Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated AVP - Alien Vs. Predator (2004) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
A missed opportunity
More than anything, AVP just pisses me off, usually when thinking about what could have been.
Why on earth is it PG-13, and why oh why was this historic meeting of two of cinemas most iconic aliens entrusted to Paul WS Anderson!?
I mean, in all honesty, both series had run out of gas at this point, so by the time AVP finally rolled around (14 years after the conflict had been teased at the end of Predator 2), it was never going to be much more than a gimmick, a shameless cash grab to get people in the cinema, hence the family friendly blockbuster nature of the film.
In terms of a big blockbuster, it's not terrible. There are some relatively entertaining moments here and there. The first clash between the titular monsters about 30 minutes in is undeniably surrounded by a sense of child like glee.
In terms of cast, it was a great touch to have Lance Henrikson involved, and Sanaa Lathan is a likeable enough badass-female lead, but everyone else is typical forgettable mercenary cannon fodder.
The effects work is pretty decent for the most part as well.
I can't help but feel that AVP is indeed a missed opportunity. The lack of tension, scares, or viscera just doesn't cut it when it comes to these franchises (although the piss poor sequel proved that more violence doesn't always improve a films quality), but I would have gladly accepted just one of the above mentioned features, but it lacks all of it.
There's a brief flashback which shows a handful of Predators fighting waves upon waves of xenomorphs, and whilst it's a great visual, it serves to remind you that there could have been a much better film produced.
I know that I sound like a miserable bastard and that's a fair enough assumption, and for what it's worth, AVP is watchable - easy Hollywood trash to digest, which is the exact opposite of what I feel an Alien film should be.
Why on earth is it PG-13, and why oh why was this historic meeting of two of cinemas most iconic aliens entrusted to Paul WS Anderson!?
I mean, in all honesty, both series had run out of gas at this point, so by the time AVP finally rolled around (14 years after the conflict had been teased at the end of Predator 2), it was never going to be much more than a gimmick, a shameless cash grab to get people in the cinema, hence the family friendly blockbuster nature of the film.
In terms of a big blockbuster, it's not terrible. There are some relatively entertaining moments here and there. The first clash between the titular monsters about 30 minutes in is undeniably surrounded by a sense of child like glee.
In terms of cast, it was a great touch to have Lance Henrikson involved, and Sanaa Lathan is a likeable enough badass-female lead, but everyone else is typical forgettable mercenary cannon fodder.
The effects work is pretty decent for the most part as well.
I can't help but feel that AVP is indeed a missed opportunity. The lack of tension, scares, or viscera just doesn't cut it when it comes to these franchises (although the piss poor sequel proved that more violence doesn't always improve a films quality), but I would have gladly accepted just one of the above mentioned features, but it lacks all of it.
There's a brief flashback which shows a handful of Predators fighting waves upon waves of xenomorphs, and whilst it's a great visual, it serves to remind you that there could have been a much better film produced.
I know that I sound like a miserable bastard and that's a fair enough assumption, and for what it's worth, AVP is watchable - easy Hollywood trash to digest, which is the exact opposite of what I feel an Alien film should be.
The Stone Killer (1973)
6.3
Rate It
Movie Watch
A new breed of anti-hero appeared in 1970s cinema. Obsession, violence and instability characterized...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Höstsonaten (Autumn Sonata) (1978) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
I have been familiar with Bergman for a long time, having seen Summer With Monika, Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal at a young age. They were more or less my first experience of foreign language art cinema that I sort of understood and liked. Something about the practical and economical way conversations happen in Bergman appeals to me. They tend to lack melodrama and romance, but are intellectually satisfying and often dramatically devastating. None more so than this mindbendingly sad tale of a mother and daughter in conflict. Bergman’s regular muses Ingmar Bergman and Liv Ullmann go head to head in a masterclass of acting that left me in utter awe. It reminded me of the first time I saw Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence – such soul-wrenching honest of emotion, it is almost unbearable. In a good way.
The fact that something is bleak has never put me off, and Bergman too is completely unafraid of leaving you entirely depressed. In fact, I wish Hollywood wasn’t so afraid of it. Very few films with personal conflicts this strong spring to mind – perhaps Blue Valentine is as close as it gets. But on the scale of rhetorical blows to the emotional solar plexus, that would be a 4 and Autumn Sonata would be a 9. Truthfully, I have seen few things so brutal and painful played out in film form. Guilt, blame, regret, denial, shame and loss cut to the bone, making the key scenes at the crescendo very hard to watch, but also brilliant because of it. Visually it is warm and cosy enough, but quite static, like a stage play, but of course Bergman was aware of this. He wants us to focus on the people, and so we do. A blindingly strong work of art all round. Just not something you want to revisit too often.
The fact that something is bleak has never put me off, and Bergman too is completely unafraid of leaving you entirely depressed. In fact, I wish Hollywood wasn’t so afraid of it. Very few films with personal conflicts this strong spring to mind – perhaps Blue Valentine is as close as it gets. But on the scale of rhetorical blows to the emotional solar plexus, that would be a 4 and Autumn Sonata would be a 9. Truthfully, I have seen few things so brutal and painful played out in film form. Guilt, blame, regret, denial, shame and loss cut to the bone, making the key scenes at the crescendo very hard to watch, but also brilliant because of it. Visually it is warm and cosy enough, but quite static, like a stage play, but of course Bergman was aware of this. He wants us to focus on the people, and so we do. A blindingly strong work of art all round. Just not something you want to revisit too often.
American Woman (2019)
Movie
A political activist (Hong Chau) helps take care of a group of America’s most wanted fugitives —...
Bondarchuk's 'War and Peace': Literary Classic to Soviet Cinematic Epic
Book
Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace , one of the world's greatest film epics, originated as a...
Matt Geiger (15 KP) rated Cars 3 (2017) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
2017 was not a good year for Hollywood, but it was a great year for cinema. That year gave us modern masterpieces like Blade Runner 2049, Get Out, and one of Pixar's absolute best. And of course I'm talking about Lightning McQueen's swan song. Oh wait...yeah I misread my list. That 4-letter word read Coco. At the very least, CARS 3 doesn't do anything misleading or unexpected, and that's mostly for the best. A highly unoriginal retread of superior sports films, CARS 3 is content with taking Lightning McQueen down the same path as Rocky Balboa, Ricky Bobby, and Happy Gilmore, but it does so without as much heart needed when exploring concepts of mortality and obsolescence. To its credit, it is, at times, a poignant story about days gone by and longing for glory, but what this movie really excels in is only hinting at emotional drainage and not having the nerve to do something really involving. Owen Wilson is still great in the lead role, and it’s redeeming to see Lightning in the same position as his former mentor, Doc Hudson, who makes a brief return thanks to an archived cameo from the late, great Paul Newman. Much like the film itself, the residents of Radiator Springs, and their voice actors, are as harmless as ever, and the new characters fill the screen nicely enough without making much of an impression thanks to respectable voice work from veterans like Cristela Alonso and Chris Cooper. All of this is well and good, but what the film lacks in the overall wave of melancholy that makes some of Pixar's best efforts shine, it makes up for in returning to its roots and leaving the previous adventure where it stands, as if it never happened at all. While the series protagonist goes out on a predictable, if not fitting, final note, his character arc, thanks to his special relationship to studio big John Lasseter, is highly reminiscent of the studio itself: knowing when to end and move on to better things. CARS 3, to put it in an overly Thanosian way, is inevitable.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 20, 2019
All style, too much substance
I'm a big Tarantino fan and I really wanted to like this film, but I'm afraid like The Hateful Eight before it, I just found it far too rambling and long winded.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Don't get me wrong, I get what he was trying to do here with the classic Hollywood era, I just think it has been poorly executed. Instead of going for 'all style, no substance', Tarantino appears to have gone for all style and too much substance. Visually this film looks stunning, the set design and the costumes look amazing. The cast are brilliant, there's some great supporting faces in this and truly marvellous turns from Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly it's these two that kept my attention for the nearly 3 hour run time. The ideas are good and the dialogue is good, the problem is that there's just way too much of it. Every scene has been dragged out way past the point of enjoyment, and there are so many pointless scenes in this that could easily have been cut out without affecting the barely there plot. He could've at least replaced some of these dragged out scenes with more of a main plot, especially as the only thing interesting about this film was the small bits with the Mansons in it.
I'm starting to wonder if Tarantino is becoming a bit complacent. He's known for his dialogue, but this is just too much. Its worrying when a 3 hour film gets interesting 15 minutes towards the end, which is the only time we see any in depth violence. Had this film been cut by at least an hour, it would've actually been very good. It's just a shame it had to ramble on for so long.
I've marked this higher than I probably should, but only because there is a lot to appreciate in this film and some wonderful performances, it just should've been in a much shorter runtime. I havent seen The Hateful Eight since it was on at the cinema as I can't bear to put myself through it again, and I'm afraid to say it's the same for this.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Turning the beloved Ghost in the Shell manga franchise into a Hollywood film that’ll please picky Western audiences was always going to be a tough job for director Rupert Sanders (Snow White & the Huntsman).
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Casting the central lead, The Major, proved even more difficult. When Scarlett Johansson’s name was attached to play the role, Hollywood was once again accused of white-washing, a tag lobbied at Gods of Egypt last year. The finished product is now in cinemas around the globe, but is it the disaster many predicted?
In the near future, Major (Scarlett Johansson) is the first of her kind: a human who has been cyber-enhanced to create a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world’s most dangerous criminals. When terrorism reaches a new level that includes the ability to hack into people’s minds and control them, Major is uniquely qualified to stop it. As she prepares to face a new enemy, Major finds truths about her past that changes her view on the world forever.
The greatest accolade that can be given to Ghost in the Shell is that its pre-release detractors haven’t stopped people from going to see it. The cinema was busy on its opening night, with many itching to see how such a universally loved manga could be fine-tuned for a Western palate.
Visually; the film is absolutely stunning and is best viewed on the biggest screen possible. Each frame is dripping with detail and the naturally heavy use of CGI doesn’t detract from creating a vibrant metropolis that feels every bit alive.
The story is simple to follow and easy to enjoy. It’s exciting, emotional and boosted by a fine, if slightly uninspiring performance from Johansson. The rest of the cast can also be described as fine, with only Juliette Binoche’s mother-like Dr. Ouélet creating any sort of lasting impact.
And this is Ghost in the Shell’s fundamental weakness. Outside of Binoche, the rest of the cast are largely forgettable and that’s a real shame considering the characters in its excellent source material were, for want of a better word, magical. Even the villain is devoid any sort of tyranny.
Thankfully though, the impressive set design and well-choreographed action sequences mask the disappointing array of characters well and steamroll this thrilling adventure to a very satisfying conclusion. It’s also accompanied by a gorgeous soundtrack by Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe that compliments the futuristic nature of the film beautifully.
Sitting in the theatre, it felt at times like I was watching an updated version of Total Recall, and that’s no bad thing. Comparing it to a cult classic is probably what director Rupert Sanders was trying to achieve and despite its poor characters, Ghost in the Shell has every opportunity to succeed as a film we look back on in 30 years and think “hey, that’s actually pretty good”.
Overall, Ghost in the Shell is one hell of a good-looking film. Couple this with impressive special effects and a rollercoaster ride of a story and you have a big screen experience that’s great for 106 minutes, but probably won’t have any lasting impact once the end credits roll.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/31/not-without-its-faults-ghost-in-the-shell-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Fins ain’t what they used to be.
OK, OK, so I must be about the last person in the country – at least, those who want to see this at the cinema – who actually has! Maybe its something about the summer slipping into autumn that made me crave for one last summer blockbuster hoorah! In any case, I feel like a bit of a traitor, since I was very scathing about this film’s trailer when it came out. But – do you know – as a brainless piece of popcorn entertainment, I quite enjoyed it!
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.
Jason Statham – the unthinking man’s Dwayne Johnson – plays our hero Jonas Taylor. (Jonas? Surely some sly joke?). Jonas is drinking his life away in Thailand after being traumatised by an underwater rescue mission in which he was 90% successful. (Yeah, I know. Bloody perfectionists. Hate ’em). But he is needed again, since his cute ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) is stuck at the bottom of the sea being terrorised by a terrifying creature: no, not Spongebob Square Pants… the titular prehistoric shark.
Lori is working at an undersea research station – Mana One – off the coast of China, funded by the annoyingly brash billionaire Morris (Rainn Wilson, from “The Office”), who you just HOPE HOPE HOPE will get munched at some point!
Running the station (in the most shameless Hollywood/Chinese market crossover since “The Great Wall“) is Zhang (Winston Chao) assisted by his cute daughter Suyin (played by the gloriously named and very talented Bingbing Li) and his even cuter granddaughter Meiying (Sophia Cai). The race is on to use their brains and Taylor’s brawn to stop the monster from reaching the seaside resort of Sanya Bay for lunch.
The action is, of course, absurd with so many near misses for Jonas from gnashing teeth that he could be The Meg’s registered dentist. There is a really nice dynamic though built up between Jonas, his potential cross-cultural love interest Suyin and young Meiying. Suyin is a classic TimesUp heroine for 2018, with an assertive f***-you attitude and not remotely giving an inch to Statham’s hero.
But it’s young Sophia as Meying who really steals lines and steals hearts with a truly charming performance, and would get my ‘man of the match’ were it not for…
…research assistant Jaxx (Australian model, Ruby Rose). She has an absolutely extraordinary look in this film. Chiselled and tattooed, she literally looks like she has stepped out of a Final Fantasy video game… and acts well too: the complete package.
As referenced above, the Hollywood/Chinese crossover is quite striking in this film, with the Chinese beach location looking like Amity Island on crack! (Cue the overweight Chinese kid as the Jaws “Alex” replacement… who knew China had a child obesity issue too… and that they also have ‘Zoom’ ice lollies!) Unusually for a mainstream Western film, a significant number of lines in the film are in Chinese with English subtitles.
In the league table of shark movies, it is far nearer to “Deep Blue Sea” than it is to “Jaws”, the reigning league champion, and all are far in excess of the ridiculous “Sharknado”. But compared to “Deep Blue Sea”, and even compared to “Jaws” – now, astonishingly, 43 years old! – it’s a curiously bloodless concoction, presumably to guarantee it’s 12A certificate. I have seen far bloodier and more violent 12A’s, and if anything I think director Jon Turteltaub (“National Treasure”) rather overdid the sanitisation.
It’s not going to win many gongs at the Oscars, but it is a slice of movie fun nonetheless.