Da Couch Tomato

An attempt at a new layout, with horrible glitches, and very minimal knowledge of HTML.
"This franchise has nowhere to go but up!"

Hobbes and Shaw is the first spin-off of a franchise that ran relatively long (eight movies by my count), and by the looks of it, it might continue for a few more movies. That's because the filmmakers understood one very important piece of knowledge: human beings love action, fast cars, and hot women.

I'm guessing no one saw this coming, though. Who would've thought it would be relative franchise newcomers Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham that would take the wheel of the spin-offs? Everyone was thinking it would have been Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris in the spin-offs before The Rock and Statham came along. And Gibson hasn't been secretive about is displeasure with the direction the producers were taking.

You know what I think? I think the reason the producers ditched Gibson and Ludacris for Johnson and Statham was chemistry. Sure, Gibson and Ludacris had chemistry, but it was more because they had shared status as the franchise's comic relief. But Hobbes and Shaw is a different combination altogether: they're an action duo, they can fight, and they are also a natural comic duo. That's like a three-for-the-price-of-one promo. Their rivalry is evident, but their chemistry is undeniable.

Anyway, let's go to Idris Elba. Black Superman? Of course he is. I'm just not sure why no one even claimed that title before. Maybe no one dared use it? I don't know. If anyone was going to be called Black Superman, you'd think he'd come from the world of sports, like an athlete or something. But Elba shows us his athleticism in this film, and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually did most, if not all, of his stunts for this movie.

"I still have a full head of hair, motherfuckers!"

As far as action heroines go, Vanessa Kirby is fast becoming my favourite. You wouldn't have thought that from seeing her in The Crown, but after Mission: Impossible – Fallout, I think she showed the world that she can go toe-to-toe with her male co-stars in giving a good onscreen ass-whooping.

But even without Vanessa Kirby, or even without any female lead for that matter, audiences will still flock to see this flick because of the car chase sequences. This is, after all, still part of the Fast & Furious franchise, and this film becomes nothing without the fast cars. The chase sequences will leave you on the edge of your seat with all the adrenaline, and the stunt driving is so good that there definitely has to be some CGI in there somewhere. If there isn't, God bless you, stunt drivers. The world is definitely a better place with you.

Finally, for the first time in the franchise, we get to see Samoa. Personally, I think taking the Fast & Furious franchise to off-road locations wouldn't work in the long run. Not that it's not practical, it's just that stunt driving looks absolutely breathtaking when the cars weave in and out of traffic, and you can't really do that driving in the jungle. So beautiful as it is, I hope the producers don't come back to Samoa. I mean, if they want to go back there, at least let them do shoot the chase sequences in downtown Apia. That's Samoa's capital, for those too lazy to Google.

"Is that Idris Elba getting his own spin-off?"



Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbes and Shaw. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 7.4/10
Vanessa Kirby's hotness: +0.1
Helen Mirren: +0.1
Kevin Hart: +0.1
Ryan Reynolds: 0.1
Roman Reigns: +0.05
Samoa looking like Mindanao: +0.05
Final rating: 7.9/10
"Akala ko game ka talaga magpakalbo."

All in all, a commendable effort from Michael V. That's commendable, not laudable. There's a difference.

The story of Family History is pretty solid: a married couple going through a crisis, reminiscing about the good old days. The screenplay, however, needs improvement. Yes, the story isn't the screenplay; again, there's a difference.

Early in the movie, there was a sequence which focused on Alex (Michael V), which was supposed to be the turn of events from his point of view. The next sequence was then more or less the same, with slight variations, because this time it is told from his wife May (Dawn Zulueta)'s point of view. Personally, I would not have fallen into the trap of using this technique, which was reminiscent of Groundhog Day. This technique is best used with multiple characters, and the timeline is short enough to be repeated. That said, using the technique in just a part of the movie, with just a few characters, does not work.

The acting was all right, especially Michael V's performance, which was the strongest performance in the entire film. Dawn Zulueta, sadly, delivered her lines in the sing-song manner typical of movie stars. Paolo Contis was all right, but then you realise that most of his roles are practically the same, so that's not really an achievement, while Kakai Velasquez was terrific as the film's comic relief. The best performance, in my opinion, was Nonie Buencamino, but unfortunately, his screen time was limited due to his supporting role.

The cinematography was all right, except for just one tiny mistake. In the bar scene, where Michael V, Contis, and Buencamino were discussing their problems over drinks, the overhead light was so strong that you could see it penetrating Nonie Buencamino's ears. Human ears, for those who don't know, are not opaque; they are slightly transluscent. That means if you shine a light bright enough behind someone's ears, the light will shine through. And that's what happened in this scene. The back light was so strong it turned Buencamino's ears pink. It was distracting.

Given that this is Michael V's first, I'll let some things slide. He could have added more of those animation sequences, like way more, given that Alex was an animator, after all. My main problem with his directing was that he treated the sequences like sketches from Bubble Gang. Yes, having some comedic moments can diffuse the tension in a heavy drama, but not to the point that the jokes upstage the narrative.

All in all, a commendable work, and I was entertained enough to give the director another chance with his next film.

"Ayaw mo mag-podcast nalang, Bitoy?"




Family History. Philippines. 2019.



Original rating:
Dawn Zulueta's hotness: +0.1
Eugene Domingo: +0.1
Final rating: 6.9/10
"Mama just killed a man... Oh wait."

The entire premise of the film is pretty straightforward: What would happen if you woke up one day and found that the Beatles never existed? I'm not just talking about the Beatles as a band; I'm also talking about their entire catalogue of songs. What's a world like without Beatles songs?

Frankly, as a writer myself, I was concerned about how the filmmakers intended to sustain this premise. I was pretty sure they wouldn't take the easy way out by having Jack Malik (Himesh Patel) wake up in the end to find out it was all a dream. That's downright lazy screenwriting, and although I didn't know that much about Richard Curtis (who penned the screenplay), I knew Danny Boyle wasn't having any of that.

Anyway, since this is about the Fab Four, let's analyse this film with these four points.

1. The direction
It's Danny Boyle. That's it. Danny Boyle is one of the few directors I would watch in a heartbeat, even without knowing what the film would be about. "Oh, it's Danny Boyle? Here, take my money." Boyle is a master of editing and pacing. The montage sequences have the feel of a music video – very dynamic and fast-paced, reminiscent of the late Tony Scott, another favourite director of mine.

2. The story
You'd think the filmmakers would've focused on just the disappearance of the Beatles songs, but they didn't. To make it more realistic, other things in that universe disappeared as well: the band Oasis (plus their entire catalogue), the beverage Coca-Cola, the entire Harry Potter franchise, and cigarettes. That's because the focus of the story isn't actually the disappearance of the Beatles. It's actually the love story between Malik and his long-time manager Ellie (Lily James). So the Beatles thing was more a set-up that would've seemed like a gimmick, were it not for Curtis's screenplay.

"I dare you to do a stage dive into that sea of extras."

3. The performances
Himesh Patel is a natural, both musically and acting-wise. Also, the fact that he isn't white brings a whole new level of realism to the movie, and the fact that he isn't an onscreen pretty boy helps in emphasising his relatability to regular folk like us.

Lily James is adorable. That's all I can say. Kate McKinnon, on the other hand, was awesome. She captured the money-hungry mentality prevalent in showbusiness, with her deadpan delivery reminiscent of Saturday Night Live sketches.

The most memorable performance would have to be Ed Sheeran. He plays a douchebag version of himself, which is totally believable, though I'm not really sure if he's a douche in real life.

4. The music
The songs, of course, comprise an almost all-Beatle repertoire because, obviously, this is a film about the Beatles. Well, not really about them, but you get what I'm saying. I thought the filmmakers missed an opportunity to perform Oasis songs as well, but on the other hand, Oasis is like a Beatles spin-off anyway. Just kidding, I like Oasis. Okay, let's change that to "Beatles-inspired". Happy?

Anyway, Ed Sheeran plays a new song in the scene where he challenges Jack Malik to an on-the-spot songwriting contest. It's a wonderful song, but those who tried searching for that song might be disappointed, because as of this writing, it hasn't been released yet. I'm not sure if that particular song was the same one played in the end credits, but Richard Curtis reveals that song to be "One Life".


So how did this movie end? Was it all a dream? No, it wasn't. It really happened in the film's universe, the Beatles songs disappearing. They kept that up all the way to the end. So in a sense, this is like science fiction, as this would be an alternate timeline.

But how did this all begin, anyway? What caused this alternate timeline shift to a world without the Beatles? The answer: a glitch in the Matrix. That's all it is. So that makes this definitely science fiction. I think.

"I'm sorry, but you're not famous enough to be on my Carpool Karaoke."



Yesterday. UK/Russia/China. 2019.



Original rating: 8.1/10
Game of Thrones's Joel Fry as Rocky: +0.1
Robert Carlyle as John Lennon: +0.1
Ed Sheeran's new song: +0.1
Danny Boyle's transitions: +0.1
Richard Curtis's writing: +0.1
Final rating: 8.6/10
"Is this John, Paul, George, or Ringo?"

Before we begin, I'd just like to say that I don't really like comparing a remake with the original version, as I'd like to judge the remake on its own merits. That said, I would like to make an exception with this film, as comparisons between the original and the remake cannot be avoided.

1. The "Circle of Life" intro was spectacular. It's an almost shot-for-shot recreation of the 1994 animated version, bringing the photorealistic animals to the forefront along with the music. The filmmakers retained the original opening chant by Lebo M, but replaced the original vocals of Carmen Twillie with Lindiwe Mkhize. And if you loved the Zulu chanting, you can thank Hans Zimmer for that. That was all his idea. (If you listen closely, you can even hear the Zulu tongue click.)

2. Speaking of Hans Zimmer, that man is a genius. His name may be very familiar to moviegoers everywhere, but what you probably didn't know is that despite his decades in the business, he only has one Academy Award, and that was in 1994 for Best Original Score for The Lion King. But does he really need another Oscar to cement his status in Hollywood? No, he doesn't. He is a wonderful musician, despite not having any formal musical training, and he will continue to be one of my all-time favourite film composers.

3. The only dynamic in this movie that truly works is the one between Timon and Pumbaa. That's because Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen recorded most, if not all, of their lines together, and their chemistry is just so natural that children watching this wouldn't doubt that a meerkat and a warthog could be friends in real life.

4. By comparison, Donald Glover was perfect as the adult Simba, while Beyoncé Knowles-Carter was perfect as the adult Nala. But that's individually. Together, there's something a bit off. Their dynamic just doesn't work well as a duo, and I'd chalk that up to faulty chemistry.

5. Chiwetel Ejiofor, meanwhile, is brilliant as Scar. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that Chiwetel Ejiofor is this film's strongest asset. His Scar performance was subtle and nuanced enough to bring it up to the same level as Jeremy Irons's excellent performance in the animated version. The only downside, I guess, is that Ejiofor's rendition of "Be Prepared" dwelled more in spoken word territory than actual singing, but that doesn't really matter. Lions can't really sing, anyway.

Ladies and gentlemen, the real star of the show.

6. The good thing about Disney's catalogue is that it is so extensive, you can make pop culture references in any Disney film and not worry about trademark infringement. Here in this film, Pumbaa and Timon made a Beauty and the Beast reference, specifically Lumiere's intro to "Be Our Guest" in Beauty and the Beast. Of course, that's one Disney film referencing another Disney film, but think of the possibilities: A Disney film can reference something from Pixar, Marvel, or Star Wars, because these are also owned by Disney.

7. Photorealistic animals are creepy when they talk. That's of course because of the way their mouths are. I think the only animal that could pull off human speech would be the great apes, which is why Planet of the Apes works so well. That's because heir mouths are similar to humans, specifically their lips, tongue, and teeth – three elements that affect speech. Director Jon Favreau could have gone with altered photorealism instead, similar to The Jungle Book or The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, instead of going for a BBC nature documentary look.

8. One of the nice things about this remake is the updated anti-shaming lesson given by Pumbaa. In the original film, Pumbaa goes on a tirade after the hyenas call him "Mr. Pig". Here, Seth Rogen expands on his admonition by stating that what the hyenas are doing is actually considered body-shaming, and he calls them out on it. Nice move by the writers, since body-shaming has been identified as one of the biggest social problems in the Instagram age.

9. "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" is an old song, like really old. The original song was recorded in 1939, but the version most of us are familiar with, the one by The Tokens, was released in 1961. I first encountered this song watching a short-lived children's afternoon show called Going Bananas in the 80s, and I've loved the song ever since. The original 1994 animated film had Timon and Pumbaa singing a few lines, but in the 2019 version, they went all out and sang more than half of the song.

10. Rafiki is a shaman. I just realised that now, of course. When I was a kid, the only shaman I knew was a character in the animated series Bravestarr. I became interested in shamanism and sorcery in college, and by then my Lion King days were behind me. It was only after watching this 2019 remake that I realised Rafiki is in fact the most powerful animal in the Pride Lands.

11. John Oliver wasn't as good as Rowan Atkinson as the voice of the hornbill Zazu. It's kind of obvious that he was going for an Atkinson-like performance, but he came off as a sort of poor imitation. Kids who haven't seen the old version might see no problem with Oliver's performance, but the real question is this: How could those parents allow their kids to go through life without having seen the original Lion King?

This shot is so iconic that it's enough to give 90s kids goosebumps.



The Lion King. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 8.5/10
No lion sex: -0.1
Final rating: 8.4/10
Bromance mode: on.

1. My god, Zendaya is so beautiful. I mean, Laura Harrier was hot, but Zendaya's beauty is on a whole other level.

2. Not many superhero movies focus on love stories. Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a superhero/detective movie, or to quote my review from 2014, "it's a thriller mystery that just happens to be set in the Marvel Universe". Spider-Man: Far From Home in my opinion is a great teenage love story that just happens to be set in the MCU. You know it's a great love story if it makes you feel giddy as a schoolboy again.

3. Okay, with Mysterio using state-of-the-art holograms, I guess that makes him the MCU super villain that's hardest to beat. His power is similar to the X-Men villain Mastermind, except Mysterio uses technology and not mutant powers. Since Mysterio messes up one's sense of sight and sound (his illusions are visual and auditory in nature), I guess the heroes that stand a chance of easily defeating him would be Wolverine (he can sniff him out) and Daredevil, I guess. So yay for Spidey and his Peter Tingle!

4. The scene with Peter Parker swinging through the streets and canals of Venice is one of the most visually spectacular scenes in the film. I guess we've gotten so used to the costumed Spider-Man doing the webslinging, so seeing a human form do those aerial acrobatics is indeed a sight to behold. Plus, it doesn't look as fake as, say, the special effects ten years ago.

5. Ah, Marisa Tomei. She remains sexy as ever. She's an Oscar winner, by the way, did you know that? Well, that's probably slipped your mind, but it doesn't matter. She isn't in this movie to flex her acting muscles, anyway.

6. Aunt May dating Happy Hogan is hilarious. Happy has always been this arrogant adult around the web-slinging teenager, although he still acts quite smug about his romantic intrusion into the Parker household. Peter Parker not whooping Happy's ass just goes to show how well May and Ben raised their nephew. I'd have given Happy a hard time if I were in Peter's place.

7. Okay, why does Peter get to call his aunt by her first name? Maybe it's an American thing, but that's kind of a no-no in Philippine culture. So what if it was his late Uncle Ben that was his biological relative? May Parker is still his aunt by marriage, and as such deserves to be called by something that connotes respect.

7. Wow. J. Jonah Jameson is still played by J.K. Simmons. In Hollywood, when one says "reboot", the entire cast and creative team is scrapped in favour of new players. Tom Holland is the third screen iteration of Spider-Man, and his version is the second reboot. J. Jonah Jameson appeared in the first iteration with Tobey Maguire, was absent in the Andrew Garfield reboot, and then reappears in this film in the end credits scene. The only reason I can think of why Marvel decided to stick with J.K. Simmons is because that man IS J. Jonah Jameson. Although I'm sure a bit of casting effort can give the audience a new J. Jonah Jameson, everybody knows J.K. Simmons was born to play the part.

8. In relation to the above, I would argue that J.K. Simmons isn't the first Marvel character to play the same role in a franchise reboot. That belongs to William Hurt, who played General Ross in the Edward Norton iteration of The Incredible Hulk, and also played the same character in Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Endgame. Except the last two weren't really Hulk movies, so yeah. It's complicated.

8. Martin Starr is an awesome. I only know him as Gilfoyle from HBO's Silicon Valley, but I can tell how good an actor he is, because his entire character is different. Gilfoyle is a lazy, arrogant Satanist with a deep voice, while as Mr. Harrington, he is a believable high school teacher managing day-to-day school stress.

9. The black and red Spidey costume is actually pretty cool. The Spidey costume I was used to was the old red and blue suit, the blue of which could range anywhere from RGB blue to dark navy blue. Seeing red and black on this iteration of Spider-Man was a welcome surprise indeed. The one in Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse doesn't count, beause that one's dominantly black with red highlights.

10. What's up with Nick Fury? So was he a shape-shifting Skrull all along? How long has this been going on? Also, why the twist? I know this is the end of Marvel s Phase 3, but what does that mean for Phase 4 if Nick Fury wasn't who we thought he was all along? Ugh, so many unanswered questions.

"Slow down, I need to be nearer the camera. Because you're taller than me."



Spider-Man: Far From Home. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 8.6/10
No Zendaya nudity: -0.1
No Marisa Tomei nudity: -0.1
Jake Gyllenhaal: +0.1
Samuel L. Jackson: +0.1
Jon Watts's directing: +0.1
Final rating: 8.5/10
"Freddie Mercury's got nothing on me."

1. I came across Dexter Fletcher as an actor in HBO's Band of Brothers and Guy Ritchie's Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. That's why it came as a pleasant surprise that he can actually direct. I don't know why, but I have great respect for actors-turned-directors. It shows a seriousness to the craft, and a love of the art form. He actually took over the director's chair in last year's Bohemian Rhapsody after some production problems forced the studio to fire Bryan Singer, although Singer retained sole directing credit. Rocketman gives Fletcher full credit, and the director totally deserves it.

2. Taron Egerton is one underrated actor. This has already been pretty evident from 2015's Eddie the Eagle. He's not the typical Hollywood pretty boy (maybe because he's Brit), and he doesn't have the standard multi-ethnic American look (also maybe because he's Brit). It's not his looks, though, that needs to be utilised. It's his acting chops.

3. Speaking of underrated actors, so is Jamie Bell. He's very low-key in almost every movie he's in, able to blend into his role, and not standing out as one of those "Hey, I know that guy, he looks familiar" kind of actors. I think both Taron and Jamie Bell are underrated because they are not boxed into specific molds. They aren't chiseled action stars, or boys-next-door, or leading man types: they're versatile. That said, Jamie Bell played Bernie Taupin marvelously because, as in real life, Taupin never upstaged Elton John, but contentedly remained behind the scenes.

4. Admittedly, I am not a huge Elton fan. I do know a lot of his songs, though, and I can sing some of them from memory. That's how popular he was. Apparently, his discography goes way deeper than the usual karaoke staples, and Rocketman introduces most viewers to a body of work any musician would aspire for. For those experiencing Elton John for the very first time, this film acts as a pretty comprehensive introduction to the man and his music.

5. Magical realism is a technique or style in fiction that "uses magical elements to make a point about reality". It is used more in literature, popularised by the literary giants of Latin America, but it is also used in cinema, although not as many films have pulled it off correctly (the ones of note are the French film Amelie from 2001 and Tim Burton's Big Fish from 2003). The correct way to utilise magical realism is by using the technique sparingly: make the established reality appear solidly real enough, with the magical elements acting merely like sprinkles on the ice cream of reality. Dexter Fletcher's decision to use magical realism to tell Elton John's life story has been one of the best decisions in the making of this film.

"Are you supposed to be a bird of paradise or something?"
"Nope. A sarimanok."

6. Hairspray is a musical. Les Misérables is a musical. Ray is a biopic. Bohemian Rhapsody – if you'll agree that it's about Freddie Mercury and not Queen – is a biopic. Rocketman, however, straddles both worlds: Rocketman is a musical biopic. A biopic is a feature film about a certain person, which makes it biographical in nature, and is usually told as straight-up storytelling. A musical, on the other hand, uses song and dance in lieu of the usual dialogue exchange (it can be for some scenes, or it can be for all scenes). Rocketman does both: it tells the story of Elton John, and it uses song and dance to tell that story. Song and dance numbers in musical biopics are not merely incidental to the story; they are an integral part of the story.

7. Richard Madden's hair is annoying. I guess I got so used to him as Robb Stark that even the sight of him without facial hair is annoying. But it's not just his facial hair (or actually the lack thereof) that bugs me. It's his sleazeball hairdo, combed to the side and long at the back, like some douchebag from Elizabethan times. It's very cringe-worthy, in my opinion. Ugh.

8. If you've known Elton John in his early days, you'd know he was a flamboyant showman, given to loud and extravagant costumes. I wouldn't say they're 100% accurate, but I'd say they're pretty close. There's even a side-by-side comparison in the end credits, showing the real photographs beside the modern recreation, and you can see there are very small, very subtle differences in the wardrobe used. It's the spirit that matters, anyway, not the one-to-one correspondence down to the last sequin. Nobody really cares about that.

9. A musical is an audio-visual experience. The songs and music, those are the audio part. The visual part would be the dance and choreography. These visual elements work very well for Rocketman because of the gorgeous camera movements and the smooth transitions. I wouldn't be surprised if they adapted this into a theatre musical for Broadway or the West End.

10. It doesn't really matter if Taron Egerton can't play piano. In case you noticed it, there are no shots showing Taron's hands actually playing the piano. He probably knows how to play a little, but not enough to fake being a virtuoso like Elton. His performance is believable enough, and his acting as sincere as it can get, that no one really cares if he's actually playing piano or not.

"Just stay in the background, Madden, your hair sucks."



Rocketman. UK/USA/Canada. 2019.



Original rating: 8.4/10
Bryce Dallas Howard: +0.1
Stephen Graham: +0.2
Final rating: 8.7/10
Strangely, Duke Caboom looks a lot like Keanu Reeves.

I've said this over and over again: I am not a fan of sequels for profit's sake.

That said, Toy Story 4 should not have been made. Toy Story 3 would have been the perfect closer, as the entire Toy Story franchise would've focused on Andy and his relationship with his toys. We began with Andy as a young boy, and ended with Andy going off to college and passing on his toys to someone worthy of playing with these magical mischief-makers. Toy Story 3 was the perfect ending we all needed.

But that's that. Toy Story 4 did get made. So we're gonna have to deal with it.

The good thing about this fourth film is that it wasn't terrible. It wasn't bad at all. Well, it wasn't perfect, and neither was it great. It was just... good.

The rest of the cast, I believe, reprised their roles, led by Tom Hanks and Tim Allen as Woody and Buzz, Annie Potts as Bo Peep, Joan Cusack as Jessie, Wallace Shawn as the slightly neurotic Rex, John Ratzenberger as Hamm, and Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head. But the best thing about this ensemble would be the new additions. Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele of Key and Peele fame play the amusement park stuffed toys Ducky and Bunny, Christina Hendricks plays the creepy doll Gabby Gabby, Tony Hale plays Forky, while the Internet's boyfriend Keanu Reeves plays Duke Caboom, the Canadian daredevil with a penchant for motorbikes. If only a ten-movie deal were in order, these new guys definitely need to be back.

The thing that ties the whole four-film series together would be Randy Newman's music, which has Toy Story written all over it. Newman's country-like drawl set to the soothing sounds of acoustic steel guitars has been the series's signature sound since Toy Story's debut in 1995, and to deviate from that now would be alienating to the fans, especially those who didn't want a fourth movie in the first place.

All in all, Toy Story 4 feels like an epilogue. But not just your usual epilogue – it feels like an epilogue that forces its nostalgia on its viewers, sort of like having a completely wrapped trilogy and then going, "Hey, wait! We still have more little anecdotes to share! Don't leave!" Honestly, though, I hope this is the end of the series. New and original films are what's missing in Hollywood right now, and it seems that even the pre-movie Pixar short film, the last great venue of original animated storytelling, was taken out of the equation. Bring it back, please.

"Nah, I don't think we're getting our own spin-off."



Toy Story 4. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 8.0/10
Rashida Jones as one of the story writers: +0.1
Badass Bo Peep: +0.1
No Pixar short: -0.3
Final rating: 7.9/10
"If you're black and I'm white, does that make me Tommy Lee Jones?"

1. Tessa Thompson rocks. I'm not really sure if she's a lesbian in real life, but she is hot. She rocked Westworld, she rocked being an Asgardian, and she sure can hell rock a black suit as a Man Woman In Black.

2. God, I really hate Chris Hemsworth. The guy's so good-looking, he can actually pull off pink slacks. Pink! I mean, not hot pink, or the warm pink that borders on fuchsia. It's baby pink. And he can pull it off without a hitch. Don't you just hate someone like that? 

3. Although this is technically a spin-off, MIB: International manages to retain the look and feel of the original trilogy. Usually, a spin-off is granted a blank slate, which the filmmakers could have used to their advantage. This was seen in films such as The Force Awakens, which paid homage to the look and feel of the original Star Wars saga while at the same time venturing off to explore uncharted territory to expand the universe. MIB: International does just that, and shows a lot of potential in universe-expansion should it decide to continue the International spin-off as a new trilogy. 

4. The black dreadlocked twins remind me of the twins in The Matrix Reloaded. They're also both like the coolest characters in their respective movies. 

5. I love the MIB font. I forgot what the font is called, although it is mentioned at the end credits. I just forgot to take note of it. So I guess I'll have to wait for the video release to catch it again. There are a lot of imitation typefaces out there, but I want the original one.

6. Chris Hemsworth isn't carrying the whole film, which is nice. You'd think that being the one with top billing, he'd carry the whole film, and that the entire thing would collapse without him. Definitely not true. Tessa Thompson can definitely hold her own, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to do a sequel with just her and without Hemsworth.

7. The alien character designs for the first three films feel very unique, like they actually belong to the Men In Black cinematic universe and nowhere else. The character designs for this film, on the other hand, feel more like Star Wars, like they had J.J. Abrams's seal of approval or something. That's a good thing, don't get me wrong; I guess I just miss the uniqueness of the old aliens.

8. Chris Hemsworth's comedic chops are what will probably fuel his acting career long after his good looks have faded away. We could already see glimpses of this from Thor: Ragnarok, and even his female co-stars in Ghostbusters had nothing but praise for how funny he is. I guess it's unfair to the rest of the males on this planet that Chris Hemsworth gets all the good looks and humour.

9. I miss Tony Shalhoub. His Jeebs character in the previous films was one of my favourite characters in this series, and short as it is, every second of his screen time is priceless. He could have had his own spin-off, God bless him.

10. Rebecca Ferguson was underused. Yeah, granted she had weird hair and four arms, but still. Or was that three arms? Whatever. If you have someone as beautiful as Rebecca Ferguson in your movie, you should make the most of it. I wish they'd shown more of her face, though. But I guess she chose this role for a reason, and that is to show the world that she's more than just a beautiful face. She actually can take on the weird roles, too.

"Just try not to gain weight for the sequel."



Men In Black: International. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 8.0/10
No Rebecca Ferguson nudity: -0.1
No Tessa Thompson nudity: -0.1
Emma Thompson: +0.1
Liam Neeson as the bad guy: -0.1
F. Gary Gray's direction: +0.1
Dreadlocked twins: +0.1
Kumail Nanjiani: +0.1
Final rating: 8.1/10
Why do most mutants have blue skin, anyway?

I am probably one of the few Marvel fans that wish the X-Men franchise would wrap up.

The franchise can be divided into two periods: the first would be the Patrick Stewart-Ian McKellen era, the second would be the James McAvoy-Michael Fassbender era. The two eras overlap slightly in 2014's X-Men: Days of Future Past, which for me is also the best film in the whole franchise.

As a kid, I was a Marvel fan, but the X-Men comics were my favourite. I owned The Dark Phoenix Saga compilation (I didn't really own it; I borrowed it from a classmate and never returned it), and I've read it several times before the pages turned brittle and gave up on me. Now that was a great read. I remember how I used to spend hours in my bedroom reading it, occasionally shifting to my drawing book, inspired to try my hand at drawing my own comics.

Okay, enough about that. This isn't a post reminiscing about my childhood.

There is a lot of focus in this film on Charles Xavier's guilt about Jean Grey's childhood. Both of Jean's parents died in a car accident, which was actually her fault. Now imagine a childhood trauma that strong, coupled with an insanely powerful mutant ability. That is a recipe for disaster right there; no wonder Jean Grey turned out as the damaged mutant she is. If this film teaches us any valuable lessons regarding mental health, it is that repressing memories is never good. But that's probably easier said than done.

Mystique's death at the hands of Jean Grey came as a blow to most viewers, but that would of course be a preferable death compared to just some lame gunshot wound to the head or falling off a cliff. Jennifer Lawrence has been the Raven most fans would remember, but only because the original Mystique practically never appeared without make-up. As this is (most probably) the last we'll see of JLaw in this franchise, it's only appropriate that she be given a proper dramatic send-off.

What would have made the Dark Phoenix saga complete was the presence of Wolverine. The unlikely pairing of Jean Grey and Logan is a favourite among comic book fans, and it was referenced in the first X-Men films with Famke Janssen and Hugh Jackman. I don't think it would've worked with Sophie Turner, though, seeing as Jackman is way older than her, and that any romantic tension between both of them would come off as pedophilia.

And finally, let's talk about Hans Zimmer's wonderful score. There's a part in the film's score where you can hear a ticking clock sound, and I thought to myself, "That sounds like Hans Zimmer's Dunkirk score." Turns out I was right. Before this film, Zimmer has only scored DC movies, making this his first foray into Marvel territory. Hopefully this won't be his last.

Too bad we won't be seeing her in the MCU.



Dark Phoenix. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 7.5/10
No Sophie Turner nudity: -0.1
No Jessica Chastain nudity: -0.1
Tye Sheridan looking like he has a VR headset: -0.1
Not enough Nightcrawler: -0.1
Not enough Peter Maximoff: -0.1
Simon Kinberg writing and directing: +0.1
Final rating: 7.1/10
"We are NOT doing any sequels, all right?"

Since we all know that Disney's latest trend of remaking their entire catalogue of animated films isn't going away anytime soon, let's just accept it. After all, they wouldn't keep making more if we didn't keep watching them. So we are partly to blame for this.

One commendable thing about this film, though, is Disney's decision to avoid "whitewashing" by casting actors more ethnically suited to the story. Casting relatively unknown but culturally appropriate actors was a huge gamble, especially after receiving flak during the film's developmental stage for the earlier casting choices (Tom Hardy as Jafar, come on). I'm glad to see it paid off.

Anyway, let's go ahead and analyse Aladdin using three different criteria. 

FAITHFULNESS TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL
I am fairly certain that a huge chunk of this film's audience was alive when the 1992 animated film hit theatres, so the filmmakers needed to preserve the visual look to satisfy these paying customers. Mena Massoud is still cute enough for young girls to crush over, and Naomi Scott is still hot enough for young boys to masturbate to. Her outfit though isn't as revealing as the animated Princess Jasmine, but nobody seems to mind. Costumes here are more conservative, so no, there won't be any glimpse of Mena Massoud's abs.

The plot is basically the same, save for a few additions made. Some of the changes include the addition of new characters such as the Caucasian suitor Prince Anders (Billy Magnussen) and Princess Jasmine's handmaiden Dalia (Nasim Pedrad), the introduction of the genie and Dalia's love story, and a longer and more intense action sequence in the last part.

SPECIAL EFFECTS
Robin Williams' genie was an icon of the 1990s, so one of the challenges for a live-action remake would be preserving the genie's skin colour. I don't think this is particularly hard to pull off for Disney, especially after Guardians of the Galaxy showcased actors with blue and green skin. So I don't really understand the decision to go with a blue CGI Will Smith. Don't get me wrong, Will Smith's performance was all right, since he brought his own style to the performance without trying to be a Robin Williams copycat, and his best moments are those where he isn't blue.

Overall, the special effects could have been better. The CGI animals, namely the monkey Abu, the parrot Iago, and the tiger Rajah, were great. The flying carpet, too, was a welcome throwback to the animated carpet, but it looked good mainly on its own. However, the scenes showing Aladdin and Jasmine soaring, tumbling, and free-wheeling through an endless diamond sky looked kind of fake. The most magical scene in the entire film looked obviously green-screened.

THE MUSIC
The soundtrack was basically the same songs of the 1992 flick, with a few new songs thrown in. For the new songs, original composer Alan Menken teamed up with Benji Pasek and Justin Paul for the lyrics, giving the girl-power anthem "Speechless".

My only gripe is that the new songs, for me, feel like they were written in 2019. It doesn't have the feel of like a missing song from the original soundtrack which was just re-released this year but was actually written back in 1992 with the old songs. It just feels, I don't know, new. But that's just my opinion, coming from someone who grew up listening to the original songs. I'm interested in how a young viewer who's never seen the old film perceives the new music. And I'm also interested in Lea Salonga's opinion of this movie.


In case you hadn't noticed, I didn't mention this film was directed by Guy Ritchie. That's because this film doesn't look and feel like a Guy Ritchie flick at all. I like Ritchie as a director because of his distinct visual style, which appears nowhere in this movie at all. So let's just chalk this up to Ritchie selling out so he gets money to do the movies he really wants to do.

"Yes, I'm a dimpled Middle Eastern hottie. Deal with it."



Aladdin. USA. 2019.



Original rating: 7.8/10
No Naomi Scott nudity: -0.1
Alan Tudyk: +0.1
Aladdin and Jasmine's flirting and sexual tension: +0.2
Not-ugly Jafar: -0.1
Parkour scenes: +0.1
Actors pronouncing "Agrabah" with an accent: -0.05
Final rating: 7.95/10
Premium Blogspot Templates
Copyright © 2012 Da Couch Tomato