it's a big plus if you've read the novel as well). This includes references from the dialogue and visual cues of its predecessor. Someone who is new to the Stephen King world, or new the world of The Shining in general perhaps won't bat an eye at some of its homages and references. Despite the fact that you could go in to Doctor Sleep without prior knowledge of the first film, I still highly recommend watching The Shining beforehand (if you haven't) to really grasp the overall concept of where Doctor Sleep is going towards. Other than that, the film has its own standalone story. Doctor Sleep doesn't go full Avengers: Endgame, meaning that it doesn't fully alienate the audience that aren't familiar with the previous film that came before it, but at the same time, it's giving back to those who are already familiar with The Shining, whether it is the novel or the film.

If you went in to Doctor Sleep expecting a full out horror film with jumpscares here and there, you're not going to get a lot of that here. Doctor Sleep isn't the type of film that will rely on scares to get the audience invested, but it does have scenes that really get under your skin, particularly once you see what The True Knot does to their victims. The tension is there, and it builds up ever so slowly until it's the right time for the story to really amp up its scares. It doesn't only want the audience to be afraid of the antagonist, but it also wants them to be afraid for the protagonists who are going against them. In The Shining, the very concept that even a seemingly normal man could succumb to the temptation of insanity is what makes it much more unsettling than the biggest jumpscares. We might not be scared of the ghosts that inhabit the hotel, but rather of the man who would be affected by them, and the family that watches helplessly from the sidelines. In Doctor Sleep, we're witnessing how such an event could traumatize a child to the point where its horrors would come to haunt him even until his adulthood. We're seeing how this trauma manifests and turns the child into the very person that he was trying not to become. This is what Doctor Sleep is: not a horror fest, but a depiction of a lasting trauma and how it can affect a person. That's the main essence of Doctor Sleep, and the very reason why the horrors he would endure later as an adult has clear stakes and tension, and we become fearful of what is to come for him.

If there ever really was a flaw in this film, it's something that's really only coming from the standpoint of someone who has read the novel. There is a particular arc involving a one night stand that felt brushed over, and I couldn't help but hoped for a little more on it, since that arc became one of Dan's biggest guilt that haunted him throughout the novel. I consider this as more of a nitpick than an actual complaint, though. Nevertheless, Doctor Sleep is an investing film with immense focus on the characters to drive the story and hammer it right home; which is why Dan Torrance, Rose the Hat, and Abra Stone are really the ones left on our minds long after the film ends. And that is what's at the heart of most Stephen King stories: the characters. In the end, we're invested in the characters that King has crafted, we care about their struggles, and we want them to get the ending they deserve. There's a reason why we want The Losers Club to overcome their fears and defeat Pennywise in IT, or why we want Paul Sheldon to give Annie Wilkes a taste of her own medicine in Misery. We want some of these characters to succeed because they're so masterfully crafted and given such depth. Doctor Sleep is no exception. It's obviously not going to beat what The Shining already did so masterfully, but it's damn close to it, and I'm more than happy with that. 

Image source: IMDB

Overall verdict: While Doctor Sleep forgoes the obvious things that pop out from the dark, it's much more focused on unsettling imagery, like when the True Knot tortures one of their victims (a scene that really made me clench my knuckles). It's also focused on character, and how vital this aspect can be in order to really drive the story. They couldn't have picked a better director in Mike Flanagan. Flanagan really understands how to emphasize humanity and the things that can truly get under your skin as oppossed to just sticking with jumpscares. Ewan McGregor is excellent as adult Dan Torrance, while Kyliegh Curran as Abra injects that much needed levity and complements McGregor's Dan in wonderful ways. The standout however, is Rebecca Ferguson as the film's antagonist Rose the Hat, who's just as interesting and just as menacing as her novel counterpart. Unlike IT Chapter Two, Doctor Sleep is a more subdued type of horror film. It's not as reliant on jumpscares and ghouls that much, but rather on character and atmosphere, which is really what's at the heart of most Stephen King stories. But the tension is still masterfully built, slowly laying out breadcrumbs until it reaches its destination. While it won't be as pitch perfect as The Shining, Doctor Sleep joins the ranks as one of the best Stephen King adaptations.

Stars: 4.6/5

You can also read my review of The Shining here



By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Stanley Kubrick
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers.

What's the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear The Shining? Is it the creepy twins in the hotel corridor? Is it Jack Nicholson's memorable performance? Or is it the ever infamous " Here's Johnny! " scene that has been referenced to death in countless films and TV shows? Whatever it is, there is no doubt that The Shining has some kind of impact in the film industry, whether it is as one of the icons of the horror genre, or an iconic film in general that has been a staple for film lovers for years. Based on the 1977 novel by the master of horror himself, Stephen King, The Shining has cemented itself on the Horror Walk of Fame. In a way, director Stanley Kubrick has made masterpiece that has been remembered for decades, and that's due to the fact that very few films ever got under your skin. The Shining is an unsettling depiction of paranoia and insanity, of a torn family, and of man's downward spiral into madness as he spends months in an isolated hotel with secrets that are yet to come to light.

The Shining begins with recovering alcoholic Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson), who accepts a job as caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, which closes during months of harsh winter. Torrance has a questionable incident that caused him to lose his previous job, so he takes this opportunity to possibly redeem himself and have a bonding moment with his family. And so it goes, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall) and son Danny (Danny Lloyd) accompany him and gets the hotel all to themselves for the coming months. Unbeknownst to both parents, Danny possesses a telepathic ability known as "the shining", in which he is able to enter the minds of others through a "shine" and see premonitions; making him the first to be aware of the hotel's hidden secrets that lurk in its halls. During their stay at the hotel, Jack snags the chance in his time of isolation to chase his dream of becoming a writer by starting his own book. However, things start to escalate when the hotel begins to reveal its inner demons, or the ghosts that inhabit the hotel, hence the twins in the corridor, and the woman in the mysterious Room 237. From there, the hotel begins to influence Jack, which leads to a slow spiral of insanity. 

Image source: IMDB
  
From the moment Jack begins his descent, you feel that great sense of dread, of knowing that whatever is coming is inevitable. Part of that is due to Jack Nicholson's incredible performance. Even from the way his eyes immediately bulge out when he snaps, to the calm yet eerie tone, his performance makes you feel that he's slowly succumbing to whatever lurks in the Overlook. There's a particular scene here that is not only one of my favorite scenes in this film, but perhaps one of my favorites in any film ever; and that scene is where Jack stalks Wendy up the stairs saying, "Wendy....darling...light of my life, I'm not gonna hurt you. I'm just gonna bash your brains. I'm gonna bash them right the fuck in." That scene alone shows you what a masterclass Jack Nicholson is as an actor. However, I will say, upon reading Stephen King's novel soon after, that the novel's depiction of Jack's spiral downfall is a lot more eerie than the film, given that its length gives it enough time to lay things out slowly. But the film does an impressive job of translating some of that on screen (again, this is partly due to Nicholson's performance). When you watch The Shining for the first time, you might wonder if Jack Torrance was already on edge even before his visit to the Overlook Hotel, and if the Overlook merely pushed him over and he finally snaps.

Props should also be given to Shelley Duvall and Danny Lloyd, who play Wendy and Dan Torrance respectively. For all that Duvall had to go through in order to shape her performance (which is an interesting story of its own), it's hard to imagine that she was once nominated for a Razzie for this, which of course, felt undeserved. Duvall perfectly encapsulates Wendy Torrance's desperation and fear as she witnesses her husband being slowly driven into insanity. Maybe at first viewing, you might feel it's a bit much, but at least it feels raw and genuine. Duvall gives an equally fantastic performance that opposes Nicholson's, making the two play off incredibly well when it comes to the more intense scenes (the staircase scene that was mentioned earlier being one of them). Danny Lloyd was also a standout, despite being a child actor. From his quite demeanor, to his "Tony" voice that gives a ghostly manner ("Danny isn't here right now, Mrs. Torrance.") and his terrified reactions to the horrors of the Overlook, Lloyd's performance is one that simply ties the film altogether.

Image source: IMDB
 
What makes The Shining an iconic horror film is its unsettling imagery. Stanley Kubrick made what is a vast and glamorous hotel into a claustrophobic death trap with nowhere to hide, and that's only from the visual portrayal of the hotel itself, we haven't even gotten to the ghosts that inhabit the hotel. The way Kubrick does this is by integrating wide shots to establish the monstrous hotel that happens to hold the darkest secrets on earth, one of them being a continuous shot of Danny Torrance whizzing through the hotel corridors on his bike. The Overlook Hotel is a character of its own. It's setting the scene, it's laying the traps, and it's waiting for its prey to succumb to its manipulative wonders. The brilliance of The Shining is its lack of a jumpscare. It doesn't overstay its welcome when it comes to the things that shock, rather it's more reliant on atmosphere, to that dreadful feeling of the inevitable. Whenever a character encounters a ghost, it's either done with a sinister violin screech, or one of its best moments, when it's done through nothing but a visual of the character's reaction, and dead silence in between. It doesn't go overboard with the gore in order to emphasize the creepiness of the hotel, rather it feels like it gives constant warning signals for the audience to follow as if it were leaving clues to a treasure. It's a slow build, but it's one that sure pays off at the very end.

As someone who has read the novel as well, I can see in some ways why Stephen King disliked the adaptation. For starters, the novel does give a deeper dive into Jack's character as a more charismatic figure, whereas the film more or so implies that his dark side was already visible from the moment we see him on screen (and like I said before, as if he's on edge for the first half of the film). Had they perhaps highlighted more of Torrance's charismatic side in the film, we would have had a deeper sense of sympathy. Then there's Wendy, who's given more backstory and depth in the novel than her film counterpart. But the film made the wise choice of grounding the story a little more. Instead of its relying on concrete facts that yes, there is indeed a supernatural force behind all of this, there's also the implication of ambiguity. It implies questions as: are the ghosts of the Overlook Hotel truly real, or are they a figment of Jack Torrance's imagination as to signify his return to alcoholism? Even the simple lines of dialogue, like a line aimed at Jack Torrance, "You are the caretaker. You have always been the caretaker," can lead to various interpretations. The film is much more interested in implying rather than laying out an actual explanation, which is another thing that adds to the film's brilliance. Does it make my love for either King's novel or Kubrick's film adaptation any less? Absolutely not. I love both the novel and the film equally. The novel and film perfectly capture a deep insight into a man who is slowly going insane from an unseen force while his family watches helplessly from the sidelines, and both have different takes on the story. 

Image source: IMDB

The Shining is a film that withstands the test of time. Even until now, The Shining is considered one of the best horror films of all time, and for a good reason. It's a Stephen King story at its very best, but Kubrick adds his own take to it. It's pretty much up to the audience's preference on whether or not you like the film or the book better, yet you can't deny that both have their own charms in certain aspects. In the end, The Shining is a character study of a family that is slowly being torn apart. It depicts a father who is doing his best for his family and happens to be a former alcoholic. But then he sees a shelf filled with imaginary ghost booze and he's right back where he started. It also depicts the rest of the family that is affected by the father's descent, of a wife who is unable to prevent her own husband from driving himself into insanity, and of a child with a helpful yet terrifying ability that he is yet to understand. The film may not flesh out every aspect of these characters as much as the novel does, but it at least it gives enough general insight to invest us and sympathize with their struggles. It might not be the scariest horror film out there, but the fact that it deviates from the usual horror cliches such as jumpscares makes it ever the more investing. There's always a dreaded sense that something isn't right, and that things aren't supposed to be what they turned out to be, and the way Kubrick executes this in The Shining is what makes it more effective and unsettling than any jumpscare-reliant horror film today.

Stars: 4.7/5
By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Bill Camp, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Glenn Fleshler, Douglas Hodge, Shea Whigham.

 The Joker has gotten many iterations in the past, through the likes of Jack Nicholson, Heath Ledger, Mark Hamill, and Jared Leto. With each of these portrayals, both in comics and films, there's always a different take with the character, most of these takes being successfully masterful (though Leto's is my least favorite). There's many ways you can craft Batman's infamous nemesis, and each new take brings a whole new element to the character. Whichever take they do with the character, his origin story remains the same for the most part. So when it was announced that Joker would have his own origin film, I wondered how they would pull it off. Were they taking a direct route from the source material? Or were they going to take a completely different route and make a new story? It's safe to say that Todd Phillips' origin film about the Clown Prince of Crime chose the latter. That leaves us with another question. How will they take a completely different spin on a comic book villain's origin?

Joker takes place in 1980s Gotham, where the city is on the verge of collapse. There's a clear conflict between the rich and the poor, and nothing much was done to fix the issue. It is here that we're introduced to Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), a professional clown who longs for a career in stand up comedy. He's invisible to the world, his only proof of existence being beaten up and abused by others. His current job doesn't do him justice, he's on several different medications, and the system that's supposed to help him isn't doing him any favors ("Everyone is awful these days, it’s enough to make anyone crazy," Arthur says at some point). His mental condition, one of them being fits of uncontrollable laughter that constantly puts him in pain and jeopardy; causes a rift that drives society further from him. And the more strained his relationship with society gets whenever he tries to get closer, the more he drives himself towards the edge. As he gets closer towards the edge, that's when we see a flick of the switch, the transformation of the man who would become the arch nemesis we've come to know for decades.

It is no surprise that Joaquin Phoenix is the star of this film. Phoenix's take has a vice-like grip on you, enticing you to take trip in the mad world of Gotham through his eyes. It's a brilliant mix of haunting, chilling, menacing, and tragic. It may not take the reign from Heath Ledger's already iconic performance in The Dark Knight, but it's extremely close. Here's the thing though, both Ledger and Phoenix have different takes on the Joker, and both portrayals were perfectly electrifying on their own. Whenever Phoenix appears on screen, you're immediately drawn in. Arthur Fleck as a character may not have much of a charisma, but Phoenix knows how to capture the audience in a trance with his performance. In addition to Phoenix, the film boasts a fine supporting cast in the likes of Robert De Niro as talk show host Murray Franklin (a direct nod to his character in The King of Comedy), Zazie Beetz as Sophie, and Frances Conroy as Arthur's mother Penny Fleck. They're the ones who ground Arthur, and bring out the more intimate and human moments in him. But essentially, it is Joaquin Phoenix's film. He's the one that carries the film, and what he does with this role is incredible.

Image source: IMDB

This is perhaps the most gorgeous looking comic book film, possibly because its visuals approach a more arthouse type of film, one that punctuates an emphasis of certain things such as character, emotion, and atmosphere as opposed to wider shots to emphasize the vast scale of its world. Through the visuals, storytelling, and performance, it's clear that the film's intent was to solely focus on Arthur, and Arthur alone. It's both a visual feast, but there's a sense of beauty in the middle of the dreary madness. The film consists of symmetrical shots that makes it feel as if there's a little bit of that Wes Anderson vibe to the film, whimsical yet full of grit and realism. Every shot is a story of its own, whether it is a wide symmetrical shot, or a close up, all beautifully captured by Lawrence Sher and completed by the chilling score from Hildur Guðnadóttir. They help in creating a much grittier and intimate look on Gotham, as well as shape the character of Arthur Fleck as we follow him on his journey. While Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy views Gotham on both the metropolitan beauty and occasionally the dark side of the slums, Joker turns that image on its head and displays more of that dreary part of Gotham. While some visuals are colorful, none of them represent a true sense of joy. Through Arthur's eyes, Gotham is a bleak world, and the color palette emphasizes that beautifully.

Joker feels much like an arthouse film than a comic book film, a character study of intriguing proportions. We don't see a man who would later become Batman's foe, we see man slowly descending into madness from the society that pushes him towards the edge. In a world full of comic book films with heroes and villains, time travel, and CGI fights, Joker takes a more gritty take to it. Take away the comic book elements of Joker, and it's a character study about a man who slowly descends into madness. It's a perfect basis for a re-imagining of an infamous foe, and the film is well aware of what it has. It's a look into a person's transformation, a look into his mind and how he views the world. It's a film about what the world can do to a person, and what happens if that person is driven towards self destruction and snaps back at the world. Joker is one film that discusses mental illness and social class, and it does not simply shy away from the topic. In fact, it's lifting that topic for everyone to see. It asks the hard questions, it discusses subject matters that perhaps other comic book films wouldn't dare to delve in, and it is incredibly refreshing to see. 

Image source: IMDB

The film has the difficult task of having a well-known villain as the main protagonist, but the film does an excellent job of crafting the character and how he ended up being the way he is. Yet at the same time, it doesn't glorify his terrible actions that made him as the villain we know as the Joker. Yes, we may sympathize with him at times, and he's made good points of his own (one of them being when he rants, "If it was me dying on the sidewalk, you’d walk right over me! ") That does not mean that we as the audience would condone his later actions, but we see why he does it. Joker does many things, but what it doesn't do is make a hero out of the man who would become a villain. The character of the Joker has never been heroic, and the film certainly won't change that fact. And the thing is, madness and violence have always been the traits of his character, so it's understandable that the film would later explore that aspect. Addressing the violence in this film, it is indeed violent, but not as much violence as many might be concerned. In fact, there are other much more violent films before it. But the violence here is the kind that's raw and realistically gritty. It may take some time for the film to really change gears, but once it does, that's when it gets insane. No, it does not glorify violence as some may have been concerned with. It's more of a cautionary tale of a crumbled society that consequently shapes the character of a man who would later crumble with it. And I could not stress this enough when I say that this is not a film that you should take kids to see. Just because it's a comic book film, it does not mean that it's suitable for children.

 Joker is not a film that lingers on action sequences to keep the audiences on their feet, but it's one that keeps them intrigued with its intricate character study on how one man's journey could lead him to be the Clown Prince of Crime. The portrayal of the Joker as a character always has something new up their sleeve, and Joker brings plenty of those to the table, with masterful results. There's obvious nods to its main inspirations, namely Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, both coincidentally star Robert De Niro. Some story elements of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke can even be seen here. What's most interesting, however, is its use of what is called "the death of the author", meaning that once a story is brought out to the world, the author no longer holds authority over what the reader interprets from the story. Joker uses this to an advantage, playing with elements of what is real and what isn't real. It incorporates ambiguous scenes in which to me, feel like it's leaving some of the interpretation to the audience. It's more focused on character than it is on action as well as visual storytelling than exposition, or in other words, it shows more than it tells, which is why it is not only an excellent comic book film, but an excellent film in general. So no, it might not follow the standard elements of a comic book film, but that's exactly what makes it riveting.

Image source: IMDB

Overall verdict: Joker doesn't take much of a focus on the elements of a comic book film, but rather in a similar beat of an arthouse film. In fact, it's taken a far leap from its source material by a completely different re-imagining that differs from most comic book films. Joaquin Phoenix is a revelation in this role, turning everyone's eyes on him and keeps them glued for the entire film. With Phoenix, the film boasts an impressive supporting casts with the likes of De Niro, Beetz, and Conroy. But in the end, it's Phoenix that steals the show. While perhaps it may not take the reign from Ledger's iconic take, Phoenix's performance is a close second, if not equally masterful to Ledger's. Its minimal action makes for a bigger focus on character, on the crumbling society that affects the characters. It focuses on the hard matters that other comic book films would probably never discuss. Joker takes an intriguing view of how society plays into the shaping of a person, of how things can lead them to certain actions that make them who they are; without hailing those actions as heroic. It's far from a standard comic book film, but it's a brilliant choice for Joker, especially when it nails the execution. Joker is without a doubt, a masterpiece, both as a comic book film and as a film in general.

 Stars: 4.7/5

By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB

Director: Andy Muschietti
Cast: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, James Ransone, Bill Skarsgård, Andy Bean. 

 Stephen King's infamous novel IT is no stranger to pop culture. The 1986 novel about a group of kids that call themselves the Losers Club going against a killer clown has been one of the most iconic horror novels. By 1990, IT was adapted into a two part miniseries with Tim Curry as the menacing Pennywise. But that wasn't the last we've seen of the clown. In 2017, IT was once again adapted for a new generation, this time taking place in 1989, with Bill Skarsgård taking over the role of Pennywise. IT became one of the highest grossing horror films and became one of my personal favorites of 2017. A full out horror film might not be a fitting way to describe IT, perhaps more of a coming of age film with bits of horror sprinkled into it, which makes for a more interesting experience. Pennywise's appearance was a way for the characters to grow out of adolescence, to force themselves into facing their worst fears, and in the end, these kids became one of the best aspects of the film. Now, it's time for the adult portion of the story to be told, hence IT Chapter Two.

Taking place 27 years after the Losers Club's confrontation with Pennywise, IT Chapter Two begins with a bang, or in this case, a gory murder. Once the murders start to resurface in Derry, Mike Hanlon (Isaiah Mustafa), the only Loser to remain in Derry; takes it upon himself to seek help to the former Losers, who have all moved out of Derry and became successful as adults. The club's former leader, Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy) is now a novelist and screenwriter, while Beverly Marsh (Jessica Chastain) is a fashion designer. Richie Tozier (Bill Hader) is a stand up comedian, Eddie Kaspbrak (James Ransone) is a risk analist, Stanley Uris (Andy Bean) works in an accounting firm, and Ben Hanscom (Jay Ryan) is an architect. While they've all become a big success, the rest of the former Losers (aside from Mike) have seemingly forgotten about their encounter with Pennywise, as the longer they stayed out of Derry, the more hazy their memories of Pennywise are. Mike, who had spent the last 27 years in Derry, was the only one whose memories stayed intact. Unlike the rest of the Losers, Mike spent 27 years researching Pennywise's origin, and in the process, how to kill it. Once the Losers regroup in Derry, it's up to them to rediscover their childhood memories and defeat the killer clown once and for all.

The adult version of the Losers has an impressive list of actors that pulls their characters of wonderfully. James McAvoy is brilliant as always being the adult Bill Denbrough, especially when it comes to moments of grief. McAvoy seamlessly blends into the role of the Losers Club's former leader, and like Jaeden Martell (who played the young Bill Denbrough in the predecessor), he carries most of the film's dramatic moments. Jessica Chastain is fierce as Beverly Marsh, taking over the role from Sophia Lillis with ease; while James Ransone as Eddie Kaspbrak not only looks exactly like his younger counterpart (previously played by Jack Dylan Grazer), but perfectly embodies Kaspbrak's mannerisms from Grazer's performance in the predecessor. Isaiah Mustafa, Jay Ryan, and Andy Bean also had fine performances as Mike Hanlon, Ben Hanscom, and Stanley Uris respectively. The standout however, as many have already said, is Saturday Night Live alumni Bill Hader as the group's loudmouth Richie Tozier (he's also fantastic in the show Barry. Definitely worth a watch). Hader is the film's biggest surprise, and perhaps mine, as I've seen him in many great SNL skits, so seeing him switch from comedy to horror was a pleasant surprise. But not only does Hader's Richie become the comedic relief, he's also the film's heart. 

Image source: IMDB

IT Chapter Two may be bigger in terms of horror aspects, but it doesn't quite hit as much as its predecessor did. What made the first IT such a great film was the chemistry and the relationship between the seven Losers. Nevermind that it isn't truly scary compared to other horror films, at least the film knew that it wanted the audience to care for these characters. Once they're placed into a terrifying ordeal, we're not scared of the monster that taunts them, but for the characters who are going against the monster. The characterizations of the first IT are effective, showing that the Losers are just as interesting on their own as they are together. Bill is traumatized over not being able to save Georgie from his gruesome fate, Beverly has a troubled home life with her overly possessive father, Eddie has an over-protective mother, Ben is taunted for being the new kid; you get the jist. It succeeded because we cared about the kids, we cared about what they were going through, even when it didn't involve Pennywise. The first film interwove their character arcs together wonderfully, and in return, it gave Pennywise a chance to turn their ordeals into true horror.

IT Chapter Two doesn't quite manage to do the same for the adults, save for Richie, who has a much more poignant storyline than the rest. As kids, Pennywise's appearance was a way to deal with their worst fears. As adults, it's more of facing an emotional trauma, which is certainly interesting, but the film never really explores this, instead treating it as more of a fragment of a memory. Moreover, the film chooses to focus on expositional dialogue rather than actually showing it, which could either be effective or unnecessary, depending on how you look at it. Even for a nearly three hour film, some of the developments seem too rushed, which would probably explain why there isn't as big of a connection between the audience and the Losers now as it did then when they were kids. The comradery is still there, but compared to its predecessor, there's a lack of development between the characters we once loved, whose journeys we followed with excitement and dread, not to mention that the characterizations are sacrificed for bigger (and sadly predictable) jumpscares; and it leaves some of that duty to the flashbacks. And because the film has some pacing issues, it does disrupt its coherence between serving the scares and developing the characters, which was something that its predecessor was much better at. 

Image source: IMDB

And then there's the formulaic scares that is too reminiscent of the usual horror tropes. The first film had those, but it wasn't overdone or repetitive. Most of the scares were genuine because it relied on silence and the character's expression to build the tension, not the over-done scary music that's a constant reminder that a jumpscare awaits. Take the scene in the first IT when Pennywise appears behind Beverly after she attacked her father. It had no buildup music that tells you a jumpscare was about to unfold. We only had a moment of silence before Beverly turns around, and low and behold, Pennywise was right behind her. It was an effective jumpscare because it was completely unexpected. Or perhaps when Stan encounters the flute lady, with only a tune and eventually the drop of the flute to create tension. It's devoid of the usual high pitch music that goes eerily silent for one second before a jumpscare, instead opting for a tune that would have been sweet to listen to, had it not come from a figure that Stan fears. Chapter Two, on the other hand, does feel like it's a little too reliant on cliché jumpscares that loses its momentum the more it repeats itself. The scares here don't stick as well as it did in the first film, though it doesn't fully fall flat on delivering some truly thrilling scares (helped immensely by Bill Skarsgård's brilliant return as Pennywise), and it especially doesn't hold back during the film's insane third act.

IT Chapter Two isn't a terrible film, by all means. In fact, there's still a lot to like from this film. It still manages to take some of the best aspects of both the predecessor and King's novel, and the fact that this one stays more faithful to the novel could be taken as more of a positive. As said before, there's still a sense of comradery for the most part that still manages to tug at heartstrings at times. When the Losers are back together, it's definitely a delight to see, especially during their reunion scene in a Chinese restaurant (the banter between Hader's Richie and Ransone's Eddie being one of the highlights). Despite rushing character development on the adult counterparts, the film does give some room for the characters to take a breather and have a moment of contemplation and nostalgia upon returning to their hometown; which are some of the film's best moments. It gives a pleasant sense of nostalgia to the kids that forged a lasting bond. The film is knows that it's a character driven story, for sure, and that the characters are what elevates the story. And when it lags in development, it soars in the chemistry, thanks to the film's impressive ensemble cast. There are moments where it hits you emotionally, some of them being from flashbacks, and others from the adult Losers.

Overall, IT Chapter Two is still a solid closure to the IT duology, and is a fine companion piece of the first IT. There's more to like than there is to dislike, especially when there are moments where the film is fully aware that the characters are what made the predecessor worked in the first place. The film retains that stunning cinematography of the first film, capturing beautiful shots in the midst of all the horror, accompanied by Benjamin Wallfisch's gorgeous score. The flashbacks with the kids can feel as if they overshadow the adult part of the story, but some offer much needed development towards the present day, especially when it comes to these characters reliving past memories of their hometown. Some of these scenes even became the film's emotional heavyweight, providing a sense of those childhood memories that we don't ever want to forget. It's not an easy task to adapt a story that spans a thousand pages, but Chapter Two did what it could to compress the second half of what is already 1,100 pages worth of story into a near three hour film; whilst developing some of its own narrative along the way. While Chapter Two isn't as cohesive as the first film, and it should have used its runtime more effectively, that certainly doesn't stop it from having its moments. 

Image source: IMDB

Overall verdict: IT Chapter Two provides a satisfying closure to the IT duology, despite its flaws. The ensemble cast that consists of McAvoy, Chastain, Ransone, Mustafa, and Ryan all have impressive performances as the adult Losers. However, it's Hader that steals the spotlight, providing most of the film's humor whilst also being the film's heart. Compared to its predecessor, the scares aren't as effective as the first film, but sometimes its need to amp up the scares pays off. As for the adult counterparts themselves, their development isn't as fleshed out as when they were kids; though it doesn't fully take away the joy of seeing the Losers back together. Even if it's a little more reliant on bigger scares this time, it's still aware that it's a character driven story, that in the end, it's the characters that help bring the film up on its feet. And since a big chunk of the story is about the Losers rediscovering their childhood, the film provides us with more flashbacks that could sometimes feel unnecessary, but other times pack that much needed emotional punch that drive the development in the present day. IT Chapter Two isn't as cohesive in when it comes to balancing its themes and elements as the first film, but it's still an enjoyable ride with plenty of moments to keep you invested.

Stars: 3.4/5

You can also read my review of the first IT here


 

 By Nadia Ranaputri

Image source: IMDB
 
Director: F. Gary Gray
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thompson, Liam Neeson, Rebecca Ferguson, Kumail Nanjiani, Rafe Spall, Laurent Bourgeois, Larry Bourgeois, Emma Thompson.

 The Men in Black franchise was never really something I was fully attached to back then. I did remember having a lot of fun with it, but I was so confused with all this weird alien mumbo jumbo. As the years went by, I was much more fond of it than I was when I first saw it. A talking alien puppy, a time-traveling Boglodite, an entire freaking galaxy in a small piece of jewerly, and just all out fun action? Men in Black has it all. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones as Agents J and K were one of the most iconic duos to ever cross the screen, and without them, Men in Black would not have worked as well as it did. As bad as Men in Black II was, Smith and Jones really knew how to carry a film. Heck, even Josh Brolin as a younger Agent K had great screen chemistry with Smith in Men in Black III. It's a trilogy that you can simply have fun with, no matter how ridiculous the plot and all these aliens can get, there's that sense of energetic vibe that you can't help but just go along with. It was a memorable trilogy, and one with a pretty satisfying conclusion. That is until its spin-off, Men in Black: International, came into the picture.

Men in Black: International begins with a young Molly Wright, who sees her parents get neuralized by the Men in Black after encountering an alien in their house. Years later, adult Molly (played by Tessa Thompson) is an ambitious seeker of the Men in Black, constantly seeking out the organization that deals with things that are not from earth. When she does find herself in the MiB quarters, she is recruited, but not before she could prove her worth in her position as an MiB agent by working alongside their neighboring branch in London. There, she meets the infamous Agent H (Chris Hemsworth), an agent known for his heroic act with fellow MiB leader High T (Liam Neeson) of taking down a big alien threat with "nothing but their wits and their Series-7 de-atomizers," something the film makes clear multiple times. M gets paired on a mission with H, where they discover that another alien threat had come to earth to seek a powerful weapon that has the potential to destroy a whole planet. Together, M and H team up to stop this alien threat from taking this weapon and save the Earth from destruction.

Image source: IMDB

 In what could have been a standout and a fresh take on the Men in Black franchise, the film is an unfortunate mess, with plot-holes that could have been much easier to explain than Captain America's ending in Avengers: Endgame. The film has a habit of introducing plot points that have no resolution, and that it would rather move on to another plot point without the previous being resolved. The plot is a mess, with no sense of direction as to where it really wants to go. It's like little sidequests in a video game that have little to no use in propelling the main plot. It doesn't even give the characters room to breath and show some kind of development. Take the plot point regarding an alien death merchant played by Rebecca Ferguson that only serves as room for more fight scenes and wasted potential. However ridiculous or forgettable Men in Black III might be (I actually enjoyed it for what it is, to be honest), its plot points and the characters that come across Will Smith's Agent J and Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K, at least they all served a purpose one way or another, either as their ally or someone serving vital information for the mission (when else can you see Andy Warhol as an alien informant?) Point is, they propel the plot. Men in Black: International had none of those. Don't even get me started on the villains, even Boris the Animal from Men in Black III had better development than them.

Men in Black: International lacks that feeling of genuine comedic absurdity that made the first three Men in Black films highly enjoyable. Men in Black is memorable for how crazy they can be without having it feel forced. Remember the giant cockroach alien that tried to steal the "galaxy on Orion's belt", which turned out to be an entire galaxy lying on the collar of a cat named Orion? Or how Agent K defeated said villain by intentionally offering himself to be swallowed whole just so he could shoot the alien from the inside with his favorite gun? Those things are what made Men in Black so memorable. This new Men in Black just feels so...lifeless. Not that it has to go all out in order to sell itself, but it lacks that energetic vibe that the previous three films had (well, with the exception of Men in Black II, but that's just me). The thing is, it nailed the delivery of banter and jokes, thanks to the likes of Hemsworth and Thompson. The real issue is the script, the content of the banter and the jokes themselves. The jokes won't crack more than an eyeroll. It's not that they're terribly forced, they just didn't stick the landing. There's a running gag between Agent H and another fellow MiB agent about H being "papa's little boy" that just isn't funny and drags on for a good minute. Chris Hemsworth is a genuinely funny actor. He can nail a punchline when it's actually good. When you give Hemsworth comedy-worthy lines, you can work wonders with it. Thor: Ragnarok is a fine example of that.

Image source: IMDB

 For a film that surely requires exposition, however crazy it is, it seems much more content with exposition about what certain characters did rather than actually showing what they can do. Men in Black: International suffers the same curse as Captain Marvel: characters who are told to have certain traits but lack the physical evidence from the characters themselves to prove it. In other words, they're much more focused on the tell than show. In Men in Black: International, we're told countless times that High T and Agent H defeated a big alien threat years ago. Due to this, Agent H is deemed a hero, and other than his triumph at defeating said great alien threat, he's regarded as one of the best agents in the London branch. But we don't get to see this great agent. Instead, we get a cocky agent who apparently didn't see that a high ranking Jabbabian alien is in danger of assassination until it's too late (even after the alien literally warned him in clear desperation). Either it's him taking the "Jabbabians like to have good time" rule too literally, or that he's gotten drunk off-screen. And because story likes to sometimes jump ahead before anything is resolved, we don't get to see much of the character development. The first Men in Black worked because we got to see the development between Agent J and Agent K. Their development as individual characters and with each other was what made their dynamic work.

 Men in Black: International could have been a game-changer to the MiB franchise, unfortunately it's easily forgettable. Sure, it has its moments and at the very least, you can have fun with it. Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson are the perfect buddy cop comedy duo, and they could have fit right in when they're armed with a good script. Sadly, their dynamic wavers because of the messy plot and flat jokes. They're one of the very few aspects that made the film watchable. I quite liked the scene where Thompson's character tried to convince her fellow employers that she would like to be in the division that deals with things from "up there", which led to one of her potential employers to say "you mean accounting?" It was silly, but I liked Thompson's delivery of it. They did what they could with the script, but even they couldn't bring in much energy if the script itself doesn't work in the first place. In the end, Men in Black: International is unfortunately forgettable. More than anything, it felt as it didn't try to do anything new to the story, which is why it failed to really make itself standout among the previous Men in Black films. However, it's definitely not boring. It can have fun when it wants to be, and sometimes it's unashamed of its ridiculousness. This is the type of film that you watch when nothing else is playing, and you just want to have a little fun. You'll get it here, for sure, but to say that it's reinventing the Men in Black franchise is a bit of a stretch, especially when it simply stands as just another Men in Black film, perhaps the least favored of the bunch.

Image source: IMDB

 Overall verdict: Despite the star power of Hemsworth and Thompson, Men in Black: International lacks that genuine energetic vibe that made the previous three films so enjoyable (except Men in Black II, it was just a really weird film for me). The story just didn't seem all that cohesive, especially when it spends much of its time jumping onward to different plot points before the previous one could be solved. It's as if a chapter in a school subject is being discussed, but before you could even fully understand it, the teacher moves to a completely new chapter without having even finished it. That's what Men in Black: International felt like. What's worse is that most of these plot points have no significant impact that propels the story. So what was the point of having all that just to lead up to nothing? Moreover, this Men in Black felt unusually lifeless, and the jokes fell completely flat. I couldn't really find one that I laughed at, maybe just smiled at the delivery of it, thanks to Hemwsorth and Thompson. And that was the problem: the delivery was perfect, but the joke itself wasn't. Hemsworth and Thompson are really the best aspects of the film, their chemistry was there, it's just the development that's lacking quite a bit. That's not to say Men in Black: International was fully lifeless to point that it bores you for the entire runtime, it does have its fun moments. You can forgive its faults as a Men in Black film, it just fails to stand out among them.

 Stars: 2.5/5

Newer Posts Older Posts Home

HELLO THERE!

Welcome to my blog! I'm an English Literature graduate navigating through a sea of films and books.

Categories

  • Articles/Editorials 12
  • Film Reviews 84
  • Movie Rewinds 6
  • Series Reviews 5

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Advertisement

Powered by Blogger.

Report Abuse

  • Home
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • ►  2021 (15)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2020 (10)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  February (2)
  • ▼  2019 (9)
    • ▼  November (3)
      • Ford v Ferrari- Review
      • Doctor Sleep- Review
      • Movie Rewinds: The Shining (1980)
    • ►  October (1)
      • Joker- Review
    • ►  September (1)
      • IT Chapter Two- Review
    • ►  July (1)
      • Men in Black: International- Review
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  March (1)
  • ►  2018 (26)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
  • ►  2017 (27)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2016 (20)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

  • 2021 15
    • July 1
    • June 2
    • May 1
    • March 2
    • February 4
    • January 5
  • 2020 10
    • December 5
    • November 1
    • May 2
    • February 2
  • 2019 9
    • November 3
      • Ford v Ferrari- Review
      • Doctor Sleep- Review
      • Movie Rewinds: The Shining (1980)
    • October 1
      • Joker- Review
    • September 1
      • IT Chapter Two- Review
    • July 1
      • Men in Black: International- Review
    • May 2
    • March 1
  • 2018 26
    • December 3
    • November 3
    • October 3
    • September 1
    • July 3
    • June 2
    • May 2
    • April 3
    • March 3
    • February 3
  • 2017 27
    • December 4
    • November 1
    • October 5
    • September 4
    • August 2
    • July 3
    • May 2
    • April 1
    • March 3
    • January 2
  • 2016 20
    • December 2
    • November 8
    • October 4
    • September 3
    • May 1
    • April 1
    • March 1
Show more Show less

Pages

  • Home
  • Home
  • Film Reviews
  • Series Reviews
  • Movie Rewinds
  • Editorials
  • What's Listed
  • Home
  • Features
  • _post format
  • _error page
  • Beauty
  • Fashion
  • Lifestyle
  • Contact
  • Buy now

Popular Posts

  • Nomadland- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: IMDB Director: Chloé Zhao Cast: Frances McDormand, David Straithairn, Linda May, Swankie, Peter Spears, Bo...
  • Shadow and Bone- Series Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: TIME Series directors: Lee Toland Krieger, Dan Liu, Mairzee Almas, and Jeremy Webb. Cast: Jessie Mei Li, Be...
  • A Quiet Place Part II- Review
    By Nadia Ranaputri Image credit: IMDB Director: John Krasinski Cast: Emily Blunt, Cillian Murphy, Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe, Djimon Houn...
  • Home
  • Features
    • Error Page
    • Short Codes
  • Documentation
  • Download This Template

featured posts

Advertisement

Copyright © Mockingbird In A Blizzard. Designed by OddThemes