Search

Search only in certain items:

Shazam! (2019)
Shazam! (2019)
2019 | Action, Sci-Fi
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.
  
    Bastion

    Bastion

    Games

    7.0 (1 Ratings) Rate It

    App

    *IMPORTANT* Bastion requires an iPad 2 or newer, iPhone 4S or newer, or iPod touch (5th gen). App...

40x40

Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)

 
Easy Rider (1969)
Easy Rider (1969)
1969 | Action, Drama

"I begin and end with road-trip movies. Easy Rider was a cultural phenomenon. It depicted the rise of hippie culture, condemned the establishment, harkened back to a mythical America that was being shot in the head metaphorically, and many people, including my own father, so identified with the main characters, Captain America and Billy, that they sought to emulate the values not only of the film but of the filmmakers, Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda. I wrote about the transformative power Easy Rider had in my life in my book, I Blame Dennis Hopper, and let me tell you, the first time I saw it on TV, all cut up, I thought: This is the movie that ruined our lives and turned us into dirty hippies? I just didn’t get it. The years went by; I became an actress, worked with Dennis Hopper, then Peter Fonda, deemed them both mystics, and thought: Yeah, I need to reinvestigate this film. So cue up the sixties soundtrack: Get your motor running . . . Easy Rider is mainly a road-trip movie about two alienated and rootless hippie bikers who travel on their choppers to make a drug deal, but somewhere along the broken road, Hopper and Fonda reveal themselves in an existential way. For instance, there’s a touching bit of autobiographical improv about the death of Fonda’s mother that Hopper apparently made him shoot. Watching Easy Rider, you never forget that Peter Fonda is the son of Henry Fonda—and that’s pretty existential too! It’s like he’s cinematically rebelling against the very American roles his father played—especially Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath. Which, if you think about it, is also a road-trip movie about a broken America. Apparently, Henry Fonda came out of Easy Rider not understanding any of it. I’ve always loved the idea that while Peter was shooting Easy Rider and changing the world, Henry was shooting Yours, Mine and Ours, a Hollywood generation-gap movie, with Lucille Ball. Hopper had his finger on the pulse of the times when he made this film, and not just the peace movement. He came out of the studio system, acting in films like Giant and Rebel Without a Cause, and starred in countless television shows. His work as a director and an actor has been overshadowed by his wild lifestyle, and that’s a shame. Two films you should check out: Hoosiers, in which Hopper acted, and Colors, which he directed. Hopper literally began the independent film movement with this film. He probably also cursed us with hundreds of road-trip movies too—but here is the original. The tagline of Easy Rider was “A man went looking for America. And couldn’t find it anywhere . . .,” and that message still resonates, especially in the character of George Hanson, played so beautifully by Jack Nicholson. Let’s just say the casting of Nicholson as an alcoholic ACLU lawyer was a stroke of luck and genius. His performance opposite Hopper and Fonda, maybe because they were all buddies, is the heart of the film. Every road movie owes a debt to this scene, because every road movie since then seems to have a bonding scene like it, where all the characters reveal their inner hopes, fears, and dreams over a joint or two. They sit around the campfire smoking pot, and Hopper rationalizes that people hate him because he has long hair and is a hippie. Nicholson says, no, they hate you because you’re free. Cut to the thousands of folks who saw this film, quit their jobs, and became hippies! Easy Rider represented a time when freedom meant freedom from material things, freedom from driving in six lanes of traffic to work twelve hours a day at a job you hate. Freedom in 1969 was the land, the land of the free and the brave. Freedom was peace and love. The word freedom has been co-opted. Today, freedom means freedom to be selfish, freedom to carry guns. Freedom to hurt the land and its inhabitants for the sake of commerce. Easy Rider reminds us how far we have strayed from that journey."

Source
  
Two Kinds of Truth (Harry Bosch #20)
Two Kinds of Truth (Harry Bosch #20)
Michael Connelly | 2017 | Fiction & Poetry
9
9.0 (1 Ratings)
Book Rating
Another wonderful mystery novel featuring Connelly's excellently developed lead detective
Michael Connelly's iconic detective, Harry Bosch, is back again. Harry's basically a volunteer for the San Fernando police department, working cold cases for the tiny force and mentoring their three young detectives. When they are called out for a murder of a father and son at a local pharmacy, Harry assists the inexperienced team in trying to track down the killers. The case leads Harry and his detectives into the dark world of opiates--both the big money of pill mills and the sad, cold side of addiction. Meanwhile, Harry hears from his former employer, the LAPD, when one of his thirty-year-old cases is reopened based on new evidence. Even worse, the killer is claiming Harry framed him. The case threatens Harry's most prized possession: his reputation as a cop, and he knows that no one will fight to clear his name like himself. The two unrelated cases pull at different sides of Bosch as he works to discover all different facets of the truth.

I love Harry Bosch so much, and there will be a hole in my heart when Connelly no longer writes about him. I actually moved this book up in my rotation (something I rarely ever do!) so I could read it on a weekend trip to Chicago, and my only regret is that it meant I finished it in about 48 hours, and now it's over. Per usual, Connelly gives us yet another wonderful mystery novel featuring his excellently developed lead detective. This one covers the timely topic of the opiate crisis, which looms fairly large in America today. It's well-researched, as always.

Reading a Bosch novel is like picking up with an old friend, and this one is no different. Our Bosch is aging, which this book acknowledges well. We see Bosch still grappling with having left the LAPD--who can he trust, what can he do with his life now. We even get some appearances from previous characters in earlier novels. Perhaps the best thing is a fairly large role for Bosch's half brother Mickey Haller, the famed "Lincoln Lawyer." These two are still figuring out their own relationship, but it's a treat for us readers to get a glimpse of Mickey; we even get to see some of his enjoyable courtroom antics. There's even an appearance from Mickey's investigator, Cisco! (See, it's like being old friends!)

And, of course, we can't forget the actual story, which, in usual Connelly style is excellent and tracks along flawlessly along Bosch's own journey. The opiate tale is both fascinating and depressing, while Bosch's unraveling of the backstory behind the reopened cold case will certainly keep you reading. There's never really any crazy twists or turns, but the novel moves along steadily and easily. There's both growth and angst with Bosch--I have to admit, I worry about the end of his arc, but I will still enjoy every moment I get with him until them.

Another enjoyable one for the Bosch canon--certainly recommend!