Onward - Cheap Thoughts

It must be unfair to be Pixar. A new Dreamworks film comes out and people would like it to be a poignant work of animation, but they don’t always expect it. Even Disney Animation these days less and less people would assume they’ll be left an emotional wreck by the end. Illumation is…well, not even expected to be good, let alone be great. Pixar is a different story, most people go in with the expectations of “Make me cry dammit!” because here we are 25 years since their feature film debut and they are still capable at telling hauntingly beautiful stories. The problem these days being it’s no longer a guarantee but more like a coinflip.

In a way Onward's biggest problem is a meta-narrative of it’s own existence. The film’s protagonist Ian (Tom Holland) worries he’ll never live up to being a great man like his father, likewise Onward doesn’t live up to being as great as its company’s legacy.  Truth be told, Onward is fine, it has a basic script with likeably characters, some good comedy, and several successful attempts at creative and dramatic storytelling (Lots of misses, but not all). If this were a film by any other company it would have been given a pass, but this is Pixar, just being okay is not enough, and no it’s not fair, but it’s the world we live in.

Set in a fantasy land mixed with modern day technology, our film sees two brothers Ian and Barley (Chris Pratt) learn of a spell that will bring their father back from the dead for a single day, and so they set off on a quest to try do so within 24 hours. Now a simple plot does not make a bad film, even being able to predict everything that comes doesn’t guarantee a bad film, but when you can feel the tropes slot into place and have characters move from point A to point B like the script is a chess board and the characters the pieces, any natural sense of progression for the characters is completely removed, no emotional growth or regression feels earned, everyone behaves in the particular ways the script needs regardless of whether it feels right.

This doesn’t mean the whole film is like this, there are moments where character goals and the natural momentum of the plot come together, a great example is one of Ian’s goals to be learning how to drive and the way this plays out in the film is an incredibly fun scene. Likewise there are moments that are quiet and where characters can express their emotions without it feeling forced, such as Barley’s last memory of their father, and again, the way it plays out by the end of the film feels very mature and proper. These moments however are the exception not the rule.

The only element of the film that feels true to Pixar quality is the animation, which yet again is beyond stellar, with their focus on detail, realistic in-camera effects and beautiful lighting, it’s the one thing they will always be the untouchable kings of CG Animation.

These aspects are what technically saves the film, but only in the sense that it survives, not so much thrives. It’s unlikely anyone will walk away hating the film, Pixar have certainly made worse, but when it comes to a company with standards this high, simply being okay might still be enough to kill it.

-Danny

My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising - Cheap Thoughts

There’s going to be a lot of similarities between this review and the one for One Piece: Stampede, simply because the same rules apply, if you’re not a fan of the franchise already then just skip this film, this review will be written from the perspective of a fan as those are the ones the film is targeted at. Admittedly this isn’t entirely the case for My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising as the film does make the attempt to explain the world and the characters should any newbies be watching this film as their introduction, but even then it comes more to the film’s detriment than anything else. Even if you were to fully understand everything, that doesn’t mean you’ll care about everything, there’s a difference between explaining the story and experiencing the story.

Between this film and the prior instalment in the franchise My Hero Academia: Two Heroes the film’s have a clear goal, to fulfil audience desires by presenting what couldn’t be done in the main series. In the first film’s case that was showing Deku (Justin Briner) and All Might (Christopher Sabat) fighting side by side, though that was a moment that came at the end of the film leaving the rest rather forgettable and barren. This time round however, the film is more well-rounded, as we follow all of Class 1-A open their own hero agency on a small humble island, initially helping everyone with remedial tasks, but eventually when the villains show up they all have to fight to protect the citizens of the island. One of Kōhei Horikoshi’s strongest talents as a writer is getting the audience invested in characters within such a small amount of time, that being said he has chocked his story full of so many characters that some are yet to receive any kind of development or purpose, and that includes about half of Class 1-A, who are finally given their chance to shine and offer something of value, the highlights include Tokoyami (Josh Grelle), Sero (Christopher Bevins) & Aoyama (Joel McDonald) who are given more relevance and screentime here than they probably have in the main series as a whole. That being said this also highlights the uselessness of certain other characters, specifically Hagakure (Felecia Angelle) who is the only member to literally not contribute anything, whether it be through the simple tasks helping the townsfolk early on or in the climactic battle at the end of the film.

Speaking of said climactic battle, which is frustrating because there is very little that can be said without spoiling it, yet again it ends up being the highlight of the film, boasting the strongest animation in the franchise to date, beautiful music, great tension and acting on a higher scale than any other fight scene in the franchise can come even close to. Unlike the prior film it doesn’t overshadow the rest of the film by making it seem irrelevant, but instead building on top of what came before to give us the showdown we deserve. There are certainly more plot related issues with the final fight, mostly from a continuity breakdown in order to make it happen, and like every non-canon Shonen film, there’s always a fine line between experimenting in a non-canon story and full on breaking continuity so far that all tension or believability has been lost.

If you’re a fan and you don’t see Heroes Rising you’re not going to miss out on much, after all it’s a non-canon film meaning character development and major story beats are kept to a minimum. That being said, it is a film that offers fans the best kind of fanservice, stellar animation, creative fight scenes and characters being used in fresh and interesting ways. 

-Danny

"It's Just A Kid's Film"

I did not expect Sonic The Hedgehog to be such a divisive film. In my review I complained that the film pushed the definition of average to such intensity that it somehow broke through definition and became bad, comparable to other CGI/Live-Action hybrids such as Hop or Alvin & The Chipmunks. Nothing offensive or upsetting about the film apart from how unbearably simple it was, to which I shouldn’t be that surprised that this doesn’t detract from the film for a decent number of people, something being simple doesn’t mean bad, it just means easy to understand and hopefully the jokes and characters are entertaining enough that they can carry the rest of the film, for which it does for many.

I’m not overly bothered by this argument, after all there are plenty of films that I like which others could claim are just average but sprinkled in enough positives to leave a good impression overall. That being said, one comment that I’ve seen come up several times amongst critics and friends who liked this film is the relic of “It’s a kid’s film” to which translates to “This would entertain a small human and therefore I’m not going to critique it properly”. That might sound harsh, but it’s an argument that I despise because it’s giving a free-pass to lazy filmmaking who feel the need to spoon feed the feelings and arcs of their characters as if the kids watching as if they were idiots. I’m not going to go easy on bad kid’s films when there are plenty of other films aimed at children that do try to create engaging, creative and even important works for their target audience.

Don’t misunderstand me, not every film aimed at children needs to be Inside Out. I don’t need Sonic to be explaining depression to me. The logic behind this argument seems to be that because kids won’t be as tired of formulaic plots the same way adults will, that makes it okay. Here’s the thing, going by this logic, you could show kids basically anything as long as it was flashy and easy to digest because they don’t know the difference between good and bad films, but that’s exactly why we should be more critical of the ones that don’t try, by giving them a free pass it just lowers the bar on what we’ll accept as “good enough” films for the younger audiences. Secondly is that it kind of gives kids less credit as an audience, unless they’re two year olds who still barely have a grasp on logic, there’s plenty of work out there that does entertain and challenge these young audiences, even if they’re not bothered by the formulaic nature of these type of films, they do still recognise the formula, and even if it doesn’t bother them, it’s not exactly going to be a film that leaves much of an impact.

Think of your favourite films from your childhood, the ones that left an impact, more often than not they’re the ones that did something different, films that tried harder than others and meant something to you. I think of films like The Land Before Time or The Prince of Egypt that felt like they were discussing mature subjects with me, even if I didn’t recognise that feeling at the time. Or even films like Shrek or The Emperor’s New Groove, they’re not necessarily mature, but they still stood out for doing something different, and because of that misfit behaviour made them entertaining and everlasting. It even works for bad films, a decent part of my generation is nostalgic for the live-action Scooby-Doo films, they’re by no means good films, but they are still weird films that tried something new, they failed, but they were remembered for it, and have developed somewhat of a cult following nowadays. It’s why I argue being average is worse than being bad, because if you’re just going to be forgotten wastes of time, then what was the point of them in the first place?

On a more personal note, I hate people using this justification towards me as if I don’t take into consideration the target audiences for these films. I’m not going into Sonic the frigging Hedgehog with the same expectations I would for something like Parasite or 1917. I know different films have different goals, it’s one the simplest things you need to understand about cinema, you don’t need to be a critic to know that, so I very much don’t appreciate the implication that a kid’s film’s main goal is to entertain children is something I'm unaware of. I also know what makes a good or bad film for kids, its why I wouldn’t say I hate the film because it doesn’t spread any bad messages, but it also means I’m going to be more critical that thinking they can get away with lazy storytelling because they’re expecting their audience to not care.

So, TL;DR? No, it’s not just a kid’s film, it’s a lazy kid’s film, so it’s a bad kid’s film.

-Danny

Sonic The Hedgehog - Cheap Thoughts

The more movies you watch, the more you realise that sometimes a mediocre movie can be even worse than a bad movie. Sonic The Hedgehog is soft, simple and pandering with little to actually offer to make it a memorable experience. It’s almost difficult to explain the basics of the plot because if you’ve seen any movie, literally, any movie then you’ve seen this one. A film that begins In Media Res by cutting straight to the climax to show Sonic (Ben Schwartz) running and Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) blowing up the scenary in casualty-free mayhem and destruction because the film is so desperate to grab your attention that it feels you’ll be bored by the character set-up that’s to come because it knows it won’t interest any audience. Following that is a completely inconsequential and unfitting backstory that shows Sonic being raised by a wise owl (A new creation for the film) who within less than 2 minutes sends Sonic away and is never seen or mentioned again. From there is where the film becomes the formulaic blur.

Sonic is being hunted by the government, meets Tom (James Marsden) who agrees to take him on a road trip to San Francisco to find his way to freedom. Along the way the two make it explicitly clear what their goals are and has character arcs spoon-fed to you like a baby. Because it honestly seems this film was made with the mindset that this would be the first film you have ever seen so it needs to make everything blatantly obvious. For example, it’s established early on that Sonic is lonely, and has spent several years by himself and is desperate for friends, in one moment where the film goes quiet to express that Sonic is alone, he then has to verbalise this moment by saying “I’m alone” as if you couldn’t quite get that. Continue that method of storytelling for 90 minutes and you have this film.

There’s something upsetting about making a Sonic film without any teeth. By modern standards, Sonic The Hedgehog is not cool or edgy, but he is cool and edgy for kids. He has a carefree attitude who rebelled against authority, did what he wanted and stayed cool in every situation with a cheesy family friendly rock soundtrack backing him up. This Sonic is cowardly, and desperate, and is constantly shouting one-liners and soon to be dated pop-culture references that offer no comedy or charm. Finish it all off with a white bread hip hop tune during the end credits and you have the perfect representation of removing any appeal that came from this character in the first place. It is somewhat of a conundrum to describe this film as identical to every other movie made when it’s simultaneously a film that will be forgotten as soon as you go the bed tonight, except for of course the few moments of deeper fan-service that at most equate to chuckle worthy gags and promises for better movies in the future because this film didn’t have the guts to commit to the franchise it was adapting.

It’s at a point where it might have been better to keep the original design and for the film to crash and burn, because a car crash is more interesting to watch than the fender bender that is this film.

-Danny

The Use Of Cassandra Cain

This is probably the main thing above all else that stuck out to me about Birds of Prey but I chose not to include it in my review because it didn't really fit the format and was much more of a personal gripe on how they adapted this particular character and therefore wouldn't necessarily effect everyone's experience with the film. Naturally as a fan of the comic book counterparts of these characters I am quite defensive of them, this isn't the first time I've made a post about this, but I hope this doesn't come across as basic whiney fanboy complaints, and if it does, well...that's why it was left out of the review.

For anyone unaware of the comic book origins of Cassandra Cain, she was trained from birth to be the ultimate assassin, not even learning how to speak or write, because of this by the time she turned 18 she was a master in hand to hand combat and depending who you ask, quite possibly the greatest physical fighter in DC Comics. However once she finally killed a person for the first time, the action disgusted her beyond belief and she swore never to take a life again. Eventually she would go on to become the new Batgirl and later take up her own alias of Orphan, slowly learning how to read & talk and overcome her own disabilities.

TL;DR: She’s a master fighter, doesn’t kill, and is a mute.

Compare that to the film version where she is helpless, murders at minimum 2 people (Both via explosion oddly enough) and can talk very easily. Basically, put the film version has nothing in common with the original version and I have no idea why they chose to put her in here if they weren’t going to do anything reflective of her character. My assumption is they wanted to have Batgirl in the film and for one reason or another they couldn’t have Barbara Gordon so they went with the next option? Even though she never dons the Batgirl costume or does anything relevant to that persona. The funny thing is, the majority of what film Cassandra does and acts like is very similar to that of Jason Todd, but assuming they either couldn’t or didn’t want to use him then why bother adapting this character in the first place? Why not create someone entirely new?

I’m aware that for adaptations their have to be changes, but if you’re going to strip away all of the elements that make Cassandra Cain who she is and create an entirely new character then what is the point? As a stand alone character, film Cassandra is not a bad character, but when I have another version of the character to compare it to? In my opinion, the comic book version is better in almost every single way, she’s someone who possesses a level of empathy practically unmatched, her belief in the symbol of the Bat goes beyond Bruce Wayne or anyone in the bat family. The conflict between her given purpose, her views on death and desires for her own identity are complex & interesting. The contrast between her being one of the greatest fighters and balancing that with her disabilities makes her unique.

It’s difficult to be supportive of the film Cassandra when I know how much better it could have been done, and this isn’t comparable to a bad adaptation of Superman or Batman, those characters get adapted a thousand times over that there’s plenty of room for variation, and inaccurate portrayals can be shrugged off. In the case of Cassandra this is her first live-action adaptation and to intentionally stumble and fall this badly is baffling.

So yeah, there’s some more rambly thoughts on Birds of Prey and how they used Cassandra. I’m sure this didn’t come across as well-thought out and was mostly nitpicky complaints, but again, that’s exactly why it wasn’t written for the review and was just a chance for me to get some gripes I had out.

-Danny

Birds of Prey - Cheap Thoughts

Every DC Film is a risk, not in the sense that the franchise lives or dies on the success on each film, but in the sense that regardless of quality they do something different from the last one. From Man of Steel onwards even the worst of the DC Films for nothing else at least it can be said they were trying to do something different from the last one. Birds of Prey is no exception to this, creating a world of such vibrant colours, over the top action and larger than life personality driven characters, Cathy Yan has brought us a fun experiment to be added to the DCEU Library.

Many have already pointed out that the title is somewhat misleading as its more accurate to describe this as a Harley Quinn movie but it at least brings everyone together through a common theme, the idea of surviving trauma. Our movie opens with Harley (Margot Robbie) announcing to the world the end of her relationship with the Joker and her trying to rebuild her life from someone who tormented her so, likewise with all of the other members, Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) losing her mother to the world of heroism, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) being the victim of organised crime and Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez) being held back by a corrupt system. The group end up coming together for the common goal of protecting teenager Cassandra Cain (Ella Jay Basco) from becoming yet another victim of this cycle. From this perspective it could be argued that this is one of the strongest team-up movies to come out of the genre, these aren’t the most powerful fighters trying to save the world, or even a group of losers who join up through circumstance, but a group of people with similar ideologies that feel they can help at least one person by working together.

It also shouldn’t be forgotten that Harley Quinn is not a good person, she’s certainly better than the Joker and the film has her admit to her own faults and attempt to improve herself, but from beginning to end she never truly finds redemption. What she does find however is a place to belong and people who she can connect with, and at least be somewhat of a better person than she was before, even though never let it be forgotten she is still a wanted criminal who steals, assaults and vandalizes at her own will. There are certainly those out there who would critique this portrayal and say it makes her a flawed from a writing perspective but then there are plenty others who would view it as unique and an interesting choice in protagonist for a superhero film.

The other members of the titular Birds of Prey are entertaining in their own right, specifically Huntress as the stand out, a character written and portrayed so hard to be dark & edgy and always be taken seriously that when she's thrown into a movie that is completely not that tone it allows for some of the best humour of the film. The characters work best as an ensemble, which makes it all the bigger shame that they rarely share the screen together as they're entertaining enough that they make getting breakfast at a dinner one of the highlights of the film.

More so to make the film stand out is that it is popping with personality from both the characters and the directing. Incorporating some of the more neo-punk aspects of Suicide Squad with a more comedic & consistent tone, the film is bouncy, vibrant and sacrifices most forms of realism for the sake of style which is a choice always greatly appreciated around these parts. It’s another point in favour of the DC Films that every single one feels like a completely different film and gives you a new experience, there is plenty of the film that will bring detractors along in terms of both the film’s own components as well as discussed as an adaptation, but it’s unlikely anyone could claim the film is boring, and likewise it could be argued the style enhances the substance rather than overshadow it, bringing the audience into Harley’s perspective to make her more empathetic to the audience, which again considering her actions it doesn’t hurt to give the audience what they need.

On a final note, not to turn this into a DC vs Marvel debacle because at this point it doesn’t really matter, both properties have decided on their identities and you can either roll with it or get out of the way. That being said, something that can never be argued is that DC is much better at it’s inclusions of LGBT+ characters, this film being no exception acknowledging both Harley’s bisexuality and Montoya’s homosexuality. The inclusion of them alone is only worth a certain degree of merit, what’s more interesting is the none-confirmed queer characters and the coding that signifies their sexuality to begin with. Black Mask (Ewan McGregor) is heavily coded to be queer, from his flamboyant personality to his interest in make-up and stylized clothing. Queer Coding in villains is nothing new and has been discussed, criticized and praised in a variety of ways. It’s just interesting that in a film with several openly queer characters, the one who behaves the most stereotypically gay is also the only one not confirmed, which could lean more into common criticisms of this trope as the implication of behaving more stereotypically queer is associated with villainy comes with its own negative connotations. That being said McGregor is an absolute blast in the film and makes for a highly entertaining villain and combine with the inclusion of queer protagonists it could simply be an oversight on the part of the filmmakers, but still a subject matter worth discussing.

-Danny

One Piece: Stampede - Cheap Thoughts

Let’s not stand on formal ground here, this is a review very much being done from a fan’s perspective because that’s all that matters here, because they’re the only people who would go out to see this film. Stampede is aware of this fact because they made a film filled with fanservice moments that exist only to get cheers, laughter and all other forms of glee out of audiences who have been fans of One Piece for many years now, in a lot of ways, this works very well, in others the film feels as though it’s having its cake and eating it too. So let’s delve a little deeper, and if in case it hasn’t been made clear yet, if you have never seen/read One Piece then turn away now because there is nothing that this film or review can do to appeal to you or make you a fan.

Regardless of said fanservice, there still needs to be some deeper substance here to make the film more than just flash & bang filler and…they nearly got it. There is a clear theme here, that being the reliance on other people is not a weakness but a strength. Our antagonist Douglas Bullet (Tsutomu Isobe) believes that relying on other people only holds individuals back, naturally a character like Monkey D Luffy (Mayumi Tanaka) has always been open about his reliance his crew to fill in his own shortcomings, and also for the fun company. It’s not a new angle to come to One Piece about, but it is always an effective one, which makes it all the more disappointing that they don’t follow through with it by having the Straw Hat Pirates contribute nothing of value for the entire film. That is for the exception of Usopp, who does contribute to the plot and becomes the emotional centre of the story, creating a contrast between himself and Bullet, as Bullet is objectively the strongest character in the film and Usopp is one of the weakest, and yet he shows what he contributes that makes him a valuable piece of a greater set.

Back to the fanservice however because the film has sold this aspect as its main appeal, as if it’s the Smash Bros Ultimate of One Piece movies. Everyone and anyone is here, and yes, it can be quite cool at times, it’s fun to see the Supernovas all fighting together, it’s fun to see all the Warlords make an appearance, heck, it’s even fun to see the Foxy Pirates cameo and get a good laugh. Combine that with some of the greatest animation this franchise has ever seen and it can’t be denied on a pure spectacle level this film guarantees an enjoyable experience for any One Piece fan. Where it sometimes goes too far however is when it breaks its own boundaries, not within the greater plot of the franchise, those rules have to be broken to make this story happen, and the fact that it’s non-canon gives it the allowance to make it work. Where it fails is with characters being able to achieve great feats that they were never able to before, such as Boa Hancock running faster than The Flash and somehow being able to kick a mountain. More egregiously is the overuse of Luffy’s Gear Four, his ultimate attack that comes with strict limitations otherwise it loses all sense of tension and weight behind it. Characters being portrayed as more powerful than they reasonably should be, especially when it contradicts even the internal narrative of the film (Luffy’s first fight with Bullet vs his last fight for example) it drains the film of any genuine tension when the film begins to look more like a Dragon Ball Z fight than a One Piece fight.

There’s always going to be a limit to how deep a One Piece film’s plot can go before it oversteps its boundaries and conflicts with the main story, in reality they’re best off being compares more to a fireworks show, loud, colourful and has you going “oooooh ahhhh” over and over again.

-Danny