directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman
written by Phil Lord and Rothman
I have to be honest; before I watched this film I was actually winding up for a hate-filled tirade against "Ralph Breaks the Internet" a movie I found so abhorrent in its storytelling I gave it a 1/10, and I was preparing to go into greater detail as to why I hated it so much. It turns out the antidote I needed for the vitriol I had for a movie that I hadn't expected to despise so much was a movie that, all thinks considered, I hadn't expected to like so much.
Unlike Peter Parker, Miles Morales, a latter-day iteration of Spider-Man, has a much briefer history. Introduced in 2011 by Brian Michael Bendis and Sara Pichelli, he was a teenager with an African-American father and a Puerto Rican mother, created partly in reaction to the presidency of Barack Obama, and partly as a result of the semi-serious campaign by then-obscure actor Donald Glover to play Spider-Man. Whatever the motivations behind his creation, Miles clicked as a character and like Peter Parker before him, resonated with teenagers everywhere. He was created as a replacement for Peter Parker in the "ultimate" Marvel universe, which is basically a world that exists parallel to the one that most people casually acquainted with Marvel comic books knows. In that universe, Peter dies heroically, and Miles, who also gains his powers from a mutant spider-bite, reluctantly takes up the mantle. I followed his adventures for the first three years of his publication history. Bendis' stories, however, got increasingly monotonous, and I drifted away from the book, especially after Marvel migrated Miles from the "Ultimate" universe into the mainstream or "616" universe.
While I was genuinely excited to hear that Miles Morales would be getting his own Spider-Man movie, the thought that it would be produced by Sony Pictures Animation, whose track record has ranged from the competent (e.g. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) to the dreadful (e.g. The Emoji Movie) filled me with trepidation, even though production would be shepherded by the talented duo of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (the minds behind the aforementioned Cloudy, The Lego Movie, and both 21 Jump Street and its sequel 22 Jump Street). Even though the trailer was extremely promising and the advance buzz was good, I had my concerns; this particular iteration of Spider-Man seemed intensely geek-centric. Would mainstream audiences get into it? It took Marvel several years and four movies to really draw people into the notion of a shared universe; how easy would it be for audiences to swallow a movie about multiple universes colliding? Not even the critics' glowing reviews could put me at ease. I mean, even the character's creator, Bendis, hadn't managed to make him that compelling.
As it turns out, all the hype was justified.
Here, as in the comics, Miles Morales (Shameik Moore) is the 13-year-old son of policeman Jeff Davis (Brian Tyree Henry) and nurse Rio Morales (Laura Lauren Velez) who lives in a world where Peter Parker (Chris Pine) fights crime as Spider-Man. Miles is about to start the year at a prestigious, science-oriented middle school, but he'd rather be hanging out with his "cool" Uncle Aaron (Mahershala Ali) and creating street art, notwithstanding his massive potential. During one such hangout, Miles is bitten by a strange, mutated spider marked 42, which he brushes off without a second thought. When he acquires strange powers like sticking to walls and a mysterious sixth sense, he rushes back to the scene where the mysterious spider bit him, and stumbles onto a deadly battle between Spider-Man, and the Kingpin (Liev Schreiber) and his minions like Norman Osborn and the mysterious Prowler. Apparently, the Kingpin is trying to use some kind of particle accelerator designed to open portals to different realities, hoping to achieve a goal that, for once, isn't about money but something more personal, but is no less motivated by self-interest, and is no less destructive. When an explosion stops the accelerator, things go horribly wrong for Spider-Man, which Miles witnesses to his horror, just shortly after he promises Spider-Man to take the machine out for good. Before he is able to finish the job, however, Prowler chases him off.
The accelerator has opened the doors to four different realities, and as a result four different Spider-people end up in Miles' world: schlubby fortysomething Peter Parker (Jake Johnson), Gwen Stacy aka Spider-Woman (Hailee Steinfeld), Peter Parker from the 1930s, aka Spider-Man Noir (Nicolas Cage), Peni Parker (Kimiko Glenn) and her radioactive spider-powered robot Sp//dr, and Peter Porker, aka Spider-Ham (John Mulaney). All of them are on borrowed time, and all of them know that they have to close the portals Kingpin has opened up before all of their realities collapse. They'll need Miles' help, as well as that of the late Spider-Man's spunky Aunt May (Lily Tomlin) but even that may not be enough against Kingpin and his formidable army of superpowered minions.
As superb as this movie is in terms of its craft, from basics like the writing, direction and voice acting, to its eye-popping, astonishingly original animation style, what really grabbed me was how the filmmakers were able to make something so deeply steeped in comic-book lore so accessible. This movie doesn't require watching eighteen movies that came before it (though there some jokes that only make sense to those who've followed the Spider-Man movies). Also, knowledge of the comics lore can actually be a disadvantage here as, in my case, it spoiled a major (albeit somewhat predictable) plot twist for me. This is sublime writing here, by people who have real reverence for this character and the world he inhabits. Even though Peter Parker is not central to this story, it still remains true to Spider-Man's core values. The film's credo is basically that anyone can wear the mask, anyone can be Spider-man, because it's not the powers that make a hero, but the will to use them to do what's right.
It's a relatively simple message, but it's the way the film conveys it that makes it so amazingly effective. Like Peter Parker before him, and just about every other Spider avatar in the film, Miles carries the weight of guilt from very early on in the film, and the thought that he didn't do enough to help out someone in need is what drives him forward, even when his powers and his own body aren't necessarily up to the task. He carries the burden of not only the power he gains from the spider bite but the sense of responsibility that comes along with it. The extended cast of characters requires a little extra time to tell a complete story, which hurts the movie ever so slightly, but in the end it's all worth it. While credit must go to Brian Bendis for creating much of the material from which this story was derived, not only in terms of Miles' origin but even the "Spider-Verse" story itself (which borrows heavily from "Spider-Men II"), writers Phil Lord and Rodney Rothman craft a story that is just that much better than its various sources, and makes the absolute most out of its medium.
And boy, what a medium it is. We're living in an age in which the technology used to create animated films is so advanced that one could argue that it's only a few steps away from creating a feature film that could pass for a live-action film, with none the wiser. The thing is, with the passage of time, this technology has become so slick and seamless that even as the wizards at Disney and Pixar lead the way, they are also just as prone to putting out supremely competent but increasingly clinical fare like Finding Dory or The Incredibles 2. There's a warmth missing from several of their more recent films (and I will no longer even mention by name Disney's most recent movie which I detested, even in spite of all of its technical wizardry). The makers of Into the Spider-Verse, however, eschew the more "traditional" approach to computer-generated animation and embrace a more rough-and-tumble, hybrid finish that evokes the four-color, early adventures of Spider-Man on the printed page. Sony's previous work has shown they are just as capable of fluid motion as the best of them, but what they've gone for here makes for a much stronger storytelling experience than anything that's ever come out of not only their studio but almost all of their rivals. It's a visual experience similar in impact if not technique to last year's sumptuous Loving Vincent, but this time married to a much stronger story and featuring a much richer voice cast.
On that note, Shameik Moore does an excellent job embodying Miles' youthful insecurity, and later, his steely resolve. Someone like Donald Glover, who'd voiced the role on a television show, might have been a safer choice for this character's big-screen debut, but Sony's gamble on a relative unknown has paid off, as he delivers a performance that really helped me, as a viewer, really root for the character. Jake Johnson's a perfect fit for the disheveled, over-the-hill Peter Parker, just as Chris Pine is for the "ultimate" Peter Parker (and do sit through the credits for Pine's hilarious "Spidey Bells" Christmas song, as well as the customary after-credits treat featuring Oscar Isaac). The supporting players do a great job filling up a pretty large ensemble, but there were definitely a few standouts for me, like Steinfeld as fan-favorite Spider-Gwen, and legendary comic-book geek (and, I'm told, pretty decent actor) Cage as the stylish Spider-Man Noir.
This is a movie that needs not just to be seen, but experienced in theaters. It's a sensory feast quite unlike anything that's ever come before it, and as comic-book based movies go, it really is a blast of fresh air breathed into a genre that didn't even know it needed it.
9.5/10
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Friday, November 30, 2018
(SPOILER ALERT and STRONG LANGUAGE FOR A REVIEW OF A KID'S MOVIE) How Disney Took a Giant Dump on Its Own Movie (OR, Why Wreck-It-Ralph 2 is a Truly Awful Film): A Review of Ralph Breaks the Internet (Wreck-It-Ralph 2)
directed by Rich Moore and Phil Johnston
written by Pamela Ribon and Johnston, Moore, Jim Reardon and Josie Trinidad
As hard as it may be to believe, it's been six years since Walt Disney Animation Studios gobsmacked movie goers and video game nuts of all ages with Wreck-It-Ralph, a hilarious, surprisingly moving fable about a bad guy tired of his thankless job who yearns for greener pastures but ultimately learns to love not just who he is but what he has in life. What was even harder to believe for me was that after giving us this utterly charming, nostalgia-fueled confection, Disney pulled down its pants, squatted and took a giant, steaming dump on it with the message of its sequel.
Six years after the first movie, video game character Wreck-It-Ralph (John C. Reilly) is living in utter contentment. By day he works as the bad guy in the arcade game Fix-It-Felix, and by night he gets to hang out with his best friend, Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman) star of the popular racing game Sugar Rush. Unlike Ralph, Vanellope has gotten bored with her life and wonders if there's more out there than just winning races and being queen of her realm all the time. As if in answer to her question, the arcade owner Litwak (Ed O'Neill) installs internet in the arcade, but the Surge Protector (Phil Johnston) declares the portal to the internet off-limits. When Ralph, wanting to make Vanellope happy, builds her a new, "bonus" track, Vanellope, about to win a race in the hands of gamer for the nth time, deviates from the track and actually fights the gamer, resulting in the steering wheel of the game breaking. When Litwak is unable to fix the machine and learns from an online search that a new part would cost more than the game even earns, he decides to pull the plug on it, rendering all of the Sugar Rush characters, including Vanellope, homeless. Wanting to make things right, Ralph decides to set off on a trip through the internet to find a new steering wheel and save Sugar Rush, and Vanellope joins him. They learn that they need money to get the part and in their attempt to make it, they enter a grungy, Grand Theft-Auto-inspired game called Slaughter Race in which they must steal the car of Shank (Gal Gadot) the game's leading antagonist. That doesn't pan out, but Vanellope finds herself drawn more and more to this strange new world, even as Ralph tries to raise the money needed to buy the steering wheel by becoming, of all things, an online video sensation through the prodding of head Buzztube algorithm Yesss (Taraji P. Henson). Soon, both Ralph and Vanellope will have to make some very uncomfortable choices.
The visual craft of this movie is just astonishing. Disney Animation is moving ever upwards and onward, even after having jettisoned its former shepherd John Lassetter on allegations of sexual impropriety, and they show, yet again, why they're at the top of the heap in terms of pure technical wizardry. The internet setting make a lot of online jokes possible, as well as a lot of cameos from other Disney properties including Star Wars (the Stormtroopers and C3PO have walk-ons) and Marvel (Groot and the late Stan Lee both make appearances, although the latter isn't a speaking role). It's pretty fun, if only for the visuals and Easter Eggs.
None of that really matters to me, though because the godawful writing just undermines it all.
This movie is thoroughly awful, but to go into why, I'll have to go into some major spoilers. Read on if you want to know more. If not, then you can end the review here.
1/10
(SPOILER ALERT)
(LAST CHANCE)
When the first movie came along, two other films had already taken a stab at telling a story of a bad guy who turned good (i.e. Megamind and Despicable Me) and so it needed a little something extra to distinguish itself, and apart from a plethora of delightful video game references, it managed to impart a charming message about making the most with what one has, even though it was delivered with all the subtlety of a hand grenade. Ralph's "Bad Guy Anonymous" credo was central to the movie's theme and featured in the movie's most touching moment: "I'm bad, and that's good. I'll never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."
The flip side of that surprisingly sweet message, however, was an entire community telling Ralph that he was wrong to dream about being a hero rather than a villain, from the entire supporting cast of the game in which he was the bad guy, to the other games he basically invaded, to the storytellers themselves. When Ralph wanted to improve his lot in life by stepping out of the (literal) box in which he had been confined for thirty years, he nearly destroyed his whole world. They even had a name for it: "Going Turbo." Yes, even the bad guy in the film was basically a cautionary tale as to what would happen if Ralph followed through on chasing his dream.
It seemed a pretty strange message for a Disney movie at the time. Don't chase your dreams? Make do with what you have? It seemed a bit out-of-character for the company as a whole, but the real surprise was how they actually managed to make that message work, largely by telling the audience, which consisted mainly of kids: it isn't all about you; sometimes there are people in your life who depend on you. In the end, Ralph learns to love his thankless job because he has a new friend, and because the people in his life have learned to appreciate him more.
And that's what makes the sequel, which basically throws that message out the window, utterly despicable.
Here, Vanellope, after six years of living the life she always wanted to live (a fact established firmly in the first movie) gets bored with her life and wants to head somewhere else, even though she's the lead character of her game (whose picture was even on the side of the machine, a crucial detail from the first film) and easily the most popular one. Sound familiar? She basically wants what Ralph wanted at the beginning of the first movie, except that unlike him, she's living the high life, without a care in the world and yet, unlike Ralph, the storytellers support her desire to "pursue her dream." So Ralph, after thirty years of being the most hated man in his corner of the world, is wrong to want more, but Vanellope, after a paltry six years of having everything she ever wanted, is absolutely right to want exactly the same thing as Ralph did? How does that make any sense at all within the logic of that world?
There's another, decidedly more sinister subtext when one puts the two movies together. Ralph is clearly a poor, working class schlub with ratty clothes, no shoes and poor personal hygiene as repeatedly established by references to his breath. He's a man of simple joys and yet the first movie chastises him for chasing glory and a better station in life. In contrast, Vanellope was programmed with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth. She was created as royalty, and the hero of her own game, only to be cheated out of it by someone who jumped ship from his own game. And yet, for all of her privilege, she, according to this film, is entirely justified in her desire to slum it it in the hellish landscape of Slaughter Race just because she's bored. Call it a stretch, but I'd almost say that the movie is declaring that rich people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, even if it means abandoning all personal responsibility, while us poor assholes had better just shut the fuck up and get back in line or there will be dire consequences. Take a look at what happens to Vanellope's game at the end of the movie; it may have been saved, but nobody's playing it, and it's become boring because the racers have all become nice to each other as a result of a barely-discussed subplot involving Fix-it-Felix (Jack McBrayer) and Sgt. Calhoun (Jane Lynch) adopting them all after Sugar Rush was unplugged and turning them into perfect children. Basically, without Vanellope, the game is screwed, even if it isn't explicitly stated, but that's okay, because Vanellope gets to live her dream with Shank and her gang.
And that's another thing; the supporting characters introduced here are the pits, from Gadot's hollow bad girl to Henson's one-note internet mogul. They pale in comparison to the liveliness that Felix and Calhoun brought to the screen in the first film.
Finally, the movie has the temerity to call Ralph clingy and toxic for basically echoing what the entire supporting cast of the first film was telling him. It's even more detestable considering that in the first film, none of the characters trying to talk Ralph out of his quest really gave a shit about him. They were all basically concerned with maintaining their comfortable little status quo. In the second film, in contrast, Ralph actually cares about Vanellope, and the movie is propelled by his efforts to actually help her, first by building her a new "bonus" track, and then by going into the internet to save her game, a game she ends up abandoning anyway. For all his dedication, he is branded as clingy, insecure, and toxic.
I'll tell you what's toxic: this movie. Sure, it's got amazing visuals and funny pop culture references (including a genuinely funny end-credits sequence which earns the film's sole point) but when all of this craftmanship is employed in service of such an awful story that spits in the face of what came before it, this deserves scorn rather than praise.
Now I know how haters of Star Wars: The Last Jedi feel.
Again: 1/10
written by Pamela Ribon and Johnston, Moore, Jim Reardon and Josie Trinidad
As hard as it may be to believe, it's been six years since Walt Disney Animation Studios gobsmacked movie goers and video game nuts of all ages with Wreck-It-Ralph, a hilarious, surprisingly moving fable about a bad guy tired of his thankless job who yearns for greener pastures but ultimately learns to love not just who he is but what he has in life. What was even harder to believe for me was that after giving us this utterly charming, nostalgia-fueled confection, Disney pulled down its pants, squatted and took a giant, steaming dump on it with the message of its sequel.
Six years after the first movie, video game character Wreck-It-Ralph (John C. Reilly) is living in utter contentment. By day he works as the bad guy in the arcade game Fix-It-Felix, and by night he gets to hang out with his best friend, Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman) star of the popular racing game Sugar Rush. Unlike Ralph, Vanellope has gotten bored with her life and wonders if there's more out there than just winning races and being queen of her realm all the time. As if in answer to her question, the arcade owner Litwak (Ed O'Neill) installs internet in the arcade, but the Surge Protector (Phil Johnston) declares the portal to the internet off-limits. When Ralph, wanting to make Vanellope happy, builds her a new, "bonus" track, Vanellope, about to win a race in the hands of gamer for the nth time, deviates from the track and actually fights the gamer, resulting in the steering wheel of the game breaking. When Litwak is unable to fix the machine and learns from an online search that a new part would cost more than the game even earns, he decides to pull the plug on it, rendering all of the Sugar Rush characters, including Vanellope, homeless. Wanting to make things right, Ralph decides to set off on a trip through the internet to find a new steering wheel and save Sugar Rush, and Vanellope joins him. They learn that they need money to get the part and in their attempt to make it, they enter a grungy, Grand Theft-Auto-inspired game called Slaughter Race in which they must steal the car of Shank (Gal Gadot) the game's leading antagonist. That doesn't pan out, but Vanellope finds herself drawn more and more to this strange new world, even as Ralph tries to raise the money needed to buy the steering wheel by becoming, of all things, an online video sensation through the prodding of head Buzztube algorithm Yesss (Taraji P. Henson). Soon, both Ralph and Vanellope will have to make some very uncomfortable choices.
The visual craft of this movie is just astonishing. Disney Animation is moving ever upwards and onward, even after having jettisoned its former shepherd John Lassetter on allegations of sexual impropriety, and they show, yet again, why they're at the top of the heap in terms of pure technical wizardry. The internet setting make a lot of online jokes possible, as well as a lot of cameos from other Disney properties including Star Wars (the Stormtroopers and C3PO have walk-ons) and Marvel (Groot and the late Stan Lee both make appearances, although the latter isn't a speaking role). It's pretty fun, if only for the visuals and Easter Eggs.
None of that really matters to me, though because the godawful writing just undermines it all.
This movie is thoroughly awful, but to go into why, I'll have to go into some major spoilers. Read on if you want to know more. If not, then you can end the review here.
1/10
(SPOILER ALERT)
(LAST CHANCE)
When the first movie came along, two other films had already taken a stab at telling a story of a bad guy who turned good (i.e. Megamind and Despicable Me) and so it needed a little something extra to distinguish itself, and apart from a plethora of delightful video game references, it managed to impart a charming message about making the most with what one has, even though it was delivered with all the subtlety of a hand grenade. Ralph's "Bad Guy Anonymous" credo was central to the movie's theme and featured in the movie's most touching moment: "I'm bad, and that's good. I'll never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."
The flip side of that surprisingly sweet message, however, was an entire community telling Ralph that he was wrong to dream about being a hero rather than a villain, from the entire supporting cast of the game in which he was the bad guy, to the other games he basically invaded, to the storytellers themselves. When Ralph wanted to improve his lot in life by stepping out of the (literal) box in which he had been confined for thirty years, he nearly destroyed his whole world. They even had a name for it: "Going Turbo." Yes, even the bad guy in the film was basically a cautionary tale as to what would happen if Ralph followed through on chasing his dream.
It seemed a pretty strange message for a Disney movie at the time. Don't chase your dreams? Make do with what you have? It seemed a bit out-of-character for the company as a whole, but the real surprise was how they actually managed to make that message work, largely by telling the audience, which consisted mainly of kids: it isn't all about you; sometimes there are people in your life who depend on you. In the end, Ralph learns to love his thankless job because he has a new friend, and because the people in his life have learned to appreciate him more.
And that's what makes the sequel, which basically throws that message out the window, utterly despicable.
Here, Vanellope, after six years of living the life she always wanted to live (a fact established firmly in the first movie) gets bored with her life and wants to head somewhere else, even though she's the lead character of her game (whose picture was even on the side of the machine, a crucial detail from the first film) and easily the most popular one. Sound familiar? She basically wants what Ralph wanted at the beginning of the first movie, except that unlike him, she's living the high life, without a care in the world and yet, unlike Ralph, the storytellers support her desire to "pursue her dream." So Ralph, after thirty years of being the most hated man in his corner of the world, is wrong to want more, but Vanellope, after a paltry six years of having everything she ever wanted, is absolutely right to want exactly the same thing as Ralph did? How does that make any sense at all within the logic of that world?
There's another, decidedly more sinister subtext when one puts the two movies together. Ralph is clearly a poor, working class schlub with ratty clothes, no shoes and poor personal hygiene as repeatedly established by references to his breath. He's a man of simple joys and yet the first movie chastises him for chasing glory and a better station in life. In contrast, Vanellope was programmed with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth. She was created as royalty, and the hero of her own game, only to be cheated out of it by someone who jumped ship from his own game. And yet, for all of her privilege, she, according to this film, is entirely justified in her desire to slum it it in the hellish landscape of Slaughter Race just because she's bored. Call it a stretch, but I'd almost say that the movie is declaring that rich people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want, even if it means abandoning all personal responsibility, while us poor assholes had better just shut the fuck up and get back in line or there will be dire consequences. Take a look at what happens to Vanellope's game at the end of the movie; it may have been saved, but nobody's playing it, and it's become boring because the racers have all become nice to each other as a result of a barely-discussed subplot involving Fix-it-Felix (Jack McBrayer) and Sgt. Calhoun (Jane Lynch) adopting them all after Sugar Rush was unplugged and turning them into perfect children. Basically, without Vanellope, the game is screwed, even if it isn't explicitly stated, but that's okay, because Vanellope gets to live her dream with Shank and her gang.
And that's another thing; the supporting characters introduced here are the pits, from Gadot's hollow bad girl to Henson's one-note internet mogul. They pale in comparison to the liveliness that Felix and Calhoun brought to the screen in the first film.
Finally, the movie has the temerity to call Ralph clingy and toxic for basically echoing what the entire supporting cast of the first film was telling him. It's even more detestable considering that in the first film, none of the characters trying to talk Ralph out of his quest really gave a shit about him. They were all basically concerned with maintaining their comfortable little status quo. In the second film, in contrast, Ralph actually cares about Vanellope, and the movie is propelled by his efforts to actually help her, first by building her a new "bonus" track, and then by going into the internet to save her game, a game she ends up abandoning anyway. For all his dedication, he is branded as clingy, insecure, and toxic.
I'll tell you what's toxic: this movie. Sure, it's got amazing visuals and funny pop culture references (including a genuinely funny end-credits sequence which earns the film's sole point) but when all of this craftmanship is employed in service of such an awful story that spits in the face of what came before it, this deserves scorn rather than praise.
Now I know how haters of Star Wars: The Last Jedi feel.
Again: 1/10
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Spidey vs. Aquaman vs. Bumblebee: Cannibalistic Christmas at the Cinema
With the year over 80% over, a good chunk of the movies destined to make a killing at the box-office have already run their course and are now racking up Blu-Ray and streaming sales. Using normal math, one could figure that the time for blockbusters is done, and that the year is most likely to go out quietly.
In the United States and Canada, however the grosses of movies that open on or around Christmas Day, and the week that follows it, do not follow the rules of "normal" box-office math. As many box-office analysts are fond of saying, in that part of the world, during that brief period of time every day is Saturday, which, barring the opening day of an extremely front-loaded movie, is invariably the single most lucrative day of any the week for any given movie. Because of this unique time of the year, the impossible becomes possible, such as multiple blockbusters thriving side-by-side (e.g. Avatar co-existing with box-office smashes like Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks), films opening small managing to finish huge (e.g. The Greatest Showman opening to $8 million and going on to finish with $174 million). It's a completely different dynamic from that followed by the average summer blockbuster, which usually adhere to the following rules: 1) opening weekend is usually make-or-break, 2) any competition closer than two weeks away can seriously damage grosses and 3) every dollar earned past the first couple of weeks is a bonus. The pre-Christmas and Christmas day blockbuster, however, is a different animal.
The thing is, the dynamic usually works because at Christmastime, there's usually something for everyone. A movie like Sing can sell $250 million in tickets alongside a $500++ million juggernaut like Rogue One: A Star Wars story because while the latter is busy gobbling up dollars from the 18-to-25, mostly male demographic, the former is busy catering to families, who are out in droves thanks to holidays from school and work. Adults can goose up the grosses of awards-bait like Argo and The Revenant, and basically there's a good time to be had by all.
What makes this year different and worth writing about, in my opinion at least, is that unlike in the past, this Christmas will feature the most number of aspiring blockbusters competing for what is essentially the same patch of box-office real estate.
There are three big guy-centric movies that will compete for the big bucks at or around Christmas, the first being Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse which, to be fair will be coming out almost two weeks before Christmas Day, around the same time of release of the Star Wars or Tolkien adaptation movies, but it is hitting theaters only one week before the other two aspiring blockbusters of the season, Warner Brothers/DC's Aquaman and Paramount's Transformers spinoff Bumblebee. All three of them, clearly, hope to partake of that sweet, sweet holiday loot, and up until a month or so ago, a fourth movie with an almost identical target demographic, James Cameron's and Robert Rodriguez's manga adaptation Alita: Battle Angel was originally scheduled to open right alongside Aquaman and Bumblebee. Alita: Battle Angel has since moved to February of next year, but it has been replaced with a PG-13 re-release of Deadpool 2, which, while not expected to make serious money, being a re-release, could spoil things for somebody's blockbuster-in-waiting nonetheless. As it is, three brand new movies with considerable audience overlap are going to duke it out and put to the test, more than ever has been done before, just how much the marketplace can expand to accommodate multiple blockbusters.
Personally, as a lifelong fan of the Spider-Man character, I'm most pumped for Into the Spider-Verse, considering that, more than any of the other offerings it looks like something we've never seen before, with its universe crisscrossing plot and its unique and quite honestly eye-popping animation style. I'm rooting for it more than any of the others, and quite frankly, with the earliest release date and family appeal (being an animated film) I think it has the best shot of the three of coming out on top. If nothing else, by the time the melee starts, it will most likely have webbed up about a cool hundred million or so.
Of all the "18 to 25" movies coming out on the weekend before Christmas, Aquaman has the best chance of winning the weekend. Its closest competitor for the crown, the long-awaited Mary Poppins Returns, opens on a Wednesday and will have burned off considerable demand by the weekend. Besides, Disney is most likely playing the long game with that particular film, which will cater to a different demographic, while Aquaman, like any comic-book blockbuster barring Black Panther or Wonder Woman, in contrast, is likely to be frontloaded. Considering that Warner Bros./DC had Aquaman in the can when Justice League tanked a year ago, releasing it in December was arguably the best thing they could have done with it. Had it been released any sooner, it'd still carry the stink of JL's failure, while waiting too long to release it would cast serious doubt on WB's confidence in the film and might also put it in the path of other blockbusters-in-waiting like Captain Marvel. WB marketing got this just right; how much money the movie makes now is all up to...the movie.
For me, the one truly puzzling release of Christmas 2018 is the Transformers prequel (reboot?) Bumblebee, which, in my estimation at least, looks most likely to lose out, if indeed there will be a loser when the dust settles. The truth be told, the thought that this movie could get lost in a sea of blockbusters makes me a little sad, because in over eleven years and six movies, this film, if the trailer is any indication, marks the first time that the folks at Paramount are ditching Michael Bay's brain-dead approach to filmmaking and have elected to actually make a film with heart. Not only is this evident from the trailer which suggests an 80s-set, Iron Giant-inspired narrative, but also from the pedigree of the filmmakers, like Travis Knight, director of the Academy-Award nominated Kubo and the Two Strings, and the two up-and-coming female scriptwriters Christina Hodson and Kelly Fremon Craig, both firsts for the franchise. Oh, and the film also starts Academy Award nominee Hailee Steinfeld as the lead (though to be fair, Mark Wahlberg, lead of the last two Transformers films, also has an Oscar nod under his belt). As odd as this may sound, of all the 18-to-25-skewing movies coming out this December, this movie actually has the most pedigree, though the presence of former wrestler John Cena kind of evens that out a bit.
I'm glad Alita: Battle Angel, which to me looked like the most unique of the entire Christmas bunch, dodged the bullet of having to face off against so many big titles, but even without it in the mix I find myself genuinely curious to see how this box-office battle royale will ultimately play out.
In the United States and Canada, however the grosses of movies that open on or around Christmas Day, and the week that follows it, do not follow the rules of "normal" box-office math. As many box-office analysts are fond of saying, in that part of the world, during that brief period of time every day is Saturday, which, barring the opening day of an extremely front-loaded movie, is invariably the single most lucrative day of any the week for any given movie. Because of this unique time of the year, the impossible becomes possible, such as multiple blockbusters thriving side-by-side (e.g. Avatar co-existing with box-office smashes like Sherlock Holmes and Alvin and the Chipmunks), films opening small managing to finish huge (e.g. The Greatest Showman opening to $8 million and going on to finish with $174 million). It's a completely different dynamic from that followed by the average summer blockbuster, which usually adhere to the following rules: 1) opening weekend is usually make-or-break, 2) any competition closer than two weeks away can seriously damage grosses and 3) every dollar earned past the first couple of weeks is a bonus. The pre-Christmas and Christmas day blockbuster, however, is a different animal.
The thing is, the dynamic usually works because at Christmastime, there's usually something for everyone. A movie like Sing can sell $250 million in tickets alongside a $500++ million juggernaut like Rogue One: A Star Wars story because while the latter is busy gobbling up dollars from the 18-to-25, mostly male demographic, the former is busy catering to families, who are out in droves thanks to holidays from school and work. Adults can goose up the grosses of awards-bait like Argo and The Revenant, and basically there's a good time to be had by all.
What makes this year different and worth writing about, in my opinion at least, is that unlike in the past, this Christmas will feature the most number of aspiring blockbusters competing for what is essentially the same patch of box-office real estate.
There are three big guy-centric movies that will compete for the big bucks at or around Christmas, the first being Sony's Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse which, to be fair will be coming out almost two weeks before Christmas Day, around the same time of release of the Star Wars or Tolkien adaptation movies, but it is hitting theaters only one week before the other two aspiring blockbusters of the season, Warner Brothers/DC's Aquaman and Paramount's Transformers spinoff Bumblebee. All three of them, clearly, hope to partake of that sweet, sweet holiday loot, and up until a month or so ago, a fourth movie with an almost identical target demographic, James Cameron's and Robert Rodriguez's manga adaptation Alita: Battle Angel was originally scheduled to open right alongside Aquaman and Bumblebee. Alita: Battle Angel has since moved to February of next year, but it has been replaced with a PG-13 re-release of Deadpool 2, which, while not expected to make serious money, being a re-release, could spoil things for somebody's blockbuster-in-waiting nonetheless. As it is, three brand new movies with considerable audience overlap are going to duke it out and put to the test, more than ever has been done before, just how much the marketplace can expand to accommodate multiple blockbusters.
Personally, as a lifelong fan of the Spider-Man character, I'm most pumped for Into the Spider-Verse, considering that, more than any of the other offerings it looks like something we've never seen before, with its universe crisscrossing plot and its unique and quite honestly eye-popping animation style. I'm rooting for it more than any of the others, and quite frankly, with the earliest release date and family appeal (being an animated film) I think it has the best shot of the three of coming out on top. If nothing else, by the time the melee starts, it will most likely have webbed up about a cool hundred million or so.
Of all the "18 to 25" movies coming out on the weekend before Christmas, Aquaman has the best chance of winning the weekend. Its closest competitor for the crown, the long-awaited Mary Poppins Returns, opens on a Wednesday and will have burned off considerable demand by the weekend. Besides, Disney is most likely playing the long game with that particular film, which will cater to a different demographic, while Aquaman, like any comic-book blockbuster barring Black Panther or Wonder Woman, in contrast, is likely to be frontloaded. Considering that Warner Bros./DC had Aquaman in the can when Justice League tanked a year ago, releasing it in December was arguably the best thing they could have done with it. Had it been released any sooner, it'd still carry the stink of JL's failure, while waiting too long to release it would cast serious doubt on WB's confidence in the film and might also put it in the path of other blockbusters-in-waiting like Captain Marvel. WB marketing got this just right; how much money the movie makes now is all up to...the movie.
For me, the one truly puzzling release of Christmas 2018 is the Transformers prequel (reboot?) Bumblebee, which, in my estimation at least, looks most likely to lose out, if indeed there will be a loser when the dust settles. The truth be told, the thought that this movie could get lost in a sea of blockbusters makes me a little sad, because in over eleven years and six movies, this film, if the trailer is any indication, marks the first time that the folks at Paramount are ditching Michael Bay's brain-dead approach to filmmaking and have elected to actually make a film with heart. Not only is this evident from the trailer which suggests an 80s-set, Iron Giant-inspired narrative, but also from the pedigree of the filmmakers, like Travis Knight, director of the Academy-Award nominated Kubo and the Two Strings, and the two up-and-coming female scriptwriters Christina Hodson and Kelly Fremon Craig, both firsts for the franchise. Oh, and the film also starts Academy Award nominee Hailee Steinfeld as the lead (though to be fair, Mark Wahlberg, lead of the last two Transformers films, also has an Oscar nod under his belt). As odd as this may sound, of all the 18-to-25-skewing movies coming out this December, this movie actually has the most pedigree, though the presence of former wrestler John Cena kind of evens that out a bit.
I'm glad Alita: Battle Angel, which to me looked like the most unique of the entire Christmas bunch, dodged the bullet of having to face off against so many big titles, but even without it in the mix I find myself genuinely curious to see how this box-office battle royale will ultimately play out.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Hail to the Queen! A Review of Bohemian Rhapsody
directed by Bryan Singer
written by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan
The long-gestating Freddie Mercury biopic finally comes to the big screen, with American actor Rami Malek delivering a stunning performance as one of the most iconic rock stars of all time.
Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells, very loosely, the story of the rock band Queen from its inception to its legendary performance at the 1985 Live Aid concert at Wembley Stadium, actually plays pretty much by the numbers. It starts with their humble beginnings; Freddie Mercury, aka Farokkh Bulsara (Malek) the humble immigrant from Zanzibar (now Tanzania) works at Heathrow airport unpacking luggage from airplanes, but already dreams of being a performer. His dream gets a boost when he joins the college campus band Smile consisting of Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), whose vocalist has just abandoned them. They are joined by bassist John Deacon (Joe Mazzello), and the band Queen is born. Also joining Freddie in his meteoric rise to the top is Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton) a saleslady with whom Freddie strikes up a romance, and who later proves to be the single most important person in his life. As the band goes from strength to strength and rockets to superstardom with their iconoclastic approach to making music, fame and all its trappings start to get to them, and to Freddie in particular as he struggles with his sexuality, and threaten to tear them all apart.
Much has been written about how this film handled its controversial subject matter, Freddie Mercury, with kid gloves and to be fair, one does get the sense that the narrative has been sanitized a bit. I can't say I'm too surprised given how closely the surviving band members supervised production. One scene in particular, in which the three other band members leave Freddie's party with their wives when things start to get a bit wild, had me rolling my eyes a little bit, not because I don't think it ever happened, but because the suggestion that Mercury was the only wild child of the bunch seemed patently absurd. Still, this movie was about Freddie first and foremost, and I can't imagine anyone getting in line to see a movie about Roger Taylor's marital travails. Ultimately, though, this kind of storytelling choice contributes to the impression that the film went a bit easy on the band.
What I find grossly unfair, though, is how some critics seem sorely disappointed that the film declined to portray Mercury's sexual misadventures explicitly and chose, instead to leave most of the debauchery to the imagination. It's even resulted in shock-value comedian Sacha Baron Cohen getting undeserved airtime for the assertion that his portrayal would have been "outrageous" in terms of Mercury's homosexuality, which tells me that his enthusiasm for the project was less about honoring Mercury's music and more about finding yet another excuse to show off his pale ass again, and quite frankly, thanks to Borat I've seen enough of naked Sacha Baron Cohen to last me ten lifetimes.
The thing is, the movie is aptly called "Bohemian Rhapsody" rather than "Freddie" or even "Queen" because it's less about Freddie or the band and their quirks and is more about how their music, more than the diva tantrums or the drugs or the orgies, was what defined them. We got to glimpse the painstaking gestation of not only "Bohemian Rhapsody" but also Queen's other celebrated anthem, "We Will Rock You" and even the off-beat "Another One Bites the Dust" which was apparently born during an argument between the band members. Sure, we basically saw what the remainder of the band wanted us to see, but when the climax of the movie is a gorgeously-recreated version of the 1985 Live Aid concert at Wembley Stadium, it's hard to begrudge them their vision, even if it doesn't feel like an entirely honest one.
It's also hard to dislike a film with a lead performance as mesmerizing as that of Rami Malek, who, as even the most curmudgeonly of critics has acknowledged, carries the entire movie. I don't pretend to have known Freddie Mercury in any capacity, but there was something utterly captivating about seeing Malek doing his level best to recapture Mercury's boundless energy as he ad-lib-pranced across the stage, and thus creating an energy of his own. Baron Cohen would not have pulled this off, not in his wildest dreams. While I'll admit that Malek's main job was basically to pantomime Mercury belting out his greatest hits, it simply wouldn't have worked if he hadn't exuded charisma in virtually every moment that the camera is on him, even through those massive prosthetic teeth, and even in Freddie's darkest moments of self-doubt and self-loathing. One thing that did seem off to me, though, was that Malek looked a bit skinnier than Freddie but that was a minor quibble.
It helps that capable actors are cast as the rest of the band, though really, they barely make an impression with the way they're written. It was weirdly entertaining, though to see the kid from Jurassic Park play Queen's bassist John Deacon. Everyone else is in the cast is just okay, though Allen Leech as the villainous manager Paul Prenter played the character a bit too broad; I half-expected him to twirl his mustache at one point. One cameo that particularly stood out, though, was Mike Myers as Ray Foster, the small-minded (and fictional) record executive at EMI who refused to release Bohemian Rhapsody as the band's carrier single. As anyone over forty knows, Myers revitalized the song in America when he featured it in the opening scene of his popular film Wayne's World back in 1992. Having him assert that no kids would ever play that song in their cars and bang their heads to it was a pretty gratifying payoff.
it's a shame Bryan Singer couldn't keep it together to finish this movie, because as the Wembley Studio sequence he shot shows, he's still got the touch that mades his X-Men movies eminently watchable.
So yes, the movie has its fair share of problems, most of them with the writing, but a magnetic performance by its lead and those infectious songs are enough to pretty much carry the day, just as they were in The Greatest Showman.
7/10
written by Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan
The long-gestating Freddie Mercury biopic finally comes to the big screen, with American actor Rami Malek delivering a stunning performance as one of the most iconic rock stars of all time.
Bohemian Rhapsody, which tells, very loosely, the story of the rock band Queen from its inception to its legendary performance at the 1985 Live Aid concert at Wembley Stadium, actually plays pretty much by the numbers. It starts with their humble beginnings; Freddie Mercury, aka Farokkh Bulsara (Malek) the humble immigrant from Zanzibar (now Tanzania) works at Heathrow airport unpacking luggage from airplanes, but already dreams of being a performer. His dream gets a boost when he joins the college campus band Smile consisting of Brian May (Gwilym Lee) and Roger Taylor (Ben Hardy), whose vocalist has just abandoned them. They are joined by bassist John Deacon (Joe Mazzello), and the band Queen is born. Also joining Freddie in his meteoric rise to the top is Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton) a saleslady with whom Freddie strikes up a romance, and who later proves to be the single most important person in his life. As the band goes from strength to strength and rockets to superstardom with their iconoclastic approach to making music, fame and all its trappings start to get to them, and to Freddie in particular as he struggles with his sexuality, and threaten to tear them all apart.
Much has been written about how this film handled its controversial subject matter, Freddie Mercury, with kid gloves and to be fair, one does get the sense that the narrative has been sanitized a bit. I can't say I'm too surprised given how closely the surviving band members supervised production. One scene in particular, in which the three other band members leave Freddie's party with their wives when things start to get a bit wild, had me rolling my eyes a little bit, not because I don't think it ever happened, but because the suggestion that Mercury was the only wild child of the bunch seemed patently absurd. Still, this movie was about Freddie first and foremost, and I can't imagine anyone getting in line to see a movie about Roger Taylor's marital travails. Ultimately, though, this kind of storytelling choice contributes to the impression that the film went a bit easy on the band.
What I find grossly unfair, though, is how some critics seem sorely disappointed that the film declined to portray Mercury's sexual misadventures explicitly and chose, instead to leave most of the debauchery to the imagination. It's even resulted in shock-value comedian Sacha Baron Cohen getting undeserved airtime for the assertion that his portrayal would have been "outrageous" in terms of Mercury's homosexuality, which tells me that his enthusiasm for the project was less about honoring Mercury's music and more about finding yet another excuse to show off his pale ass again, and quite frankly, thanks to Borat I've seen enough of naked Sacha Baron Cohen to last me ten lifetimes.
The thing is, the movie is aptly called "Bohemian Rhapsody" rather than "Freddie" or even "Queen" because it's less about Freddie or the band and their quirks and is more about how their music, more than the diva tantrums or the drugs or the orgies, was what defined them. We got to glimpse the painstaking gestation of not only "Bohemian Rhapsody" but also Queen's other celebrated anthem, "We Will Rock You" and even the off-beat "Another One Bites the Dust" which was apparently born during an argument between the band members. Sure, we basically saw what the remainder of the band wanted us to see, but when the climax of the movie is a gorgeously-recreated version of the 1985 Live Aid concert at Wembley Stadium, it's hard to begrudge them their vision, even if it doesn't feel like an entirely honest one.
It's also hard to dislike a film with a lead performance as mesmerizing as that of Rami Malek, who, as even the most curmudgeonly of critics has acknowledged, carries the entire movie. I don't pretend to have known Freddie Mercury in any capacity, but there was something utterly captivating about seeing Malek doing his level best to recapture Mercury's boundless energy as he ad-lib-pranced across the stage, and thus creating an energy of his own. Baron Cohen would not have pulled this off, not in his wildest dreams. While I'll admit that Malek's main job was basically to pantomime Mercury belting out his greatest hits, it simply wouldn't have worked if he hadn't exuded charisma in virtually every moment that the camera is on him, even through those massive prosthetic teeth, and even in Freddie's darkest moments of self-doubt and self-loathing. One thing that did seem off to me, though, was that Malek looked a bit skinnier than Freddie but that was a minor quibble.
It helps that capable actors are cast as the rest of the band, though really, they barely make an impression with the way they're written. It was weirdly entertaining, though to see the kid from Jurassic Park play Queen's bassist John Deacon. Everyone else is in the cast is just okay, though Allen Leech as the villainous manager Paul Prenter played the character a bit too broad; I half-expected him to twirl his mustache at one point. One cameo that particularly stood out, though, was Mike Myers as Ray Foster, the small-minded (and fictional) record executive at EMI who refused to release Bohemian Rhapsody as the band's carrier single. As anyone over forty knows, Myers revitalized the song in America when he featured it in the opening scene of his popular film Wayne's World back in 1992. Having him assert that no kids would ever play that song in their cars and bang their heads to it was a pretty gratifying payoff.
it's a shame Bryan Singer couldn't keep it together to finish this movie, because as the Wembley Studio sequence he shot shows, he's still got the touch that mades his X-Men movies eminently watchable.
So yes, the movie has its fair share of problems, most of them with the writing, but a magnetic performance by its lead and those infectious songs are enough to pretty much carry the day, just as they were in The Greatest Showman.
7/10
Sunday, October 7, 2018
A Buddy-Comedy/Superhero/Horror Hybrid: A Review of Venom
directed by Ruben Fleischer
written by Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel
Sony Pictures unleashes the first of its "Spider-Man-related-characters Cinematic Universe" which, conspicuously, is Spider-Man free, featuring the character of Venom, which, originally conceived as a Spidey villain, is now forced to be its own thing. Fortunately, the finished product is nowhere near the disaster that so many film critics are making it out to be.
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is an investigative journalist who specializes in fighting for the oppressed and bringing down corrupt bad guys. He's got it all: his own show on a news network, and a beautiful, upwardly mobile lawyer fiancee Anne (Michelle Williams). When Eddie's boss asks him to do a "puff piece" interview with industrialist Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), head of the Life Foundation, whom Eddie strongly believes to be involved in dirty dealings, he grudgingly agrees. After stumbling onto a confidential e-mail on Anne's laptop, implicating Drake in some truly horrific acts, Eddie takes matters into his own hands during the interview, with disastrous results. Both Eddie and Anne lose their jobs, Eddie loses Anne, and meanwhile, Drake's nefarious experiments, which involve bonding alien organisms with human hosts, continue, even as one such body-snatching alien which crashed in Malaysia on one of Drake's ill-fated expeditions makes its way to the Life Foundation, possessing and discarding human hosts as it goes.
Months later, Eddie is approached by one of Drake's scientists (Jenny Slate) whose conscience can no longer bear the things she's witnessed, and she tells him about the experiments. She then sneaks him into the Life Foundation, where Eddie, in an attempt to rescue a homeless woman he's befriended, finds himself hosting one of the aliens himself. On the run from Drake and his goons, Eddie finds himself with superhuman abilities, but at the same time saddled with an ornery, perpetually hungry alien organism named Venom. Will Venom enable Eddie to take down the corrupt, murderous Drake, or will he be the death of him?
Unlike many of the Marvel Comics characters whose film adaptations I have diligently followed over the years, I have no emotional investment in the character of Venom. I read his first few appearances thirty years ago in the pages of The Amazing Spider-Man, back when Todd McFarlane was still drawing the book, but when McFarlane left, so did I, and as a result, I wasn't around for Venom's mutation from a straight-up villain into an antihero, or the "Lethal Protector" that made him such a cult favorite. In short, I didn't really expect a whole lot from this movie when I learned that it wouldn't have anything to do with Spider-Man, though with each casting announcement (it's got two Oscar nominees, for a start) I found myself more and more intrigued.
When I wrote my review for Avengers: Infinity War, one aspect of the film I critiqued was the tonal shifting throughout the film, which, to date, is the darkest of all the films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I basically said that, in the hands of lesser filmmakers, such shifts wouldn't work. Well, as unlikely as this may seem to fans of the entertaining Zombieland, Ruben Fleischer is that lesser filmmaker, unfortunately, as are his team of writers, which include Scott Rosenberg, whose finest written work remains to be his scathing "everybody knew" confession regarding Harvey Weinstein.
Fleischer structures his film as a sort of superhero/horror hybrid. Unlike his comics counterpart, Eddie Brock is introduced as a sympathetic character, a crusader for the oppressed and Drake is set up as the villain. As a superhero film, it's barely even mediocre, with cringe-inducing dialogue and both a poorly-realized protagonist and antagonist. For a seasoned investigative journalist, Eddie comes across as amateurish at best, and thoroughly incompetent at worst and his fall from grace feels more like a plot contrivance than anything else as do a lot of other conveniently overlooked details like how easy it is to sneak into Drake's supposedly state-of-the-art facility.
When Eddie finds himself joined to the symbiote, however, the movie changes quite radically in tone...and, to my mind, in quality. Almost all pretense of being a "serious" superhero saga is dropped, and the movie, led by Hardy, who not only plays Eddie but lends his filtered voice to the symbiote as well, embraces its own goofiness to spectacular effect. It's an almost straight-up action comedy at this point, just under halfway through the movie, and the film is immensely the better for it. Hardy is so effective in selling this aspect of the movie that even when the obligatory generic CGI action kicks in, the film still chugs along to its reasonably satisfying conclusion and even its tease for the (now inevitable) sequel. I read somewhere that Fleischer pushed for the film to be serious, while Hardy advocated the comedic approach, and the conflict kind of shows. While I appreciate that Hardy seems to have won out in the end, I wish the film had not taken quite so long to get where it needed to be.
Some people have given Sony grief for not making this an "R" rated film, but to my mind, this was actually a good call; constraining the writers by depriving them of "f" bombs and the kind of toilet humor that the Deadpool movies gleefully plundered actually enabled them to instill the movie with its own distinct humorous sensibility rather than churn out a Deadpool knockoff. Some of the older writers have compared this movie to Carl Reiner's body-sharing 1984 comedy All of Me, in which Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin share the former's body, and having seen that movie on TV many times, I have to say the comparison is spot on, with Hardy doing a commendable job channeling Martin's energy. He does a very good job carrying this film, which would have been dreadful without him.
Michelle Williams, to be fair, also deserves kudos for breathing life into an otherwise generic "significant other" role, including some of the film's humorous moments. When her new doctor-boyfriend (Reid Scott, also okay in his role), professes to be a fan of Eddie's, marveling at the people he's taken down, Anne says, without missing a beat, "I was one of them," and the humor of that scene, at a time when the film hadn't quite kicked into its humorous mode, worked for me.
Unfortunately, beyond Hardy, Williams, and to a lesser extent, Scott, the rest of the cast just doesn't really measure up. To be fair to Riz Ahmed, who can add Elon Musk to the venture capitalists he's parodied (he did a bit of Mark Zuckerberg in Jason Bourne some years ago) he does his level best try to sell Drake as a truly detestable bad guy, but the script just doesn't meet him halfway. Also, the less said of Jenny Slate, a comedienne stuck in a comedy with literally nothing funny to say or do, the better.
The CGI and action sequences were pretty much par for the course for one of these films. They weren't terrible, but they weren't great either. I had a laugh-out-loud moment during one intense fight scene between Venom and a bunch of armed men when one of his victims let out the infamous "Wilhelm" scream, but other than that felt distinctly unmoved.
Of course, as with any Marvel-based movie, even one not made by Marvel itself, there will be post-credit goodies, and fans of both Venom and Fleischer's previous work are in for a treat with the mid-credits sequence, which also serves as a teaser for the sequel. The real reward, however, is the glorious three (or so) minute clip of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse that plays after the end credits are done. That was definitely worth sitting through the entire credits to see.
6/10
written by Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel
Sony Pictures unleashes the first of its "Spider-Man-related-characters Cinematic Universe" which, conspicuously, is Spider-Man free, featuring the character of Venom, which, originally conceived as a Spidey villain, is now forced to be its own thing. Fortunately, the finished product is nowhere near the disaster that so many film critics are making it out to be.
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is an investigative journalist who specializes in fighting for the oppressed and bringing down corrupt bad guys. He's got it all: his own show on a news network, and a beautiful, upwardly mobile lawyer fiancee Anne (Michelle Williams). When Eddie's boss asks him to do a "puff piece" interview with industrialist Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), head of the Life Foundation, whom Eddie strongly believes to be involved in dirty dealings, he grudgingly agrees. After stumbling onto a confidential e-mail on Anne's laptop, implicating Drake in some truly horrific acts, Eddie takes matters into his own hands during the interview, with disastrous results. Both Eddie and Anne lose their jobs, Eddie loses Anne, and meanwhile, Drake's nefarious experiments, which involve bonding alien organisms with human hosts, continue, even as one such body-snatching alien which crashed in Malaysia on one of Drake's ill-fated expeditions makes its way to the Life Foundation, possessing and discarding human hosts as it goes.
Months later, Eddie is approached by one of Drake's scientists (Jenny Slate) whose conscience can no longer bear the things she's witnessed, and she tells him about the experiments. She then sneaks him into the Life Foundation, where Eddie, in an attempt to rescue a homeless woman he's befriended, finds himself hosting one of the aliens himself. On the run from Drake and his goons, Eddie finds himself with superhuman abilities, but at the same time saddled with an ornery, perpetually hungry alien organism named Venom. Will Venom enable Eddie to take down the corrupt, murderous Drake, or will he be the death of him?
Unlike many of the Marvel Comics characters whose film adaptations I have diligently followed over the years, I have no emotional investment in the character of Venom. I read his first few appearances thirty years ago in the pages of The Amazing Spider-Man, back when Todd McFarlane was still drawing the book, but when McFarlane left, so did I, and as a result, I wasn't around for Venom's mutation from a straight-up villain into an antihero, or the "Lethal Protector" that made him such a cult favorite. In short, I didn't really expect a whole lot from this movie when I learned that it wouldn't have anything to do with Spider-Man, though with each casting announcement (it's got two Oscar nominees, for a start) I found myself more and more intrigued.
When I wrote my review for Avengers: Infinity War, one aspect of the film I critiqued was the tonal shifting throughout the film, which, to date, is the darkest of all the films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I basically said that, in the hands of lesser filmmakers, such shifts wouldn't work. Well, as unlikely as this may seem to fans of the entertaining Zombieland, Ruben Fleischer is that lesser filmmaker, unfortunately, as are his team of writers, which include Scott Rosenberg, whose finest written work remains to be his scathing "everybody knew" confession regarding Harvey Weinstein.
Fleischer structures his film as a sort of superhero/horror hybrid. Unlike his comics counterpart, Eddie Brock is introduced as a sympathetic character, a crusader for the oppressed and Drake is set up as the villain. As a superhero film, it's barely even mediocre, with cringe-inducing dialogue and both a poorly-realized protagonist and antagonist. For a seasoned investigative journalist, Eddie comes across as amateurish at best, and thoroughly incompetent at worst and his fall from grace feels more like a plot contrivance than anything else as do a lot of other conveniently overlooked details like how easy it is to sneak into Drake's supposedly state-of-the-art facility.
When Eddie finds himself joined to the symbiote, however, the movie changes quite radically in tone...and, to my mind, in quality. Almost all pretense of being a "serious" superhero saga is dropped, and the movie, led by Hardy, who not only plays Eddie but lends his filtered voice to the symbiote as well, embraces its own goofiness to spectacular effect. It's an almost straight-up action comedy at this point, just under halfway through the movie, and the film is immensely the better for it. Hardy is so effective in selling this aspect of the movie that even when the obligatory generic CGI action kicks in, the film still chugs along to its reasonably satisfying conclusion and even its tease for the (now inevitable) sequel. I read somewhere that Fleischer pushed for the film to be serious, while Hardy advocated the comedic approach, and the conflict kind of shows. While I appreciate that Hardy seems to have won out in the end, I wish the film had not taken quite so long to get where it needed to be.
Some people have given Sony grief for not making this an "R" rated film, but to my mind, this was actually a good call; constraining the writers by depriving them of "f" bombs and the kind of toilet humor that the Deadpool movies gleefully plundered actually enabled them to instill the movie with its own distinct humorous sensibility rather than churn out a Deadpool knockoff. Some of the older writers have compared this movie to Carl Reiner's body-sharing 1984 comedy All of Me, in which Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin share the former's body, and having seen that movie on TV many times, I have to say the comparison is spot on, with Hardy doing a commendable job channeling Martin's energy. He does a very good job carrying this film, which would have been dreadful without him.
Michelle Williams, to be fair, also deserves kudos for breathing life into an otherwise generic "significant other" role, including some of the film's humorous moments. When her new doctor-boyfriend (Reid Scott, also okay in his role), professes to be a fan of Eddie's, marveling at the people he's taken down, Anne says, without missing a beat, "I was one of them," and the humor of that scene, at a time when the film hadn't quite kicked into its humorous mode, worked for me.
Unfortunately, beyond Hardy, Williams, and to a lesser extent, Scott, the rest of the cast just doesn't really measure up. To be fair to Riz Ahmed, who can add Elon Musk to the venture capitalists he's parodied (he did a bit of Mark Zuckerberg in Jason Bourne some years ago) he does his level best try to sell Drake as a truly detestable bad guy, but the script just doesn't meet him halfway. Also, the less said of Jenny Slate, a comedienne stuck in a comedy with literally nothing funny to say or do, the better.
The CGI and action sequences were pretty much par for the course for one of these films. They weren't terrible, but they weren't great either. I had a laugh-out-loud moment during one intense fight scene between Venom and a bunch of armed men when one of his victims let out the infamous "Wilhelm" scream, but other than that felt distinctly unmoved.
Of course, as with any Marvel-based movie, even one not made by Marvel itself, there will be post-credit goodies, and fans of both Venom and Fleischer's previous work are in for a treat with the mid-credits sequence, which also serves as a teaser for the sequel. The real reward, however, is the glorious three (or so) minute clip of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse that plays after the end credits are done. That was definitely worth sitting through the entire credits to see.
6/10
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Following Up A Phenomenon: A Review of "Goyo: Ang Batang Heneral" (Um...Spoiler Alert?)
directed by Jerrold Tarog
written by Rody Vera and Jerrold Tarog
When Jerrold Tarog unleashed the historical wartime epic Heneral Luna on unsuspecting Filipino audiences three years ago, people were caught completely by surprise. So much so, in fact, that the film, which indulged in few, if any of the narrative tropes that have become embedded in not only Filipino movies but movies in general, was actually a box-office failure at first. It only managed to gain commercial momentum thanks to the determined efforts of its makers and its fans, who launched a formidable word-of-mouth campaign fueled primarily by social media, who not only helped the movie make back the money spent on it but gave Jerrold Tarog and crew enough money to make the envisioned sequel, a film about Gregorio del Pilar.
Three years later, that sequel, Goyo: Ang Batang Heneral, has hit the big screen, and while it wasn't quite the narrative force of nature that Heneral Luna was, it shows that Tarog has lost none of the flair and verve that made him one of the country's most talked-about filmmakers three years ago.
Goyo is a direct sequel to Luna (in much the way that The Two Towers was a direct sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring) and Tarog drops the viewer directly into the events following that film without bothering to explain that the nascent Philippine Republic under President Emilio Aguinaldo (Mon Confiado) is in the middle of resisting a colonization campaign by American forces. Antonio Luna has just been murdered under Aguinaldo's orders, and it has cast a pall over some of those fighting for the resistance, such as General Jose Alejandrino (Alvin Anson) who is actually threatened by a lower ranking soldier early in the film because of a passing resemblance he bore to the late General Luna. Aguinalo's forces are in steady retreat to the north of Luzon as the Americans advance, and leading them is the impetuous 23-year-old general Gregorio del Pilar (Paulo Avelino), who is perpetually flanked by his loyal friend, Col. Vicente Enriquez (Carlo Aquino) and his older brother Julian (Rafael Siguion-Reyna). As del Pilar settles his forces in Dagupan, Pangasinan, where the local townsfolk fete him and fawn on him, he preoccupies himself mainly with charming the local beauty, Remedios Nable Jose (Gwen Zamora), who constantly resists his advances, suspecting him to be a playboy. Meanwhile, Alejandrino sues for peace on Aguinaldo's orders, traveling to Manila with American prisoners in the hopes of ending the conflict through diplomacy. Elsewhere in the country, former cabinet member Apolinario Mabini (Epy Quizon) ruminates on the direction Aguinaldo's revolutionary government is taking, and is not optimistic for what the future holds. What none of them realizes is that the American forces remain on the move, and when they strike, President Aguinaldo will have to flee to the farthest reaches of Northern Luzon, and General Gregorio del Pilar will have to make some life-defining choices about what truly matters to him.
Having been gobsmacked by Heneral Luna, I was not nearly as taken with this production, even though Tarog's ferocious talent and incredible attention to detail are, yet again, on full display. Truth be told, this felt like a harder sell because apart from his heroic last stand at Tirad Pass, there really wasn't that much that defined del Pilar as a soldier, let alone as a character to carry a two-and-a-half-hour film. Luna had the advantage of a fierce conflict between the title character and the President he vehemently disagreed with, Emilio Aguinaldo. Here, the title character Gregorio del Pilar is, by contrast, unflinchingly loyal to Aguinaldo, to the extent that he is willing to carry out even the most despicable orders, such as the torture and summary execution of Luna's confederates. Unable to rely on the tension that essentially drove his previous film, Tarog instead focuses on making Goyo's journey one of redemption, which is not the easiest task in the film, considering how unlikable and utterly narcissistic he is. Of course, we get glimpses of his inner conflict and insecurities, but his character doesn't feel nearly as compelling as Luna's did, and while Avelino does his level best to give this historical figure dimension beyond the events that led to his death, his performance is nowhere near the tour de force that John Arcilla's was. Also, by choosing to tell the story over two and a half hours, Tarog makes it hard to keep things moving without a driving tension between his lead actors.
The thing is, though, as far as messages go, this one hits a lot harder than Heneral Luna did, and I say that as someone who gave that older movie a perfect "10" for a score.
In tackling head-on the absurdity of the concept of hero worship, in which ordinary men are placed on pedestals, beyond human reproach, virtually to the extent of being deified, Tarog holds up a mirror to the Filipino audience, or at least the percentage of the audience responsible for electing arguably the worst government the Philippines has had to endure in decades and asks them if their undying adulation over one person is more important than loving their country.
In a way, it feels a little like Tarog is apologizing (regardless of whether or not he actually is) for the way people interpreted his last film, which seemed to project Luna as the would-be savior of the Philippines, the best leader our country never had, especially when one considers that the current president is, like Luna, foul-mouthed and apparently down-to-earth. Did people think they were voting Luna reincarnate into office? It's unlikely, but one cannot entirely dismiss the notion. Tarog's previous critique was a broadside at bad attitudes of Filipinos all over the country, but this time around he is very specific in his messaging, and I, for one, hope it gets across to the people who need to hear it.
Also, Tarog deserves considerable credit for telling this story, which, despite its gruesome ending similar to that of Luna, actually manages to end on a positive note as the lead character actually manages to complete his hero's journey.
Everything about this film just shines, from the sets, to the costumes, to the cinematography, to the staging of the film's centerpiece, its climactic battle sequence. I even enjoyed the score composed by the director himself, though it was a little too eclectic for my taste, going from electric guitar to choir and back again. Of course, the casting was magnificent as well, and I was glad for the fact that Tarog managed to succeed in the one area in which many Filipino productions, even high-brow ones falter: the casting of Americans. Here, the American forces were played by an international hodgepodge of actors who ranged from Filipino-American meztizos, American actors, and even British actors, and while some were certainly better actors than others, overall, they managed to preserve the overall authenticity that Tarog and his Filipino actors clearly strove for all throughout the production. Speaking of the Filipino actors, while all of them certainly acquitted themselves well, in the absence of a John Arcilla, the highlight of the film for me was Epy Quizon's soft-spoken portrayal of Mabini. There was something almost lyrical about the way he recited his lines, and as a narrator he was much, more more effective than the fictional Joven Hernando (Arron Villaflor) who, like Mabini was featured in Luna, primarily as an exposition device.
At the end of it all, just as he had teased the production of this film at with a mid-credits "stinger" after Heneral Luna, Tarog drops another "stinger" to show that he hopes to make a film about Manuel Quezon, President of the Philippine Commonwealth.
I, for one, really hope he gets the chance to do just that.
8.5/10
written by Rody Vera and Jerrold Tarog
When Jerrold Tarog unleashed the historical wartime epic Heneral Luna on unsuspecting Filipino audiences three years ago, people were caught completely by surprise. So much so, in fact, that the film, which indulged in few, if any of the narrative tropes that have become embedded in not only Filipino movies but movies in general, was actually a box-office failure at first. It only managed to gain commercial momentum thanks to the determined efforts of its makers and its fans, who launched a formidable word-of-mouth campaign fueled primarily by social media, who not only helped the movie make back the money spent on it but gave Jerrold Tarog and crew enough money to make the envisioned sequel, a film about Gregorio del Pilar.
Three years later, that sequel, Goyo: Ang Batang Heneral, has hit the big screen, and while it wasn't quite the narrative force of nature that Heneral Luna was, it shows that Tarog has lost none of the flair and verve that made him one of the country's most talked-about filmmakers three years ago.
Goyo is a direct sequel to Luna (in much the way that The Two Towers was a direct sequel to The Fellowship of the Ring) and Tarog drops the viewer directly into the events following that film without bothering to explain that the nascent Philippine Republic under President Emilio Aguinaldo (Mon Confiado) is in the middle of resisting a colonization campaign by American forces. Antonio Luna has just been murdered under Aguinaldo's orders, and it has cast a pall over some of those fighting for the resistance, such as General Jose Alejandrino (Alvin Anson) who is actually threatened by a lower ranking soldier early in the film because of a passing resemblance he bore to the late General Luna. Aguinalo's forces are in steady retreat to the north of Luzon as the Americans advance, and leading them is the impetuous 23-year-old general Gregorio del Pilar (Paulo Avelino), who is perpetually flanked by his loyal friend, Col. Vicente Enriquez (Carlo Aquino) and his older brother Julian (Rafael Siguion-Reyna). As del Pilar settles his forces in Dagupan, Pangasinan, where the local townsfolk fete him and fawn on him, he preoccupies himself mainly with charming the local beauty, Remedios Nable Jose (Gwen Zamora), who constantly resists his advances, suspecting him to be a playboy. Meanwhile, Alejandrino sues for peace on Aguinaldo's orders, traveling to Manila with American prisoners in the hopes of ending the conflict through diplomacy. Elsewhere in the country, former cabinet member Apolinario Mabini (Epy Quizon) ruminates on the direction Aguinaldo's revolutionary government is taking, and is not optimistic for what the future holds. What none of them realizes is that the American forces remain on the move, and when they strike, President Aguinaldo will have to flee to the farthest reaches of Northern Luzon, and General Gregorio del Pilar will have to make some life-defining choices about what truly matters to him.
Having been gobsmacked by Heneral Luna, I was not nearly as taken with this production, even though Tarog's ferocious talent and incredible attention to detail are, yet again, on full display. Truth be told, this felt like a harder sell because apart from his heroic last stand at Tirad Pass, there really wasn't that much that defined del Pilar as a soldier, let alone as a character to carry a two-and-a-half-hour film. Luna had the advantage of a fierce conflict between the title character and the President he vehemently disagreed with, Emilio Aguinaldo. Here, the title character Gregorio del Pilar is, by contrast, unflinchingly loyal to Aguinaldo, to the extent that he is willing to carry out even the most despicable orders, such as the torture and summary execution of Luna's confederates. Unable to rely on the tension that essentially drove his previous film, Tarog instead focuses on making Goyo's journey one of redemption, which is not the easiest task in the film, considering how unlikable and utterly narcissistic he is. Of course, we get glimpses of his inner conflict and insecurities, but his character doesn't feel nearly as compelling as Luna's did, and while Avelino does his level best to give this historical figure dimension beyond the events that led to his death, his performance is nowhere near the tour de force that John Arcilla's was. Also, by choosing to tell the story over two and a half hours, Tarog makes it hard to keep things moving without a driving tension between his lead actors.
The thing is, though, as far as messages go, this one hits a lot harder than Heneral Luna did, and I say that as someone who gave that older movie a perfect "10" for a score.
In tackling head-on the absurdity of the concept of hero worship, in which ordinary men are placed on pedestals, beyond human reproach, virtually to the extent of being deified, Tarog holds up a mirror to the Filipino audience, or at least the percentage of the audience responsible for electing arguably the worst government the Philippines has had to endure in decades and asks them if their undying adulation over one person is more important than loving their country.
In a way, it feels a little like Tarog is apologizing (regardless of whether or not he actually is) for the way people interpreted his last film, which seemed to project Luna as the would-be savior of the Philippines, the best leader our country never had, especially when one considers that the current president is, like Luna, foul-mouthed and apparently down-to-earth. Did people think they were voting Luna reincarnate into office? It's unlikely, but one cannot entirely dismiss the notion. Tarog's previous critique was a broadside at bad attitudes of Filipinos all over the country, but this time around he is very specific in his messaging, and I, for one, hope it gets across to the people who need to hear it.
Also, Tarog deserves considerable credit for telling this story, which, despite its gruesome ending similar to that of Luna, actually manages to end on a positive note as the lead character actually manages to complete his hero's journey.
Everything about this film just shines, from the sets, to the costumes, to the cinematography, to the staging of the film's centerpiece, its climactic battle sequence. I even enjoyed the score composed by the director himself, though it was a little too eclectic for my taste, going from electric guitar to choir and back again. Of course, the casting was magnificent as well, and I was glad for the fact that Tarog managed to succeed in the one area in which many Filipino productions, even high-brow ones falter: the casting of Americans. Here, the American forces were played by an international hodgepodge of actors who ranged from Filipino-American meztizos, American actors, and even British actors, and while some were certainly better actors than others, overall, they managed to preserve the overall authenticity that Tarog and his Filipino actors clearly strove for all throughout the production. Speaking of the Filipino actors, while all of them certainly acquitted themselves well, in the absence of a John Arcilla, the highlight of the film for me was Epy Quizon's soft-spoken portrayal of Mabini. There was something almost lyrical about the way he recited his lines, and as a narrator he was much, more more effective than the fictional Joven Hernando (Arron Villaflor) who, like Mabini was featured in Luna, primarily as an exposition device.
At the end of it all, just as he had teased the production of this film at with a mid-credits "stinger" after Heneral Luna, Tarog drops another "stinger" to show that he hopes to make a film about Manuel Quezon, President of the Philippine Commonwealth.
I, for one, really hope he gets the chance to do just that.
8.5/10
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Gothic Chills and Kid-Friendly Thrills: A Review of The House with a Clock in Its Walls
directed by Eli Roth
written by Eric Kripke
I'll be honest, I've never really been a "Potterhead." I was in my mid-20s when I read the first book in the Harry Potter series, and couldn't make it any further than the fifth book before I just decided to finish the saga through the movies instead.
That's not to say, however, that I grew up without my own preferred line of young adult books. Rather than the Hardy Boys books that kids my age favored, I preferred the gothic horror stories written by the late John Bellairs. There was something about them that resonated with me; of Bellairs' protagonists, I only read the adventures of Johnny Dixon and Anthony Monday, as opposed to those of Lewis Barnavelt, the protagonist of this film, but I appreciated the books just the same.
As I got older and found myself gravitating towards movies, I looked back with fondness on my Bellairs books and realized they'd be somewhat difficult to adapt given how the villains tended to stay in the shadows until the last minute and much of the conflict was internal to the lead character.
As a result, I was genuinely, and pleasantly surprised earlier this year to learn that not only was one of Bellairs' more popular books slated for adaptation, but that it would happen under the banner of a newly-reconstituted Amblin Films, or Steven Spielberg's company. I may not have read The House with the Clock in Its Walls, but the Bellairs factor was more than enough to get me to check it out, with my whole family in tow.
Following the tragic death of his parents, Lewis Barnavelt moves to New Zebedee, Michigan to live with his eccentric uncle Jonathan (Jack Black), who lives in a strange, magical house. Lewis meets Mrs. Florence Zimmerman (a sublime Cate Blancett), Jonathan's neighbor and longtime friend with whom his favorite pastime is playing cards and trading verbal barbs, and starts the awkward process of settling in at his new school, where he fortunately manages to befriend the popular kid Tarby (Sunny Suljic). Nervous at first because of strange things he sees at night in the house, Lewis discovers that his uncle and Florence are, in fact a warlock and a witch, and that the entire house itself is magical. Jonathan tells Lewis of a dark secret within the house: a mysterious clock placed by the previous owner, a wicked warlock named Isaac Izard (Kyle MacLachlan). What he doesn't mention, however, is the clock's terrifying purpose. Even as Jonathan and Florence teach Lewis how to wield magic, they spend the late hours trying to address an urgent, terrible threat. What they don't know is that as he sleeps, Lewis dreams of his mother (Lorenza Izzo) who constantly goads him into doing things he shouldn't do, including using magic to raise the dead. Lewis, wanting to keep his friendship with Tarby, does the unthinkable, and all hell breaks loose.
Now, even though I had never read this book, I recognized a lot of Bellairs' signature narrative devices: an orphan (Barnavelt was an orphan, while Johnny's Dixon's mother had died while his father was Missing in Action in Korea), a slightly off-kilter surrogate parent (Lewis lives with his Uncle Jonathan, while Johnny lived with his grandmother), and an older, somewhat batty friend (Lewis has Mrs. Zimmerman, while Johnny has Professor Roderick Childermass). Of course, none of this would have meant anything if the assembled cast and crew, shepherded by director Eli Roth (best known for his gorefests Hostel and The Green Inferno) and screenwriter Eric Kripke (creator of Supernatural) couldn't deliver a decent film. Fortunately for all of us Bellairs fans, it turns out that they could, and did.
Kripke compensates for the absence of a villain throughout most of the story by dropping clues throughout the narrative and slowly amplifying the menace lingering over the character, like the eerie calm before a storm. There's plenty of foreshadowing; I mean, when you have, as one of the major set pieces, a room full of creepy-looking automatons standing around, there's only one thing that can happen, right? Still, I imagine it was difficult adapting a Bellairs novel for the screen and it kind of shows; the dialogue is distinctly awkward at some points and I imagine more than a few liberties were taken because several of the characters don't quite speak with Bellairs' "voice."
Roth may have been a seemingly unorthodox choice for this kind of movie going in, but he successfully delivers scares without gore and manages to make a movie with heart (as opposed to all of the other exposed human organs from his other films). Notably, this movie was made on a very frugal budget (which would probably explain the constantly darkened set pieces, which are often a way of masking some visual effects cheats) and many of the effects were practical, which made the creepiness they evoked all the more impressive to see.
The main draw for me, though, apart from the Bellairs factor, was the cast. Jack Black was the sole reason I enjoyed the similarly-themed Goosebumps from three years ago, and the notion that he was revisiting this genre, especially since he seemed to bring more of his signature zaniness to this role, piqued my interest. When I saw Cate Blanchett in the trailer, however, I was absolutely sold. The two of them absolutely carry this movie, not just with their individual performances but with, dare I say it, a wonderful chemistry that isn't something as prosaic as romance, but rather something we don't often see in movies like this: two world-weary, middle-aged adult friends just glad for one another's company. Their every interaction plays into this dynamic from the good-natured bickering to the more serious moments in the film, particularly near the climax. I didn't much care for Owen Vaccaro's performance as Lewis Barnavelt; I've seen better child actors. Fortunately, though, I've also seen worse, so for the most part, I was able to live with him. At least he wasn't a Logan Lerman clone like the last lead in a kids' horror movie featuring Jack Black.
What I really had a hard time living with, though, was the consistently dark lighting throughout the film. I understand it served several purposes, like set the mood and obscure seams in the visual effects, but it did not make for a pleasant viewing experience. One can tell that the filmmakers made the best they could with the available budget, but it really is a bit rough around the edges.
All told, though, it was a pleasant enough surprise for me that this movie was even made at all, let alone at this standard of quality, rather than the shoddy, TV-movie level quality of the annoying Goosebumps adaptation, and given that this book (and the other Bellairs books) spawned several sequels over four (!) decades, I wouldn't be entirely dismissive of the notion of a "John Bellairs Cinematic Universe" that one writer floated. I'd even support it, if the quality of the films was like this, or better.
7/10
written by Eric Kripke
I'll be honest, I've never really been a "Potterhead." I was in my mid-20s when I read the first book in the Harry Potter series, and couldn't make it any further than the fifth book before I just decided to finish the saga through the movies instead.
That's not to say, however, that I grew up without my own preferred line of young adult books. Rather than the Hardy Boys books that kids my age favored, I preferred the gothic horror stories written by the late John Bellairs. There was something about them that resonated with me; of Bellairs' protagonists, I only read the adventures of Johnny Dixon and Anthony Monday, as opposed to those of Lewis Barnavelt, the protagonist of this film, but I appreciated the books just the same.
As I got older and found myself gravitating towards movies, I looked back with fondness on my Bellairs books and realized they'd be somewhat difficult to adapt given how the villains tended to stay in the shadows until the last minute and much of the conflict was internal to the lead character.
As a result, I was genuinely, and pleasantly surprised earlier this year to learn that not only was one of Bellairs' more popular books slated for adaptation, but that it would happen under the banner of a newly-reconstituted Amblin Films, or Steven Spielberg's company. I may not have read The House with the Clock in Its Walls, but the Bellairs factor was more than enough to get me to check it out, with my whole family in tow.
Following the tragic death of his parents, Lewis Barnavelt moves to New Zebedee, Michigan to live with his eccentric uncle Jonathan (Jack Black), who lives in a strange, magical house. Lewis meets Mrs. Florence Zimmerman (a sublime Cate Blancett), Jonathan's neighbor and longtime friend with whom his favorite pastime is playing cards and trading verbal barbs, and starts the awkward process of settling in at his new school, where he fortunately manages to befriend the popular kid Tarby (Sunny Suljic). Nervous at first because of strange things he sees at night in the house, Lewis discovers that his uncle and Florence are, in fact a warlock and a witch, and that the entire house itself is magical. Jonathan tells Lewis of a dark secret within the house: a mysterious clock placed by the previous owner, a wicked warlock named Isaac Izard (Kyle MacLachlan). What he doesn't mention, however, is the clock's terrifying purpose. Even as Jonathan and Florence teach Lewis how to wield magic, they spend the late hours trying to address an urgent, terrible threat. What they don't know is that as he sleeps, Lewis dreams of his mother (Lorenza Izzo) who constantly goads him into doing things he shouldn't do, including using magic to raise the dead. Lewis, wanting to keep his friendship with Tarby, does the unthinkable, and all hell breaks loose.
Now, even though I had never read this book, I recognized a lot of Bellairs' signature narrative devices: an orphan (Barnavelt was an orphan, while Johnny's Dixon's mother had died while his father was Missing in Action in Korea), a slightly off-kilter surrogate parent (Lewis lives with his Uncle Jonathan, while Johnny lived with his grandmother), and an older, somewhat batty friend (Lewis has Mrs. Zimmerman, while Johnny has Professor Roderick Childermass). Of course, none of this would have meant anything if the assembled cast and crew, shepherded by director Eli Roth (best known for his gorefests Hostel and The Green Inferno) and screenwriter Eric Kripke (creator of Supernatural) couldn't deliver a decent film. Fortunately for all of us Bellairs fans, it turns out that they could, and did.
Kripke compensates for the absence of a villain throughout most of the story by dropping clues throughout the narrative and slowly amplifying the menace lingering over the character, like the eerie calm before a storm. There's plenty of foreshadowing; I mean, when you have, as one of the major set pieces, a room full of creepy-looking automatons standing around, there's only one thing that can happen, right? Still, I imagine it was difficult adapting a Bellairs novel for the screen and it kind of shows; the dialogue is distinctly awkward at some points and I imagine more than a few liberties were taken because several of the characters don't quite speak with Bellairs' "voice."
Roth may have been a seemingly unorthodox choice for this kind of movie going in, but he successfully delivers scares without gore and manages to make a movie with heart (as opposed to all of the other exposed human organs from his other films). Notably, this movie was made on a very frugal budget (which would probably explain the constantly darkened set pieces, which are often a way of masking some visual effects cheats) and many of the effects were practical, which made the creepiness they evoked all the more impressive to see.
The main draw for me, though, apart from the Bellairs factor, was the cast. Jack Black was the sole reason I enjoyed the similarly-themed Goosebumps from three years ago, and the notion that he was revisiting this genre, especially since he seemed to bring more of his signature zaniness to this role, piqued my interest. When I saw Cate Blanchett in the trailer, however, I was absolutely sold. The two of them absolutely carry this movie, not just with their individual performances but with, dare I say it, a wonderful chemistry that isn't something as prosaic as romance, but rather something we don't often see in movies like this: two world-weary, middle-aged adult friends just glad for one another's company. Their every interaction plays into this dynamic from the good-natured bickering to the more serious moments in the film, particularly near the climax. I didn't much care for Owen Vaccaro's performance as Lewis Barnavelt; I've seen better child actors. Fortunately, though, I've also seen worse, so for the most part, I was able to live with him. At least he wasn't a Logan Lerman clone like the last lead in a kids' horror movie featuring Jack Black.
What I really had a hard time living with, though, was the consistently dark lighting throughout the film. I understand it served several purposes, like set the mood and obscure seams in the visual effects, but it did not make for a pleasant viewing experience. One can tell that the filmmakers made the best they could with the available budget, but it really is a bit rough around the edges.
All told, though, it was a pleasant enough surprise for me that this movie was even made at all, let alone at this standard of quality, rather than the shoddy, TV-movie level quality of the annoying Goosebumps adaptation, and given that this book (and the other Bellairs books) spawned several sequels over four (!) decades, I wouldn't be entirely dismissive of the notion of a "John Bellairs Cinematic Universe" that one writer floated. I'd even support it, if the quality of the films was like this, or better.
7/10
Monday, September 10, 2018
Denzel's First Sequel: A Review The Equalizer 2 (Mild Spoilers)
directed by Antoine Fuqua
written by Richard Wenk
Four years ago I walked into Antoine Fuqua's adaptation of the popular 80s television series The Equalizer with what I like to think were moderate expectations. I walked in a fan of the film's star, Denzel Washington, and while that certainly did not change over the course of the next two hours, I was definitely disappointed by the final product. The film, marketed as a straight-up action thriller, featured very little onscreen action, and even less by way of thrills.
When a splashier trailer for the sequel debuted a few months ago, I got the distinct impression that Fuqua and screenwriter Richard Wenk had taken the criticism leveled at the film to heart, rolled up their sleeves, and had earnestly set out to make a better film. Not necessarily a bigger one, but one which basically addressed most, if not necessarily all of the first film's key shortcomings, and to my mind, they've succeeded quite admirably.
As this film opens we find ex-CIA operative Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) traveling undercover in Turkey, of all places, where he sets out to rescue a young girl from her abductors as only he can. One brutally efficient fight scene later, we find McCall back stateside, working as a Lyft driver and going about his somewhat lonely daily routine, which is brightened by a visit from his only friend, his former CIA handler Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) on the occasion of his late wife's birthday. McCall also takes interest in Miles, a promising young artist (Ashton Sanders) who lives nearby, and in particular wants to see him fulfill his potential rather than fall in with the wrong kind of crowd. Meanwhile, in Brussels, a mysterious group of Americans murder an unassuming gentleman who has arrived home for a quiet dinner with his wife. The Belgian, as it turns out, was a deep undercover CIA asset, which prompts Plummer to go and investigate, with results catastrophic enough to bring McCall out of his mostly quiet life and back on the hunt. Helping him out this time is his one-time CIA partner Dave (Pedro Pascal), but even that might not be enough to take down his quarry, who are truly deadly individuals.
DVD-jacket synopsis aside, I genuinely enjoyed this movie, even if it was distinctly predictable, so much so that I fear that one of the actors playing a supporting character seems to run the risk of being typecast. Sure, it still had a by-the-numbers feel to it, even as a sequel, but I could tell there was quite a bit more attention to detail this time around, in both the scripting and directing, so I think a much better score this time around is warranted.
This film, in contrast to its predecessor, actually seems to be about something other than an unassuming store worker turning out to be the consummate human weapon. By highlighting the fact that McCall, following the death of his wife and his own forced "retirement" from the CIA, following a deadly explosion, no longer has any real human connections, it makes a statement about that very concept. Susan out-and-out describes herself as his only friend, and this catalyzes much of the narrative. While it's hardly a profound treatise on human relationships, the film is still very grounded in the idea, which helps give some weight to the action sequences. Incidentally, the action is noticeably ramped-up here as well, and not at all limited to what's in the trailers.
There's something cathartic about seeing McCall open a can of whoop-ass on evil people who, in real life, are often untouchable, such as the Russian mobsters in the first film. Here, he puts a severe beatdown on some Turkish goons kidnapping a child, and later, to much more satisfying effect, on a bunch of privileged, mostly-white investment-banker types who have just severely abused a young woman. In both cases, quite notably, Fuqua stages the action much more effectively than he did in the first film, letting us see much more clearly what McCall is doing rather than bombarding us with a flurry of quick cuts. Even the finale was a noticeable upgrade from the previous film. Instead of the cheap trick of staging it at night, in a darkened warehouse store that severely dampened the climax of the first film, Fuqua has the action play out during a storm in the daytime. I'll admit that I was a little disappointed that the elite team of antagonists that McCall faced off against weren't all THAT tough, but it was still a step up from the climax of the last film, and I was glad that there was an honest-to-goodness, down-and-dirty hand-to-hand fight with the final "boss" which was something that did not feature at all in the first film. I have no idea if the amazing fight choreography and staging of the John Wick films influenced the action here in any way, but in any case, this film is definitely a step up from its predecessor.
It's still a far cry from a great action movie; the writing still feels distinctly plot-driven rather than character-driven, and the promise of a globe-trotting adventure in Europe was a rather annoying tease that never paid off, but overall, it's definitely an improvement over the first film.
Not only has this movie made enough money to justify a third installment, but the story, in my opinion at least, distinctly calls for one. There are enough loose threads in McCall's story that could justify at least one more movie, and given that Fuqua and Wenk made it a point to expand on McCall quite a bit from the last film, it's possible we may yet see that territory explored.
6.5/10
written by Richard Wenk
Four years ago I walked into Antoine Fuqua's adaptation of the popular 80s television series The Equalizer with what I like to think were moderate expectations. I walked in a fan of the film's star, Denzel Washington, and while that certainly did not change over the course of the next two hours, I was definitely disappointed by the final product. The film, marketed as a straight-up action thriller, featured very little onscreen action, and even less by way of thrills.
When a splashier trailer for the sequel debuted a few months ago, I got the distinct impression that Fuqua and screenwriter Richard Wenk had taken the criticism leveled at the film to heart, rolled up their sleeves, and had earnestly set out to make a better film. Not necessarily a bigger one, but one which basically addressed most, if not necessarily all of the first film's key shortcomings, and to my mind, they've succeeded quite admirably.
As this film opens we find ex-CIA operative Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) traveling undercover in Turkey, of all places, where he sets out to rescue a young girl from her abductors as only he can. One brutally efficient fight scene later, we find McCall back stateside, working as a Lyft driver and going about his somewhat lonely daily routine, which is brightened by a visit from his only friend, his former CIA handler Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) on the occasion of his late wife's birthday. McCall also takes interest in Miles, a promising young artist (Ashton Sanders) who lives nearby, and in particular wants to see him fulfill his potential rather than fall in with the wrong kind of crowd. Meanwhile, in Brussels, a mysterious group of Americans murder an unassuming gentleman who has arrived home for a quiet dinner with his wife. The Belgian, as it turns out, was a deep undercover CIA asset, which prompts Plummer to go and investigate, with results catastrophic enough to bring McCall out of his mostly quiet life and back on the hunt. Helping him out this time is his one-time CIA partner Dave (Pedro Pascal), but even that might not be enough to take down his quarry, who are truly deadly individuals.
DVD-jacket synopsis aside, I genuinely enjoyed this movie, even if it was distinctly predictable, so much so that I fear that one of the actors playing a supporting character seems to run the risk of being typecast. Sure, it still had a by-the-numbers feel to it, even as a sequel, but I could tell there was quite a bit more attention to detail this time around, in both the scripting and directing, so I think a much better score this time around is warranted.
This film, in contrast to its predecessor, actually seems to be about something other than an unassuming store worker turning out to be the consummate human weapon. By highlighting the fact that McCall, following the death of his wife and his own forced "retirement" from the CIA, following a deadly explosion, no longer has any real human connections, it makes a statement about that very concept. Susan out-and-out describes herself as his only friend, and this catalyzes much of the narrative. While it's hardly a profound treatise on human relationships, the film is still very grounded in the idea, which helps give some weight to the action sequences. Incidentally, the action is noticeably ramped-up here as well, and not at all limited to what's in the trailers.
There's something cathartic about seeing McCall open a can of whoop-ass on evil people who, in real life, are often untouchable, such as the Russian mobsters in the first film. Here, he puts a severe beatdown on some Turkish goons kidnapping a child, and later, to much more satisfying effect, on a bunch of privileged, mostly-white investment-banker types who have just severely abused a young woman. In both cases, quite notably, Fuqua stages the action much more effectively than he did in the first film, letting us see much more clearly what McCall is doing rather than bombarding us with a flurry of quick cuts. Even the finale was a noticeable upgrade from the previous film. Instead of the cheap trick of staging it at night, in a darkened warehouse store that severely dampened the climax of the first film, Fuqua has the action play out during a storm in the daytime. I'll admit that I was a little disappointed that the elite team of antagonists that McCall faced off against weren't all THAT tough, but it was still a step up from the climax of the last film, and I was glad that there was an honest-to-goodness, down-and-dirty hand-to-hand fight with the final "boss" which was something that did not feature at all in the first film. I have no idea if the amazing fight choreography and staging of the John Wick films influenced the action here in any way, but in any case, this film is definitely a step up from its predecessor.
It's still a far cry from a great action movie; the writing still feels distinctly plot-driven rather than character-driven, and the promise of a globe-trotting adventure in Europe was a rather annoying tease that never paid off, but overall, it's definitely an improvement over the first film.
Not only has this movie made enough money to justify a third installment, but the story, in my opinion at least, distinctly calls for one. There are enough loose threads in McCall's story that could justify at least one more movie, and given that Fuqua and Wenk made it a point to expand on McCall quite a bit from the last film, it's possible we may yet see that territory explored.
6.5/10
Monday, August 13, 2018
The Jackie Chan of the West Strikes Again: A Review of Mission Impossible: Fallout
written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie
For various reasons, I was unable to watch Mission: Impossible: Fallout until last night, and an unfortunate by-product of having to wait so long to see it, even as I did my best to insulate myself from the film's increasingly glowing reception among audiences and critics, was that my expectations were, perhaps unfairly, all but sky-high by the time my wife and I caught a late-night screening.
Following the Impossible Mission Forces' capture of Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) at the end of the Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation, IMF top agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) learns that Lane's cabal, once known as the Syndicate, have rebranded themselves as "the Apostles" and remain bent on establishing a new world order by completely destroying the old one. Even more frighteningly, they hope to collaborate with a like-minded terrorist named John Lark, to whom they plan to sell three stolen plutonium cores. When Hunt and his IMF crew Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and Benjie Dunn (Simon Pegg) are unable to acquire the cores from the Apostles in an attempt to buy them, they find themselves on a mission to retrieve them before they end up in the hands of Lark. However, because Hunt put saving Luther over securing the cores, Erica Sloane (Angela Bassett) the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who took over from Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) who now heads the IMF, no longer trusts Hunt's judgment and grafts August Walker (Henry Cavill) a "special actions" operative to his hip. The path to the plutonium promises to be a treacherous one and Hunt and his team will have to deal with a shady power broker (Vanessa Kirby) who can get the plutonium for them, at terrible cost, and even the resurfacing of their own ally Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) whose agenda is unclear and who, therefore, could be dangerous to them.
I have consistently enjoyed these Mission: Impossible movies since the third film, just before they started replacing the numbers with subtitles. For me, the highlight of the series remains Brad Bird's Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol or the fourth installment. This movie continues that standard of quality that has been the norm since J.J. Abrams' Bad Robot production company started producing these films. Returning director Christopher McQuarrie, who also wrote the script, improves on the already commendable work he did in the last movie. As with all of these movies, and just about any self-respecting spy flick, the film is a globe-spanning adventure that starts off in Ireland, trots through France and ends up in the mountains of Kashmir. The plot is reasonably coherent, if notably hackneyed, while the action set pieces are spectacular.
And then, of course, there is the utter commitment that the film's (and franchise's) star, Tom Cruise, puts on full display here for his loyal viewers. Whether it's learning how to HALO jump, fly a helicopter, or run around with a broken ankle, there is apparently no challenge too great for Tom to take on, and the film is that much better for his total dedication. So much so that more than a few of the film critics who have given this film rave reviews have gone so far as to call this movie the greatest action movie of all time.
That is where I feel I have to respectfully disagree.
Now, the movie starts out very strong, with both the much-ballyhooed (and truly awesome) HALO jump and the absolutely heart-stopping men's room fistfight happening within rapid succession of one another, and to be fair it does not scrimp on the action even after these scenes are done. Now, my problem with the claim that this is "the best action movie ever" is that most, if not all of the action set pieces that follow those two sequences feature something that's been done before, sometimes within the Mission: Impossible franchise itself, and while taking inspiration from other films isn't always a bad thing, there's only so many times one can lift action sequences from elsewhere before it starts to take a bit of luster off the product.
The car chase scene through Paris is something we've seen before, in films like Doug Liman's The Bourne Identity and John Frankenheimer's criminally-underappreciated Ronin, and some of the sequence even evokes one of the granddaddies of the car chase: The French Connection. The motorbike scene is certainly impressive, with Tom Cruise driving against traffic, but it's a bit evocative of The Dark Knight, and even of the more recent Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation. The climactic sequence of Ethan Hunt running around in search of someone important while Benjie barks in his ear was done in Mission: Impossible III, albeit with a different location. Also, the rooftop chasing portion of that sequence was far more effectively done in The Bourne Ultimatum, but more on that later. Also, if the climactic scene involving a coordinated attempt to defuse two bombs, or one big bomb from two (or more) locations, felt distinctly familiar, it's because it's a rehash of the same storytelling device that was employed in Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Make no mistake; they're all still extremely well-staged, and it really helped that Cruise went full-on Jackie Chan for all of these sequences, but the extent to which many critics have been willing to forgive the flimsy script (which they often describe as its weak point, right off the bat) in the name of the stunts borders on the irrational. Honestly, I could get why Mad Max: Fury Road was so well-received three years ago; it was just so off-the-wall crazy that it could not be ignored and to be honest, really offered something we had never seen before, even though there had been three other Mad Max films. M:I:Fallout doesn't even come close.
Also, if we're talking about all-time greats for action movies, I respectfully submit that M:I:Fallout falls short of Paul Greengrass' The Bourne Ultimatum, in which stunning action set pieces are deftly married to a solid script and intense performances for a really powerful finale to the original trilogy of Bourne films (which, as in the case of so many beloved cinematic trilogies, are the only films in the series that really matter). Yes, I know Greengrass is frequently criticized for his "shaky cam" and quick cuts, but unlike the droves of clones that his approach to action movies spawned (I'm looking at you, Taken films), he used these devices to serve the greater narrative and not just to make his action star look "cool." Also, if we're going to talk about authentically bone-crunching fight sequences, M:I:Fallout faces somewhat stiff competition in the form of the John Wick movies. In short, "greatest action movie ever" feels distinctly like hyperbole, perhaps coming from film critics who are weary of comic-book-based blockbusters dominating the action movie landscape. If that's the case, then there's something slightly hypocritical about their overflowing adulation, as this film is a superhero movie just as surely as anything bearing "Marvel" or "DC" branding is. After all, a guy who can survive smashing his helicopter into another and then falling onto a freaking mountain is a superhero by any reasonable standard, even if he isn't wearing a gaudy costume.
I realize this review feels slightly unkind, but in truth I genuinely enjoyed this movie, even more than I did the last one. I just honestly find myself a bit bewildered by the growing consensus that it's some kind of high watermark in action filmmaking, which I find kind of unfair to all of the films from which it borrowed somewhat liberally. It's a really, really good movie, but I'm not about to get carried away.
7.9/10
For various reasons, I was unable to watch Mission: Impossible: Fallout until last night, and an unfortunate by-product of having to wait so long to see it, even as I did my best to insulate myself from the film's increasingly glowing reception among audiences and critics, was that my expectations were, perhaps unfairly, all but sky-high by the time my wife and I caught a late-night screening.
Following the Impossible Mission Forces' capture of Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) at the end of the Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation, IMF top agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) learns that Lane's cabal, once known as the Syndicate, have rebranded themselves as "the Apostles" and remain bent on establishing a new world order by completely destroying the old one. Even more frighteningly, they hope to collaborate with a like-minded terrorist named John Lark, to whom they plan to sell three stolen plutonium cores. When Hunt and his IMF crew Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and Benjie Dunn (Simon Pegg) are unable to acquire the cores from the Apostles in an attempt to buy them, they find themselves on a mission to retrieve them before they end up in the hands of Lark. However, because Hunt put saving Luther over securing the cores, Erica Sloane (Angela Bassett) the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who took over from Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin) who now heads the IMF, no longer trusts Hunt's judgment and grafts August Walker (Henry Cavill) a "special actions" operative to his hip. The path to the plutonium promises to be a treacherous one and Hunt and his team will have to deal with a shady power broker (Vanessa Kirby) who can get the plutonium for them, at terrible cost, and even the resurfacing of their own ally Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) whose agenda is unclear and who, therefore, could be dangerous to them.
I have consistently enjoyed these Mission: Impossible movies since the third film, just before they started replacing the numbers with subtitles. For me, the highlight of the series remains Brad Bird's Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol or the fourth installment. This movie continues that standard of quality that has been the norm since J.J. Abrams' Bad Robot production company started producing these films. Returning director Christopher McQuarrie, who also wrote the script, improves on the already commendable work he did in the last movie. As with all of these movies, and just about any self-respecting spy flick, the film is a globe-spanning adventure that starts off in Ireland, trots through France and ends up in the mountains of Kashmir. The plot is reasonably coherent, if notably hackneyed, while the action set pieces are spectacular.
And then, of course, there is the utter commitment that the film's (and franchise's) star, Tom Cruise, puts on full display here for his loyal viewers. Whether it's learning how to HALO jump, fly a helicopter, or run around with a broken ankle, there is apparently no challenge too great for Tom to take on, and the film is that much better for his total dedication. So much so that more than a few of the film critics who have given this film rave reviews have gone so far as to call this movie the greatest action movie of all time.
That is where I feel I have to respectfully disagree.
Now, the movie starts out very strong, with both the much-ballyhooed (and truly awesome) HALO jump and the absolutely heart-stopping men's room fistfight happening within rapid succession of one another, and to be fair it does not scrimp on the action even after these scenes are done. Now, my problem with the claim that this is "the best action movie ever" is that most, if not all of the action set pieces that follow those two sequences feature something that's been done before, sometimes within the Mission: Impossible franchise itself, and while taking inspiration from other films isn't always a bad thing, there's only so many times one can lift action sequences from elsewhere before it starts to take a bit of luster off the product.
The car chase scene through Paris is something we've seen before, in films like Doug Liman's The Bourne Identity and John Frankenheimer's criminally-underappreciated Ronin, and some of the sequence even evokes one of the granddaddies of the car chase: The French Connection. The motorbike scene is certainly impressive, with Tom Cruise driving against traffic, but it's a bit evocative of The Dark Knight, and even of the more recent Mission: Impossible: Rogue Nation. The climactic sequence of Ethan Hunt running around in search of someone important while Benjie barks in his ear was done in Mission: Impossible III, albeit with a different location. Also, the rooftop chasing portion of that sequence was far more effectively done in The Bourne Ultimatum, but more on that later. Also, if the climactic scene involving a coordinated attempt to defuse two bombs, or one big bomb from two (or more) locations, felt distinctly familiar, it's because it's a rehash of the same storytelling device that was employed in Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol.
Make no mistake; they're all still extremely well-staged, and it really helped that Cruise went full-on Jackie Chan for all of these sequences, but the extent to which many critics have been willing to forgive the flimsy script (which they often describe as its weak point, right off the bat) in the name of the stunts borders on the irrational. Honestly, I could get why Mad Max: Fury Road was so well-received three years ago; it was just so off-the-wall crazy that it could not be ignored and to be honest, really offered something we had never seen before, even though there had been three other Mad Max films. M:I:Fallout doesn't even come close.
Also, if we're talking about all-time greats for action movies, I respectfully submit that M:I:Fallout falls short of Paul Greengrass' The Bourne Ultimatum, in which stunning action set pieces are deftly married to a solid script and intense performances for a really powerful finale to the original trilogy of Bourne films (which, as in the case of so many beloved cinematic trilogies, are the only films in the series that really matter). Yes, I know Greengrass is frequently criticized for his "shaky cam" and quick cuts, but unlike the droves of clones that his approach to action movies spawned (I'm looking at you, Taken films), he used these devices to serve the greater narrative and not just to make his action star look "cool." Also, if we're going to talk about authentically bone-crunching fight sequences, M:I:Fallout faces somewhat stiff competition in the form of the John Wick movies. In short, "greatest action movie ever" feels distinctly like hyperbole, perhaps coming from film critics who are weary of comic-book-based blockbusters dominating the action movie landscape. If that's the case, then there's something slightly hypocritical about their overflowing adulation, as this film is a superhero movie just as surely as anything bearing "Marvel" or "DC" branding is. After all, a guy who can survive smashing his helicopter into another and then falling onto a freaking mountain is a superhero by any reasonable standard, even if he isn't wearing a gaudy costume.
I realize this review feels slightly unkind, but in truth I genuinely enjoyed this movie, even more than I did the last one. I just honestly find myself a bit bewildered by the growing consensus that it's some kind of high watermark in action filmmaking, which I find kind of unfair to all of the films from which it borrowed somewhat liberally. It's a really, really good movie, but I'm not about to get carried away.
7.9/10
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Silly Old Bear: A Review of Christopher Robin
directed by Marc Forster
written by Alex Ross Perry, Tom McCarthy, and Allison Schroeder (screenplay), Greg Booker and Mark Steven Johnson (screen story)
As live-action adaptations of beloved Disney animated features goes, this one flew pretty low under my radar, so low, in fact, that until I saw a trailer for it scarcely two months ago, I didn't even know this movie existed. That said, I'm pretty glad I saw it, especially with the family.
As a child, Christopher Robin (Orton O'Brien) is a regular visitor to the Hundred Acre Wood, where he often has whimsical adventures with this friends Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings), Piglet (Nick Mohammed), Tigger (also Cummings), Eeyore (Brad Garrett), Owl (Toby Jones), Rabbit (Peter Capaldi), Kanga (Sophie Okonedo) and Roo (Sara Sheen). With them, his favorite pastime is doing a whole lot of nothing. These adventures end when he is shipped off to boarding school and, in the years that follow, spends a whole lot of time doing a whole bunch of "somethings" like getting married, fighting in a war, and landing a job.
Years later, adult Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor), who now works as the efficiency manager at the Winslow luggage company, faces a serious problem: if he is unable to cut company costs by at least 20%, a lot of people in the company stand to lose their jobs. Working on this means that, yet again, he won't be able to take time off with his family, namely his wife Evelyn (Hayley Atwell) and his daughter Madeline (Bronte Carmichael). Stressed out from the monumental work ahead of him, on top of the work he's already done, Christopher knocks over a jar of honey on his kitchen table, when then spills onto one of his childhood drawings of Winnie the Pooh. He magically ends up summoning Pooh, who (also magically) makes the trip from the Hundred Acre Wood to London and recruits Christopher Robin on a quest to find his missing friends. The real quest, however, is for Christopher Robin to find what's been missing from his life for far too long.
I honestly wouldn't have pegged Winnie the Pooh as a prime candidate for a live-action adaptation, but then, neither would I have done the same for the even less well-known Pete's Dragon, the 1970s animation/live-action hybrid which Disney successfully remade two years ago, but by telling the remake using the old "child-grown-up-into-midlife-crisis" setup that Steven Spielberg employed with the Peter Pan update Hook way back in 1991, the filmmakers found a way to make the story work, if only just.
The writing is extremely uneven; the scriptwriters apparently don't really know how to deal with the concept of a grown Christopher Robin interacting with stuffed animals, so they just play it for laughs, and to be fair it works a few times, but the gimmick does wear thin. Also, the movie quite regrettably fails to cash in on its "period piece" charm thanks to some dialogue that not only feels clunky but also distinctly anachronistic. Also, transplanting these beloved characters into CGI versions for a live action film may have been done with technical proficiency, but to my mind the cartoon's heart didn't quite make the transition.
The saving grace, however, is the live-action performances by McGregor, Atwell, and Carmichael, who, even as they grapple with the aforementioned strange dialogue, still manage to convey the impression of a family in crisis, even as the plot clearly spells it out. McGregor in particular brings a nice middle-aged charm to the role, succeeding where even the late, great Robin Williams failed when he played a middle-aged, burned out Peter Pan. I had worried that McGregor's Hollywood ship had sailed and that he would forever be consigned to little-seen movies or supporting roles in big movies like Beauty and the Beast, but apparently Hollywood's not done with him yet.
Also, with more live-action adaptations of animated classics in the pipelines, like The Lion King and Aladdin, it's clear Disney isn't done riding this particular gravy train.
I found this movie an acceptable distraction, but really, considering rising ticket prices, I do hope Disney tries a bit harder with their future adaptations.
6.5/10
written by Alex Ross Perry, Tom McCarthy, and Allison Schroeder (screenplay), Greg Booker and Mark Steven Johnson (screen story)
As live-action adaptations of beloved Disney animated features goes, this one flew pretty low under my radar, so low, in fact, that until I saw a trailer for it scarcely two months ago, I didn't even know this movie existed. That said, I'm pretty glad I saw it, especially with the family.
As a child, Christopher Robin (Orton O'Brien) is a regular visitor to the Hundred Acre Wood, where he often has whimsical adventures with this friends Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings), Piglet (Nick Mohammed), Tigger (also Cummings), Eeyore (Brad Garrett), Owl (Toby Jones), Rabbit (Peter Capaldi), Kanga (Sophie Okonedo) and Roo (Sara Sheen). With them, his favorite pastime is doing a whole lot of nothing. These adventures end when he is shipped off to boarding school and, in the years that follow, spends a whole lot of time doing a whole bunch of "somethings" like getting married, fighting in a war, and landing a job.
Years later, adult Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor), who now works as the efficiency manager at the Winslow luggage company, faces a serious problem: if he is unable to cut company costs by at least 20%, a lot of people in the company stand to lose their jobs. Working on this means that, yet again, he won't be able to take time off with his family, namely his wife Evelyn (Hayley Atwell) and his daughter Madeline (Bronte Carmichael). Stressed out from the monumental work ahead of him, on top of the work he's already done, Christopher knocks over a jar of honey on his kitchen table, when then spills onto one of his childhood drawings of Winnie the Pooh. He magically ends up summoning Pooh, who (also magically) makes the trip from the Hundred Acre Wood to London and recruits Christopher Robin on a quest to find his missing friends. The real quest, however, is for Christopher Robin to find what's been missing from his life for far too long.
I honestly wouldn't have pegged Winnie the Pooh as a prime candidate for a live-action adaptation, but then, neither would I have done the same for the even less well-known Pete's Dragon, the 1970s animation/live-action hybrid which Disney successfully remade two years ago, but by telling the remake using the old "child-grown-up-into-midlife-crisis" setup that Steven Spielberg employed with the Peter Pan update Hook way back in 1991, the filmmakers found a way to make the story work, if only just.
The writing is extremely uneven; the scriptwriters apparently don't really know how to deal with the concept of a grown Christopher Robin interacting with stuffed animals, so they just play it for laughs, and to be fair it works a few times, but the gimmick does wear thin. Also, the movie quite regrettably fails to cash in on its "period piece" charm thanks to some dialogue that not only feels clunky but also distinctly anachronistic. Also, transplanting these beloved characters into CGI versions for a live action film may have been done with technical proficiency, but to my mind the cartoon's heart didn't quite make the transition.
The saving grace, however, is the live-action performances by McGregor, Atwell, and Carmichael, who, even as they grapple with the aforementioned strange dialogue, still manage to convey the impression of a family in crisis, even as the plot clearly spells it out. McGregor in particular brings a nice middle-aged charm to the role, succeeding where even the late, great Robin Williams failed when he played a middle-aged, burned out Peter Pan. I had worried that McGregor's Hollywood ship had sailed and that he would forever be consigned to little-seen movies or supporting roles in big movies like Beauty and the Beast, but apparently Hollywood's not done with him yet.
Also, with more live-action adaptations of animated classics in the pipelines, like The Lion King and Aladdin, it's clear Disney isn't done riding this particular gravy train.
I found this movie an acceptable distraction, but really, considering rising ticket prices, I do hope Disney tries a bit harder with their future adaptations.
6.5/10
Monday, July 30, 2018
#Metoo Comes to the MCU
This is the first time I'm writing about #metoo, the sudden surge of complaints by women and even men who have been victims of sexual assault or harassment in Hollywood by men in positions of power, because as important as it may be, I never felt particularly qualified to say anything, nor did it really affect "my corner" of pop culture, given that even before he was exposed as a monster, I always thought Harvey Weinstein was as Oscar-baiting, self-aggrandizing blowhard. Arguably, John Lasseter's departure from Disney as a result of, among other things, "unwanted hugs" was something that affected movies that I care about, but honestly, that seemed pretty clear cut; there were allegations of impropriety which were presumably investigated, and they were dealt with swiftly.
On its face, Disney's decision to drop the axe on Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn for a series of offensive tweets regarding rape and pedophilia looks equally straightforward. I've seen screen captures of some of the tweets, and they are not only offensive, but they are distinctly unfunny, despite Gunn's professed intention to post them as some of shocking humor. Absolutely nobody has defended or attempted to justify the tweets themselves.
My problem is that they were already out there when Disney hired Gunn; the newest tweet came out five years before the first Guardians movie did. These things were on the internet, and if they were easy enough for a gaggle of Trump apologists to find, I'm sure Disney's crack team of background investigators could easily have found them as well, and yet for all of that, Gunn went and made two movies for them.
The long and the short of what I'm saying is that if Gunn's proclivities had really mattered to Disney from the very beginning, then they never would have hired him because the evidence of what kind of person he supposedly is was already out there for everyone to see. Apart from his tweets, the over-the-top humor in his films, like the somewhat brutal Super, should have been the biggest of red flags. Gunn is no Roseanne Barr; their reaction to her blatantly racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett was perfectly timed and measured.
However, had that tweet been ten years old, and had they hired Roseanne with that tweet out there, only to fire her when someone brought it up, then there would have been a bit of a problem. That, to my mind, is what's happened with Gunn. They knew, or were entirely in a position to know everything about his past when they hired him, but went and decided to make one and a half billion dollars with him at the global box office anyway.
In short, Disney deserves scorn, rather than praise, for firing Gunn as a knee-jerk reaction to decade-old tweets that they had probably already known about long before the spotlight was shone upon them again. I'm not saying Gunn's hands are clean, but by no means are Disney's either.
On its face, Disney's decision to drop the axe on Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn for a series of offensive tweets regarding rape and pedophilia looks equally straightforward. I've seen screen captures of some of the tweets, and they are not only offensive, but they are distinctly unfunny, despite Gunn's professed intention to post them as some of shocking humor. Absolutely nobody has defended or attempted to justify the tweets themselves.
My problem is that they were already out there when Disney hired Gunn; the newest tweet came out five years before the first Guardians movie did. These things were on the internet, and if they were easy enough for a gaggle of Trump apologists to find, I'm sure Disney's crack team of background investigators could easily have found them as well, and yet for all of that, Gunn went and made two movies for them.
The long and the short of what I'm saying is that if Gunn's proclivities had really mattered to Disney from the very beginning, then they never would have hired him because the evidence of what kind of person he supposedly is was already out there for everyone to see. Apart from his tweets, the over-the-top humor in his films, like the somewhat brutal Super, should have been the biggest of red flags. Gunn is no Roseanne Barr; their reaction to her blatantly racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett was perfectly timed and measured.
However, had that tweet been ten years old, and had they hired Roseanne with that tweet out there, only to fire her when someone brought it up, then there would have been a bit of a problem. That, to my mind, is what's happened with Gunn. They knew, or were entirely in a position to know everything about his past when they hired him, but went and decided to make one and a half billion dollars with him at the global box office anyway.
In short, Disney deserves scorn, rather than praise, for firing Gunn as a knee-jerk reaction to decade-old tweets that they had probably already known about long before the spotlight was shone upon them again. I'm not saying Gunn's hands are clean, but by no means are Disney's either.
Sunday, July 8, 2018
So...How About Those Twists? (Ant-Man and the Wasp Edition...HEAVY SPOILERS)
You all know the drill by now (whoever reads this blog anyway)...there be SPOILERS AHEAD, so anyone who claims to have been spoiled by this post is simply being disingenuous.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAST CHANCE.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay. After blowing fandom's minds with Avengers: Infinity War, Marvel smartly went a bit more low-key with its follow-up, the lighthearted Ant-Man and the Wasp.
Apart from a fairly predictable twist involving Laurence Fishburne's character Bill Foster, i.e. that Foster was actually in league with Hannah John-Kamen's Ghost, one which plays out fairly early in the film, unlike Marvel's usual third-act shockers, there's not much by way of "OMG, I don't believe it" surprises in the main narrative, even though there are a few fun bits peppered throughout.
Luis' "storytelling" moment, which I was almost afraid wouldn't feature, didn't disappoint, and it was even funnier that Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly got in on the Michael Pena lip-syncing action.
The big bombshell, however, dropped in the mid-credits sequence, when Thanos' population-eradicating finger snap is finally felt in this corner of the MCU, taking out the entire Pym family and leaving Scott stranded in the Quantum Realm. This is unique in that it's the first credits sequence to leave the hero hanging off the proverbial cliff, and it's no doubt a direct lead-in to Ant Man's participation in Avengers 4, or whatever they're ultimately calling it. And yet, even after this gasp-inducing twist, Marvel reassures us that "Ant-Man and the Wasp will return" thereby confirming what just about everyone else already figured out: that being reduced to ash by Thanos doesn't necessarily mean a final death.
Another point worth discussing is not so much a twist as it is a plot device: Janet Van Dyne's weird grab bag of powers. I mean...telepathy? Quantum energy healing? The ability to project her consciousness into someone else...to do...mind control? The screenwriters don't exactly bother to explain how the Quantum Realm has endowed her with these powers, instead contenting themselves with just asserting that she has them, and they both drive the plot forward and even resolve it in the end. Apart from that, these astonishing abilities are basically played, in the case of Paul Rudd doing his best Michelle Pfeiffer impersonation, for laughs.
The thing is, these powers are, in a word, awesome, and quite unlike anything else in the entire MCU, short of Thanos' near-omnipotence. There is incredible potential for what can be done with her powers. A sympathetic character with healing powers? A telepath (albeit one with apparent conditions) without the X-Men? Janet is the second hero (after Guardians of the Galaxy's Mantis) to have powers in the MCU that don't involve fighting with someone, and there is a heck of a lot they could do with what she's got. I wonder if they realize this. Honestly, Janet Van Dyne has got to be one of the gems of the MCU right now, or at least, she will be, once she's been reconstituted from a pile of ash.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LAST CHANCE.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay. After blowing fandom's minds with Avengers: Infinity War, Marvel smartly went a bit more low-key with its follow-up, the lighthearted Ant-Man and the Wasp.
Apart from a fairly predictable twist involving Laurence Fishburne's character Bill Foster, i.e. that Foster was actually in league with Hannah John-Kamen's Ghost, one which plays out fairly early in the film, unlike Marvel's usual third-act shockers, there's not much by way of "OMG, I don't believe it" surprises in the main narrative, even though there are a few fun bits peppered throughout.
Luis' "storytelling" moment, which I was almost afraid wouldn't feature, didn't disappoint, and it was even funnier that Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lilly got in on the Michael Pena lip-syncing action.
The big bombshell, however, dropped in the mid-credits sequence, when Thanos' population-eradicating finger snap is finally felt in this corner of the MCU, taking out the entire Pym family and leaving Scott stranded in the Quantum Realm. This is unique in that it's the first credits sequence to leave the hero hanging off the proverbial cliff, and it's no doubt a direct lead-in to Ant Man's participation in Avengers 4, or whatever they're ultimately calling it. And yet, even after this gasp-inducing twist, Marvel reassures us that "Ant-Man and the Wasp will return" thereby confirming what just about everyone else already figured out: that being reduced to ash by Thanos doesn't necessarily mean a final death.
Another point worth discussing is not so much a twist as it is a plot device: Janet Van Dyne's weird grab bag of powers. I mean...telepathy? Quantum energy healing? The ability to project her consciousness into someone else...to do...mind control? The screenwriters don't exactly bother to explain how the Quantum Realm has endowed her with these powers, instead contenting themselves with just asserting that she has them, and they both drive the plot forward and even resolve it in the end. Apart from that, these astonishing abilities are basically played, in the case of Paul Rudd doing his best Michelle Pfeiffer impersonation, for laughs.
The thing is, these powers are, in a word, awesome, and quite unlike anything else in the entire MCU, short of Thanos' near-omnipotence. There is incredible potential for what can be done with her powers. A sympathetic character with healing powers? A telepath (albeit one with apparent conditions) without the X-Men? Janet is the second hero (after Guardians of the Galaxy's Mantis) to have powers in the MCU that don't involve fighting with someone, and there is a heck of a lot they could do with what she's got. I wonder if they realize this. Honestly, Janet Van Dyne has got to be one of the gems of the MCU right now, or at least, she will be, once she's been reconstituted from a pile of ash.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
A Stinging Senation: A Review of Ant Man and the Wasp
directed by Peyton Reed
written by Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Paul Rudd, Andrew Barrer and Gabriel Ferrari
Following the cataclysmic events of Avengers: Infinity War, a lighthearted romp through the world of Ant-Man is basically just what the doctor ordered, especially considering that he is joined here by the Wasp.
Following the events of the first movie, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) who had previously thought his wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) to be dead, after she shrunk herself down to subatomic size to stop a missile in the 1980s, now believes it's possible she's alive somewhere down in the Quantum Realm, after Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) went subatomic and managed to return to full size. Now, he and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) have built a "Quantum Tunnel" which is basically a rig that will enable them to shrink down small enough to travel to the Quantum Realm and find Janet. When Scott, who has been under house arrest following his participation on the events of Captain America: Civil War, suddenly has a strange dream about someone he thinks is Janet and gives Pym a call, Hank and Hope, thinking it's more than just a dream, decide they need Scott's help to find Janet as well. There are a number of things that could get in the way, though: 1) the fact that Scott, who is under the watchful eye of the FBI, specifically Agent Woo (Randall Park), is not supposed to leave his house until his house arrest is over, which is only a matter of days, 2) the fact that one of their black-market tech suppliers, the sleazy Sonny Burch (Walton Goggins), is on to them and wants to steal their tech, and 3) the mysterious Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) also seeks to unlock secrets to the Quantum Realm and is willing to steal Hank's tech to do it. As much as Scott wants to do right by his daughter Cassie (Abby Ryder Forston) and stay out of trouble, he also realizes that Hank and Hope, who were both compromised as a result of his adventures in Germany, really need his help, and may well need the help of his old crew Luis (Michael Pena), Dave (Tip Harris) and Kurt (David Dastmalchian) as well.
The first Ant-Man was a pleasant little hoot, one I welcomed after Avengers: Age of Ultron disappointed somewhat back in 2015. This film, which has the distinction of being Marvel's first film with a female co-lead, captures the spirit and energy of the first film, with a lot more besides. It helps that the cast, most of whom return from the first film, have fantastic chemistry together. The humor is still front and center, and unlike Avengers: Infinity War, which seemed to be tonally muddled at times considering that the grim subject matter was often peppered with jokes, this film breezes through. Of course, Rudd, who shares scriptwriting credit, is at his comedic best here and really does the perfect "everyman" for this role, while Lilly and Douglas get considerably more screen time than last time out. John-Kamen, who was delightful as a bad guy in Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One, again shines here as the fiercely driven Ava Starr, whose very life may depend on Pym finding the Quantum Realm. Laurence Fishburne has a brief, somewhat unremarkable turn as Pym's former S.H.I.E.L.D. colleague Bill Foster. Pfeiffer is less a character here than she is a driving plot point and, ultimately, a sort of deus ex machina, but I hope she shows up in the inevitable sequel with more to do. And of course, no Ant-Man film would be complete without a narration from Michael Pena's Luis, who gladly obliges us about halfway through the movie.
The action scenes are quite imaginative, with Pym's shrinking technology being put to good use in not only the hand-to-hand fighting, but also in the most engaging car-chase sequence set in San Francisco since the one in Bullitt. It's also interesting to see how someone who can shrink at will fights someone who turns intangible at will.
It really is an enjoyable time at the movies, though of course, as with any movie involving science or pseudo-science, which, as usual, becomes the script's magical tool to explain what happens, no matter how illogical, it does feel a bit goofy at times. Director Peyton Reed does well to keep the action moving briskly so we don't find ourselves asking too many questions.
As an aside, and this isn't really a major issue, I have to say I wasn't too thrilled that Jimmy Woo, the rare Asian Marvel character, was portrayed as a complete goofball in the film considering the pedigree of his comic-book counterpart. Still, Park was a lot of fun in the role.
As MCU offerings go, this was a great way to cap off what's been a banner year for the ladies and gentlemen at Marvel.
7.5/10
written by Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Paul Rudd, Andrew Barrer and Gabriel Ferrari
Following the cataclysmic events of Avengers: Infinity War, a lighthearted romp through the world of Ant-Man is basically just what the doctor ordered, especially considering that he is joined here by the Wasp.
Following the events of the first movie, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) who had previously thought his wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) to be dead, after she shrunk herself down to subatomic size to stop a missile in the 1980s, now believes it's possible she's alive somewhere down in the Quantum Realm, after Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) went subatomic and managed to return to full size. Now, he and his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) have built a "Quantum Tunnel" which is basically a rig that will enable them to shrink down small enough to travel to the Quantum Realm and find Janet. When Scott, who has been under house arrest following his participation on the events of Captain America: Civil War, suddenly has a strange dream about someone he thinks is Janet and gives Pym a call, Hank and Hope, thinking it's more than just a dream, decide they need Scott's help to find Janet as well. There are a number of things that could get in the way, though: 1) the fact that Scott, who is under the watchful eye of the FBI, specifically Agent Woo (Randall Park), is not supposed to leave his house until his house arrest is over, which is only a matter of days, 2) the fact that one of their black-market tech suppliers, the sleazy Sonny Burch (Walton Goggins), is on to them and wants to steal their tech, and 3) the mysterious Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen) also seeks to unlock secrets to the Quantum Realm and is willing to steal Hank's tech to do it. As much as Scott wants to do right by his daughter Cassie (Abby Ryder Forston) and stay out of trouble, he also realizes that Hank and Hope, who were both compromised as a result of his adventures in Germany, really need his help, and may well need the help of his old crew Luis (Michael Pena), Dave (Tip Harris) and Kurt (David Dastmalchian) as well.
The first Ant-Man was a pleasant little hoot, one I welcomed after Avengers: Age of Ultron disappointed somewhat back in 2015. This film, which has the distinction of being Marvel's first film with a female co-lead, captures the spirit and energy of the first film, with a lot more besides. It helps that the cast, most of whom return from the first film, have fantastic chemistry together. The humor is still front and center, and unlike Avengers: Infinity War, which seemed to be tonally muddled at times considering that the grim subject matter was often peppered with jokes, this film breezes through. Of course, Rudd, who shares scriptwriting credit, is at his comedic best here and really does the perfect "everyman" for this role, while Lilly and Douglas get considerably more screen time than last time out. John-Kamen, who was delightful as a bad guy in Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One, again shines here as the fiercely driven Ava Starr, whose very life may depend on Pym finding the Quantum Realm. Laurence Fishburne has a brief, somewhat unremarkable turn as Pym's former S.H.I.E.L.D. colleague Bill Foster. Pfeiffer is less a character here than she is a driving plot point and, ultimately, a sort of deus ex machina, but I hope she shows up in the inevitable sequel with more to do. And of course, no Ant-Man film would be complete without a narration from Michael Pena's Luis, who gladly obliges us about halfway through the movie.
The action scenes are quite imaginative, with Pym's shrinking technology being put to good use in not only the hand-to-hand fighting, but also in the most engaging car-chase sequence set in San Francisco since the one in Bullitt. It's also interesting to see how someone who can shrink at will fights someone who turns intangible at will.
It really is an enjoyable time at the movies, though of course, as with any movie involving science or pseudo-science, which, as usual, becomes the script's magical tool to explain what happens, no matter how illogical, it does feel a bit goofy at times. Director Peyton Reed does well to keep the action moving briskly so we don't find ourselves asking too many questions.
As an aside, and this isn't really a major issue, I have to say I wasn't too thrilled that Jimmy Woo, the rare Asian Marvel character, was portrayed as a complete goofball in the film considering the pedigree of his comic-book counterpart. Still, Park was a lot of fun in the role.
As MCU offerings go, this was a great way to cap off what's been a banner year for the ladies and gentlemen at Marvel.
7.5/10
Sunday, June 24, 2018
So...How About Those Twists? (Incredibles 2 edition - HEAVY SPOILERS)
While The Incredibles 2 didn't really lean heavily on story twists, there is quite a bit about it that's worth discussing from a thematic perspective, and yes, this discussion does involve spoilers.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(SPOILER ALERT)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, you've been warned. When The Incredibles 2 introduced a "mystery villain" in the form of Screenslaver, it was pretty obvious from the word "go" that he was going to be one of the two new characters introduced, either Winston Deavor or his sister Evelyn. Brad Bird managed a bit of a fake-out by revealing him to be a mind-controlled pizza delivery man, but there never was any doubt that it would have been one of the two siblings. Winston was played a bit too obvious, making Evelyn the likelier candidate for villainy, as she in fact was.
The predictability of the twist wasn't really an issue for me, though I confess I kind of rolled my eyes at the "angry at superheroes" motivation that drove Evelyn, who for some reason reminded me of Helena Bonham-Carter, to concoct her scheme to destroy them, as it felt like a variation on the motivations that drove Jason Lee's Syndrome to murder just about every known superhero except for Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl and Frozone from the first film.
I found it curious considering that neither of the "big bad guys" that the Incredibles have fought are actually "villains" per se. They're not out for world domination, or even something more mundane like grand larceny. They simply hate superheroes, for one reason or another, and set out to destroy them. That's basically their sole goal, and they're willing to inflict considerable death and destruction to achieve it.
The Incredibles 2 presents a more interesting spin on the concept than its predecessor, which simply presented a spurned fanboy. While Evelyn is similarly angry with superheroes, she's also angry with the way people have come to depend on them, which sounds like a pretty reasonable gripe with superheroes if you ask me. The argument, if I'm honest, was never fully debunked, and Evelyn's line when the police are hauling her off at the end--"just because you saved me doesn't mean you're right"--actually rings somewhat true.
I mean, there is something to be said about the argument that people shouldn't count on "heroes" to save them; it actually applies directly to our global politics right now. Countries all over the world are caught in the grip of a new wave of authoritarian rulers because voters have been embraced the ultimately false notion that these "strongmen" could "save" them from all of their problems. There's a distinct failure to realize that if anyone is to save us from our problems, it's us.
It kind of makes me wonder if The Incredibles isn't a surreptitious critique of the entire superhero storytelling genre; in this world, it's the superheroes themselves who, however inadvertently, create their biggest villains. And then, of course, there's that scene in which the Parr family are shown their new house, which suspiciously resembles a certain billionaire philanthropist playboy's former Malibu mansion, and Violet comments on how ridiculously exposed a self-confessed superhero living in such a house would be.
Of course, there have been comments on how Brad Bird's personal philosophy of Objectivism plays into the narrative, but really, neither Syndrome, who wanted to "democratize" being "super" by selling everyone high tech weapons, nor Evelyn Deavor, who wants to "cure" people of their dependency on superheroes to solve their problems, sounds like a particularly bad person; it's only their chosen means (assassination, mayhem) that ultimately make them bad. But I'll be darned if they aren't SPOT ON in their disdain for superheroes in general, at least in the context of the stories that are told.
I'd like to see Brad Bird explore this thought process further, and I'm fairly sure he'll get the chance. The thing is, even though he's presented villains with cogent arguments against the so-called heroes, he has yet to have the villains win the argument, the way Erik Killmonger did in Black Panther, and to a lesser, less-commonly-acknowledged extent, the way the Vulture did in Spider-Man: Homecoming.
I really love this world that Bird has created, and even though it's nowhere near as expansive as, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe in its scope, thematically it's got a richness to it that the first two films have only just begun to explore.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(SPOILER ALERT)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, you've been warned. When The Incredibles 2 introduced a "mystery villain" in the form of Screenslaver, it was pretty obvious from the word "go" that he was going to be one of the two new characters introduced, either Winston Deavor or his sister Evelyn. Brad Bird managed a bit of a fake-out by revealing him to be a mind-controlled pizza delivery man, but there never was any doubt that it would have been one of the two siblings. Winston was played a bit too obvious, making Evelyn the likelier candidate for villainy, as she in fact was.
The predictability of the twist wasn't really an issue for me, though I confess I kind of rolled my eyes at the "angry at superheroes" motivation that drove Evelyn, who for some reason reminded me of Helena Bonham-Carter, to concoct her scheme to destroy them, as it felt like a variation on the motivations that drove Jason Lee's Syndrome to murder just about every known superhero except for Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl and Frozone from the first film.
I found it curious considering that neither of the "big bad guys" that the Incredibles have fought are actually "villains" per se. They're not out for world domination, or even something more mundane like grand larceny. They simply hate superheroes, for one reason or another, and set out to destroy them. That's basically their sole goal, and they're willing to inflict considerable death and destruction to achieve it.
The Incredibles 2 presents a more interesting spin on the concept than its predecessor, which simply presented a spurned fanboy. While Evelyn is similarly angry with superheroes, she's also angry with the way people have come to depend on them, which sounds like a pretty reasonable gripe with superheroes if you ask me. The argument, if I'm honest, was never fully debunked, and Evelyn's line when the police are hauling her off at the end--"just because you saved me doesn't mean you're right"--actually rings somewhat true.
I mean, there is something to be said about the argument that people shouldn't count on "heroes" to save them; it actually applies directly to our global politics right now. Countries all over the world are caught in the grip of a new wave of authoritarian rulers because voters have been embraced the ultimately false notion that these "strongmen" could "save" them from all of their problems. There's a distinct failure to realize that if anyone is to save us from our problems, it's us.
It kind of makes me wonder if The Incredibles isn't a surreptitious critique of the entire superhero storytelling genre; in this world, it's the superheroes themselves who, however inadvertently, create their biggest villains. And then, of course, there's that scene in which the Parr family are shown their new house, which suspiciously resembles a certain billionaire philanthropist playboy's former Malibu mansion, and Violet comments on how ridiculously exposed a self-confessed superhero living in such a house would be.
Of course, there have been comments on how Brad Bird's personal philosophy of Objectivism plays into the narrative, but really, neither Syndrome, who wanted to "democratize" being "super" by selling everyone high tech weapons, nor Evelyn Deavor, who wants to "cure" people of their dependency on superheroes to solve their problems, sounds like a particularly bad person; it's only their chosen means (assassination, mayhem) that ultimately make them bad. But I'll be darned if they aren't SPOT ON in their disdain for superheroes in general, at least in the context of the stories that are told.
I'd like to see Brad Bird explore this thought process further, and I'm fairly sure he'll get the chance. The thing is, even though he's presented villains with cogent arguments against the so-called heroes, he has yet to have the villains win the argument, the way Erik Killmonger did in Black Panther, and to a lesser, less-commonly-acknowledged extent, the way the Vulture did in Spider-Man: Homecoming.
I really love this world that Bird has created, and even though it's nowhere near as expansive as, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe in its scope, thematically it's got a richness to it that the first two films have only just begun to explore.
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Worth the Wait...Mostly: A Review of The Incredibles 2
written and directed by Brad Bird
When Pixar released The Incredibles back in 2004, it knocked my socks off. Having grown up with Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four, the original squabbling family of superheroes, I found much to love about these charming but wildly dysfunctional new animated heroes, Silver Age superheroes who'd been forced into retirement by a disillusioned populace and who found themselves grappling with middle age and suburban ennui. At a time when the superhero fare in cinemas was limited mainly to Sam Raimi's Spider-man and Bryan Singer's X-Men films, the original Incredibles provided a refreshing take on the genre that endeared it to both critics and audiences, including this particular viewer.
The Incredibles 2 arrives in a somewhat more heavily-populated cinematic superhero landscape, and while Brad Bird and Pixar still manage to deliver a quality film, one which, from a technical perspective, is leaps and bounds above its predecessor, it doesn't have quite the same impact.
The film picks up directly where the first one left off, with Bob Parr, aka Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) his wife Helen, aka Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), their super-powered kids Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) and their old friend Lucius aka Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) taking on the menace of the Underminer (John Ratzenberger). While the assembled superheroes save City Hall from destruction, the chaos wrought by the Underminer (who has escaped with a bank vault full of money), coupled with the fact that superheroes in general are still illegal, causes them headaches as they are detained by the police, who let them off with a warning. The Parrs are at the end of their rope; not only was their house destroyed at the end of the last movie, but they soon learn from their old government liaison Rick Dicker (Jonathan Banks) that the government has shut down the program for keeping superheroes underground, meaning that they need to find work soon or they'll be out on the streets.
Fortunately, Lucius approaches Bob and Helen, having been contacted by the affluent Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) a wealthy telecommunications magnate and fan of superheroes whose father adored them and supported them back when they were legal, and who wants more than anything to make that happen. His grand scheme, which he plans to implement with his tech-genius sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) is simple: to put people right in the seat of what superheroes do by implanting cameras into their suits, so that they can see how hard they work to save lives. Deavor chooses Elastigirl to spearhead the program, as she has, in her career, been the least destructive of the three superheroes. This puts Bob, to his initial annoyance, on stay-at-home dad duty with Dash, Violet and their infant Jack-Jack who is about to manifest a whole host of his own superpowers.
No sooner does Helen get back into action, however, than a new threat, the mysterious Screenslaver, emerges.
From start to finish, the movie is a joy to behold. Having just re-watched the original film on DVD before taking my family to see this, I was struck by how much the technology has advanced since then. Helen has considerably softer and warmer features than her more plastic-looking previous incarnation, while Bob's hilarious transformation from superhero to sleep-deprived superdad is vividly depicted with eyebags and five o' clock shadow. The movie does a bit of gender-swapping from the last one, with Helen flexing muscles doing the superheroics, while Bob handles the challenge of looking after three kids, who consist of a lovelorn teenager, a tweener struggling with his math lessons, and a baby, who'd be challenging enough without the superpowers. In that sense, the film does feel a bit familiar after awhile. Fortunately, the antics of the multi-powered Jack-Jack infuse a bit of welcome freshness into the film, especially as the terrified Bob tries to figure out how to handle his tiny little powerhouse.
If there was any particular letdown about this film, it had to be the villain, who, upon scrutiny, is surprisingly similar in motivation and, to some degree, in method, to Jason Lee's Syndrome from the first film. I appreciate that Bird gives the bad guys nuance and a driving force beyond just the desire to rule the world or enrich one's self, but there was too much similarity between this and what came before to ignore.
I was also overjoyed to hear Michael Giacchino's familiar brassy, retro-jazzy tunes once more. He's come full circle; after kicking off his film career with the first Incredibles movie, he's since gone on to write music for not only movies from Pixar and mother company Disney but also giant film franchises like Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and Jurassic Park. More than just rehash his original themes, though Giacchino infuses this score with just about every trick he's picked up since the first film. It's not unlike hearing how much richer Alan Silvestri's Avengers: Infinity War score was than his original Avengers music.
As satisfying as I found the film to be, though, I really couldn't shake how familiar everything felt. Everything looked and sounded great, to be sure, but really, it's was like a shiny coat of paint on basically the same car. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of sequels that basically lean on formula, like the Marvel films and even the Jason Bourne series, but considering the narrative triumph of the first film, I had somewhat high expectations of a sequel fourteen years in the making. Perhaps too high, it seems.
The good news is, it's still a rip-roaring good time at the movies. It looks to be a smash hit, too, so I know I'll be back for the almost inevitable sequel.
I just hope it doesn't take another fourteen years for them to make one, and that they try for something a little different next time.
8/10
When Pixar released The Incredibles back in 2004, it knocked my socks off. Having grown up with Marvel Comics' Fantastic Four, the original squabbling family of superheroes, I found much to love about these charming but wildly dysfunctional new animated heroes, Silver Age superheroes who'd been forced into retirement by a disillusioned populace and who found themselves grappling with middle age and suburban ennui. At a time when the superhero fare in cinemas was limited mainly to Sam Raimi's Spider-man and Bryan Singer's X-Men films, the original Incredibles provided a refreshing take on the genre that endeared it to both critics and audiences, including this particular viewer.
The Incredibles 2 arrives in a somewhat more heavily-populated cinematic superhero landscape, and while Brad Bird and Pixar still manage to deliver a quality film, one which, from a technical perspective, is leaps and bounds above its predecessor, it doesn't have quite the same impact.
The film picks up directly where the first one left off, with Bob Parr, aka Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) his wife Helen, aka Elastigirl (Holly Hunter), their super-powered kids Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) and their old friend Lucius aka Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) taking on the menace of the Underminer (John Ratzenberger). While the assembled superheroes save City Hall from destruction, the chaos wrought by the Underminer (who has escaped with a bank vault full of money), coupled with the fact that superheroes in general are still illegal, causes them headaches as they are detained by the police, who let them off with a warning. The Parrs are at the end of their rope; not only was their house destroyed at the end of the last movie, but they soon learn from their old government liaison Rick Dicker (Jonathan Banks) that the government has shut down the program for keeping superheroes underground, meaning that they need to find work soon or they'll be out on the streets.
Fortunately, Lucius approaches Bob and Helen, having been contacted by the affluent Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) a wealthy telecommunications magnate and fan of superheroes whose father adored them and supported them back when they were legal, and who wants more than anything to make that happen. His grand scheme, which he plans to implement with his tech-genius sister Evelyn (Catherine Keener) is simple: to put people right in the seat of what superheroes do by implanting cameras into their suits, so that they can see how hard they work to save lives. Deavor chooses Elastigirl to spearhead the program, as she has, in her career, been the least destructive of the three superheroes. This puts Bob, to his initial annoyance, on stay-at-home dad duty with Dash, Violet and their infant Jack-Jack who is about to manifest a whole host of his own superpowers.
No sooner does Helen get back into action, however, than a new threat, the mysterious Screenslaver, emerges.
From start to finish, the movie is a joy to behold. Having just re-watched the original film on DVD before taking my family to see this, I was struck by how much the technology has advanced since then. Helen has considerably softer and warmer features than her more plastic-looking previous incarnation, while Bob's hilarious transformation from superhero to sleep-deprived superdad is vividly depicted with eyebags and five o' clock shadow. The movie does a bit of gender-swapping from the last one, with Helen flexing muscles doing the superheroics, while Bob handles the challenge of looking after three kids, who consist of a lovelorn teenager, a tweener struggling with his math lessons, and a baby, who'd be challenging enough without the superpowers. In that sense, the film does feel a bit familiar after awhile. Fortunately, the antics of the multi-powered Jack-Jack infuse a bit of welcome freshness into the film, especially as the terrified Bob tries to figure out how to handle his tiny little powerhouse.
If there was any particular letdown about this film, it had to be the villain, who, upon scrutiny, is surprisingly similar in motivation and, to some degree, in method, to Jason Lee's Syndrome from the first film. I appreciate that Bird gives the bad guys nuance and a driving force beyond just the desire to rule the world or enrich one's self, but there was too much similarity between this and what came before to ignore.
I was also overjoyed to hear Michael Giacchino's familiar brassy, retro-jazzy tunes once more. He's come full circle; after kicking off his film career with the first Incredibles movie, he's since gone on to write music for not only movies from Pixar and mother company Disney but also giant film franchises like Mission Impossible, Star Trek, Star Wars, Marvel and Jurassic Park. More than just rehash his original themes, though Giacchino infuses this score with just about every trick he's picked up since the first film. It's not unlike hearing how much richer Alan Silvestri's Avengers: Infinity War score was than his original Avengers music.
As satisfying as I found the film to be, though, I really couldn't shake how familiar everything felt. Everything looked and sounded great, to be sure, but really, it's was like a shiny coat of paint on basically the same car. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of sequels that basically lean on formula, like the Marvel films and even the Jason Bourne series, but considering the narrative triumph of the first film, I had somewhat high expectations of a sequel fourteen years in the making. Perhaps too high, it seems.
The good news is, it's still a rip-roaring good time at the movies. It looks to be a smash hit, too, so I know I'll be back for the almost inevitable sequel.
I just hope it doesn't take another fourteen years for them to make one, and that they try for something a little different next time.
8/10
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Thank You, Fox, for Letting Comic Book Blockbusters in 2018 Breathe a Little
At one point, we were slated to have as many as TEN comic-book based films this year, three from Disney, two from Sony/Columbia, three from Fox and two from Warner Bros. Some online pundits were predicting doom and gloom for the box office, asserting that all of these aspiring blockbusters (which, apart from comic-book movies, included sequels galore to properties ranging from the Ocean's 11 franchise to the Incredibles) would cannibalize one another.
Well, so far, the good news is that with few exceptions, the movies that were expected to succeed have done exactly that.
When the trailers for Bumblebee and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse dropped this past week, I realized, however, that they were opening within one week of each other, and that Bumblebee was actually opening against Warner Brothers/DC's Aquaman, which meant that the prognostications of doom and gloom for the overall Hollywood box office (which, let's face it, is a globally consumed product), may yet prove accurate by the end of the year.
Bearing this in mind, then, I remembered Twentieth Century Fox's decision to postpone till 2019 the release of two of its three Marvel-based movies originally scheduled for release this year namely, X-Men: Dark Phoenix and New Mutants. The decision to postpone the latter film was genuinely surprising considering that a trailer had already been released several months ago.
Now, there could have been a number of different reasons for the postponement, ranging from the old "troubled production" dilemma to poor reception by test audiences, but whether or not these films were taken off the table because they were turkeys or because Fox simply didn't want to enter too crowded a market, at the end of the day they made the right move, and did everyone, them AND us, a favor.
After all, if the movies are bad, then they'll simply add to the superhero blockbuster glut and maybe even help induce the "superhero fatigue" that pundits have been predicting for years (which has yet to happen, incidentally). Conversely, if they're good, they may simply disappear amid the crowd of "great" films peppered all throughout the year. After all, neither X-Men: Dark Phoenix nor New Mutants carries with it the "event" status of Avengers: Infinity War or cultural milestone status of Black Panther (unless Fox wants to market New Mutants as the first superhero film with a Native American lead, but given that it's an ensemble piece that's not likely to work), or even the long-awaited-sequel status of The Incredibles 2. Deadpool 2 was a much easier sell, being the follow-up to a box-office juggernaut, but after X-Men: Apocalypse underperformed and given that New Mutants is a completely unknown commodity, caution was warranted. Was it a result of the planned Disney buyout? That seems unlikely, given that there's still a fair chance that Comcast may snatch up Fox instead of Disney.
Are the movies most likely to be bad, given extensive reports of reshoots? Well, reshoots aren't always a bad thing; Rogue One: A Star Wars story underwent quite a few reshoots and turned out pretty good. Even World War Z, an infamously troubled production which had to undergo reshoots for nearly the entire third act, opened to boffo box office all around the world, so it's early to say that all is lost for Fox's non-Deadpool Marvel movies. I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic.
In the end, postponing the movies, whether it was to avoid the crowd or to undergo reshoots, was really the best thing for the movies themselves and the viewing audience. And it was gratifying to know that Fox execs didn't rush the movies into theaters just to make sure they could claim their bonuses (coughcoughJUSTICELEAGUEcoughcough). What ultimately matters is that when the movies do hit theaters, they prove to be products that were worth the wait.
Well, so far, the good news is that with few exceptions, the movies that were expected to succeed have done exactly that.
When the trailers for Bumblebee and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse dropped this past week, I realized, however, that they were opening within one week of each other, and that Bumblebee was actually opening against Warner Brothers/DC's Aquaman, which meant that the prognostications of doom and gloom for the overall Hollywood box office (which, let's face it, is a globally consumed product), may yet prove accurate by the end of the year.
Bearing this in mind, then, I remembered Twentieth Century Fox's decision to postpone till 2019 the release of two of its three Marvel-based movies originally scheduled for release this year namely, X-Men: Dark Phoenix and New Mutants. The decision to postpone the latter film was genuinely surprising considering that a trailer had already been released several months ago.
Now, there could have been a number of different reasons for the postponement, ranging from the old "troubled production" dilemma to poor reception by test audiences, but whether or not these films were taken off the table because they were turkeys or because Fox simply didn't want to enter too crowded a market, at the end of the day they made the right move, and did everyone, them AND us, a favor.
After all, if the movies are bad, then they'll simply add to the superhero blockbuster glut and maybe even help induce the "superhero fatigue" that pundits have been predicting for years (which has yet to happen, incidentally). Conversely, if they're good, they may simply disappear amid the crowd of "great" films peppered all throughout the year. After all, neither X-Men: Dark Phoenix nor New Mutants carries with it the "event" status of Avengers: Infinity War or cultural milestone status of Black Panther (unless Fox wants to market New Mutants as the first superhero film with a Native American lead, but given that it's an ensemble piece that's not likely to work), or even the long-awaited-sequel status of The Incredibles 2. Deadpool 2 was a much easier sell, being the follow-up to a box-office juggernaut, but after X-Men: Apocalypse underperformed and given that New Mutants is a completely unknown commodity, caution was warranted. Was it a result of the planned Disney buyout? That seems unlikely, given that there's still a fair chance that Comcast may snatch up Fox instead of Disney.
Are the movies most likely to be bad, given extensive reports of reshoots? Well, reshoots aren't always a bad thing; Rogue One: A Star Wars story underwent quite a few reshoots and turned out pretty good. Even World War Z, an infamously troubled production which had to undergo reshoots for nearly the entire third act, opened to boffo box office all around the world, so it's early to say that all is lost for Fox's non-Deadpool Marvel movies. I, for one, remain cautiously optimistic.
In the end, postponing the movies, whether it was to avoid the crowd or to undergo reshoots, was really the best thing for the movies themselves and the viewing audience. And it was gratifying to know that Fox execs didn't rush the movies into theaters just to make sure they could claim their bonuses (coughcoughJUSTICELEAGUEcoughcough). What ultimately matters is that when the movies do hit theaters, they prove to be products that were worth the wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)