The Curse Of La Llorona Is A Souless Horror Film That's Devoid Of Any True Scares

      

      When a horror film becomes successful, the general rule is that the horror films that come after it are shaped and molded to not only resemble that film in terms of formula, but also meet the new golden standard of what studios want and expect from horror movies in order to turn a profit. In the case of The Conjuring films, their success lead to several different spin-off films, all of which are connected within the same cinematic universe in a vein similar to Marvel. Those spin-off films consisted of the Annabelle
trilogy, which centered around a spooky doll, and last falls The Nun, which centered around the main villain of The Conjuring 2. With those films proving to be successful as stand alone stories connected to The Conjuring universe, it was only a matter of time before another standalone attempt to expand on the ever growing series would arrive with The Curse of La Llorona. Despite
The Nun being highly reliant on jump scares in a desperate attempt on the filmmakers end to hide the fact that there wasn't anything truly scary about that story, the film still managed to be reasonably entertaining and carried with it a level of enthusiasm in regards to telling its story, that made it come off as being mildly entertaining at best. Sadly however, that isn't the case with The Curse of La Llorona. Not only is La Llorona devoid of any real scares in the film, it's story isn't developed enough to make audiences truly care about anything happening on the big screen nor the characters being effected by the plot.

      The plot for The Curse Of La Llorona takes place in 1973 Los Angeles and centers around a Latin American folk tale regarding a mysterious ghost named La Llorona (Played by Marisol Ramirez) stalking children. When a troubled mother (Played by Patricia Velasquez) warns a social worker (Played by Linda Cardellini) about the mysterious spirit, the social worker's children become stalked. The family soon discovers that their only chance for survival lies with a former priest (Played by Raymond Cruz), willing to go through unorthodox ways to handle the situation. With a premise that sounds like it carries with it much promise to be genuinely creepy and hit all the right notes in terms of scaring the audience, the film ends up being a huge misfire, that is unquestionably the worst film in The Conjuring universe yet. The story lacks true suspense and thrills, while feeling like its just coasting from start to finish with nothing genuine to offer audiences in terms of scares rather than cheap jump scares that feel staged. The characters are not only uninteresting but feel like afterthoughts, there is no one in this film that the audience can latch onto and become connected with. Everyone is forgettable, which is a shame to admit because the actors in the roles are all solid performers and deserve much better material to work off of. The biggest problem with this movie is that instead of creeping its audience out and pushing them towards the edge of their seat, the whole routine comes across as feeling extremely boring, lacking both creativity and heart. The most surprising element of The Curse Of La Llorona is that it makes the audience appreciate the effort that went into trying to entertain and frighten audiences with the other films in The Conjuring universe as so little effort was put into trying to do so here. This film is a prime example of what happens when the desire to scare and entertain become absent, and instead are traded in for the purpose of cashing in on a formula that's proven to be highly successful thus far. The Curse Of La Llorona is a movie that best serves as a money making machine, which ultimately cheats its audience out of good horror movie storytelling, leaving them with not even one genuinely​ good scare.

      As far as the acting goes, the performances in The Curse of La Llorona are about the only thing in the film that actually work despite the character development being extremely lackluster here. Linda Cardellini shines in the lead role as the social worker Anna, with her trying to create a compelling and likable heroine in the story despite the material she's given. Roman Christou and Jaynee-Lynn Kinchen both deliver solid and impressive performances as Anna's kids being stalked with both coming across as being convincing and bringing their characters to life. The trio do their absolute best to make the audience care about their characters as well as their predicament with all three demonstrating strong chemistry. Raymond Cruz does well playing a former priest, who takes pity on the family and agrees to help them. Cruz does a good job of showing his characters hesitation to help them at first then choosing to do battle with them against the mysterious force. Despite his character coming across as feeling rather generic as this type of character has been seen before in other supernatural tales, Cruz comes to work performance wise and makes the best of his character arc. Marisol Ramirez is effective as the films main antagonist, La Llorona, with her also doing the best with her performance to creep out the audience while trying to make up for the scripts shortcomings. Patricia Velasquez has a minimal role but does well playing the troubled mother suspected of child endangerment, her performance hits all the right notes and is effective with her portrayal. Sean Patrick Harris doesn't have much material to go off of here, but makes the best out of his performance as Detective Cooper. Tony Amendola reprises his role as Father Perez from the first Annabelle and provides a much appreciated and likable cameo as his role serves as a form of plot device to connect the two stories together. As a whole, the cast is one of the films few highlights with the actors all bringing their A game to their roles, despite the material not giving their characters the required depth they need to truly bring their characters to life.

     In terms of the films directing and writing, director Michael Chaves along with writers Mikki Daughtry and Tobias Iaconis profoundly disappoint in terms of taking what's essentially an appealing supernatural story, that had much potential to make for a strong horror film and completely blow it. Chaves directing never feels like he possesses the creativity of James Wan, or the filmmakers behind the Annabelle movies (The second and third films in particular) to make the film truly work on the level of frightening its audience. Rather than spending the time to build up a genuinely creepy and moody atmosphere like Wan's approach to The Conjuring movies, he uses cheap jump scares excessively throughout the film in hopes that it'll be enough to please horror fans. It'd be one thing if the jump scares were any good, here they're presented in a way in which the audience anticipates their arrival and feels no suspense in terms of waiting for them to pop out. What La Llorona is missing that made The Conjuring and Annabelle film standout (Hell, one can even make a case for The Nun in this argument despite that one sharing similar problems), is the stamp that their filmmakers put on the stories with their directing styles. James Wan's strategy much like what David F. Sandberg brought with Annabelle: Creation, worked because both directors chose to build up their moments of suspense by surrounding the jump scares with atmospheres, that were extremely spooky and effective. In addition to that, they also gave you characters that you grew to care about. With La Llorona, Chaves fails to make the audience truly care nor invest in the characters projected on the screen, actually making people bored of the story rather than find it compelling. On a technical note, the films fast-paced works as a saving grace for the story rather than harming it. The art-set decoration, costume design, and cinematography are not only effective in capturing the time frame the story takes place, but actually makes it a beautifully shot film, making the failure of the story all the more heartbreaking.

      The one element of the story that Michael Chaves failed at as a director is showing the films main scare far too many times in the story. Showing La Llorona as much as he did in the film, robbed her of the effect her character would've had on audiences had she been kept in the background more frequently. This is an issue that's similar to what The Nun had, except that film had a reasonably decent mood set up to where they could just barely get away with it. One of La Llorona's biggest problems is how repetitive the film comes across as being with the same type of jump scares happening throughout the film with no actual buildup emerging. Instead audiences just get one door slam after another along with high-pitched shrieks, and the same overzealous score being used. The concept of a ghostly woman in a wedding dress, hunting down children to replace the ones she killed centuries ago sounds intriguing as a concept, but ends up being shockingly dry when put on film. The film contains very few moments where the originality of the writers kicks in before falling into the traps of a typical horror flick such as the inclusion of a plot device in which a barrier is created to keep the spirit from entering the house, only to be broken by one of the main characters young kids, allowing the spirit to enter the house and bring terror. The latter part comes across as being frustratingly cliched as the film falls into the trap of a conventional horror flick, in which the main characters have to perform acts of stupidity in order to keep the scares coming. What is the point of elaborating on a subplot that gives the main characters a potential weapon against the main antagonist only to have it brushed aside moments later in the most ridiculous and absurd way. Instead of the writers trying to be more creative with moments such as the introduction of the makeshift barrier, they resort to the same repetitive jump scares which makes the experience feel more drawn out and boring for audiences rather than actually be scary and compelling. It also doesn't help that the audience doesn't have any characters in the film, that they genuinely care about or can connect with.

      The Curse Of La Llorona serves as being a tragic case of a horror film, one that had the right story to creep audiences out, good actors that ended up delivering strong performances despite the poor writing given to them, and strong production values that make film appear to be well-filmed such as strong cinematography, art-set decoration, and costume design given the films setting. Whereas the film had those elements to make it work, it ultimately drowns due to its failure to produce compelling characters to make the audience truly care about the story at hand, showing far too much of the main villain, and relying on an excessive use of jump scares rather than properly setting up the films spooky atmosphere and dark mood. Like The Nun, The Curse Of La Llorona is further proof of how essential James Wan's involvement in The Conjuring series is that made those films work, and is ultimately the reason The Curse of La Llorona exists on the big screen. The reason The Conjuring films did so well with audiences and why La Llorona misfires, is Wan took the time to build up an atmosphere that was mysterious, dark, and spooky while building up the characters and story which ultimately made the audience fully invested in the story. With those films, everyone knew what was at stake when the supernatural forces striked, and was literally biting their nails out of concern for the main characters safety. Whereas Wan got nearly everything right with his films in regards to making a solid horror movie, La Llorona does the exact opposite with the end result being a total borefest for audiences, that will easily become the one forgotten spin-off film in The Conjuring universe as it further expands with future films. One hopes though that if this is the best that The Conjuring universe has to offer in terms of branching out with their universe and terrifying audiences, fans will be less inclined to support any future spin- off films if their main objective is to make money off the formula rather than deliver solid scares and suspense.

Final Verdict: Avoid completely and rewatch The Conjuring films, it's much more satisfying than this.

The Addams Family Works As Being A Solid Reimagining For Both Kids And Adults

   

      Halloween season 2019 has arrived and what better film to celebrate the October season than a dark and animated Tim Burton style reboot of the Addams Family. Being the first theatrical Addams Family film since the 90's live-action films, The Addams Family hopes to revive the franchise and reintroduce the characters and story with an animated film targeting young kids. The last time that audiences saw an Addams Family movie on the big screen was The Addams Family Values in 1993, with the previous two live-action movies being the films to match in terms of quality. Due to the lackluster box office performance of Values as well as the death of Raul Julia who played Gomez Addams, no third film was ever produced. Instead a lousy direct to video film titled Addams Family Reunion was produced with Tim Curry playing Gomez Addams and Daryl Hannah as Morticia, with the film being released in 1998 to horrendous reviews. Since then the rights to the series has floated between studios with the film originally belonging to Universal Pictures and Illumination Entertainment with Tim Burton attached as director. The film later landed in the hands of Metro Goldwyn-Mayer, who announced they would produce an animated film based on the Addams Family comics. Now sixteen years after the release of The Addams Family Values, the franchise lives on again in a fun and stylish animated reboot, that carries with it the spirit and charm of the live-action movies, while bringing the characters to a new generation of young audiences.

      The plot for The Addams Family focuses on the eccentric Addams family moving into their New Jersey home, and getting ready for the arrival of their eccentric cousins to commemorate Pugsleys transformation into becoming an official addams. While preparing for the ceremony, the addams are targeted by a scheming TV real estate tycoon, who tries to force them out of their town by rallying up the local gossipy neighbors. Learning of her plans to kick them out of their home, Gomez (Voiced by Oscar Isaac) and Morticia (Voiced by Charlize Theron) rally their family and lead a counteraction, that comes with interesting results. The plot for The Addams Family stays true to the storylines of the live-action films, which dealt with forcing The Addams Family out of their home and swindling them out of their fortune. The cartoon stays true to the themes Barry Sonnenfield introduced with his films, and doesn't break out of the comfort zone of the series in terms of exploring different ideas and story concepts. The main difference with the cartoon version of The Addams Family compared to the live-action movies, is the plot doesn't center around Uncle Fester being the central character this time. Instead the film gives a well-balanced interaction of the whole family with the characters of Wednesday and Pugsley getting special attention this time around, particularly the latter. The character of Pugsley always felt as if he was underused as well as undervalued in the live-action films, and here that issue is rectified as he becomes the central focus of the films story with him struggling to be the Addams his father always desired him to be. The relationship between Pugsley and Gomez is explored more in depth with the animated film, coming across as being rather touching in the end despite their families twisted yet hilarious anti-social outlook on society. The character of Uncle Fester goes from being the figure the films before placed heavy emphasis on, to now being a complete goofball in this story, making him the typical out of touch uncle in the family pack. Gomez and Morticia's passionate romance remains intact in the animated film much like the Barry Sonnenfield movies depicted them as. Despite the new film being animated, the 2019 reboot feels like a true Addams Family reboot with a story that once again revolves around the strength of a kooky family, while providing audiences with a solid origin story reeking of nostalgia.

      As far as the films voice acting performances go, the cast delivers fun and energetic performances, that often feel spot on and perfectly casted with each Addams character being played to near perfection. Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron prove to be the perfect animated counterparts to Raul Julia and Angelica Houston's performances as Gomez and Morticia Addams. Isaac gives a whacky and genuine performance as Gomez Addams, that nails his personality down perfectly. Charlize Theron proves to be a great animated Morticia, one almost doesn't recognize her voice with how well she plays the part. Nick Kroll delivers a completely goofy performance as Uncle Fester, making the audience can't help but fall in love with his characters clumsy yet twisted side with the characters lisp being a hilarious added touch. As good as those performances are, the true standout voice acting performances go to Chloe Grace Moretz as Wednesday Addams, proving that she's a worthy successor to Christina Ricci's performance as Wednesday in the Barry Sonnenfield films (She nails the whole approach to playing the character in a deadpan fashion with absolutely zero emotion), and Finn Wolfhard, who brings a lot of personality to Pugsley and helps make his character the heart of the films story. Snoop Dogg as cousin It is both hilarious casting, though feels pointless considering It doesn't speak besides making mumbling noises. Betty Milder shines as the Addams grandmother with notable supporting roles from Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short. Allison Janney does a solid job playing Margaux, the films main antagonist who feels like a combination of the characters of Tully and Uncle Fester's evil adoptive mother from the 1991 live-action film. Elsie Fisher turns in a nice performance as Parker with audiences getting a kick out of her characters unusual yet effective friendship with Wednesday. Her character also helps to drive home the message of the film with kids, which basically says that it's ok to embrace someone else whose different than you socially. Overall, the films cast feels perfect with the main performers of each addams character feeling as if they properly captured the essence of them, with the side characters adding to the fun and mayhem.

      In terms of the films directing and screenwriting, directors Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon prove to be worthy replacements with filling in for Tim Burton's absence, and do a surprisingly good job of bringing the world of the addams family to life. Despite Burton not directing it, the film has the look and visual style of one of his movies, with the theme of the family being outcasts from society or eccentrics being Burton's bread and butter in terms of selecting scripts that appeal to him. The films animation is beautiful with the film having a strong visual appeal with its gothic approach, giving it a true Halloween feel. Watching the animated film, it feels as if the filmmakers were not only honoring the classic 1960's show, but literally every past version of the story from the cartoon to the live-action films, while carrying on the franchise to today's generation of kids. What could've easily been a money grabbing attempt to milk the characters and name, ends up feeling like a great deal of passion and dedication went into bringing these characters back to the big screen. In terms of the films pacing, the story is at its strongest during the first half with setting up the main plot and introducing audiences to the addams all over again, as well as the side characters. What makes the Addams family so appealing, is despite how twisted and out of touch the family comes across as being, as the audience can't help but love them and care about their well being.

      The films scriptwriting by Matt Lieberman and Pamela Pettler along with storylines by Conrad Vernon, and Erica Rivinoja feels fairly well-written and remains grounded within the addams universe. The film contains humor that's aimed at both kids and adults with most cases being the humor works rather than misfires. The subplots on the side such as Wednesday getting a temporary makeover and wanting to go to a normal school after befriending Margaux's daughter Parker as well as Pugsley struggling to make his dad happy by trying to perform a right of passage for a ceremony thrown in his honor, are effective in breathing life into the films story while making audiences connect the characters. The moments that remind viewers of the nostalgia of the addams family, are those shown in which both Wednesday and Pugsley try to kill each other. The film suffers from a rather rushed second half in which all the main subplots introduced in the story feel a tad rushed in terms of getting wrapped up, particularly Pugsleys subplot. The message of the film makes the whole scenario not just extremely fun to watch, but poignant with the film encouraging its audience, particularly young people to be what they want to be without society forcing them to live as something they're not as evidenced by the character of Pugsley. The film also encourages the breaking of family tradition in the sense that parents shouldn't force children to do things done before in the past and to just be themselves. Given that the films running time clocks in at 86 minutes, it feels as if the screenplay was written in a way which the film never dares to overstay its welcome, and achieves what it's meant to do which is giving the addams family a fun reimagining on the big screen aimed at young kids, who might not be familiar with the addams characters prior. If that was the case of the filmmakers and the writers then they succeeded​ under reasonable terms.

     In the end, the team behind the animated Addams Family go to great and extreme lengths to modernize the story, while reintroducing the characters to a new generation of audiences. With solid animation, a hit soundtrack, and a star-studded voice cast, who literally elevated the films screenplay into something workable, The Addams Family is the animated treat, that both young audiences and older fans of the Addams can come together and enjoy during Halloween season. The films main criticism is despite the script doing a serviceable job of tying all the previous legacies of the Addams Family together, its story feels all too familiar and doesn't take enough risks in terms of going deeper with both the characters and the plot. The only true moment where the film feels like its being creative in terms of doing something new, is showing the extended relatives of the Addams family. Besides that, the film largely plays it safe with the characters and humor feeling held back given that it's now an animated film aimed at kids. What made the original movies so much fun and surprising, was the amount of freedom they had in telling their story and the unpredictability of what the addams characters would do. Here, those who've see those films and watch this one get a sense of nostalgic deja Vu while young audiences will find the addams appealing, which is the films main target audience. The Addams Family is entertaining for what it is and will please young audiences as well as fans of the original, though older fans will definitely agree the film didn't take as many risks as it should've cause of it being grounded as a children's movie. The humor for the most part hits more than misses with some moments coming across as being fart jokes. The story remains simplistic and straight-forward with it working both as a standalone movie from the others, along with the appeal of the characters being enough to make up for the films shortcomings and provide a fun-filled experience for the family. With the newly announced animated sequel in the works, one hopes the filmmakers are more willing to switch things up next time around and come up with a more creative story. For now, audiences should take delight in seeing the iconic characters brought back to life on the big screen, as well as the films strong message aimed at kids which says they should embrace others who are different.

Final Verdict: If you're a fan of the Addams Family, the new animated reboot is worth seeing.

   

Zombieland: Double Tap Is A Flawed Yet Worthy Sequel To It's Predecessor

     The 2019 Halloween movie season has officially arrived with the release of the much-anticipated sequel to the cult classic Zombieland titled Zombieland: Double Tap. What ended up being a film ten
years in the making has finally arrived in theaters with all of the main key players from the first movie returning in their respective roles. The first Zombieland was not only a surprise hit but temporarily became the highest grossing zombie film of all time until 2013's World War Z came long. Zombieland's success came at a time when the zombie craze was at its peak (Zombieland's release came a year before AMC's The Walking Dead premiered on TV). Talks of a sequel arrived before the first film was released with the main squad interested in doing it, but the project ended up landing in development hell for 8 years before finally getting the greenlight to produce in July 2018 with original director Ruben Fleischer returning (Zombieland marked the filmmakers first directorial duty). The first Zombieland was a fun zombie adventure, which made for a wild yet entertaining good time for audiences to enjoy along with a fun cast of appealing actors and numerous pop culture references that appealed to young audiences. The film was not only hilarious to watch with its wicked humor but packed on large yet appropriate amounts of gore, making it the ideal Zombie flick that showed audiences there's still plenty of life left in the subgenre. With Zombieland: Double Tap, the sequel brings much of the same humor and gore that the first film carried as well as a ton of fun pop culture references. While the sequel doesn't feel as fresh as its predecessor and ultimately pales in comparison as a whole, it still has plenty of entertainment value to offer in regards to pleasing the first films fans while being a reasonably decent sequel.

      Zombieland: Double Tap's plot takes place a full decade after the events of the first movie with the surviving 4-person intrepid band Columbus (Played by Jesse Eisenberg), Tallahassee (Played by Woody Harrelsen), Wichita (Played by Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Played by Abigail Breslin), find themselves moving to the American heartland while facing off against more advanced zombies, as well as encountering fellow survivors, and struggling to remain a group and being there for each other when situations arise. The most important element of maintaining the success of the first Zombieland with the sequel, is not to take itself too seriously and maintain the same style of fun and mayhem the original offered while managing to still be surprising and show the fans where these characters ended up after the events of the previous film. One of the key things that made the original Zombieland a hit with audiences was not just that it was gory and centered it's story around zombies, it had cool and slick characters that the fans grew to care about and wanted to experience their journey no matter how wild and silly things got. The first movie knew what it was as well as how to have fun with it's concept and fully embraced it, while adding something fresh to the zombie genre. The sequel doesn't try to eliminate any of the key ingredients of what made the first one so successful, and even gives audiences more while picking up where they last left off with the band. The sequels main issue is despite giving audiences more of what they enjoyed about the first film, there isn't much of an effort to really take the story outside of the originals comfort zone and be more creative with the plot. The spirit of the original film is present here as well as some of its heart, but the sequel as entertaining and fun as it can be, ultimately feels like more of the same. Given that audiences waited a full decade to be reunited with these characters again and continue their story, one wishes their characters had a better plot to play with.

      As far as the films acting goes, the squad stands as being the main highlight of the film largely thanks to the performances and the chemistry the four main actors share on screen together. Everyone brings their A game back to their roles and deliver stellar jobs reprising them, ultimately making the audience feel that no time has passed between both movies practically. The same kind of energy and passion for playing these characters are once again conveyed by the actors and put on the screen. Jesse Eisenberg is once again as sharp as ever as the chatty yet somewhat whimpy Columbus, once again making audiences get a kick out of his characters commentary in terms of narrating the story as well as making them empathize with his character arc in this sequel. Emma Stone is once again charming and fun to watch as Wichita, audiences will take interest in seeing where her relationship with Columbus has led after the ending of the previous film. Given that since starring in the first film, Stone has become an Oscar winning actress, which makes her return to this type of film even more humbling as she easily could've turned it down to do more dramatic parts, yet looks like she's having a ball here along with the rest of the main cast. Abigail Breslin though older, still manages to shine as Wichita's sister Little Rock, making her character motives in this film feel relatable, believable, and foolish given the circumstances of the world surrounding the main characters. Woody Harrelson once again delivers the best performance out of the pack as he brings the character of Tallahassee back to life, and steals the show with his cool and authoritative approach to the character. He really does give the character of Han Solo type of persona in the sense that his character comes across as being unlikable at first much like Solo did, but deep down within his tough guy persona, he possesses a good heart as his character demonstrates both his loyalty and friendship through his actions in regards to looking after his friends as well as acting like a father figure to Little Rock. Harrelson is perfect in this role as one can't see anyone else playing this part so well and giving it the same type of charm and charisma he delivers to it. Other strong supporting roles are Rosario Dawson playing a kick-ass yet likable female character and love interest to Tallahassee, Luke Wilson, Avan Jogia, and Zoey Deutch with them all proving to be both nice and worthy additions to the cast ultimately. Zoey Deutch ends up stealing the show as Madison with her character coming across as being hilarious as the stereotypical dumb blonde in a horror movie/zombie apocalypse story. The supporting cast goes a long way with adding charm, brains, and energy to the film, especially the movies middle portion and saving it when the script begins to dry up. The cast as a whole feels well put together with the newer actors managing to share chemistry with the main cast, while making the experience even more fun and absurd.

      In terms of the films directing, Ruben Fleischer returns to the directing chair and delivers the same style of mayhem mixed with comedy he gave the first one with a healthy dose of gore. Watching the sequel however, it feels as if he directed the film to not just be a sequel to the first Zombieland, but also feel like a reunion tour with the original characters in a sense. Whereas the first film represented Fleischer's debut as a director, Double Tap shows that the filmmaker has more experience under his belt as his direction feels more focused, and is given a larger budget to play with. The films tongue-in-cheek humor still remains sharp with the action sequences being well shot and remaining wildly-over-the-top, especially with the larger budget this time around. Fleischer's directing feels like he's going through a checklist of all the essential things, that made the first film a hit and makes sure to include them along with double the fun and gore. Like the first Zombieland, he keeps the story grounded with the main focus being the main characters and their story arcs. When newer characters enter the picture, they are treated as a welcomed surprise, providing a breath of fresh air to the film. The films cinematography and make up effects remain impressive with the pacing being well done, keeping the story moving steadily for the films 99-minute running time.

      While the films directing and performances remain some of the films strongest aspects, the scriptwriting by Dave Callaham, Rhett Reese, and Paul Wernick falls within the category of being decent, but can be criticized for largely playing it safe with the overall story structure. Given that the film took a full ten years to make, couldn't the writers find a more engaging story to take the main characters rather than just having them move into the White House? One of the screenplays strongest points is giving more depth to the main characters, their subplots help to breathe life into a plot that stays pretty close to the original. Not all the subplots work to their full potential with the subplot involving Columbus and Wichita's relationship being touching, though not as explored as it could've been as the subplot is abandoned at certain points throughout the film and reappears whenever convenient for the storyline. The problem with Zombieland: Double Taps script is similar to the same issue The Walking Dead TV show has in which the characters actions and subplots all feel too familiar to the point where everything comes across as being repetitive. The introduction of the newer characters in the films middle section does give the film a dose of originality, that's desperately needed when things begin to feel all too familiar. Being that the film itself is a sequel, the inclusion of many pop culture references to both The Walking Dead and Terminator 2: Judgment Day including the naming of the new breed of zombie, that immediately comes back to life after being killed in a form of the T-100, the T-800 is a clever and hilarious twist. The decision to make the zombies more deadlier and harder to kill in the sequel is clever and helps to make the the world of Zombieland remain exciting and not feel boring. It's moments like the ones with the "Terminator" zombies and ones where side characters look as if they're about to transform into zombies themselves when they randomly start puking, that add some much needed tension to the story. One of the key issues with the script besides too closely mirroring the first films plot, is the lack of something major happening in the story up until the third act, even then the movie lacks the big wow moment that stands out in a traditional zombie film like this. While Double Tap never comes across as being a boring film and overall serves as being a genuinely fun ride, its glaring flaw is that its too close to it's predecessor in terms of having similar narrative structures and being nearly identical. If it was the writers and directors wish to give audiences more of what they loved about the first film rather than change things up and do more with the story, then what is the point of making a sequel if they're too afraid to take risks and ultimately choose to play it safe.

      Overall Zombieland: Double Tap is not a bad film and actually serves as being a decent sequel to the first movie, one can't help but question what was the point of waiting a decade to make this film if the filmmakers intended to keep it as closely mirroring the first film as possible. There's not enough risks that are taken with this film, and the plot doesn't really evolve beyond the band finding another area to camp at and share subplots containing melodrama. The jokes are still fresh and make the audience laugh such as Eisenberg and Harrelsens characters coming across other side characters, that share both personalities and looks that closely resemble their own,or moments such as Harrelsens characters dressing up as Elvis (Which alone is almost worth the price of admission). The moments where the humor does struggle is forced jokes such as one in which one of the side characters pushes the idea of group sex. Despite the films numerous issues, the pros outweigh the cons with the films slick directing, numerous pokes at both the zombie genre as well as it's pop culture references, and the charismatic performances the main cast bring to their characters still manage to make this a worthwhile sequel. that will largely entertain fans of the original while leaving the door open for a third film. One hopes if they choose to make a third movie that they don't wait another full decade to produce another, and they have a stronger script, which allows the story to grow and place the band in a more interesting scenario. Zombieland: Double Tap isn't as fresh nor as creative as the original, but it has enough of what fans enjoyed about that film to make it a worthy follow-up. The film still makes you care about the characters and their adventures, and given that it's a post-apocalyptic world full of zombies, that's what matters the most in terms of making the sequel work.

Final Verdict: For fans of the first Zombieland, the sequel is worth a watch though it carries with it it's share of sizable flaws.

Ad Astra Is An Uneven Space Drama Saved By Brad Pitt's Terrific Performance

       When one thinks of modern day classic space movies, films like Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity and Christopher Nolan's Interstellar come to mind. While those films have their fair share of critics as the receptions to both were divisive, they carried a unique style of filmmaking to their stories. This element made their stories appealing to audiences and ultimately led them both to becoming box office successes in the end while garnering critical acclaim. The fall season brings what hopes to be another thought-provoking and memorable space thriller titled Ad Astra starring Brad Pitt and Tommy Lee Jones. Like those films, Ad Astra places a bankable star in the lead role while basing its story around the theme of a son reconnecting with his father with space being used as a backdrop. Out of the three films mentioned, Astra's plot is the more personal of the three as it carries with it an emotional core to accompany the films impressive visual effects, breathtaking cinematography, and moving score. Despite Ad Astra's attempts and noble desire to reach for the stars in terms of blowing away its audience with its story, it ends up being a somewhat mixed bag as the film comes across as being poetic and entertaining to watch if audiences have the patience to sit through its slow burn pacing, but will also confuse and frustrate others with how little of the stories science and space aspect is explored in exchange for a family melodrama/ psychological character study disguised as a space adventure. Ad Astra is not a terrible film by any means, but its also not the action-packed and intense space adventure audiences expect it to be and ultimately won't please everyone. The film is essentially a psychological drama disguised as a visually stunning sci-fi epic with a story structure, that basically screams comparisons to Apocalypse Now with the setting being in space. In terms of the films released in 2019 thus far, Ad Astra is perhaps one of the boldest attempts to separate itself from the rest of the pack as it not only puts brains over action, but is also guaranteed to inspire a heavily divisive response as audiences will either appreciate what's on the screen or they won't.
                                 

      The plot for Ad Astra takes place in the near future with an experienced astronaut named Roy (Played brilliantly by Brad Pitt) being recruited to undertake a mission to Neptune in order to solve the disappearance regarding his missing father Clifford (Played by Tommy Lee Jones), as well as his doomed expedition to the end of the solar system 30 years prior, which now puts the universe as a whole in jeopardy when a recent power surge threatens humanity. Ad Astra's plot leaves little room for action as the overall film is a character driven story about Brad Pitt's character trying to not only save the galaxy but reconnect with his long lost father who selfishly abandoned him and his mother 30 years prior, leaving the rest of humanity behind so he can live in space while conducting his research. Ad Astra is designed to be an extremely slow-moving story, that allows the audience to get inside the mind of Pitt's character as he journeys deeper into space while questioning his mind frame. The film as a whole serves as a metaphor essentially for the concept of human contact and relationships with the ultimate message being that everyone needs both, even if they are complicated or get in the way of tasks or missions. Ad Astra at its core is an emotional piece of storytelling, that isn't worried about pleasing its audience by compromising with action (There's a shootout in a space capsule, a turf war battle on a moon, and an unscheduled stop that forces a switch up with Roy's crew) nor rushing to get its story finished. At it's heart, it's a film that knows exactly what it wants to be and goes about doing so without regard for anything else. Brad Pitt's character Roy, is the central focus of the film and allows him the opportunity to deliver one of the strongest performances of his career with his performance making the films story believable as well as making audiences empathize with his character. It's a true test ament to an actors talent when they're left with carrying the majority of the film on their shoulders with Astra being a prime example. Pitt sells both the character he's playing as well as the scenario the story presents to the audience. The father-and-son dynamic in the story is the heart and soul of the film, and is what keeps audiences invested in the story on an emotional level (If they can handle Ad Astra's turtle style pacing).

      One of the films greatest strengths lies within it's acting performances with Brad Pitt delivering a strong performance while narrating the audience through the story. He gives them insight into his characters state of mind since he doesn't convey much emotion towards other characters in the film. Pitt does a a very good job of holding the audiences interest even when the story feels like it goes off the rails at times. He plays his character as being calm, cool, collective, and narrates the story in a vein similar to Martin Sheens character in Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. When disaster hits, Roy's character learns to adapt and improvise giving his character more knowledge throughout his space journey. The second best performance in the film comes from Tommy Lee Jones as his neglectful father, whose shown to be more focused on his research and exploring the ends of space rather than being a real dad to Pitt's character. Jones brings his A game to the part as usual though his role is only sizeable yet significant. Both actors share strong chemistry together making you believe in their relationship as father and son. The acting performance by Ruth Negga is a worth noting as she plays Helen, one of the Mars space station key figures, who gives Roys character more information regarding his father. Liv Tyler plays Roy's wife and doesn't have much room to grow as a character in this film since the story is focused on Pitt's character, but what she does have (Which is very little to work with), she does a notable job of making you believe that her character loves Roy, but is frustrated that he appears to be focused on other things pertaining to space and searching for his dad. Her character exists to show the audience Roy's weakness in establishing consistent human connection, ultimately giving more proof to his characters instability. Kimberly Elise and Donald Sutherland give solid supporting roles though their characters suffer from the same problem Liv Tyler's character has, neither has much room to develop in terms of character growth and are just present to serve the story. Sutherland plays Colonel Pruitt, an old friend of Roy's father, whose sent along with him on a mission to make sure his son doesn't submit to the father (It's interesting to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland do another space film together given they both were in 2000's Space Cowboys). Overall the acting performances in the film are strong with Brad Pitt doing a fantastic job of conveying both physical and emotional acting on screen and deserves to be commended for it. A Best Actor Oscar nomination doesn't seem to be out of the realm of possibility for his role as it definitely ranks among being a career best performance.

      In terms of the films directing, filmmaker James Gray and co-writer Ethan Gross do an impressive yet flawed job of putting together a story, that feels as if it can serve as a companion piece to Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity as well as Ridley Scott's The Martian. Gray utilizes key aspects from both movies, that worked very well such as the quiet character moments that Pitt's character has, which parallels Sandra Bullocks character such as the isolation the two characters feel while being trapped in space as well as their attempt to put the past behind them. Gray compliments Pitts performance with top notch cinematography from Hoyte Van Hoytema, that's not only mesmerizing but enhances the visual aspect of the story, placing the audience in space with, Roy while also reminding them that danger is present and can emerge at any second. The camera also focuses on Roy's character, utilizing different angles to showcase Pitt's skillful performance showing all the different emotions his character conveys. As much of a professional that Roy comes across as being at doing his job, his character is human and the moments where his vulnerability shines through when his shield lowers is caught on camera for the audience to witness. The cinematography also gives the whole experience a dream like feel to it with the constant changing of colors in each scene being effective as well as the lack of visibility of other planets and stars in space, adding more layer to the concept of Roy being alienated in space (Or The Abyss to fit the mood of the plot). The editing of the film is uneven serving as one of the films most divisive points in regards to its reception with audiences, as the film offers nothing more than a few action sequences to throw audiences off and help keep them engaged while focusing on the psychological state of Brad Pitt's character, as he longs for the father that's been absent throughout a large portion of his life. Gray does a good job of showing Roy's inability to make much connection with loved ones with an example being the relationship between him and his wife. He shows this aspect of Roy's character through the use of flashbacks, which prove to be effective in terms of fleshing out the story and character further. The films sound effects are top notch along with a suttle yet moving score from Shutter Island's Max Richter. While James Gray is no Alfonso Cuaron nor Ridley Scott in terms of creating a visually stunning set piece, he does a very good job of transporting the audience into space and making Roy's journey a somber and quiet one that's based around reflection.

      Whereas Gravity was a thrilling sci-fi story, that tackled the theme of survival in space as well as emphasizing the strength of the human spirit, The Martian takes the same theme and shows it through a different angle regarding the main characters endurance in his journey towards getting home as well as the comradeship and team effort that brought him home. Ad Astra takes the survival theme and gives it a more intimate portrayal with not Roy's character in need of being rescued but his father. The films screenplay by Gray and Gross tackles humanistic themes such as obsession, heroism, hope, abandonment, self-destructive behavior, anger, father/son relationship, and walls being built in relationships. The human side of the story can best be summed up as one man's journey to rebuild the relationship between him and his father. Roy's psychological state is also played upon throughout the film as his character is shown to have psychological therapy before and after his mission with the film showing both his characters deconstruction and reconstruction as he drifts further into space. The space setting serves as being both a brilliant and strong metaphor for the main characters loneliness, as he lacks the presence of a loved one making his soul feel empty, which parallels the realization that he's stuck in outer space. It's not a coincidence either that the audience can't and don't see many stars or planets other than just pitch black space. The main issue with the father and son dynamic in regards to the films writing, is there isn't a compelling enough reason given as to why Jones character Clifford, felt the need to abandon his family as well as the human race in order to exile himself in deep space. The audience is supposed to care about this dynamic but not much information is given to make them fully invested into the relationship, especially with the films pacing being as slow as it is. The themes that the story touches upon in regards to space are space exploration, lunar travel, and the search for intelligent life. Ad Astra feels similar to Christopher Nolan's Interstellar in terms of it's thematic story structure with the main character being asked to go into space to save mankind while desiring to be with their loved one again after having not seen them for years before their fateful reuniting in the films third act. The stories almost directly parallel each other with the main difference being Ad Astra lacks the wow factor of that film. Interstellar was slow-paced like Ad Astra and a much longer movie clocking in at nearly three hours. but its story kept you engaged due to Nolan beautifully setting up that films plot and characters so the audience became invested in both right from the start. That film centered it's plot around uncovering the mysteries of space in a way which felt intimate and gave the audience the feeling they were going into space with the characters. Ad Astra gives that feeling of being in space, but also feels like it pays homage to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey with not just it's handling of the isolation of space but utilizes it's themes regarding the main characters questionable mental state, the whole scenario of a mission-gone-wrong, and how it showcases moments of crazy space visuals as well as the introduction of bizarre space creatures, such as the scene where Roy's crew is attacked by a Baboon creature in space. Out of all the movies that Ad Astra bears strong similarities to, Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece is film it aspires to be and only gets halfway there.

      Ad Astra is not a failure when one looks at the whole picture, it just feels like it's missing key things that would make it an even stronger film had James Gray elaborated on the story more. There isn't much character development in this film besides the psychological evaluation that audiences are subjected to give Roy's character outside of the minor characters examining him in the film. On a visual note, the film is top notch with great cinematography, impressive visual effects, scenery that places the audience on the shuttle with Roy's character, and a performance from Brad Pitt which ranks among being one of his strongest in years. At the core of the film. Ad Astra is a deep and thought-provoking story, that works best as a character study, which just happens to be a big budget science fiction film. The movie is not meant for everyone and will divide audiences with the lack of action happening within its plot, but the ones willing to give the film their time and patience will realize that the film has something to offer as a sentimental message regarding human relationships and the need to be connected with people whether the outcome is good or bad. The film shows the power as well as the influence a parent can have over their child even when they aren't present in their life. Ad Astra is not a conventional science fiction adventure, as it basically uses the space setting as a backdrop for a personal family drama. Not all fans of Sci-fi will be pleased as the films slow-pacing and emphasis on the father-and-son dynamic doesn't leave much room for exploration of the films science, but the film at it's core has a heart and was made as a homage to classic cinematic masterpieces such as 2001: A Space Odyssey and Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now with Roy's father representing Colonel Kurtz with him assigned to retrieve him. If one is looking for a science fiction adventure that's briskly paced and will leave them at the edge of their seat questioning what's next, they should skip this and rent Gravity instead to fulfill their needs for being thrilled. If one wants a quieter, somber tale which serves as being a psychological examination of the main character as well as a hard-hitting message about one needing family in their life then Ad Astra is worth watching. The film is not perfect, but it dares to be different than most movies released nowadays, and that's worth acknowledging along with Pitt delivering one of his best performances yet.

Final Verdict: If you want fast-paced action or space thrills with a healthy dose of science thrown into the mix, watch Gravity instead or Interstellar. If you want an emotional journey disguised as a space movie with great performances, thought-provoking themes with a visual flare to it, Ad Astra is worth the watch.