Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Fun Filled Family Event
Shazam! is a 2019 superhero movie based on the DC Comics character. Produced by New Line Cinema and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is the first live-action film version of the character since 1941. The film is also directed by David F. Sandberg from a screenplay by Henry Gayden and story by Henry Hayden and Darren Lemke. Starring Zachary Levi, Asher Angel, Mark Strong, Jack Dylan Grazer, and Djimon Hounsou.
In 1974 Upstate New York, the ancient wizard Shazam magically transports Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto) to the Rock of Eternity, a hidden magical temple. Shazam, the last of the Council of Seven Wizards, explains that he has been searching for centuries for a champion who is "pure of heart". Released upon the ancient world, and now trapped in statues within the Rock, the Seven Deadly Sins tempt Thaddeus with promises of power. Banished back to Earth as unworthy of being a champion for succumbing to the sins, Thaddeus causes an accident while traveling with his family which leaves his father severely injured. Searching for his birth mother in present day Philadelphia, foster kid Billy Batson (Angel Asher) runs a foul of the law and is placed in a group home with 5 other foster kids run by Victor (Cooper Andrews) and Rosa Vasquez (Marta Milans). Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Frazer) is one of the five foster kids, an amateur superhero expert, and his new roommate. Now an adult Thaddeus (Mark Strong) discovers how to return to the Rock and acquire the power he was denied as a child.
This movie was a ton of fun. I don't think I've laughed out loud in a comic book movie this much since Ant-Man. This movie was really good. It had its silliness in certain parts but still did well in building tension and having its serious parts. Also it was well done on how the story played on your emotions for a lot of the different characters. I love the way the foster family and siblings came into play throughout the film. The special effects were really good, especially the monsters and even though you know Zachary Levi is in a muscle suit (which i initially disliked) it didn't even matter. The plot was good although some of it seemed recycled which bothered me slightly. The dialogue was good, some of it silly, which seemed appropriate for the character being younger than he looks when he is Shazam. But I didn't have much to complain about. I never saw one of the major twists coming at the end, so that really surprised me. If you're looking for a fun movie to watch, with family or friends or a superhero movie that will also make you laugh, Shazam is the one to choose. I give this movie a 8/10.
In 1974 Upstate New York, the ancient wizard Shazam magically transports Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto) to the Rock of Eternity, a hidden magical temple. Shazam, the last of the Council of Seven Wizards, explains that he has been searching for centuries for a champion who is "pure of heart". Released upon the ancient world, and now trapped in statues within the Rock, the Seven Deadly Sins tempt Thaddeus with promises of power. Banished back to Earth as unworthy of being a champion for succumbing to the sins, Thaddeus causes an accident while traveling with his family which leaves his father severely injured. Searching for his birth mother in present day Philadelphia, foster kid Billy Batson (Angel Asher) runs a foul of the law and is placed in a group home with 5 other foster kids run by Victor (Cooper Andrews) and Rosa Vasquez (Marta Milans). Freddy Freeman (Jack Dylan Frazer) is one of the five foster kids, an amateur superhero expert, and his new roommate. Now an adult Thaddeus (Mark Strong) discovers how to return to the Rock and acquire the power he was denied as a child.
This movie was a ton of fun. I don't think I've laughed out loud in a comic book movie this much since Ant-Man. This movie was really good. It had its silliness in certain parts but still did well in building tension and having its serious parts. Also it was well done on how the story played on your emotions for a lot of the different characters. I love the way the foster family and siblings came into play throughout the film. The special effects were really good, especially the monsters and even though you know Zachary Levi is in a muscle suit (which i initially disliked) it didn't even matter. The plot was good although some of it seemed recycled which bothered me slightly. The dialogue was good, some of it silly, which seemed appropriate for the character being younger than he looks when he is Shazam. But I didn't have much to complain about. I never saw one of the major twists coming at the end, so that really surprised me. If you're looking for a fun movie to watch, with family or friends or a superhero movie that will also make you laugh, Shazam is the one to choose. I give this movie a 8/10.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Really Great Video Game Movie
Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is a 2019 video game film adaptation directed by Rob Letterman with screenplay written by Letterman, Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit and Derek Connolly from a story by Hernandez, Samit, and Nicole Perlman. The movie is produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, Legendary Pictures and The Pokemon Company, in association with Toho Co., Ltd. It's based on the Pokemon franchise created by Satoshi Tajiri and the 2016 video game Detective Pikachu. The movie stars Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Ken Watanabe, and Bill Nighy.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is a 21-year-old insurance salesman who gave up on training Pokemon at a young age. While hanging out with his friend Jack, he receives a call that his father Harry died while investigating a case. He travels to Ryme City, where his father was a detective and where Pokemon fighting is outlawed. It is a metropolis that pushes the bonds of humans and Pokemon by not conforming to some of the usual Pokemon world rules, such as battles or pokeballs. Tim is there to collect his father's belongings and encounters a Pikachu that can speak and he can somehow understand it. And together they try to uncover why Tim's father was killed.
This movie was lots of fun and very enjoyable, even for people that might not know anything about Pokemon. Ryan Reynolds did a great job in portraying the coffee drinking Pikachu detective. The plot was a little weak and could have been better, but I didn't hold that against it too hard since its kind of a kids movie. The CGI was beautiful in a lot of ways, somethings like the city and the skin and texture on Pokemon were phenomenal, but kinda fell short in a few scenes. Some of the human actors were definitely better than others and it shows but doesn't kill the whole movie or vibe. I really liked seeing Ryme City though, it was just so awesome to see all the Pokemon and people interacting and the world building done to make it look real, like it could exist in real life. I think they could of used Ken Watanabe more in the movie, he's a pretty good actor I feel was under utilized. This was a really great video game movie though and I think one that breaks the stigma that video game movies aren't good or successful. I give this movie a 7.
I almost gave it an 8 but I feel that it's nostalgia and my love for the Pokemon games and cartoon movies that are behind that. But I do give it my seal of approval, that you should go see this movie in theaters, especially if you are a Pokemon fan or if you have kids who are.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 1, 2021
3 Strong Actors Elevate This Above Mediocrity
Generally, when a movie is “dumped” in January, it is a sure sign of a bad film, filled with Liam Neeson kicking butt or CGI monsters attacking a small group of survivors in an isolated location, but these being times that they are, Warner Brothers release of THE LITTLE THINGS simultaneously in Movie Theaters and on HBO MAX gave me reason to change my thinking.
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Rain Man with a Kalashnikov.
(Another Bob the Movie Man Showcase Theatre).
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.