It Chapter 2 Film Review

Directed by Andy Muschietti

Starring: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader

Rated R for disturbing violent content and bloody images throughout, pervasive language, and some crude sexual material

Two years after the original “It” film was released, we finally get the second half of Stephen King’s novel. “It” is terrifying, suspenseful, and funny in all the right ways, but with flaws within the film. “It Chapter 2” is the sequel of “It”, both based of the novel, the novel being divided into two parts. In “It Chapter 2”, the “Losers Club”, reunite 27 years later after the events of the first film, to defeat Pennywise, a human eating clown, once again.

The selling point of “It Chapter 2” is the Losers Club all grown up and shown as adults, in particular Bill Hader and Isaiah Mustafa. Both actors portray two totally different characters who fear Pennywise and are set to defeat him. Hader plays Richie, a stand up comic who uses comedy throughout the film to ease the tension and fear of Pennywise. Hader is funny when he needs to and very emotional as well. The final scenes of Hader being emotional is sold so well that it takes you out of the film and makes you believe the emotions coming out of Hader. Mustafa, on the other hand, plays Mike, a character who is set and obsessed with Pennywise. Mustafa plays Mike as a bit crazy who can’t seem to let go of the past, while all his former friends have seem to let go of the past and moved on with their lives. Both Hader and Mustafa are the highlights in the cast, in my opinion. Not to say that the other adults are good but these two stand out from the cast.

“It Chapter 2” shows how all horror films should be done. The film does not rely on cheap jump scare, but instead it builds upon suspense. For instance, the Chinese restaurant was not only a heartwarming scene but terrifying and suspenseful. The reason why this scene is sold so well is because all the characters get ominous fortunate cookies, therefore foreshadowing something dark yet to come. There are many scenes such as these, where the tension is built only for the horror elements to be revealed.

Many critics have pointed out the excessive run time of the film, as the film is over two and a half hours. There is nothing wrong when a film has an excessive run time, but those films have each scene feel important and relevant. The problem that “It 2” has is that there are many scenes that either run too long or feel irrelevant. In the film, it is revealed that Bowers, the bully from the first film, was place in a mental institution only for for him to break out with a dead corpse. Bowers is set to kill the Losers Club but this side plot is just wasted. For starters, this is shown in the beginning of the film and feels forgotten after it is shown. Once this plot point is shown again, it feels tacked on, as if the director almost forgot about this side plot. With this film being very long, it would have helped to cut this plot point. It may have been included in the original Stephen King but when a book is translated to a film, many plot points have to be cut out.

Towards the second act of the film, the Losers Club separate and find their own version of It. This part of the film feels dragged out and certainly feels long. We see the majority of the characters enter an old building only for something to terrorize the characters. It is understood that “It” was formerly a book and these scenes may have been in the book. But screenwriters do have to understand that not everything that is included in the book has to be on the big screen. If these scenes needed to be shown, then it would have been best that only one character being terrorize and remembering the past, not multiple characters.

I certainly had much enjoyment with “It Chapter 2”, it certainly has many scares that actually got me jumping out of my seat. Pennywise is a horrifying clown that proves why people should be afraid of clowns. “It Chapter 2” is not only frightening, but it is heartwarming and hilarious due to in part of the characters and the actors portraying them. If only the film had more scenes left on the cutting room floor, “It Chapter 2” would have been the perfect sequel to the original “It”.

3/4

In Defense of Dave Chappelle

Dave Chappelle is one of my favorite comedians of all time. There is nothing I have yet to see him in where he is not funny (with the exception of “A Star is Born”, a drama). So when I heard that a new Netflix stand up special would be dropping, I immediately got excited. I had to the privilege to attend one of Chappelle’s stand up act a couple years ago. So naturally, I immediately saw the new special and thought it was very hilarious. After so many years of being in the comedy business, the man still has it. But soon after the special dropped on Netflix, the backlash came after Chappelle. I normally would not review a stand up special on Netflix, but I feel that this special is getting undeserved backlash and needs to be addressed.

“Dave Chappelle: Sticks and Stones” is the newest Netflix stand up special. In this special, Chappelle address controversial issues such as the Michael Jackson and R. Kelly sexual allegations, Kevin Hart’s past tweets, the LGBTQ community, etc. The entire point of the comedy is to offend and push the comedy to the edge. This is something that is not meant for everyone. I will admit that this is not the best stand up routine from Chappelle, but it is still hilarious. From the opening joke to the final joke, the audience will laugh out loud. But so many critics are pouncing at Chappelle for his offensive jokes. Why? If you were to go to Rotten Tomatoes, this special has a 0% as of today (September 2, 2019). Why is that? I normally don’t comment on a Rotten Tomatoes score but that score is extremely low. I have a feeling that most critics didn’t give it a negative review because of the quality of the content but the “offensive material” in the special.

At one point in the special, Chappelle discusses the Michael Jackson sexual allegation, fueled by the HBO documentary, “Leaving Neverland” ,that aired earlier this year. In my honest opinion, I believe the men coming out against the late pop star. Now I understand that this is an opinion not shared by everyone, including Chappelle. Chappelle makes it abundantly clear that he believes Jackson and not the men. I don’t agree with his decision to not believe the truth in the allegations but that his is decision to make. After watching the special, my opinion or my fandom of Chappelle did not change one bit. No where was I offended or upset that Chappelle was choosing to side with Jackson and make fun of the allegations. The man is a comedian and has to joke about uncomfortable situations.

I’ve seen so many critics say that this special is cheap and lazy. “Chappelle is only doing LGBTQ jokes because they are easy to make fun of.” No, that is far from the truth. Chappelle is not the type of comedian who goes in for the cheap jokes and easy laughs because of that was the case, he would simply rely on toilet humor. Chappelle is a comedian who sees what is relevant in today’s world and applies it to his comedy. I read a Complex article where it indicated Chappelle is only inciting the far right to keep on hating the LGBTQ community. “Chappelle might be speaking his mind, but those who are aligning with his views—or at least his swagger, and regurgitating his words—is what makes this a dangerous time.” This counter argument is far stretched and quite ridiculous. The notion that Chappelle is encourage hate groups to keep on hating is idiotic. A man who hates the LGBTQ community is going to keep on hating that community regardless of Chappelle’s comedy.

The point of “Sticks and Stones” is to push the boundaries of comedy. The purpose of the comedy is in the title itself, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”. Chappelle saw comedy in a world where it is too policed. Comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld and Chris Rock stated that they refuse to play at colleges because the students get offended. Chappelle’s own friend, Kevin Hart, lost the Oscars hosting gig because a couple of tweets that were more than ten years year old resurfaced. He saw that and probably said, “enough is enough”. He wants comedy to go back to the days where it did offend, offend not out of malice because it is comedy. And that is what Chappelle does here, offend the offended because it is simply comedy. “Sticks and Stones” may not be Chappelle’s best work but it is thought provoking and states a message without saying it at all.

https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2019/08/dave-chappelle-sticks-stones-netflix-conservative-support

https://ew.com/article/2015/06/08/jerry-seinfeld-politically-correct-college-campuses/

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/29/20835637/dave-chappelle-netflix-special-hidden-ending-cancel-culture

Ready or Not Film Review

Directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett

Starring: Samara Weaving, Adam Brody, Mark O’Brien

Rated R for violence, bloody images, language throughout, and some drug use

“Ready or Not” stars Samara Weaving as a new bride, Grace, who is trying to be accepted to her husband’s new family. Grace, on her wedding night, must play hide and seek but the game become deadly as her husband’s family tries to kill her, as a ritual cult. In all it’s gory fashion, we see the deadly game of hide and seek.

“Ready or Not” is an horror/suspense comedic film that is surprisingly a good time. From the beginning, we get to meet Grace as a kind hearted person who is not marrying her husband for money but for love. The film does a well job explaining how Grace does not come from a wealthy family and shows her as an outcast compared to the wealthy family she is marrying into. This is in part of the job done by Samara Weaving, who has done a fair job portraying a new bride who is being hunted down. The pain and suffering Grace goes through is sold extremely well by Samara Weaving. The rest of the cast are amusing as well, in part because their roles are more of a comedic roles. Kristan Bruun is the standout of the family as Fitch, who always has a quick line or something comedic to say. Unfortunately his role is very limited, I would have loved for his character to get more of a role in the film.

As mentioned before, the film takes a comedic role as supposed to a horror film. “Ready or Not” quite honestly would have worked perfectly as a horror film. It has all the horror film elements, murder, haunted mansion, and cult rituals. But the had directors chose to take a comedic role due to the ending, which is ridiculously bad. In fact, the entire third act is where things fall apart. For instance, we get one character who instantly changes to the villain’s side. I found that switch so out of place, considering how this person’s character throughout the film was set on the goal of not becoming the villain. I could understand the sudden switch, but in the end, it was a waste of character development. After we see the switch, multiple characters die in a gory fashion. Was it fun to watch? Yes, but it was very unbelievable, it threw the entire film off. The entire film was grounded in reality but the last five minutes threw that out the window.

I would have preferred to seen “Ready or Not” as a pure horror film as a new bride trying to escape her husband’s family from death. I am in no way trying to dismiss the film or it’s comedy, because the film is actually worth seeing and the comedy is hilarious when done right. It just that I would have chosen a different route if I were one of the directors of the film. But “Ready or Not” is an entertaining horror comedy that does have its fair share of issues, but the entertaining value overshadows the flaws of the film.

3/4

47 Meters Down: Uncaged Film Review

Directed by Johannes Roberts

Starring: Sophie Nelisse, Corinne Foxx, Brianne Tju

Rated PG-13 for creature related violence and terror, some bloody images and brief rude gestures

The great Alfred Hitchcock once explained the difference between surprise and suspense. “Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor.” “47 Meters Down: Uncaged” features multiple scenes of cheap surprises, director Johannes Roberts has no knowledge on how to make a scene suspenseful. There are many instances where a scene could be suspenseful, instead Roberts goes in for the typical jump scares. The question of why suspense is not displayed in a film like this lingers throughout the film, along with other questions such “how in the world does a shark get inside a cavernous lake” or “why does this film exist?”

“47 Meters Down: Uncaged” is the sequel to the first “47 Meters Down” in which a group of teenage girls go scuba diving under a lake, in a cave, only to find a blind shark hunting the girls down. Now the girls are against time as they try to escape the shark and exit the lake. This film is marketed as a sequel to the first “47 Meters Down”, yet it has no connections to the first film. I have a feeling that this film was written under a different title but the studio forced the writer to change the title to have it connected to the successful original film.

Normally I try to find the positives in films, regardless of the quality. Unfortunately I cannot find any redeeming quality in this terrible film. The film itself is quite hilarious, but not intentionally. This film features some of the most dumbest characters I’ve seen on film. Spoiler alert, but most of the characters die in the film and they deserve it. The film does not make any of the characters sympathetic so when a character bites the dust, the audience does not care. The beginning of the film has one of the most boring title sequence put on film. I normally don’t skip or get bored of a title sequence in films, but the filmmakers put thought and care into these. Whether they feature great visuals such as “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” or great music such as “The Hateful Eight” or even both, such as “Goldfinger”, a title sequence has to have one or the other to make it standout. But the title sequence is lackluster as previews the film as another dull film. It may sound like nit picking to point out the opening credits but the opening credits here are just insulting to exceptional opening credits.

After the credits, the audience sees a slow motion shot of a girl falling down the pool. The slow motion is shown constantly throughout the film and it annoys me. It adds nothing to the film and makes the editing so choppy. In regards to the editing, in the third act , our main heroes must swim back where they came from and go to the sea, where they can escape the sharks. When they group goes back swimming, we get a cool shot of the girls swimming with eerie sounds a red light flashing. But immediately the flashing stops and suddenly the group is in a whirlpool. I was so confused on how the group arrived at the current indicating that they are near the sea. How is that the group have trouble throughout the film but arrive at the edge of the sea with no issue? I have a feeling that the editor of the film cut a scene to keep the run time down. But the film is an hour and a half, so a long run time is no issue.

Other issues that hurt the film is the slow paced scenes in multiple scenes. It takes about thirty minutes before the group goes into the cave. Some of the acting leaves a bad taste as well. Nia Long plays the mother of the two characters, yet she has little emotion and acts like she is only there for a paycheck. I don’t blame her as well as her role feels more of a cameo. I’m sure it was an easy paycheck for her along with the other actors.

If “47 Meters Down: Uncaged” was featured on the SyFy channel or on Netfilx, I would have dismissed the film as a cheesy, run of your mill shark film. Instead it is a film that is shown in a theater, in which audiences have to pay about $10 to watch this. As I prepare to give this film a 1/4, I feel as that rating itself is way too lenient. “47 Meters Down: Uncaged” is poorly directed, edited, and acted film that has little to no value.

1/4

Good Boys Film Review

Directed by Gene Stupnitsky

Starring: Jacob Tremblay, Keith L. Williams, Brady Noon

Rated R for strong crude sexual content, drug and alcohol material, and language throughout – all involving tweens

“Good Boys” is a film that is not meant for everyone. If you saw the redband trailer for the film, you would have known that this is a very raunchy film. But the redband trailer did not do the film justice as the trailer omits the best parts. “Good Boys” is a coming of age comedy starring three tweens, (Jacob Tremblay, Keith L. Williams, and Brady Noon) are set to go to a kissing party to prove themselves to the “cool kids”. But there are roadblocks preventing the middle schoolers from attending the party, the three tweens must clear those obstacles in order to attend the party.

“Good Boys” is a very hilarious comedy with three great leads. Tremblay, Williams, and Noon have the task of reading off lines that are written by adults and making it sound natural. Keith L. William is the funniest of the trio, as a down to Earth tween who is in the middle of his parents divorcing and wanting to do good at the same time. He has the funniest lines throughout the film, there was never a moment where I grew tired of his character. Keith L. Williams is the standout in the film and hopefully we see Williams in more comedies as time goes on.

The one thing that is holding this film back is towards the end of the film. In this scene, the trio have a disagreement and leave a park crying. It is meant to show the emotional side of the film. This a trope that is often shown in film and it is done to death. There was nothing that added to this scene and we all know that the trio would end up together. It is only done to make the film’s run time longer than it is, I wished this scene would have been cut. What I did enjoy was the aspect of the possibility that the trio would slowly drift apart. This is done very well as we see the trio go on the separate paths and meeting up from time to time. This is of course something all friends go through in school and is rarely shown in coming of age comedies. For that, I enjoyed exploring a concept that is not often shown.

The best way to describe this film is “Superbad” meets “Booksmart”. Both are great comedies (with the latter being severely underrated) that share the same plot elements. If anyone is a fan of any of those film, then “Good Boys” would suit you very well.

Overall, “Good Boys” is a straight forward comedy that you will or will not enjoy. If you thought the redband trailer for the film, then you will have laughs for the film, if the trailer did nothing for you, then you are better off skipping the film. “Good Boys” is a hilarious and heart warming comedy that I had a pleasant time with and I am sure other movie goers will have a pleasant time with as well.

3/4

The Farewell Film Review

Directed by Lulu Wang

Starring: Awkwafina, Tzi Ma, Diana Lin

Rated PG for thematic material, brief language and some smoking

“The Farewell” is the sophomore effort from writer and director Lulu Wang. “The Farewell” centers around Billi (played by Awkwafina), an Asian American who returns home to China after learning that her grandmother has lung cancer and only has months to live. But the grandmother does not know of the diagnosis as the family is keeping the news from her as it is a Chinese custom.

The majority of “The Farewell” takes place in China. Director Lulu Wang does an exceptional job of showcasing China and her beauties. There are multiple moments in the film where we get to see China’s culture and customs. It was refreshing to see another country’s culture by a person who has actually been to that country. For that, the audience gets to feel as if they are taking a field trip to a new country. The foods, the rituals, the interior of a Chinese home are all presented in the film in a beautiful way and I applaud director Lulu Wang for bringing those beauties to American audiences. The music in the film is also presented very well. The score is elevates the film to make the audience feel as if they are actually in China.

The screenplay is written short and sweet and to the point. There is a mixture of comedy and drama and when the scene calls for comedy, there are actually genuine funny moments. The banter and interactions between Billi and her grandmother made me laugh and reminded me of my relationship with my own grandmother. The drama in the film is very compelling as it deals with a very serious question that the film indirectly asks. Would you want to know when and how much time you have left before you pass away? That questions follows the characters throughout the film as the characters grapple by the fact that there is a death in the family coming but that person does not even know it. As the characters think throughout the film as to whether to tell the grandmother, the audiences start to think of what they would do in that situation.

Most audiences will unfortunately think that this film is a slow burn but it’s far from it. This is a film that is meant to make the audience think and look in awe of the Chinese culture. The film’s main star, Awkwafina delivers her strongest performance yet, as the granddaughter who thinks keeping the secret is wrong. She is faced with the moral dilemma of revealing the truth along with her emotions on full display for the audience to see. Credit should be also given to the grandmother, Nai Nai (played by Zhao Shuzhen), as she is a typical grandmother who wants what’s best for her children and grandchildren. The final shot of the grandmother is of course very heart wrenching, and of course Zhao Shuzhen sells the performance.

The best part of “The Farewell” is that this is a family film that all families can relate to. “The Farewell” captures the majestic beauties of China and the emotional feeling of having to say goodbye all while never getting dull and always keeping the audiences engaged. “The Farewell” will of course not win all audiences but this is a delightful little film that will a majority of audiences will love.

3.5/4

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw Film Review

Directed by David Letich

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba

Rated PG-13 for prolonged sequences of action and violence, suggestive material and some strong language

It’s funny to think how much the Fast and Furious series has evolved from its original format. The original Fast and Furious film that premiered in 2001 was a crime action film that centered around street racing. Slowly as time went on, the films went on to be more ridiculous than its predecessors. We eventually reach the point that the film series has produced a spin off film, which has nothing to do with street racing but feels more like a parody of a spy film. Despite this, the spin off, “Hobbs & Shaw” is an enjoyable film with two hours of pure entertainment.

“Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” is the 9th film in the Fast & Furious series and the first spin off of the series. The film has series regulars Luke Hobbs( played by Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (played by Jason Statham) team up in order to prevent a virus being released to the public by a superhuman former MI6 agent (played by Idris Elba) .

Off the bat, “Hobbs and Shaw” is a ridiculously fun film. In that I mean that 50% of the film is ridiculous and 50% of the film is fun. There are multiple moments where you question the physics of the film such as how in the world can Dwayne Johnson fall on top of a car and walk up and fight as if nothing happened. This entire review could be criticism of the ridiculous moments of the film but the film knows that it’s ridiculous. This is a film series that went street racing to saving the world, James Bond style, so it’s has already been building up to this. The film works best when the audience turns off their mind and view the film as a action blockbuster.

But because the audience can turn off their mind and accept the film as a fun action film, some of the writing is cringe worthy. It’s embarrassing that a great actor such as Idris Elba is reduced to a generic villain who is reading off lines that feels like it was written by a 7 year old. Also in regards to the script, some of the scenes feel too long, more specifically the two cameos in the film. I understand that director David Leitch has gotten two great cameos that will certainly surprise the audiences but there was a sense that the cameos kept lingering. As much as I enjoyed the cameos, the cameos were getting unfunny a minute into the scene. In addition, this may be a minor nitpick, but the film abruptly ends while more exposition is given in the credits. The ending just felt so rushed and as if the director had to quickly cut the ending before a deadline. This aspect felt so lazy and left a bad taste in my mouth when I walked out of the theater.

In regards to the villain, played by Idris Elba, I certainly wished more was given to Elba as supposed your run of the mill villain. His role as the villain is forgettable as truth be told, I didn’t even know the name of the character until researching the film. The same goes to the sister of Shaw. Although Vanessa Kirby plays a tough bad ass, it feels like something we have seen before in multiple films. But as much I have multiple complaints of the film, the action is still enjoyable. The visual effects are still eye pleasing. In particular, the stand out action sequence is the chase in London.

As much I have multiple complaints of the film, there is still much enjoyment in the film. This is an action film that features a villain who can flip over a car with no issue. It knows that what exactly what it is, which is a fun action flick with mindless action. Audiences can certainly appreciate “Hobbs & Shaw” if they don’t overthink the film. So in other words, “Hobbs and Shaw” fits perfectly with the rest of the “Fast & Furious” films.

2/4

The Lion King (2019) Film Review

Directed by Jon Favreau

Starring: Donald Glover, Beyonce, Seth Rogen

Rated PG for sequences of violence and peril, and some thematic elements

When “The Lion King” was announced as the next film that would get the live action remake treatment, I was excited to see how the film would be done. Doing a remake of a beloved film brings a new opportunity to showcase something or an idea that is not explored in the original version. Then the casting was revealed and I was more excited because I am fans of multiple actors who are in the film. But after viewing the actual film, my expectations were let down.

“The Lion King” (2019) is the newest Disney “live action”remake of the 1994 animated film. The films tell the story of Simba, a cub, who is next in line to the throne. But when Simba’s father, Mufasa, is killed by Simba’s uncle and Mufasa’s brother, Scar, Simba runs away and soon enough needs to return home to take the throne from his uncle.

“The Lion King” has an A list cast, from recent Grammy winner Donald Glover to film legend James Earl Jones. While I praise the filmmakers for getting this A list cast, I do have some issues with the voice acting. But first, Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Scar, does a fantastic job with his voice work. Ejiofor is of course a great actor and always brings his A game when coming into a new role. But a part of me could not help make the comparison to Jeremy Irons, who voiced Scar in the 1994 original film. Nevertheless, Ejiofor does a fantastic work as Scar and is the standout from the voice work.

But as much praise is given to one actor, I do have issues with the other voice actors. For example, when I saw Zazu (voiced by John Oliver) and Nala (voiced by Beyonce), I did not see those respective characters but the actors doing their voice work. As much as I enjoy John Oliver’s program on HBO, I did not enjoy his voice work here. Probably because all I kept thinking is Oliver in a recording booth reading lines. The same goes to Beyonce as well. Not that they are great actors but because the characters they play that are being portrayed on the screen as not given much facial expressions when they are on the screen. Zazu is quite unpleasant to watch on screen, his design is inferior compared to the 1994 original. Nala on the other hand does not stand out because she looks the same as the other lions in the film. This is why a film like this works well in animation as in animation, the characters can stand out by their facial expression and colors. But there is none here as all the lions look the same, with the exception of Scar. This is the biggest issue that plagues the film. The lack of character distinction and facial expression does not support the voice actors who are trying to do their work. It’s unfortunate that great talent such as John Oliver and Keegan-Michael Key are wasted due to an issue they have no control over.

But as mentioned before, a remake gives the audience an opportunity to explore new ideas that were not shown in the original film. But no new ideas are shown in the film, it sometimes feels like a shot by shot remake. After thinking for some time, this remake is unnecessary. “The Lion King” is nothing more than a cash cow for Disney as nothing new is added. The film is not even a “live action” remake as 99% of the film is CGI. Only one shot of the film is actually real.

In short, “The Lion King” fails to live up to the high expectations set by the original film. The film is an unnecessary remake that is nothing more than a money maker for Disney. Fans of the original “Lion King” are better off watching that instead of the remake.

2/4

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Film Review

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie

Rated R for language throughout, some strong graphic violence, drug use, and sexual references

In the early part of writer and director Quentin Tarantino’s career, his films were crime dramas based in Los Angeles, with such films such as “Pulp Fiction” and “Jackie Brown”. Fast forward to his latter half to his career, his films were historical dramas such as “Inglorious Basterds” and “Django Unchained”. The new Tarantino film takes something from his early part of his career and incorporates it with the historical dramas that he has been making this past decade. The result is “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, a historical crime drama based in Los Angeles.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the newest Quentin Tarantino film starring Leonardo DiCaprio as Rick Dalton, an fading actor who is trying to find his footing in late 60’s Hollywood. Along with the ride with Dalton is Cliff Booth (played by Brad Pitt), Dalton’s stunt double who is supportive of his friend and boss. In addition to Dalton and Booth trying to find their place in Hollywood, Dalton’s new neighbor is director Roman Polanski and actress Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie).

Anyone who is familiar with Hollywood history knows the story of Sharon Tate and the Charles Manson cult. Going into the film, I was worried that the film would show the real events in a gory fashion. Fortunately none of the real events were actually showed and the film is not a real historical drama. The film shows more of an alternative timeline of history, the same way “Inglorious Basterds” was an alternative historical timeline. This also ties into the the ending of the film which, without giving any spoilers, is very satisfying and surprising to say the least.

But the real highlight of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” are the main leads of Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. I am unaware if DiCaprio and Pitt are friends in real life but the pair have great chemistry. The film introduces them as working together for years and I felt that connection through the film. It is as almost DiCaprio and Pitt have been friends and worked in films together for many years. If anything is taken away from the film is that I want DiCaprio and Pitt to work together more often. Every time both actors were on screen, it felt like two actual friends talking among each other.

The acting is top notch but specifically Leonardo DiCaprio proves why he is one the greatest actors of his generation. There is a scene where DiCaprio has to act as a cowboy. But DiCaprio has to act as an actor acting as an actor. This is has to be difficult for an actor to act an actor who is acting as another character. In this scene, DiCaprio is playing the cowboy but has to break character back to Dalton to remember his lines. He would have to instantly change back to his other character. This is all done in one take, it takes a great actor to act as an actor who is playing another character and having to change characters in an instant.

But as much as I had fun with “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, there are still issues I had with the film. Unfortunately the pacing is slow even for a Tarantino film. Tarantino is known for having two and a half hour films filled with long and drawn out scenes but there was something about this film that felt off. Tarantino’s previous film, “The Hateful Eight” has multiple scenes of long, drawn out scenes but I actually enjoyed every second of that film. The reason being is because I know there is tension coming soon. The tension of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the knowing that the Manson murders are coming but it’s not really tension. The reason being is that Sharon Tate doesn’t really interact with our main characters. She is more in the background and is brought back for a scenes to remind the audience that the film is centered around the Manson murders. Compare this to “The Hateful Eight” in which we know all the characters are in danger due to the tension. But in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, the only character that is in danger is Sharon Tate, who is more of a background character and not a main character.

Another issue is that the film does not go anywhere. The main plot is that an actor and his stunt double are trying to find their place at the end of the Golden Age of Hollywood. But as the audience views the film, there is not an end goal. If one were to view the film without knowing who is behind the camera or knowing who is Sharon Tate or Charles Manson, that person would be asking “where is this leading to?” I wouldn’t blame them because the majority of the film is an actor trying to act. This is something I worry about as I feel as the majority of the audience would probably be tuned off for a major portion of the film.

Overall, I had so much enjoyment of the film, but that is coming from a Tarantino fan. If you are a Tarantino fan, you should check it out but for the average viewer they may want to reconsider. Not because it is a bad film but because the film would feel long and boring to the average viewer. I would probably would view the film again but unfortunately the film falls into the lower half of the Tarantino filmography, but there is still enjoyment to be had in “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”.

3/4

Stuber Film Review

Directed by Michael Dowse

Starring: Dave Bautista, Kumail Nanjiani, Mira Sorvino

Rated R for violence and language throughout, some sexual references and brief graphic nudity

“Stuber” is an comedy action film starring Dave Bautista and Kumail Nanjiani as a cop and an Uber driver, respectively. Vic, played by Bautista, is an officer who is trying to seek revenge for the killing of his partner. But Vic is unable to see due to Lasik sugery, therefore has to take an Uber to his destinations, his Uber driver is Stu, played by Nanjiani.

The opening scene of “Stuber” has a very interesting action scene in which two cops have a shootout in a hotel room, followed by a chase sequence. But immediately when the action started, the film was plagued with shaky cam. This is not only in the opening scene but the shaky cam is used in all the action scenes. Not only is this annoying but it is headache inducing. I was under the impression that shaky cam was dead. It is unnecessarily used for no good reason. This is something that stands out from the film, for a bad reason.

With the shaky cam gimmick, the film is very cliche. It feels like this is something we have seen before. Primarily, “Stuber” is the modern version of “Taxi” (2004) with Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon. Yes, the film feels like a rip off of a 2004 comedy film that is largely forgotten. Not only is it a copy of another film, but some of the comedy falls flat. Yes, there are many hilarious moments in the film and I praise that. That is mostly due to the comedic timing of Bautista and Nanjiami. Those two are funny together whenever the comedy is actually good. But there were multiple instances of the comedy being unfunny or being dragged out. There is one scene where both Bautista and Nanjiami characters are trying to get information from someone else. Instead of being funny, the scene feels like its being dragged out and feels like a failure. It was unfunny and was just painfully awkward.

As much as I enjoy the two main leads, there are many moments of the film that could have been cut out. For instance there is a fight in a sporting goods store. Not only did it have the dreaded shaky cam and some bad humor but it feels completely unnecessary. In addition, there are two supporting characters, Nanjiami’s love interest and boss who have a few scenes. These two are a complete waste of time, they add nothing to the story. I suppose those characters are added to to add more to the run time since the film is fairly short. The two characters could have been cut out to add more interesting scenes instead we get Nanjiami’s boss saying how lonely he is with sappy music.

But as I mentioned before, some of the comedy is actually funny. It indeed does get many great laughs because of the character’s actions.As much as I have multiple complaints with the film, this is an entertaining film. But the goal of a comedy film is to make the audience laugh and it certainly does but only sparingly. “Stuber” is best viewed on demand as supposed as watching the film on the big screen.

2.5/4