Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
OPlayer - video player, classic media streaming
Entertainment and Music
App
Play all your videos directly without having to convert them! OPlayer supports almost every format...
OPlayerHD Lite - media player, video file manager
Utilities and Music
App
Play all your videos directly without having to convert them! OPlayer supports almost every format...
Awix (3310 KP) rated Just Mercy (2019) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Fact-based courtroom drama. Idealistic young lawyer Bryan Stevenson (Jordan), fresh out of Harvard, heads down to Alabama and sets up an agency to provide legal support to people with no other recourse. He comes across the case of convicted murderer Walter McMillian (Foxx), which strikes him as deeply compromised. But can he overcome a prejudiced system and win his client justice?
I was all set to be very glib and cynical about what looks like - from the trailer at least - another box-ticking exercise in liberal angst about the Plight of Black America, calculated to have a presence during awards season. Well, to some extent this is that kind of a movie, but it is also a genuinely involving, powerful and moving drama - it's the kind of film that gets past your defences and forces you to care, thanks to basic film-making virtues, a compelling story, and strong performances. Anyone doubting that Michael B Jordan is now a significant leading man should check out his performance here: he brings strength, dignity, and nobility, as you would expect, but there is also a willingness to show naivety and vulnerability. Obviously this is part of a tradition of films about racism in America that includes To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night, but by focusing mainly on the legal plotline and saving its political points until near the end, it makes them all the more impactful when they land. Jordan gets stuck with a bit too much speechifying as the film goes on, and a couple of the supporting performances are arguably overcooked, but otherwise this is an extremely accomplished film.
I was all set to be very glib and cynical about what looks like - from the trailer at least - another box-ticking exercise in liberal angst about the Plight of Black America, calculated to have a presence during awards season. Well, to some extent this is that kind of a movie, but it is also a genuinely involving, powerful and moving drama - it's the kind of film that gets past your defences and forces you to care, thanks to basic film-making virtues, a compelling story, and strong performances. Anyone doubting that Michael B Jordan is now a significant leading man should check out his performance here: he brings strength, dignity, and nobility, as you would expect, but there is also a willingness to show naivety and vulnerability. Obviously this is part of a tradition of films about racism in America that includes To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night, but by focusing mainly on the legal plotline and saving its political points until near the end, it makes them all the more impactful when they land. Jordan gets stuck with a bit too much speechifying as the film goes on, and a couple of the supporting performances are arguably overcooked, but otherwise this is an extremely accomplished film.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Hobo With a Shotgun (2011) in Movies
Aug 31, 2019
One Shell at a Time...
Somewhere between Peter Jackson's Dead Alive (Braindead) and maybe a Troma or Roger Corman classic B movies lies Hobo With A Shotgun.
You have to be in the right mood to watch a movie like this. Watching cool practical effects means everything was performed on the set without the use of separate visual or CGI effects. These were obviously used exclusively back in the day before ILM and the many CGI effect groups which exist today. I still feel generally speaking they are more realistic and don't take you out of a scene like bad CGI does.
Your friendly neighborhood hobo gets fed up with the local town's hoodlum brothers and their father owning the police and generally making life miserable for everyone so he decides to take the law into his own hands and dispense his own quick justice. while he is at it, he also removes other scum from the Earth including pedophile Santas and convenience store bandits.
He befriends the girl toy of one of the hoodlums and she becomes his sort of partner in crime when she is not getting sawed into and generally degraded in every way.
When I was looking through IMDb at the career of now the late Rutger Hauer, I was amazed on how many truly bad movies or most I had never heard of he had done in his career. Not saying he was the best actor, but he did have screen presence (especially in Blade Runner) which not every actor has.
He will be missed.
You have to be in the right mood to watch a movie like this. Watching cool practical effects means everything was performed on the set without the use of separate visual or CGI effects. These were obviously used exclusively back in the day before ILM and the many CGI effect groups which exist today. I still feel generally speaking they are more realistic and don't take you out of a scene like bad CGI does.
Your friendly neighborhood hobo gets fed up with the local town's hoodlum brothers and their father owning the police and generally making life miserable for everyone so he decides to take the law into his own hands and dispense his own quick justice. while he is at it, he also removes other scum from the Earth including pedophile Santas and convenience store bandits.
He befriends the girl toy of one of the hoodlums and she becomes his sort of partner in crime when she is not getting sawed into and generally degraded in every way.
When I was looking through IMDb at the career of now the late Rutger Hauer, I was amazed on how many truly bad movies or most I had never heard of he had done in his career. Not saying he was the best actor, but he did have screen presence (especially in Blade Runner) which not every actor has.
He will be missed.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk in TV
Mar 16, 2018 (Updated Mar 16, 2018)
The weird thing about the Hulk TV show is that it is almost nothing like the comic book version of the character, but still manages to be a classic piece of television (and was, for a long time, by far the most successful adaptation of a Marvel character to another medium). Creator Kenneth Johnson didn't want to do it, and did his hardest to distance his version from the book (he wanted to change the colour of the Hulk, but Marvel refused to let him), and ended up basically doing an American version of Les Miserables (the novel, not the musical) with Jean Valjean getting cross and swelling up into a monster twice an episode.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
Everyone remembers this show as the one with the Hulk rasslin' small-time thugs every week, lots of jokes about 'how many shirts does this guy get through, ha ha', and 'you won't like me when I'm angry', but the range of styles and influences involved is really much greater - the programme goes from serious movie-of-the-week drama, to freewheeling comedy, to B-movie inspired horror and SF, and makes a pretty good job of all of them. Highlights include 'The Snare' (psycho millionaire whose hobby is hunting and killing drifters picks the wrong target), 'The Psychic' (a woman with unusual powers discovers Banner's secret just as it seems the Hulk has committed a murder), 'Equinox' (Banner and his indefatigable nemesis McGee finally come face-to-face at a masked ball, rather inspired by Masque of the Red Death), and 'The First' (Banner encounters another Hulk, created in the 1940s).
The programme's great strength is Bill Bixby's performance as Banner, for he is always utterly committed and usually highly convincing even when the episodes themselves wobble a bit. The show's Hulk is mute, but even so Ferrigno gives an increasingly effective turn as the creature (and eventually gets an episode where he appears as himself, so to speak, and does a pretty good job).
It is occasionally a bit formulaic, and you have to accept a few built-in implausibilities in the format, but this is a show which still stands up extremely well, and is still probably the biggest single influence on public perceptions of the Hulk. Well worth watching.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla Minus One (2023) in Movies
Dec 14, 2023
Surprisingly Human...for a Monster Movie
The BankofMarquis just viewed one of the most entertaining films of 2023 - and it’s a GODZILLA film.
Yes, a GODZILLA film.
From famed Japanese Studio Toho, makers of the original Godzilla film from the 1950’s plus other “man in a rubber suit” monster movies like MOTHRA and WAR OF THE GARGANTUANS, Godzilla Minus One subverts the genre for a moment for instead of presenting a “Monster stomping on buildings” movie with some people in the background, this film is about the Japanese people and how they deal with the aftermath of World War II while (also) running from a giant monster stomping on buildings - but the monster story is the “B” story and the people story is the “A” story…and this subversion of the genre works very very well.
The title of the film, Godzilla Minus One, refers to the fact that…after World War II….Japan was “starting from zero”. When Godzilla starts attacking, it knocks Japan back another peg, hence…Godzilla Minus One.
Director and Screenwriter Takashi Yamazaki tells the tale of Koichi (Ryunosuke Kamiki) who encounters Godzilla towards the end of WWII and freezes, causing the death of his fellow soldiers (so his PTSD continues to tell him throughout the film). Once back in Japan, he encounters a young woman, Noriko (Minami Hamabe) who has been left orphaned, homeless and alone and is sheparding an abandoned baby. This unlikely trio form a bond…and a home…while trying to rebuild their lives and (in Koichi’s case) tries to make sense of the devastation he encountered in the war.
Into to this rebuilding stomps Godzilla.
This story is effectively told by Yamazaki, who knows when to focus on the people aspect of the film and when to focus on the building stomping of Godzilla. It’s a delicate balance that is helped by the performances of Kamiki and Hamabe…and the special effects that brings the spirit of the 1950’s and 1960’s Toho monster films to light.
A surpwisingly rich entertainment, Godzilla Minus One will entertain you with monster stomping…and deep human emotion.
Letter Grade: A- (I’m as surprised as you are)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, a GODZILLA film.
From famed Japanese Studio Toho, makers of the original Godzilla film from the 1950’s plus other “man in a rubber suit” monster movies like MOTHRA and WAR OF THE GARGANTUANS, Godzilla Minus One subverts the genre for a moment for instead of presenting a “Monster stomping on buildings” movie with some people in the background, this film is about the Japanese people and how they deal with the aftermath of World War II while (also) running from a giant monster stomping on buildings - but the monster story is the “B” story and the people story is the “A” story…and this subversion of the genre works very very well.
The title of the film, Godzilla Minus One, refers to the fact that…after World War II….Japan was “starting from zero”. When Godzilla starts attacking, it knocks Japan back another peg, hence…Godzilla Minus One.
Director and Screenwriter Takashi Yamazaki tells the tale of Koichi (Ryunosuke Kamiki) who encounters Godzilla towards the end of WWII and freezes, causing the death of his fellow soldiers (so his PTSD continues to tell him throughout the film). Once back in Japan, he encounters a young woman, Noriko (Minami Hamabe) who has been left orphaned, homeless and alone and is sheparding an abandoned baby. This unlikely trio form a bond…and a home…while trying to rebuild their lives and (in Koichi’s case) tries to make sense of the devastation he encountered in the war.
Into to this rebuilding stomps Godzilla.
This story is effectively told by Yamazaki, who knows when to focus on the people aspect of the film and when to focus on the building stomping of Godzilla. It’s a delicate balance that is helped by the performances of Kamiki and Hamabe…and the special effects that brings the spirit of the 1950’s and 1960’s Toho monster films to light.
A surpwisingly rich entertainment, Godzilla Minus One will entertain you with monster stomping…and deep human emotion.
Letter Grade: A- (I’m as surprised as you are)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Sky Without Stars (System Divine, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>I totally skipped over <em>Sky Without Stars</em> at first.</strong></h2>
Hello, I'm confessing that I scrolled straight past <em>Sky Without Stars</em> until someone said the words, "<em>Les Misérables</em> in space."
Then all the grabby hands came out because <em>I love that movie</em> AND I love space??? And I sure as hell am not going to read 1000+ pages of the classic. <s>Hahaha, required reading scarred me.</s>
<h2><em><strong>Sky Without Stars</strong></em><strong> has the feel of <em>Les Misérables.</em></strong></h2>
It's been like 5+ years since I <em>watched</em> the movie so I don't remember much from the movie aside from the French revolution. I also recall having a fascination with Éponine, who I don't recall having much screentime. Despite not remembering much from the musical, <em>Sky Without Stars</em> gave off the vibes and had many elements frequently nodding to the classic.
<h3><strong>The different perspectives worked in favor.</strong></h3>
This whopping novel is divided between three different characters who will all eventually play a role in the brewing revolution on Laterre. With such a long length, having one perspective could have easily bogged down the story and be boring. But having three characters who each brought their own perspective and struggles? I enjoyed learning about each of them while reading <em>Sky Without Stars</em>.
<strong>Chatine:</strong> Chatine, based on Éponine (I think?), is by far my favorite perspective out of the three. She dresses up as a boy to go about her life in the Frets because she feels being a girl would put her at a disadvantage (and it really would). With the goal of leaving Laterre one day, she goes about her life stealing on the streets to save up for the passage.
<strong>Alouette:</strong> Y'all, I hated Cosette for some reason but I adore Alouette??? Brody and Rendell give Cosette a very nice upgrade here in <em>Sky Without Stars</em> that fit into the timeframe here! Alouette, despite not knowing much of her past and living underground, is curious and crafty as she occasionally navigates aboveground.
<strong>Marcellus:</strong> Poor Marcellus is divided between believing his grandfather as he's always had growing up or his now-deemed-traitor former governess. Despite being the least interesting perspective I read, I enjoy seeing his internal conflict and want to know what he will do in later books.
<h3><strong>There's apparently a love triangle.</strong></h3>
Younger me found the revolution too fascinating to care about trivial things such as romance. Lo and behold, I didn't even notice the love triangle until near the end, whoops. However, romance is a minor aspect of <em>Sky Without Stars,</em> and I found myself more swept away by the world.
<h2><strong>A lot of worldbuilding on Laterre.</strong></h2>
Drop yourselves into a rocket ship and let's go soaring into space because the worldbuilding is A+! Sometimes I found myself overwhelmed because I am a character development and fast-paced action person in books. However, I think it's well worth going through nearly 600 pages of mostly setup. Brody and Rendell will sweep you away to another world while bringing in elements from the original.
<h2><strong>Solid beginning to a series.</strong></h2>
<em>Sky Without Stars</em> is a solid start as a first novel, and I enjoyed seeing Brody's and Rendell's take on <em>Les Misérables</em>! This book is perfect for those who are fans of the musical or enjoy a good sci-fi with a brewing rebellion on another planet.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/sky-without-stars-by-jessica-brody-and-joanne-rendell/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>I totally skipped over <em>Sky Without Stars</em> at first.</strong></h2>
Hello, I'm confessing that I scrolled straight past <em>Sky Without Stars</em> until someone said the words, "<em>Les Misérables</em> in space."
Then all the grabby hands came out because <em>I love that movie</em> AND I love space??? And I sure as hell am not going to read 1000+ pages of the classic. <s>Hahaha, required reading scarred me.</s>
<h2><em><strong>Sky Without Stars</strong></em><strong> has the feel of <em>Les Misérables.</em></strong></h2>
It's been like 5+ years since I <em>watched</em> the movie so I don't remember much from the movie aside from the French revolution. I also recall having a fascination with Éponine, who I don't recall having much screentime. Despite not remembering much from the musical, <em>Sky Without Stars</em> gave off the vibes and had many elements frequently nodding to the classic.
<h3><strong>The different perspectives worked in favor.</strong></h3>
This whopping novel is divided between three different characters who will all eventually play a role in the brewing revolution on Laterre. With such a long length, having one perspective could have easily bogged down the story and be boring. But having three characters who each brought their own perspective and struggles? I enjoyed learning about each of them while reading <em>Sky Without Stars</em>.
<strong>Chatine:</strong> Chatine, based on Éponine (I think?), is by far my favorite perspective out of the three. She dresses up as a boy to go about her life in the Frets because she feels being a girl would put her at a disadvantage (and it really would). With the goal of leaving Laterre one day, she goes about her life stealing on the streets to save up for the passage.
<strong>Alouette:</strong> Y'all, I hated Cosette for some reason but I adore Alouette??? Brody and Rendell give Cosette a very nice upgrade here in <em>Sky Without Stars</em> that fit into the timeframe here! Alouette, despite not knowing much of her past and living underground, is curious and crafty as she occasionally navigates aboveground.
<strong>Marcellus:</strong> Poor Marcellus is divided between believing his grandfather as he's always had growing up or his now-deemed-traitor former governess. Despite being the least interesting perspective I read, I enjoy seeing his internal conflict and want to know what he will do in later books.
<h3><strong>There's apparently a love triangle.</strong></h3>
Younger me found the revolution too fascinating to care about trivial things such as romance. Lo and behold, I didn't even notice the love triangle until near the end, whoops. However, romance is a minor aspect of <em>Sky Without Stars,</em> and I found myself more swept away by the world.
<h2><strong>A lot of worldbuilding on Laterre.</strong></h2>
Drop yourselves into a rocket ship and let's go soaring into space because the worldbuilding is A+! Sometimes I found myself overwhelmed because I am a character development and fast-paced action person in books. However, I think it's well worth going through nearly 600 pages of mostly setup. Brody and Rendell will sweep you away to another world while bringing in elements from the original.
<h2><strong>Solid beginning to a series.</strong></h2>
<em>Sky Without Stars</em> is a solid start as a first novel, and I enjoyed seeing Brody's and Rendell's take on <em>Les Misérables</em>! This book is perfect for those who are fans of the musical or enjoy a good sci-fi with a brewing rebellion on another planet.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/sky-without-stars-by-jessica-brody-and-joanne-rendell/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
Misses more than it hits
The first Gal Gadot-led WONDER WOMAN film (2017) is generally regarded by most (myself included) as the finest film in the DCEU and Gal Gadot’s portrayal of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the highlight of any DCEU film that she appears in, so it was with much (delayed) anticipation that a viewing of WONDER WOMAN 1984 (finally) took place.
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)