Search
Search results
Gotham is the kind of show where I wonder whether they tried to save money by just having the interns write the script. It's got that stilted, on-the-nose kind of dialogue that makes me just feel bad for the actors. For a while I thought the quality of the writing varied from scene to scene, but it was really just that a certain few actors (those that play Fish Mooney, Ed Nygma, and Harvey Bullock spring to mind) that were able to transcend the material they were working with, while others struggled and some just seemed to give up.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
Season one starts off promisingly enough for a superhero themed crime show. The premise is solid - we get to watch how these superheroes and supervillians come to be. And that is really the draw that keeps me watching - the character driven moments where we see Nygma descend into madness, the Penguin rise through the ranks of the underworld, Mooney wrestle to keep control of her little patch of Gotham. The conflict James Gordon faces in the first season - a Lawful Good character up against rampant, insidious, and impossible to root up corruption throughout every level of Gotham's government is genuinely interesting and feels like a relevant emotional thread that keeps you going through all of the schlocky and improbable events. All three seasons seem to have a firm grasp of their season plot arc and tentpole moments, setting up the next season nicely for whatever main villain and evil will be explored, but I feel like the tone of the show has shifted wildly. The show can't decide if it's gritty or campy, whether it's a comic book or a crime procedural. It handwaves technology and superpowers in a way that fails to establish in-world rules or limitations. So every super power is all-powerful until plot convenient. I also just personally hate the third season "blood virus" arc and the non-canonical Mad Hatter who speaks in rhyming couplets.
Speaking of which, I'd love to tell the writers that a mass of contradictory, plot-convenient impulses does not a strong female character make. Barbara Kean's story arc makes absolutely no sense. Lee Thompkins seems only to exist to push Gordon to do things he wouldn't otherwise, and Selina Kyle is easily swapped out with every spunky street urchin ever.
I almost want to be offended that every single queer character is, or ends up being, a baddie, but honestly I think that's probably just because the antagonists are more interesting and fleshed out characters to begin with. Still, there's some serious issues with representation (shocker). The third season introduces a really icky variant of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope (watch the video by the Pop Culture Detective, it's worth it.)
Still, I think the casting is pretty great, acting ability aside. The costuming is good, although everything is hampered by the show's refusal to nail down any sort of time period. The dream sequences in the first two seasons are beautiful. I love Oswald Cobblepot and Ed Nygma, and I'd love to see the actor who plays Bruce Wayne master more than just his admittedly very good "holding back tears" expression.
If you're looking for something campy, if you like your villians and your superheroes, and if you need something to watch while you fold laundry or go to sleep, I would recommend this show. It's a show that thrives on tired old tropes, but it lifts those tropes from its source material, so fans of comics might enjoy it, or might be aggrieved at the retconning of beloved old character's backstories.
Whatever you do, don't call Nymga insane. He's better now. He has a certificate.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Apartment (1960) in Movies
May 11, 2018
A true classic in every sense of the word
My local cinema does "Secret Movie Night" once a month, you just show up and watch a "classic" of their choosing, you just don't know what it is until it starts.
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
One of the reasons that I enjoy this is that I end up viewing films that I might not, otherwise, choose to watch. Case in point is the selection for May - the 1960 Oscar winner for Best Picture, THE APARTMENT - a "love story" with some comedy and some dark dramatic moments and themes. A very tricky combination of items that are bundled together, brilliantly, by a master of the craft.
THE APARTMENT tells the story of nebbish office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon in an Oscar nominated performance, more on that later) who is talked into lending his apartment to higher-ups in his company so they can carry out extra-marital affairs. When one of the affairs goes wrong, Baxter is forced to "clean up the mess".
Written and Directed by the GREAT Billy WIlder (SOME LIKE IT HOT, SUNSET BOULEVARD), The Apartment is more than a love story, more than a look into the vacuous lives of those anonymous office workers, it is a look into the lives of those who are victims of abuse of power. Wilder, rightfully so, won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Screenplay for this film. The Apartment is strongly written and directed not flinching at the deep subject matter while also balancing things out with moments of comedy and joy, turning what could have been a dour, dark subject into a more joyous exploration of true humanity and love rising through the corruption and abuse of power heaped upon them.
In the lead role of CC Baxter, Lemmon is perfectly cast. Starting as a pure comedic character who is set upon by a world too strong for him, his character slowly turns sharper, deeper, more serious and more real as the film progresses. Lemmon was nominated for the Oscar for his performance - and rightfully so. I had to look up who beat him out for the statue and found out it was Burt Lancaster's powerhouse performance in ELMER GANTRY, so I can't really argue about this (but I digress).
Matching Lemmon beat for beat is Shirley MacLaine, the wronged girl who's "issues" (I'm not going to spoil what happens, if you haven't seen this) are at the heart of this film - and at the heart of Lemmon's character. MacLaine is charming and tragic in this role and she, too, was nominated for an Oscar (for Best Actress losing to Elizabeth Taylor for Butterfield 8). Rounding out the cast was a pre-MY 3 SONS Fred MacMurray (as the Exec who abuses both Lemmon's and MacLaine's characters). He was terrific as this cad, and thought for sure that he would have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but that honor went to Jack Kruschen as Lemmon's neighbor in the apartment building where they both lived. I am fine with that but preferred MacMurray's performance. Also showing up are such great character actors as Ray Walston (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN), David Lewis (GENERAL HOSPITAL), Willard Waterman (THE GREAT GILDERSLEEVE) and David White (Larry Tate in BEWITCHED) as other Execs using The Apartment for their purposes.
This is a terrific motion picture and if you haven't seen it (or if you haven't seen it in quite sometime), I highly recommend you check it out (it is shown on the Turner Classic Movie channel on a fairly regular basis). It certainly shows a slice of life during the MAD MEN days that just doesn't exist anymore - and also presents a type of film, and a type of filmmaker, that just doesn't exist today.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018
More of the same - and that's just fine with me
Did you like the first Deadpool film? Was the humor right up your alley? Did you chuckle at the inappropriateness and the pop culture referential humor?
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
Feb 13, 2019
A classic in every sense of the word
"Of all the gin joints in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine."
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If there was only 1 movie that could be shown to show off "classic", old time Hollywood of the 1930's, '40's and early '50s, look no further than Michael Curtiz' 1942 classic CASABLANCA. While well known for the performances of the leads, the multiple quoted lines, Sam singing AS TIME GOES BY and the iconic ending, this film also is a time capsule to a Hollywood of another year - one that just doesn't exist today.
Starring the great Humphrey Bogart in an Academy Award nominated performance (inexplicably, losing to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE), CASABLANCA tells the tale of Rick Blaine the owner/operator of "Rick's Place" a bar in Casablanca, Morocco in the early days of WWII. He is world-weary, beaten and cynical and is well known as someone who can get things done (for a price) but also one who will not stick his neck out for anyone. When a couple on the run from the Nazi's (Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman) enter's Rick's Place, Blaine (for reasons that are revealed in the film) decides to help.
"Here's looking at your kid."
Bogart is marvelous as Blaine, you can see every inch of his world-weariness on his well-worn, craggy face. He is perfectly cast as Rick and his mannerisms and vocal patterns depict a heaviness within. Bogart is often criticized for his lack of acting talent - nothing could be further from the truth here. He is perfectly paired with Bergman as Ilse - a former love of Rick's, who is now the wife of Freedom Fighter Victor Laszlo (Henreid). There is real chemistry between Bogart and Bergman in this film and you can tell that they are former lovers that still has a flame burning inside.
"We'll always have Paris."
But it's not just the leads who are terrific in this, it's the "who's who" of character actors that make up the Supporting Cast that really brings this film to life. From Peter Lorre to Sydney Greenstreet to Conrad Veidt to S.Z. Sakall to Dooley Wilson as Sam (who plays and sings AS TIME GOES BY), all bring interesting faces and characters to Casablanca (and Rick's Place) but the standout is Claude Rains (nominated for Best Supporting Actor - losing, inexplicably, to Charles Coburn in THE MORE THE MERRIER) as Louis, the corrupt Police Captain of Casablanca who becomes an uneasy ally of Rick's. Did I say that Bogart and Bergman had good chemistry? Check out the chemistry between Bogart and Rains, there was talk of a sequel to Casablance featuring these two - I, for one, would love to have seen that buddy flick.
Director Michael Curtiz won an Oscar for his work - and it is richly deserved. Nary a shot is wasted on this film, each picture a rich black and white portrait. It is interesting to note that this entire film was shot in California (not Casablanca), mostly on the Warner Brothers lot, but Curtiz was able to give the look and (more importantly) the feel of the place through the sets, costumes, lighting and atmosphere.
But it's the words that these characters got to say that really brought home the feel and atmosphere of the time, so credit needs to go to Screenwriters Julius and Phillip Epstein as well as Howard Koch who won Oscars for their work here. This is a masterful, classic work. One that stands up to this day. If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out - you'll be glad you did.
"Louie, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019 (Updated Apr 9, 2019)
Good Fun
Being the big ol' geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam is an exception to this, - other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC's lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, - I don't know much about the character. Watching Shazam, I was more so reminded of a Mark Millar comic called Superior, which bears multiple plot similarities to Shazam, to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
TerraBlizzard (18 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2019
The heritage to the orignal (5 more)
Sublime acting from a majority of unknowns in the industry.
"Spices" up and make it's own mark in the Disney world.
The addition and alterations.
One liners.
Disney parks hidden in the film.
True to the orignal but a stand alone.
A must watch for all ages and with that comes a range of open doors and closed comments.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
If you have seen the orignal and loved it you might find it hard to get on with. But please if you do anything before watching this addition to the live action roster Disney are working hard on, go in with no expectations as if you thought this was the original.
If you haven't seen this before then prepare for bright colour, songs that make you tap your feet and a story driven hard by characters that develope through the film.
Guy Ritchie has done a great job with keeping the roots of this film in true disney essence with putting modern twist to make it a more enjoyable watch for adults who grew up with disney. Guy has a way of bringing darkness and edge to a film, like his work on Sherlock Holmes (Another must wacth) and with this edge comes gripping depth to the story. So much so I was desperate for a toilet break but could not leave my seat as I was worried I'd miss a key part.
With the addition of 2 relative unknown leads in a well loved story was a marvellous move on the casting department. Mena Mossuod and Naomi Scott play brilliant parts and fit right into characters with the addittion of Will Smith a strong and dependable actor who you know always does a good job makes the trio stand out.
With the addition of songs and changes of genre to songs. Everything works and works well. "Speechless" a welcomed addition to the set list that empowers girls and boys to stand up and speek out agiasnt those that push them down and genre swap of "Friend like me".
For instance my favourite Disney song is "Friend like me" sung by the genie or genie's if you "wish" the hard hitting jazz number that breaks the bollywood theme. In the orignal and west end the song is similar in both. Robbin Williams and Trevor Dion Nicholas make this song their own keeping to what the disney song writter wanted and to what their good at. HOWEVER this song I don't think could ever work for Will Smith as a jazz number but by god he pulled it off as a R&B. Agiasnt popular oppion Nicholas version Is the one I love follower by both Robbins and Smith versions.
If you have ever been to a disney park you know that they believe in the story's their telling, the work and detail of everything from sets, Background details, outfits and even the god dam smells of the sweets they sell or the rides they have and even the streets you walk on. They work hard and they do it well (their not perfect but they give it a heck of a running start to get close) The same goes for their movies.
This movie wasn't a disappointment or better film for me as I don't compare it to the original.
It is a film that is done well and played well and makes you believe in it. As what all good story telling needs to do to those who watch and listen.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has anyone got an aspirin?
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone I told you this but I’m a little bit of a Transformers fanboy. As a child I had many of the series’ toys and adored the animated series. Heck, I even have an Optimus Prime bobblehead next to my bed.
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
So when director Michael Bay announced in 2005 that he was planning a Transformers live-action movie with Steven Spielberg as producer, my heart skipped a beat. 2007 came and the film was everything I wanted.
Fast forward ten years and the series has, rightly or wrongly, become a laughing stock for critics the world over. Derided for nonsensical plots, messy special effects and in some cases racism, it’s been regarded as one of the worst film franchises of all time. Does the fifth entry in the franchise, The Last Knight redeem the series somewhat?
Humans are at war with the Transformers and Optimus Prime (Peter Cullen) has disappeared. The key to saving the future lies buried in the secrets of the past and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Now, it’s up to the alliance of Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), Bumblebee, a Lord (Sir Anthony Hopkins) and an Oxford professor (Laura Haddock) to save the planet.
Michael Bay’s swansong is definitely the best of the series since the 2007 original, but suffers from all the problems of its 3 sequels.
On a budget of $260million, there was no doubt The Last Knight would look spectacular, but things really have stepped up a gear. The CGI is some of the best put to film and makes the uncharacteristically sloppy special effects of Age of Extinction look incredibly dated.
The Transformers themselves all look great with Bumblebee in particular taking on the role of “lead bot”. Newcomer Squeeks is sure to become the BB-8 of the franchise and is predictably adorable despite his limited screen-time.
Of the cast, it’s a story of same old. The voice acting on all the Transformers is good with a disappointingly underused Peter Cullen stealing the show once again. Mark Wahlberg is permanently likeable and it’s always a pleasure having John Turturro’s Agent Simmons returning to the screen. Laura Haddock is the typical Michael Bay choice of female lead, channelling Megan Fox, Rosie Huntington-Whitely and Nicola Peltz.
However, Sir Anthony Hopkins is where this film raises itself above the parapet. The veteran actor is really exceptional and brightens the movie in every single scene he appears in. You can tell he’s not taking it too seriously, and that is exactly the point of this series.
Sure, the plot is a hot steaming mess of nonsensical dialogue with loose strands of story, and at 149 minutes it’s a good half hour too long, but with all the fear and hate in real life, sometimes it’s nice to switch your brain off and escape to a world where robots exist – and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Michael Bay may not be the subtlest of directors. Give him a classy love story and he’ll turn it into Fifty Shades of Grey, but he’s clearly a very clever man. The critics have savaged this franchise but audiences keep coming back for more and who can blame them?
If this is, as has been said by the man himself, Michael Bay’s last entry into the Transformers canon, then it’s not a bad film to leave on whatsoever.
You know the score by now. Don’t go in expecting Shakespeare or Oscar-winning performances and you’ll be fine. Just make sure you take some paracetamol; crikey it’s loud.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/24/transformers-the-last-knight-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Top Five (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018
Great Comedy
Journalist Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) is shadowing actor/comedian Andre Allen (Chris Rock) for a day as he promotes his new film. Still recovering from being an alcoholic, Allen is trying to juggle all the different moving parts of his life while planning for a wedding at the same time.
Acting: 10
Stellar performances all around from an amazing cast. While Rock was excellent, I have to show the most love to Dawson who checks all the boxes in her role. She's witty, funny, challenging, vulnerable. Just an all-around success.
And every single time I think about Cedric the Entertainer's role as Jazzy Dee, I can't help but crack a smile. Cedric typically excels in character roles and Top Five is no exception as he hosts Rock's character in Houston. I can't remember one scene he was in where I wasn't openly laughing.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to an excellent start setting the tone for things to come. Andre and Chelsea are walking the streets of New York having multiple debates at once. Seeing their clashing point of views is perfect.
Characters: 10
You want an array of different personalities, you absolutely have it with Top Five. Chelsea's character is phenomenal with her brutal honesty and reluctant vulnerability. She is just what Andre needs in his life. Meanwhile, Jazzy Dee is the definition of hood swag. He wants everyone to know that he's the man in Houston and you almost start to believe him. Among others, I also enjoyed the role of Benny played by Romany Malco. He plays a publicist trying to keep everything together as things fall apart all around him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Solid shots that will always stick out in my head are any involving Hammy the Bear and the scenes where Andre is surrounded by the people he loves. There are definitely others I can't mention for the sake of spoiling the film, but I will remember them for a very long time.
Conflict: 10
As the story progressed, there was always something going on to pay attention to. Andre's struggles and all the things he was having to deal with kept me motivated to watch to see how things were going to play out. Definitely more moving parts than I would have expected.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
When I think of how memorable this film will be for me, both scenes where Andre and his family are debating their top five rappers of all time will always stand out for me. Whether it was rappers, NBA players, video games, these were common amongst my family and friends. Watching his family go at it, agreeing and disagreeing with each other, was a taste of home for me.
The cameos are bananas, making you wonder who's going show up next. Again, there are a couple of scenes that make the film extremely memorable, but even me describing them here wouldn't do them justice. Trust me when I say it's something you have to see, believe, then laugh uncontrollably at.
Pace: 10
Solid progression from one scene to the next. There was never a point where I was checking Google or thinking of what movie I was going to watch next. This film kept me engrossed.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
The ending was darn-near perfect. Sure, they could have given you just a taste more (hence the 8), but I thought it wrapped at a nice stopping point if you ask me. It did what it needed to do and it was gone.
Overall: 91
I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked this film for a number of reasons. It's a sleeper that I highly recommend.
Acting: 10
Stellar performances all around from an amazing cast. While Rock was excellent, I have to show the most love to Dawson who checks all the boxes in her role. She's witty, funny, challenging, vulnerable. Just an all-around success.
And every single time I think about Cedric the Entertainer's role as Jazzy Dee, I can't help but crack a smile. Cedric typically excels in character roles and Top Five is no exception as he hosts Rock's character in Houston. I can't remember one scene he was in where I wasn't openly laughing.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to an excellent start setting the tone for things to come. Andre and Chelsea are walking the streets of New York having multiple debates at once. Seeing their clashing point of views is perfect.
Characters: 10
You want an array of different personalities, you absolutely have it with Top Five. Chelsea's character is phenomenal with her brutal honesty and reluctant vulnerability. She is just what Andre needs in his life. Meanwhile, Jazzy Dee is the definition of hood swag. He wants everyone to know that he's the man in Houston and you almost start to believe him. Among others, I also enjoyed the role of Benny played by Romany Malco. He plays a publicist trying to keep everything together as things fall apart all around him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Solid shots that will always stick out in my head are any involving Hammy the Bear and the scenes where Andre is surrounded by the people he loves. There are definitely others I can't mention for the sake of spoiling the film, but I will remember them for a very long time.
Conflict: 10
As the story progressed, there was always something going on to pay attention to. Andre's struggles and all the things he was having to deal with kept me motivated to watch to see how things were going to play out. Definitely more moving parts than I would have expected.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
When I think of how memorable this film will be for me, both scenes where Andre and his family are debating their top five rappers of all time will always stand out for me. Whether it was rappers, NBA players, video games, these were common amongst my family and friends. Watching his family go at it, agreeing and disagreeing with each other, was a taste of home for me.
The cameos are bananas, making you wonder who's going show up next. Again, there are a couple of scenes that make the film extremely memorable, but even me describing them here wouldn't do them justice. Trust me when I say it's something you have to see, believe, then laugh uncontrollably at.
Pace: 10
Solid progression from one scene to the next. There was never a point where I was checking Google or thinking of what movie I was going to watch next. This film kept me engrossed.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
The ending was darn-near perfect. Sure, they could have given you just a taste more (hence the 8), but I thought it wrapped at a nice stopping point if you ask me. It did what it needed to do and it was gone.
Overall: 91
I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked this film for a number of reasons. It's a sleeper that I highly recommend.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Station Eleven in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
The dystopian idea of a virus wiping out most of the world’s human inhabitants is not a new concept. It has be done and retold over and over again. Emily St. John Mandel’s invention of the Georgian Flu is no different from these. Brought to Canada and the USA by a passenger on a plane from Russia, the highly contagious virus spreads quickly from person to person, town to town, and once caught you are dead within forty-eight hours.
The difference between <i>Station Eleven</i> and other novels of apocalyptic themes is that the story takes place primarily in two time periods – pre-Georgian Flu and twenty years post-Georgian flu – rather than during the outbreak and the immediate days after (although there are a few scenes written within that timeframe). It is difficult to explain the storyline without giving too much away. Although the death of millions of people is a vital feature, it is the lives of the characters that are important. All the significant characters are in some way linked to one man, Arthur Leander, and, particularly in the case of one individual, a graphic novel titled <i>Station Eleven</i>.
The book opens in Toronto with Arthur, a Hollywood actor, starring in a stage production of <i>King Lear</i>. Despite the quick reaction of trainee paramedic Jeevan, Arthur dies of a heart attack after suddenly collapsing during the forth act. Then suddenly, that same night, the Georgian flu makes its first appearance in Canada. Despite this occurring right at the beginning, it is not the last the reader sees of Arthur. Throughout the story the author returns to Arthur, recounting scenes of his life from acting career to his three ex-wives and only child.
Twenty years after the Georgian flu, Kirsten Raymonde, who starred as a child in the same production of <i>King Lear</i>, is part of the Traveling Symphony: a group of actors and musicians walking from decaying-town-to-town performing a number of Shakespeare plays as they go. With her she carries two <i>Station Eleven</i> comics that Arthur gave her before he died – incidentally written and drawn by his first wife. Most people that the Symphony encounter are accommodating and are trying their best to live in a world of no electricity or health care, but then they meet a man who calls himself the Prophet. Believing that he has been given a duty by God to repopulate the world he preaches to the people telling them that everything happens for a reason, likening the epidemic to Noah’s flood in the Bible. However it soon becomes clear that he is a dangerous character.
In a way it is heartening to imagine that high culture (such as Shakespeare and orchestral music) survives in a world that has been destroyed. Shakespeare was born in a time before all the modern inventions relied upon today, and now, in this novel, it is once again an electricity-less era yet these historical things live on.
One problem with <i>Station Eleven</i> is that it is hard to pinpoint the exact plot line. There is the life story of Arthur Leander, his wives and a close friend. Then there is Kirsten living a completely different life. Nonetheless it is still an incredibly fascinating book. Although it flits between time periods it is thankfully not as confusing as some may imagine it would be.
Even though dystopian novels of this nature have been done before, <i>Station Eleven</i> is definitely a book to read; and through it all it poses the question of how you, the reader, would survive in such a world.
The dystopian idea of a virus wiping out most of the world’s human inhabitants is not a new concept. It has be done and retold over and over again. Emily St. John Mandel’s invention of the Georgian Flu is no different from these. Brought to Canada and the USA by a passenger on a plane from Russia, the highly contagious virus spreads quickly from person to person, town to town, and once caught you are dead within forty-eight hours.
The difference between <i>Station Eleven</i> and other novels of apocalyptic themes is that the story takes place primarily in two time periods – pre-Georgian Flu and twenty years post-Georgian flu – rather than during the outbreak and the immediate days after (although there are a few scenes written within that timeframe). It is difficult to explain the storyline without giving too much away. Although the death of millions of people is a vital feature, it is the lives of the characters that are important. All the significant characters are in some way linked to one man, Arthur Leander, and, particularly in the case of one individual, a graphic novel titled <i>Station Eleven</i>.
The book opens in Toronto with Arthur, a Hollywood actor, starring in a stage production of <i>King Lear</i>. Despite the quick reaction of trainee paramedic Jeevan, Arthur dies of a heart attack after suddenly collapsing during the forth act. Then suddenly, that same night, the Georgian flu makes its first appearance in Canada. Despite this occurring right at the beginning, it is not the last the reader sees of Arthur. Throughout the story the author returns to Arthur, recounting scenes of his life from acting career to his three ex-wives and only child.
Twenty years after the Georgian flu, Kirsten Raymonde, who starred as a child in the same production of <i>King Lear</i>, is part of the Traveling Symphony: a group of actors and musicians walking from decaying-town-to-town performing a number of Shakespeare plays as they go. With her she carries two <i>Station Eleven</i> comics that Arthur gave her before he died – incidentally written and drawn by his first wife. Most people that the Symphony encounter are accommodating and are trying their best to live in a world of no electricity or health care, but then they meet a man who calls himself the Prophet. Believing that he has been given a duty by God to repopulate the world he preaches to the people telling them that everything happens for a reason, likening the epidemic to Noah’s flood in the Bible. However it soon becomes clear that he is a dangerous character.
In a way it is heartening to imagine that high culture (such as Shakespeare and orchestral music) survives in a world that has been destroyed. Shakespeare was born in a time before all the modern inventions relied upon today, and now, in this novel, it is once again an electricity-less era yet these historical things live on.
One problem with <i>Station Eleven</i> is that it is hard to pinpoint the exact plot line. There is the life story of Arthur Leander, his wives and a close friend. Then there is Kirsten living a completely different life. Nonetheless it is still an incredibly fascinating book. Although it flits between time periods it is thankfully not as confusing as some may imagine it would be.
Even though dystopian novels of this nature have been done before, <i>Station Eleven</i> is definitely a book to read; and through it all it poses the question of how you, the reader, would survive in such a world.
Larry Eisner (2082 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
Vikander. She is excellent and plays this two-dimensional character far beyond the script. (3 more)
The supernatural elements
Did I mention Vikander’s superb performance?
Damn, Vikander was spectacular!
The script (3 more)
The tropes
The characters’ lack of dimension
Low hope for a sequel
It’s action. It’s rife with plot holes. It’s got an AMAZING lead.
Note: I was given a copy by SmashBomb to review.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.
Note 2: I hate spoilers so you can count on this to have none as with all my reviews.
Tomb Raider, like all video game adaptations for the screen, tend to suck horribly (I’m looking directly at you, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat 2).
That said, the Angelina Jolie versions had huge budgets, large CGI setpieces to amaze and star power at the fairly flat lead role of Lara Croft. They were throwaway summer action fodder. They were fun and worth a watch, but never a second viewing.
Sadly, the new Tomb Raider won’t change anyone’s mind about the genre. It’s still mindless action throwaway, but this had a lot of potential for much much more.
Why? Because Alicia Vikander is SPECTACULAR and brings dimension, fragility, and a brutal ness to the action that you’d never see in the original sexually charged games, or the blockbuster megamillions Jolie versions.
The story itself is flat, full of holes (except the one that’s missing? I won’t say, but damn...) and contains the typical tropes of the lone hero in a jungle against baddies and nature. There’s booby traps, there’s danger at every corner, natural and man-made, and there’s intrigue behind the scenes. Nothing new there and sadly this script adds nothing at all (even an iota) to the genre. However, amazingly, Vikander’s subtle and fragile performance escalates the dull action into something believable. It takes the very false “high stakes” danger and makes it dangerous and raises the stakes because of the vulnerability and believability of this Lara Croft.
This is why I enjoyed the film. In the film world, everything is on Lara’s shoulders. And in reality, the film is carried SOLELY on Alicia Vikander’s shoulders. And she carries it well.
Lu Ren (Daniel Wu) is another great character played by a great actor, though he has far too little quality screen time. The relationship between them isn’t believable because of this lack of time spent in development, and therefore the stakes between them seem more false than they should. It is a lot of wasted potential.
Here’s my hope (though my expectations are low unless DVD/Blu-Ray sales/rentals skyrocket): this film demands a sequel. This flimsy summer fodder has what it takes to make a franchise and a lead that can become a true action icon, but it demands a better and more character-driven script.
The potential here is insane, but only time will tell if this mediocre (but fun) B-movie will get a serious sequel. It wouldn’t require so much money, as the strength of this Lara Croft is not in special effects and masculine explosions. This Croft is crafty, exudes strength in endurance rather than power, and has a realism to her that makes me believe she actually isn’t just a rich person with a privileged upbringing. She’s real, three-dimensional and you want her to succeed. Because of her, not because of the plot.
But put an actual plot and characters with depth and dialogue behind her? Wow. That would be amazing.
So, perhaps this review doesn’t seem like a 7/10. But here’s why: Wu brings the film to a 4-5, and Vikander makes this film every point above to the 7. In fact she had a 10 performance, but the script and direction just bring it down.
It’s a fun B-film. It’s summer action fodder. It’s worth a view, if not a purchase. And it is worth a sequel. Let’s hope and pray that Vikander’s Lara Croft returns to tell more tales.