Search
Search results
Ronyell (38 KP) rated The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
Bone Daddy Nearly Ruins Christmas!
Every Halloween, Jack the Pumpkin King, would go out and scare many people with his frightening theatrics. Unfortunately, Jack has grown tired of doing the same routine every year and wanted to do something different. It was then that Jack accidentally ended up in Christmas Town and he was so awed and amazed at the Christmas visuals and the figure of Santa Claus (who he mistakenly calls "Sandy Claws"), that he decided that he should take over Christmas for the year! This then leads to Santa Claus being kidnapped by Oogie Boogie and Christmas nearly put into disaster!
Can Jack fix all of this before it's too late?
Seriously, this is probably my most favorite film made by Tim Burton (well technically, it was produced by Tim Burton and the poem was written by him, but Henry Selick directed the film). I just loved the cute yet nightmarish visuals in this movie as they gave the movie a creative vibe and I really loved seeing the different kinds of characters that pop up in Halloween Town, with my favorite creatures being the Clown with the Tearaway Face and the Vampires! I also loved the characters themselves as they were all interesting and amusing to look at. Probably my most favorite character in this entire movie was none other than Jack Skellington himself as he was a truly charming and charismatic character! I just loved the way that Jack went about trying something different for a change and it was cute seeing him lit up with enthusiasm as he tried to become the new Santa Claus. I also loved the character of Sally the Rag Doll as she truly cares about Jack and would do anything to prevent Jack from ruining Christmas! The visuals were amazing as all the characters look truly nightmarish (especially the werewolf and the witches) and yet, their personalities are so likable that you cannot help but actually care for these characters. Probably the best part of this movie were the songs themselves as they truly capture the true essence of this film, with my favorite songs being "What's This?" "This is Halloween" and "Sally's Song."
The only problem with this film is that the reason why this movie was rated PG was because of the scary imagery. So, there may be some images, like the various monsters that show up in this film, that might scare smaller children for the most part. Also, there is not enough back stories with any of these characters to really get to know their true motives and their existence, so some people might be a bit confused about where some of the motives of the characters came from, like in the case of Oogie Boogie where we don't know much about his character other than he despises Jack Skellington.
Overall, "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is a fantastic animated film that you can see either during Christmas or Halloween ( a two in one deal, how cool is that)? and it will forever be remembered as a classic film that Tim Burton and stop motion fans will love for many years!
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/movie-review-nightmare-before-christmas.html
Can Jack fix all of this before it's too late?
Seriously, this is probably my most favorite film made by Tim Burton (well technically, it was produced by Tim Burton and the poem was written by him, but Henry Selick directed the film). I just loved the cute yet nightmarish visuals in this movie as they gave the movie a creative vibe and I really loved seeing the different kinds of characters that pop up in Halloween Town, with my favorite creatures being the Clown with the Tearaway Face and the Vampires! I also loved the characters themselves as they were all interesting and amusing to look at. Probably my most favorite character in this entire movie was none other than Jack Skellington himself as he was a truly charming and charismatic character! I just loved the way that Jack went about trying something different for a change and it was cute seeing him lit up with enthusiasm as he tried to become the new Santa Claus. I also loved the character of Sally the Rag Doll as she truly cares about Jack and would do anything to prevent Jack from ruining Christmas! The visuals were amazing as all the characters look truly nightmarish (especially the werewolf and the witches) and yet, their personalities are so likable that you cannot help but actually care for these characters. Probably the best part of this movie were the songs themselves as they truly capture the true essence of this film, with my favorite songs being "What's This?" "This is Halloween" and "Sally's Song."
The only problem with this film is that the reason why this movie was rated PG was because of the scary imagery. So, there may be some images, like the various monsters that show up in this film, that might scare smaller children for the most part. Also, there is not enough back stories with any of these characters to really get to know their true motives and their existence, so some people might be a bit confused about where some of the motives of the characters came from, like in the case of Oogie Boogie where we don't know much about his character other than he despises Jack Skellington.
Overall, "The Nightmare Before Christmas" is a fantastic animated film that you can see either during Christmas or Halloween ( a two in one deal, how cool is that)? and it will forever be remembered as a classic film that Tim Burton and stop motion fans will love for many years!
Originally posted on: http://surrealmoviesandtvblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/movie-review-nightmare-before-christmas.html
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Hunt (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Darkly fun
The Hunt follows twelve strangers as they wake up in a clearing with no recollection of how they got there, and soon find themselves hunted for sport by a group of liberal elites.
Starring Betty Gilpin, Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Justin Hartley, and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, The Hunt’s original release was delayed in 2019 due to a number of mass shootings in America. It was pushed back to Spring 2020 only for it to come out just before the big lockdown for COVID-19, so to say this film has suffered a few setbacks would be an understatement, and this is a shame as it’s actually one of the most enjoyable new releases I’ve seen in 2020 so far.
Right from the opening scene, The Hunt shows you what it’s made of - understated and subtle it is not. It’s a riotously funny and witty parody, poking fun at absolutely everyone in it with it’s on the nose references that are so relevant to today’s political and social climate. Neither the prey or the hunters escape unscathed, in all manner of the word, and everything from climate change to racial prejudices and political ideology feature heavily in the running satire on offer here. This is a darkly funny and very smart film, and it knows it.
What this film is not though, is a horror film. Gory yes and brilliantly so, but it is in no means scary or horrifying. The plot itself is of course reminiscent of Battle Royale and even The Hunger Games, but The Hunt is very much it’s own film. It starts with an overly dramatic score and a decent amount of tension, and shifts into the action virtually straight away - with a short 90 minute runtime, this doesn’t waste it’s time on unnecessary exposition. Whilst I wouldn’t say this isn’t entirely unpredictable, The Hunt still has a few surprises to throw at you. The first half hour plays out a lot differently than you’d expect and makes you wonder if it’s played out it’s hand a little too soon.
But then in walks Betty Gilpin who is by far the star of the show and leads the remaining hour almost single handedly. Gilpin’s Crystal is a kickass, strong, smart heroine and she’s a delight to watch, although even she can’t quite save the lull half way through. Fortunately the lull doesn’t last long and watching Crystal exact her revenge on the hunters is wonderful to watch. Hilary Swank however is on the sidelines for most of the film, and for some bizarre reason whenever she is featured earlier on her face is kept hidden which is a rather strange move when we all know who it is. But despite this, when Swank is finally revealed in the final act she plays the cold, cruel and calculating Athena as a perfect callous bitch. The final exchange and reveal between Athena and Crystal is smart, tense and wickedly funny, and the ensuing fight scene is beautifully choreographed with some great laughs thrown in, and is probably the best fight scene I’ve seen in any film in quite some time.
The Hunt is gloriously over the top and mocks everyone and everything, yet also proves to be an equally thought provoking and relevant commentary on today’s society. As long as you’re not easily offended and don’t take it too seriously, it’ll prove to be hugely entertaining.
Starring Betty Gilpin, Hilary Swank, Emma Roberts, Ethan Suplee and Justin Hartley, and written by Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof, The Hunt’s original release was delayed in 2019 due to a number of mass shootings in America. It was pushed back to Spring 2020 only for it to come out just before the big lockdown for COVID-19, so to say this film has suffered a few setbacks would be an understatement, and this is a shame as it’s actually one of the most enjoyable new releases I’ve seen in 2020 so far.
Right from the opening scene, The Hunt shows you what it’s made of - understated and subtle it is not. It’s a riotously funny and witty parody, poking fun at absolutely everyone in it with it’s on the nose references that are so relevant to today’s political and social climate. Neither the prey or the hunters escape unscathed, in all manner of the word, and everything from climate change to racial prejudices and political ideology feature heavily in the running satire on offer here. This is a darkly funny and very smart film, and it knows it.
What this film is not though, is a horror film. Gory yes and brilliantly so, but it is in no means scary or horrifying. The plot itself is of course reminiscent of Battle Royale and even The Hunger Games, but The Hunt is very much it’s own film. It starts with an overly dramatic score and a decent amount of tension, and shifts into the action virtually straight away - with a short 90 minute runtime, this doesn’t waste it’s time on unnecessary exposition. Whilst I wouldn’t say this isn’t entirely unpredictable, The Hunt still has a few surprises to throw at you. The first half hour plays out a lot differently than you’d expect and makes you wonder if it’s played out it’s hand a little too soon.
But then in walks Betty Gilpin who is by far the star of the show and leads the remaining hour almost single handedly. Gilpin’s Crystal is a kickass, strong, smart heroine and she’s a delight to watch, although even she can’t quite save the lull half way through. Fortunately the lull doesn’t last long and watching Crystal exact her revenge on the hunters is wonderful to watch. Hilary Swank however is on the sidelines for most of the film, and for some bizarre reason whenever she is featured earlier on her face is kept hidden which is a rather strange move when we all know who it is. But despite this, when Swank is finally revealed in the final act she plays the cold, cruel and calculating Athena as a perfect callous bitch. The final exchange and reveal between Athena and Crystal is smart, tense and wickedly funny, and the ensuing fight scene is beautifully choreographed with some great laughs thrown in, and is probably the best fight scene I’ve seen in any film in quite some time.
The Hunt is gloriously over the top and mocks everyone and everything, yet also proves to be an equally thought provoking and relevant commentary on today’s society. As long as you’re not easily offended and don’t take it too seriously, it’ll prove to be hugely entertaining.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
Quick Text on Photo Editor- Add Cute Stickers and Write Captions in Colorful Ghost Frames
Lifestyle and Photo & Video
7.5
Rate It
App
Quick Text on Photo Editor is here for all the creative boys and girls who want to express thoughts...
Photo Captions HD
Photo & Video and Social Networking
App
★ Featured on the App Store as an app to "Show Mom You Care" ★ ★★ Macworld.com: Fun image...
Dream Talk Recorder Pro
Utilities and Entertainment
App
Over 3 million people use Dream Talk Recorder to record their sleep talks and snores at night! Do...
The heartwarming simulation game--Showa Candy Shop
Games
App
Memories with Grandma at the Candy Shop will come back! Follow the story with letters as you run a...
Inseparable (Rise of the Iliri #4)
9.0
Rate It
Book
DISASTER! THE BLACK BLADES DISBANDED, AN ALLIANCE IN TURMOIL... Growing ever more tender yet always...
ELSA Speak - Accent Reduction
Education and Games
App
Learn to speak English doesn’t have to be scary and lonely anymore. With ELSA - your English...
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.