My Favourite Films of 2019 – Introduction & Honourable Mentions

In the past I have made videos discussing my top 10 favourite films of the year, but this time I’m going to be doing something a little different. For the past several years I’ve been finding that system to be inefficient in discussing something this short term, after all a film that I saw back in February has had much longer to fester than a film I will have just seen this past month, and often ranking those films in chronological order proves to be outdated within several months as my opinion changes or I see even more films that would have made the list otherwise. There is also the issue that I don’t feel most of the films I loved this year I could write up a definitive list of saying which one is better than the other, especially when I know it'll be out of date within just a matter of months. Nevertheless I find myself with the desire to write up an end of year summary because it’s a fun way to recognise my thoughts and opinions at the time of release, sort of like a time chamber.

Before we get into the list however, let’s begin with some Honourable Mentions. Because there are some that still might only have one or two elements that stand out to me that make them worth discussing, but not to be mistaken as acclaim for the film as a whole.

Crawl/Ready or Not
I place these two films together because I appreciated them for the same reason. They are both small-budget horror films that I didn’t anticipate going into the year but ended up being surprising dark horses that from beginning to end was a hootenanny of a good time. Crawl can probably take the medal for most times I’ve clenched in a theatre this year, while Ready or Not goes with the old fashioned message of “Rich white people are crazy and it’s fun to see them suffer”, a message that has been told several times this year and it's never going to be a message that I tire of.

The Kid Who Would Be King
For the most part I feel this film plays it rather safe which certainly makes it a decent watch that I would recommend. That being said I will always be a sucker for a film that lets its characters genuinely hit rock bottom. That moment at the end of the 2nd act when the protagonist is supposed to be at their lowest? Any film that genuinely makes me feel like this is that character’s emotional pit of despair amongst all other pits of despair, then I will always praise them for that.

The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
“Everything's not awesome. Things can't be awesome all of the time, it's an unrealistic expectation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make everything awesome. In a less idealistic kind of way, we should maybe aim for not bad, cause not bad, well that would be real great. Everything is better when we stick together” I shit you not, those lyrics nearly made me cry.

Stan & Ollie
The most underdiscussed movie of the year! In a time where every biopic feels formulaic, safe and basic…this one still is—but it’s really good at it! Steve Coogan and John C Reilly portraying two of the most iconic comedians of all time and they simply do phenomenal in the roles; they’re subtle, they have great chemistry and the film puts thought behind what made these two funny rather than just skip over it and pretend it was all natural talent like many others do. I saw this film back in January and somehow I have heard no one talk about it, for shame.

Blinded By The Light
A light-hearted romp based on a true story around a Pakistani teenager growing up in 1980’s Britain who finds solace and inspiration in the music of Bruce Springsteen to show how music transcends. Meanwhile also working as an allegory for the harsh times Britain faces today with how it handles prejudice bigots, corrupt tori governments and gives us a kick ass soundtrack along the way…I liked it.


Hmmmmm…okay turns out I had more to say on my honourable mentions than I first thought, so I suppose I’ll have to save my actual favourite films of the year for it’s own post tomorrow. See ya then.

-Danny

I Guess I Can Talk About Terminator: Dark Fate

This may in fact be the first Terminator movie to have this much discourse behind it. In previous times audiences seemed to be in agreement over the Terminator films, the first two are good, the rest are bad, end of story. Terminator: Dark Fate is the first one to split audiences, with some claiming it to be a return to grace for the franchise as a worthy sequel to Terminator: Judgement Day while others claim that it is just another bad Terminator film. I for one fall more into the latter category as Dark Fate was simply a film I didn’t care for, I didn’t hate it per se, but I definitely didn’t see it as comparable to either of the first two Terminator films. That being said I also have the advantage of having never seen the supposed bad Terminator movies, simply because well, people said they were bad and the story had a satisfying ending at two, I had no desire to see them. So with this in mind I simply passed off the praise for Dark Fate as people taking an okay Terminator film and putting it into perspective of being the first Terminator film in nearly 3 decades to not be bad as that alone inflated the praise.

It wasn’t until this tweet from film critic @VyceVictus “All the praise for TERMINATOR: DARK FATE I read is from those enjoying solid R-rated action or moments of genuine pathos with characters old and new. Arguments against it boil down to....the same things dipshits are mad at THE LAST JEDI for. That should tell you everything.”

This is what peaked my interest in deciding to discuss this film, as waiving off the criticisms and claiming it’s on the same level as the unwarranted criticism on The Last Jedi is not only unfair but unnecessarily hostile, so I’m here to talk about why people like me don’t like Terminator: Dark Fate.

*Spoilers Ahead*

Our film begins directly after Terminator: Judgement Day by showing that before Skynet was destroyed they had sent multiple Terminators into different times in history to ensure that John Conner would be killed, one of which succeeds in killing him while still a child. Cut to present day where it turns out Sarah Conner has been hunting these Terminators as an anonymous assistant has been feeding her the time and locations of these Terminators appearances. Later on in the film it is revealed to be the same Terminator that killed John and in those many years with no purpose he was able to grow a conscience, even found himself a family, and in an attempt to apologies to Sarah he gave her this information in order to give her purpose.

Meanwhile it turns out a brand new cybernetic overlord system named Legion has still destroyed the future and they have sent back their own version of the Terminators to kill Dani Ramos, who will be the future leader of the human resistance. Sent back to protect her is Grace, a human with robotic implants to make her more enhanced and able to fight off the Terminators one on one. Now teaming up with Sarah Conner and the Arnie Terminator they try to fight off the new Terminator and protect Dani along the way.

What would you say is the main theme of the original Terminator films? Because I think there’s one line that sums it up rather well: “The future's not set. There's no fate but what we make for ourselves.”. This was the whole reason why Sarah & John fought to destroy Skynet, why the T-800 has to sacrifice himself, in order to prevent the apocalypse and save mankind. What this film tells us is that it was all bullshit and for nothing as even with Skynet gone humanity will always fuck up and create a robotic apocalypse to doom themselves…lovely. Isn’t that swell? Knowing that the best films of this franchise don’t matter? That everything our characters did was utterly pointless? I’m surprised more people weren’t actively offended at how this film spits in its history.

Furthermore is the idea that the aging Terminator is seeking redemption by killing future Terminators seems somewhat hypocritical? Let’s look at this: Aging Terminator kills John Conner-A child and this franchise’s protagonist-and now with no purpose he eventually grows a conscience and feels guilt, so he decides that by having Sarah hunt down and kill these future Terminators, who assuming they’re the same models as Aging Terminator because they really enjoy reusing this model, these future Terminators would have shown up, realised they had no purpose due to John being dead and they also would have eventually grown a conscience, the difference being of course they didn’t have to kill a child to reach that point. Also how did Aging Terminator know where the Rev-9 (Legion’s Terminator) would show up? They’re from a completely different future.

Not that it matters if John is dead, because now we have Dani, a character who is going to go on and play the exact same role that John would have…for no reason. This film very much just wants to pick and choose which part of its legacy it wants to keep, and in someway that’s okay. For example, they still want to use the robotic apocalypse even though it was destroyed in Judgement Day so they simply create a new one that somehow functions the exact same as the previous one, seriously there is not an iota of difference between Skynet and Legion. Now granted while that is a huge thematic issue I’m not necessarily too fussed about letting that go because Skynet was always just a plot device, if the robot apocalypse doesn’t happen then there’s no franchise (Almost as if this shouldn’t have been a franchise and was meant to end at two films). What’s not as easy to forgive is the death of John, like I said, the former protagonist of this series to be unceremoniously killed off for the sake of introducing a character who will play the exact same role in the exact same future fighting the exact same robot apocalypse….Seriously how were more people not pissed off with this blatant disregard for the previous films!?

Not to rewrite the film too much because it’s always easier to write things in hindsight but how much better would this film have been if John had lived and he has to team up with the aging Terminator? Think of the role an adult John Conner has to play in a world where he’s not a heroic leader, he prevented the end of the world but also prevented the thing that made him important in the first place, him and the Terminator now purposeless soldiers of a future that never happened. But let’s not go too far into the what ifs, that doesn’t help anyone.

There are elements of the film that do work, the first thing that stuck out to me was the de-aging of Sarah and John in the opening scene. There are plenty of films that are taking advantage of the de-aging CGI and for the most part I look at them and go “Hey, that’s a lot like what that actor used to look like”. This was the first time where I was convinced that this was actually the actors in the 90s and this must have been a deleted scene from Judgement Day. There is also the fact the film continues James Cameron’s anti-authority stance but with a modern outlook.

In an extract from The Futurist: The Life and Films of James Cameron, by Rebecca Keegan Cameron discussed his reasoning behind making the T-1000 A police officer. The idea of the authority figure who abuses their power and dehumanises those they view as inferior to them. In which this film continues that trend by representing the Rev-9 as a border patrol officer trying to hunt down a Mexican citizen crossing the border into America. That’s some tasty social commentary right there. It is unfortunate it has to come on the backhand of such poor writing but I still appreciate the message being there, especially when many blockbusters feel the need to take a neutral stance on these issues because morality is relative when it comes to box-office.

Terminator: Dark Fate is not an awful film, I’d even go as far to say it’s not a bad film, a bad Terminator film definitely, but as a stand-alone sci-fi action flick, it is decent enough to warrant a watch. Unfortunately it is not a stand-alone film, context matters, context changes how we view these things. I’m sure tons of people who enjoyed the film do so because they know Terminator can be so much worse, but for me this is the bottom of the barrel, it is not only a bad sequel, but it in turn attempts to harm the prior films by picking and choosing what is worth keeping, what was important and making all the wrong decisions along the way. So hopefully that answers @VyceVictus that there is more to dislike with this film than just pedantic nitpicking.

-Danny

One Piece and Queer Theory

Yeah that’s right, we’re going there. A series as long running and wide in scale as One Piece has dipped its toes into plenty of ponds that there are a thousand different perspectives to look at it from, in today’s case we’re going to look at it in terms of its portrayal of LGBT+ folk. Being a fan of the series for the better half of my life and being a queer person means that I have developed plenty of opinions on the series on this subject matter, and with recent developments means this is an ideal time to discuss this series through the lens of Queer Theory.

Let us begin with the first technically open Queer character in the series and the hot button topic that is Bon Clay AKA Mr 2. I say technically open because upon a reread at no point is his sexuality officially stated in the series. Now this isn’t unusual seeing as sexuality, romance and everything in that field have never been a specific focus for the series, to the point where the series didn’t have its first kiss until nearly 900 chapters in, and even then that was off-panel. That doesn’t stop the evidence from piling up, his fighting style is called ‘Okama Kenpo’ (Okama being a Japanese term for homosexual), and then there is of course the over-abundance of Queer Coding going on with the…everything in his design. Thus comes the first major criticism with the way series creator Eiichiro Oda represents queer people, the heavy reliance on stereotyping, including dressing in drag, perverted personalities, and being rather over the top and disrespecting personal boundaries, which sadly is the typical portrayal of gay men in a lot of Japanese media, the idea of gay men being aggressors, looking to forcefully “convert” the straight men they find attractive. Now, Bon Clay himself isn’t necessarily a precursor for these stereotypes, but many more would go on to fill this role, particularly those of ‘Okama Land’ who do in fact fulfil these harmful portrayals.

That being said, depending on who you ask, Bon Clay could arguably be considered a strong representation of a gay character. Like I said, his sexuality is never outright discussed in the series, and no one ever berates him for the way he dresses or behaves. There is always a debate amongst people over what qualifies as good representation of gay characters in stories that aren’t exclusively about their sexuality, how much of a role should their sexuality play? Should they be a character who just happens to be gay or should it act somehow as a defining feature? While there is no question on Bon Clay’s sexuality, it is yet to play an actual role in the story, but that doesn’t mean he’s lacking in depth. Bon Clay is a character introduced as a villain but with an energetic and positive attitude to the point where he actually develops a strong friendship with our protagonists that he ends up sacrificing himself for our protagonist Luffy in one of the most heartbreaking scenes. His sense of loyalty and steadfast dedication to protect those he cares about, overcoming his fears and fighting with a unique form of martial arts is arguably his most defining characteristics over his sexuality. He’s a character with a cool fighting style, a well defined personality and strong relationships built without his identity as a gay man even mattering, yet at the same time it’s clearly not a feature about him that’s hidden and he’s very proud of the fact.

Upon rereading the Alabasta arc for this blog I also noticed early on there is discussion of Bon Clay saying he is neither man nor woman, he is both and neither at the same time. This is used as the explanation to why he’s the only member of his organisation that doesn’t have a partner. Now is this confirmation that the character is Gender Fluid or Non-Binary or something else along those lines? I doubt it, I believe this is either a mistranslation by Viz Media or is Oda writing something not understanding the implications, again falling back on the clichés of gay men identifying more as feminine simply because they are gay. Though Oda’s reliance on these tropes would only become worse with the next batch of queer characters, that being Ivankov and Momoiro Land, also known as Kamabakka Ōkoku, which translates to “full of transvestites”…*sigh*

Ivankov and his team are arguably the most controversial character amongst this discussion, as not only do they represent the more negative aspects of Bon Clay but far more heightened, emphasizing the perversion, ugliness and creep factors often associated with this negative stereotyping, but in terms of gender identity things go so much farther in the world of uncomfortable. Ivankov has the ability to alter people on a genetic level, specifically change their hormones, and he uses this ability to alter people’s bodies, for the most part he only uses it on his allies who wish to change their sex to whatever their preference is, however there is at least one confirmed usage where he uses it on someone against their will and forcefully changes their sex from male to female. In terms of Queer Theory this is what would be called a ‘Big fucking mess’.

Much like Bon Clay, there is also plenty more to Ivankov outside of their sexuality and gender identity, they have interesting powers, contribute to the story, have well defined relationships amongst a variety of characters and they are never judged for their identity. It is also worth noting Oda's reasoning for including Ivankov in the first place. Bon Clay's voice actor Kazuki Yao once took Oda to a crossdressing bar filled with drag queens and Oda was such a big fan that he based the character off real life drag queen Norio Imamura, who would eventually go on to play the role in the anime. Unfortunately there are still quite a few red flags being flown with this character and his gang in terms of representation, they highlight the worst tropes that could be used to represent queer characters that some would say there’s no coming back from this, they dug their grave, and for many this could be the single defining element that prevents them from wanting to get into One Piece, and ya know what? I can’t blame them. Oda's choices with these characters does not come from a place of mallace, but admiration, and this was his genuine attempt at positive representation. This doesn't excuse him for his errors, but I also think it is worth noting and hopefully it was this exact criticism he recieved that went on to influence his next major attempt.

What convinced me to discuss this subject matter now is the introduction of a very distinct character for One Piece, and that would be O-Kiku, aka Kikunojo of the Lingering Snow, One Piece’s first transgender character. Kiku is a samurai and one of the Nine Red Scabbards, 9 of the greatest warriors in the land of Wano. What makes Kiku such an interesting character for many people especially in terms of representation is simply how she goes against convention for Oda’s usual representation. Physically she’s not exaggerated at all in her appearance and her gender identity was actually addressed by the characters, it was only in a single panel of Chopper saying “You’re a man?” and Kiku responds “This one is a woman at heart” and that was the end of any kind of questioning in her identity, they accepted it and moved on. She highlights all of the best elements of the Queer characters before but with none of the negative stereotyping that held the others back, arguably making her the best portrayal so far.

That being said, there’s a reason why I’m discussing this character now rather than waiting for the end of the story arc when we’ll have a full picture of her as a character, and that is because in case you can’t tell, every other queer character comes with a “but”, something holding them back or a negative aspect that makes them relatively harmful. Though many of us welcomed Kiku with open arms and praised Oda for introducing the character, and we can only hope this is an example of his growth as a person from Ivankov to Kiku, we are all waiting for that ‘but’, for something about Kiku or someone’s reaction to Kiku to make us all groan and feel uncomfortable. The current frontrunner is Sanji being disgusted and freaking out, as he has a history of doing so. 

Speaking of Sanji, this brings me to the final topic of discussion when it comes to One Piece and Queer Theory, and that would be Head-canons. Fan theories, desires or even clues from Oda himself to suggest at other characters sexualities and who could potentially identify as something other than heterosexual.  Now granted One Piece has a huge fanbase and probably every character has had their sexuality questioned by someone at some point, especially considering most character don’t have their sexuality even hinted at which leaves a whole lot of room for people to insert whatever preference they would like in there, so we’re going to leave this to just some of the bigger head-canons and my perspective on them.

Sanji has always been an interesting one to analyse under this lens because he’s one of the few characters that has a definitive attraction to one or more genders, seeing as one of his defining personality traits is that he is in love with most women and constantly lusts after them, to the point of grand perversion that really holds the character back for a lot of people. Even more so than that is the fact he is clearly homophobic, as his time with Ivankov & co would lay evident, the thought of Queer men disgusts him - which makes it really awkward that I consider him my second favourite character in the series - but even this hasn’t stopped him from having fan theories made about him that he is actually Bisexual and his outward homophobia is in reality internalised self-hatred over his own sexual identity. This personally is not a theory I’m a fan of as the idea of homophobia being active denial over ones own personal sexuality I find to be a cheap plot device, also people suggest that Sanji and Zoro secretly have feelings for each other that they disguise as hatred is also a cheap plot device. The two of them having a legitimate hatred for each other but also a respect and understanding of one another that they still work well as a team is a far more interesting dynamic than just primary school logic of bullying your crush. Then there is Nami who many view as a Lesbian with the main portion of evidence being her clear lack of interest in men and preference to be in the company of women as she is far more comfortable, honest and happy to be amongst them, but really isn’t that just how most people work? Have you ever met men? We suck.

Finally there is Luffy, who by far has the most evidence to suggest this head-canon is actually canon, and would also be the most interesting if it would finally be confirmed. Many view Luffy as asexual and there is plenty to back this up, for one would be the actual words from Oda himself who has said that the idea of relationships completely disinterests Luffy and he has never shown any open attraction to anyone, in fact it’s been used as an actual plot device. The character of Boa Hancock is supposedly the most attractive woman in the world to the point where literally everyone is attracted to her, man, woman, animal…except for Monkey D Luffy. At one point Luffy describes Alvida as “A beautiful woman” but Oda expanded on this by saying that while Luffy acknowledges what beauty is, it’s not something that matters to him, so when he describes someone as beautiful, it’s more along the lines of him stating a fact rather than paying a compliment. Again, this is a case where it comes with a ‘But, that being the old cliché that asexual characters are often portrayed as idiots and it implies they are simply too stupid to be attracted to people, and stupid is definitely one of Luffy’s defining characteristics. Even with that being the case, if this were to actually be confirmed, Luffy would be the most popular character in fiction to represent asexuals, and considering how well written of a character he is I’d hope most people would see this as a positive thing, but obviously that comes down to personal preference, almost every character discussed here could easily be seen as either a positive or negative representation (Some more so than others).

In conclusion, representation within the One Piece world may not be vast, but what is there is incredibly loaded in discussion, in both the positives and the negatives, however it is great to see the portrayal of queer characters has only gotten more positive as the series has gotten older and we can only hope it continues in this direction, so what I’m trying to say is this: Oda, please don’t fuck up Kiku?

-Danny

The Devil Wears Prada - Cheap Thoughts

Practically every major release out in theatres right now just upsets me. Hobbs & Shaw is a sloppy remake of Tango & Cash with the ego-driven, insecure masculine, lazy storytelling included. Disney’s latest in a long line of conveyor belt remakes The Lion King is quite possibly the most depressed a film has made me in a long time. I don’t want to talk about these films, especially seeing as my last post was negatively criticising a franchise I don’t want to be negative about. There’s nothing positive to say about the current state of blockbusters, so instead we’re going to talk about The Devil Wears Prada because I rewatched it recently and this movie is really fucking good and I want to ramble on something positive again.

For those of you who have not seen it, The Devil Wears Prada is a 2006 film that follows Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) an aspiring journalist who gets a job at the fashion magazine Runway, as an assistant for the editor-in-chief Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep). Though she has no interest in fashion and Miranda is considered one of the most difficult to please bosses imaginable, through hard work and dedication Andy is told working a year for Miranda could guarantee her a job anywhere in the industry.

Now, Lessons From The Screenplay already did a fantastic video discussing the opening of the film and how strong it is at establishing characters, motivation, goals & obstacles in such a tight and fast pace that I’ll just link to that here so you can learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WgzNFEu61o&t=505s

However, I would say that type of polished storytelling is present throughout the whole film, not just the opening. There is nothing overly complicated about the film’s structure, it’s just simply Andy has to be good at her job and she’ll achieve her goal, however while convention would dictate that Miranda is an obstacle for Andy to overcome or escape from, she is in fact the very person who moves Andy towards her goal harder than anyone. Andy’s disinterest in fashion is her main character flaw, she’s uninformed and disrespectful to those who do take it so seriously that she mocks her fellow employees as if they’re being silly about caring about the minute details of their job and their passion. It’s Miranda herself that schools her on the history of the fashion industry and even Andy’s style itself, how she’s not exempt from this world and it is far from beneath her. It’s the best scene of the film because it achieves so much. Up until this point Miranda has been seen as cold-hearted and demanding but this is where we as the audience as well as our protagonist see just how smart she is and that she’s the boss for a reason, she’s the best because she demands the best. Likewise both us and Andy are informed on the fashion industry and why they take it so seriously and why we should take it so seriously, the film assumes we-like Andy-don’t have inside knowledge on why this matters and here we get to see why it’s important, or at least why it’s important to them.

Andy’s arc is not to escape the fashion industry or Miranda, but to understand them. By the end of the first act there is a scene of Andy complaining to her co-worker Nigel (Stanley Tucci) about how unfair Miranda is, and rather than him telling her she has to fight back, he basically says “Grow up!”. This is the real world and you can’t act like you’d get your dream job right out the gate, you have to earn it and work hard, you also can’t behave like this work is beneath you or else you’ll never do your job right. It’s honestly a very sobering scene that feels much too rare to say to your protagonist that everything they expect and want is wrong and they should seriously rethink their perspective, or at least, it is in the first act.

This also leads into why many fans of this film view the true antagonist of the film as Andy’s friends and to them I say: You are absolutely right. Andy’s friends are in fact the ones holding her back and encourage her negative behaviour. They steal her work phone when she has a call from her boss and get mad at her when she doesn’t show up to a birthday party because she got held up at work. In what world is missing a birthday because of a work related event not a valid excuse? They later on criticise her for taking an interest in fashion and claim “You’ve changed! You used to make fun of people like this!” so they’re basically criticising her for taking an interest in her job and working hard at it? This is Ross Geller levels of petty. Of course they’re matched by Christian, a fellow writer who is also an incredibly intrusive, obnoxious and controlling asshole that does not get called out on at any point for how much of a creep he is.

There are times in the film where Miranda is overly demanding, manipulative or downright cold but she is not an antagonist. She’s shown to have quite a rocky homelife and it is mentioned several times how difficult it was for her to get into the position of power she’s in, how if she were a man she’d be seen as confident, powerful and inspiring. If everything isn’t perfect then it’s Miranda who looks bad, she can’t risk the slip ups and in the end her demanding nature is what in fact makes Andy such a hard working and respectful employee that leads to her achieving her goal by the end. On top of that, this has to be considered one of the best performances in Streep’s career, she carries the role with such nuance that you believe how much power and control this woman has without ever having to behave over the top, she never shouts, looks angry and rarely says anything insulting, most of her striking power comes just from a look. There are moments of fragility and moments of comedy, though there are no big ‘cry for the Oscar’ moments there is so much care put into portraying this character that I would put this up there with any of her other big roles.

That’s not to ignore the stellar supporting cast, specifically Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci who offer fantastic performances as Andy’s co-workers. Blunt representing everything Andy worries she could be if she gets drawn into this world too much, but also someone rather admirable for how much work she puts into presenting herself. Then there’s Tucci who is easily the funniest character in the film and acts as the voice of reason, being the only person who isn’t scared of Miranda and simply because like her-he knows how good he is, he knows he earnt his spot, and he knows Miranda isn’t someone to be feared, but respected.

The Devil Wears Prada is an incredibly joyous experience to watch, it’s funny, its characters are charming and it’s simple enough to make it an easy viewing. It’s also a film with an incredibly refined script, subtle detail in its performances, and is a film with a lot of passion put into it. It’s a wonderful film that everyone can enjoy, and no matter how depressing the film industry can feel at somepoint, we’ll always have gems like this to look back on and appreciate.

-Danny

I Guess I Can Talk About Far From Home

I don’t enjoy disliking Spider-Man films. Spider-Man: Homecoming is the first Spider-Man film I can say I don’t like and nobody benefits from that, people don’t want to hear negative opinions on a film they love and I don’t want to have negative opinions. Far From Home looked like it was going to be the exact same, the marketing for the film made it look like more of the same mess of the first one-though to be fair Sony are infamously terrible at marketing their movies-and I expected the film to be a disappointment, but I really wished I would be proven wrong.

Perhaps it was that exact desire that made my watch of the film so complicated, and even as I’m writing this I can’t fully decide on my opinion. The film was still full of the half-thought out character arcs, bland humour, uninspired action and over abundance of passable CG as the first one, but the fact that I accepted that would be there almost numbed me to the experience. Then every time the film actually did do something to impress me, with more dynamic directing, a great villain and…some kind of an arc (We’ll get to that)? I left overall positive. Unfortunately as time passes the positives and negatives are getting more jumbled so hopefully by the end of this piece I can come to a more definitive conclusion.

Naturally the place to start is with Spider-Man himself. Tom Holland as an actor I’ve never had any problem with, and his portrayal of Peter Parker is perfectly acceptable, any and all problems I’ve had with his version comes solely down to the writing. Peter’s arc in this film unfolds across several layers, coming to terms with the death of Tony Stark, trying to fill his shoes while also become his own hero. Right off the bat the issue of Peter needing to become his own hero was one already addressed in Homecoming but it wasn’t done very well there and the movie still ended with him as Iron Man Jr so I see why they wanted to redo it…Too bad it’s still done poorly. Peter can’t be the next Iron Man, it’s not a role he’s meant to fill and he’s filled with insecurities that he’s not good enough and constantly makes mistakes. It’s not until Happy informs him that Tony was fallible and also made mistakes that Peter stops putting him on a pedestal, but also they were systematically two different people who represent different things, and he needs to stop trying to be the next Iron Man and just be Spider-Man. This then however is completely cancelled out by Peter then putting together a brand new suit by using Stark tech, with AC/DC blasting in the background and Happy looking on proud of the similarities. Goddammit, how do you make the same mistake twice!? In Homecoming he learns not to rely on Tony’s tech to become Spider-Man yet at the end of that film he’s given back the suit Tony made for him. In Far From Home he learns to stop trying to be like Iron Man but then in the very same scene you have him put together a new suit in the style of Iron Man!

Even the journey on this arc is paved with missteps. Peter is a flawed person, he makes mistakes and feels this means he can’t live up to Iron Man’s legacy, and also he wants to avoid his responsibility so he can enjoy his trip and be a normal teenager, so when Mysterio comes along and presents himself as the ideal superhero, it’s understandable Peter would want to pass on the responsibility to him. However that does not mean Peter giving up Tony’s parting gift and control over valuable Stark tech to someone he’s known for only a few days is a reasonable step! This may in fact be the dumbest move I’ve ever seen Spider-Man do across all of his movies, he’s not only trusting valuable equipment to someone he barely knows, but is giving up something of sentimental value from a lost role model of his.

The consequences of Peter’s mistakes wouldn’t happen if someone with common sense were in this position. This problem comes back up again when Peter’s identity is revealed to the whole world, which would be a shocking development if it wasn’t for the fact this Peter Parker puts almost no effort into protecting his identity. He takes his mask off in rooms filled with people, again sharing his identity with Mysterio, someone he barely knows, and even at one point is sat in a public bar with his mask off! It’s not a shocking twist that his identity becomes public knowledge when he puts no effort into protecting it. While we’re on the topic, didn’t Peter say in Homecoming that if Aunt May found out about his identity she’d freak out, and yet in this film she is perfectly fine and even encouraging of Peter’s outings? Does she not care that he endangers his life every day? Does she even know her nephew was killed off world in the snap? The end of Homecoming implied she was shocked to discover it, yet here she is completely in support of him, did she have an arc entirely off-screen? Or did she not care from the get go?

This movie is filled with not well thought out implications and people not really reacting to major events that happen surrounding the story, sometimes very big ones like…half the universe disappearing and then reappearing five years later. It’s mostly passed off as a joke and this film thinks that cancels out the need to deal with the repercussions of what that world would deal with, but instead they decide to be lazy about it and everyone is acting like nothing happened and the world keeps on spinning like normal. Even all of Peter’s supporting characters magically got snapped and unsnapped together so the dynamics don’t have to change at all. What a lucky coincidence!

Let’s finally move on to the big talking point about the film, Mysterio, played by Jake Gyllenhaal has received wide spread acclaim as being one of the best-if not the best aspect of the film and I’m inclined to agree. For starters the fact that they were able to make a comic accurate suit look pretty cool in live action is an achievement in itself. Mysterio is also responsible for the best scenes in the film where he uses his illusions to psychologically torture Spider-Man by showing him visions of all of his insecurities and fears. It’s by far the most creative scene in the film with clever visuals and ties into Peter’s arc as one of the few strong scenes that properly analyses him as a character. It even then has a further pay off when Mysterio tries the technique again but Peter is able to see through his tricks this time, even if they have to undercut every serious moment with a joke (Peter Tingle? Really?).

That being said, this is like the sixth Marvel antagonist whose origin is ‘Tony Stark dicked me over’? Two of those times being in Spider-Man films. I would really like it if Spider-Man’s villains actually had something to do with Spider-Man and he would stop being overshadowed by Tony Stark, because despite his death he somehow feels like the main driving character behind this entire film. Also the scene where Mysterio’s origin is explained is some of the weakest writing the film has to over, with a dump truck worth of exposition not even trying to be weaved in like natural dialogue.

The ‘Full Mysterio’ scene as I like to call it isn’t the only example of the film having a more creative direction, the entire film has more flare as a whole. Homecoming often felt stagnant with basic shots and minimal camera movement to give you any sense of weight or style. Far From Home tries to experiment more with its camerawork, tries to have more energy during the fight scenes and it makes them all the more entertaining. It’s still nowhere near as good as what other Spider-Man films are able to do, but it’s still a step in the right direction (Puns!) so it’s only fair to comment on it.

I think this little piece has finally helped me come to a conclusion. Spider-Man: Far From Home is a superior film to Homecoming, it has better direction, a stronger attempt at an arc and moments of actual creativity. However I still have to come down and say I don’t like it. The story isn’t fleshed out enough, the arcs are stronger but still not good and send conflicting messages. The script feels underdeveloped and rushed, I have to put it down as a bad Spider-Man movie. It doesn’t sting as much as Homecoming did, not just because it’s an improvement but because of adaptations like Into The Spider-Verse or the PS4 Spider-Man game that I’m satisfied with great adaptations of Spider-Man as a character that if the MCU Spider-Man never impresses me then as much as that sucks, it’s not the end of the world for me.

-Danny

Dragon Ball Super - Broly (2019) - Protagonist vs Antagonist

Despite my love of Dragon Ball, it's a series I've never been soft in criticising, particularly in its protagonist Son Goku. If anything I find indulging in his and the series' flaws to be something of an enjoyable passtime. In truth I don't give Dragon Ball enough credit where it's due in both its influence on me and my favourite stories. Dragon Ball is an incredibly flawed franchise, its films even more so, to the point where I would suggest out of the 21 films produced so far, only 2 could be qualified as good, Dragon Ball Super - Broly being one of them. That being said, the main praise I see for this film is that it is a visual marvel, which it absolutely is, practically 2/3 of the film is fight scenes and they are masterfully crafted-Apart from the CGI but we can forgive that-it is to no rival the best fight scenes in Dragon Ball history. Where the film deserves far more praise however is with its characterisation.

Dragon Ball Super - Broly as suggested by the name, features Broly-a longtime popular film antagonist-in his first canonical appearance in the franchise. Broly as a character became a hit with the fans through design alone. I hold that there is no hyperbole there, he has a terrible backstory, zero personality and exists just as one giant muscle with a cool haircut. I doubt any fan would question that, his films go from 'meh' to 'terrible' but goddamn he looks good. This being the first film featuring Broly to be written by series creator Akira Toriyama holds true to the initial origin of Broly while also reinterpreting  him to be......Good.

The best thing this film does with Broly is turn his initial perception into his new origin, just a big walking muscle controlled by his father to fight Goku because of reasons. The film takes that view of him and has the characters Cheelai & Lemo (Who btw definitely need to become series regulars) and they try to bring more to the character, to try and give him his own goals and home outside of this mindless fighting machine. He of course does still fight Goku but Goku himself acknowledges his hatred and desire to fight him doesn't come from a believable place. There is no logical reason for Broly and Goku to be enemies, though there are many layers to the manipulation, this is all the reasoning Goku needs. Broly is not his enemy, they have no reason to fight outside of the fact they are really strong. This in turn connects to the best elements of Goku as a character. Goku loves fighting, his main goal in life is to always get stronger, always find the next big fighter to fight, its why he has let so many of his greatest enemies live, because why would he waste such power when he could fight them again and get even better?

Logically speaking this makes for a terrible character, letting such big threats survive and really every time it's worked out so far is just because these antagonists end up creating strong relationships with secondary characters, Piccolo with Gohan, Vegeta with Bulma, Majin Buu with Mr Satan, etc. Broly however is the first one where it is entirely Goku's connection with him that redeems him. Broly is relatively neutral as a character, he is just manipulated by his father or by Frieza into causing so much destruction. Goku's desire to fight strong opponents is matched by his belief in free will, recognising Broly is not fighting for his own needs, it becomes a battle not to get stronger, but to free Broly from those who control him. It's why the film ending with Goku letting Broly live and promising a rematch someday is arguably the most well deserved antagonist redemption in Dragon Ball history, it is an antagonist that is perfectly understood and saved by Goku alone and frankly is the best story to involve the character since probably the original Dragon Ball series, before even Z came along and relied on a fantastic supporting cast to pick up the mess that Goku constantly left behind, but not this.

Dragon Ball Super - Broly has a lot going for it in terms of calling in the best Dragon Ball film, considering it has the best representation of the series protagonist and the best fight scenes in an action oriented series, it's understandable why people would give it such high praise. While calling it the best Dragon Ball film is something I'm not sure I can decide as Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods still holds a special place in my heart as the perfect highlight of the series best elements while adding new qualities and promises of adventures that I'm not sure can be overtook, what I can say is this film provided the best representation of Goku in literally 30 years, as well as recreating the iconic villain of the franchise into someone with depth and purpose, as well as the best animation in the franchise's history, it really is a tough call. I'm never going to argue against quality Dragon Ball, and if nothing else, this film has made me want to talk more and more about the good stuff of the franchise because frankly, I've spent too long mocking it for the bad when it deserves so much more.

-Danny

So These Things Exist in Pokemon Detective Pikachu (2019)?

The best aspect of Pokémon and what makes it such a unique and interesting franchise is the world building, after all, a world that has super powered animals scattered across the globe along with proof of aliens, gods and the afterlife would certainly create a rather unique living experience. It is also why a lot of people’s “problems” with the Pokémon world can be explained away through the fact their world functions differently from ours on a societal and biological aspect. People arguing that Pokémon fighting each other is akin to dog fighting or animal cruelty when it is in fact the literal action of evolution in their world, along with the fact Pokémon aren’t enslaved animals as it’s shown they have to give their consent to be put in Pokeballs. Detective Pikachu continues this trend, it’s development of Ryme City and the world around it helps further develop a believable and distinct world that fits into the Pokémon universe while also creating something new in its own right.

That being said, many of the little details in the film also leads to a multitude of confusing implications that connotes a world that is similar to ours in ways that it…really shouldn’t be, or at the very least is a massive coincidence and leads to scenarios that I would like to see further discussed. For example, as it’s been noted by many people, Pikachu saying the line “Get me the Hell out of here!” suggests that a Hell exists, or at least the idea of hell and Christianity as a concept still occurred in the Pokémon world. Now introducing religion in general into this is a headache on its own, as Arceus-The POKÉMON GOD-is also referenced in the film so would the definitive proof of a god not in some way effect other religions? Then again, I suppose the film doesn’t show literal proof of Arceus, just the idea of him, but the film also makes subtle references to the original series and Arceus is canon there so he should be here right?

There are also several jokes made in the film that make me question things, such as Climate Change is apparently an issue facing the Pokémon world. How would that even work? Pokémon themselves are used as energy sources; do they not count as renewable energy? Or do Poison types apparently plague the eco-system that much it’s actively ruining the planet? Pikachu makes a Seinfeld reference at one point, what in god’s name does the Pokémon version of Seinfeld look like? What Pokémon would Kramer have? He feels like a Ludicolo kinda guy. Does Jerry have to put up with his girlfriend’s Lycanroc? Does George get into a fight with a Nidoking? Honestly, I would give my right arm for 9 seasons of whatever the hell this crossover would be.

Of course, none of this matters, they’re all just small observations to be made and funny connotations made from some throwaway jokes and…wait a minute. The fake movie Angels With Dirty Souls from Home Alone is featured in the movie but is treated as an actual noir film. Does Angels With Dirty Souls exist in the Pokémon universe? Is that a real movie!? You know what? If living in the Pokémon world wasn’t already appealing enough give me that movie and suddenly I’m in a better world than ours in every conceivable way…except for the Climate Change stuff, that’s a bummer.

-Danny