Category Archives: Action

‘Spider-Man: Homecoming’ a Welcome Return-to-Form for the Character

Leave a reply

Spider-Man_Homecoming_poster

Much like Kevin Spacey, I always seem to forget how much I love Michael Keaton until I see Michael Keaton pop up on screen.

 

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” is the second reboot in five years of the character, and features Tom Holland reprising his role as the titular hero from last year’s “Captain America: Civil War.” This time we skip over all the origin stories and Uncle Ben’s death and get right into Peter Parker trying to be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, until a new supervillain named Vulture (Keaton) threatens New York City with dangerous weapons. Jon Favreau, Jacob Batalon, Marisa Tomei and Robert Downey Jr. also star as Jon Watts directs.

 

I love the character of Spider-Man. He’s no Batman (duh) but when done right there is something about a sarcastic teenager in red, white and blue spandex that is just impossible not to find enjoyable. Sam Raimi’s first film back in 2002 redefined the modern superhero genre (and literally changed the start date of the summer movie season from Memorial Day to first weekend of May) and “Spider-Man 2” is universally accepted as one of-if not the-greatest superhero films of all-time. The third film then had a mixed response while the Andrew Garfield reboot series (if you want to call two films no one liked a “series”) were a colossal misfire that resulted in Sony negotiating a deal to give the character back to Marvel, and it will be interesting to see how history remembers those two outings. But enough Spidey history, let’s get talking about this latest rendition.

 

Just like in “Civil War” Tom Holland shines here. He is just so darn charming, innocent and likable, and that’s just as Peter Parker. His Spider-Man has all the quips that Garfield’s was missing (saying “wait a minute, you guys aren’t the real Avengers!” to a group of bank robbers in Halloween masks) and he is just so much fun and it is clear that Holland himself is having a blast in the role of a lifetime.

 

The supporting cast are all great, too, with Robert Downey Jr. reprising his role as Tony Stark aka Iron Man, acting both as a bridge for the Marvel Cinematic Universe and this reboot series as well as Peter’s father figure since we don’t get an Uncle Ben this time around. Downey isn’t in the film all too much (every scene he has is in the trailer) but he is as sarcastic and witty as one may hope. Marisa Tomei has some genuine moments as Aunt May, and chooses to make this version of the character a little more nerdy and “try hard” (and clearly younger) than Rosemary Harris’ elderly, always worried take.

 

Michael Keaton is arguably one of the better villains that the MCU has seen, although that bar isn’t set too high. A blue-collar worker screwed over by a rigged system, Keaton doesn’t want world domination he just wants to make money while getting back at the elites. He gets some scenery to chew and has one genuinely tension-filled scene but overall he feels slightly underused, but it was still great to see him in a villain role, and continuing his mini-career renaissance of his.

 

There really isn’t too much action here to speak of, a lot of the film focuses on Peter trying to balance high school and being Spider-Man, and he isn’t always punching men in big flying monster suits; more often than not he’s stopping bike thieves and helping give old ladies directions. When the action does hit it is as clean and fun as any film with a $175 million budget and the Marvel brand slapped on it can expect to be, and is all the more impressive coming from a director who had only made small indie dramas (see Watts’ “Cop Car” if you haven’t).

 

What holds this back from the levels of Raimi’s first two films is a bit of a sloppy narrative here and there. The film isn’t always focused on Vulture and his plan, it just cuts back to him every now and again for a while to remind you that eventually we’re going to get to a big confrontation with him and Spider-Man. There were six screenwriters on this and it’s clear, sometimes the balance between big-budget superhero blockbluster and coming-of-age comedy are seamless, other times they’re jarring.

 

The film’s trailers also ruin *a lot* so if you have managed to avoid seeing the four of them up to this point, try to keep it that way. Scenes will be going on and suddenly you’ll realize you know exactly how things are going to play out because the trailers all spoil it.

 

“Spider-Man: Homecoming” is a welcome return to form for the titular character and a nice little side-entry into the MCU. When I saw “Spider-Man 2” in theaters as a 10 year old it was the first time I was ever truly left speechless by a film’s greatness; and although “Homecoming” isn’t perfect, it does bring me joy knowing that today’s kids finally have a Spider-Man worthy of being looked up to and enjoyed, because leaving them with Andrew Garfield’s would have been a travesty.

 

Critics Rating: 7/10

Sony Pictures

Sony Pictures

‘Baby Driver’ is Well-Acted and Original, but It Just Wasn’t For Me

Leave a reply

Baby_Driver_poster

Every time I see Kevin Spacey in something I’m reminded how much I love seeing Kevin Spacey in things.

 

“Baby Driver” stars Ansel Elgort as a young getaway driver for a crime boss (Spacey) who has to do one last job before getting out of the life and running away with his girlfriend (Lily James). Jon Bernthal, Eiza González, Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx also star as Edgar Wright writes and directs.

 

I’ll give Edgar Wright all the credit in the world, when the man makes a film he often takes the most basic, cliché genres and plots (like zombies, cops and heists) and somehow manages to put a fun, unique twist on them. I enjoy his trilogy of films with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost and was looking forward to his version of “Ant-Man” before he left the project. Here, his “Baby Driver” is a heist film set to music, and while I can appreciate the attempt at originality there was something about this film just didn’t work for me.

 

I’m more than sure this is going to be one of those instances where I’m in the very minute minority opinion of a film and that’s fine. I wanted to like this movie; it was near the top of my 2017 watchlist. The cast is great, the trailers seemed fun and like I said, I’m a fan of Wright’s style, ambition and previous works. But about 15 minutes into this film I got “that feeling” that you occasionally get when you’re watching a film that has gotten good buzz, that “ohhhh no, I’m not gonna like this, am I?” feeling.

 

The cast is solid and they all play their roles well. Basically playing caricatures of who they play in everything they do, Jon Hamm is solid as the rogue and mysterious  badass, Jamie Foxx is the wise-cracking gangster and Kevin Spacey is the dry “don’t dare double cross me” leader. Ansel Elgort, having seemingly survived the “Divergent” franchise, does good work in his first starring role without Shailene Woodley, although he does more swaying and nodding through Ray-Bans than actual talking. The characters all have nice dynamics between one another and Wright continues to excel at writing nice banter.

 

The chase sequences are cool, but they suffer from two things: the best shots being in every trailer and TV commercial, and failing to compare to other car chase films. The most impressive moments of the car sequences (and there’s really only two of them in the film) are shown in the ads, whether it is when Baby does a 180 degree whip around a backing up truck or kicks the police road spikes back at them. Also, nothing in this film is as intense as, say, the opening scene to “Drive,” and that featured no real dialogue or musical score, just the commentary to a LA Clippers game (YouTube that fantastic sequence if you haven’t seen it).

 

One of the things everyone will talk about in regards to this film is how it pretty much always has a song going on in the background, to represent how Baby is constantly listening to his iPod. For the most part this is interesting and there are times the editing and character movements coincide with the beats which was cool.

 

But despite the good performances and ambitious take on a worn genre, I just sat there looking at the screen waiting for something to happen that would grab me and suck me into the world, but it never came. I felt like I should be enjoying things a lot more than I actually was, and the last thing you ever want to do is resent a film just because it didn’t meet your expectations.

 

“Baby Driver” isn’t bad and it’s the type of film that Hollywood needs right now- relatively fresh and upbeat-but it just wasn’t for me. Maybe down the road I’ll watch it again and realize I was horribly naïve and that this is a masterpiece, and I’m sure everyone and their uncle will be praising it all summer long, but this is my review and my thoughts, and for me, even the perfect Kevin Spacey wasn’t enough to validate this ride.

 

Critics Rating: 5/10

baby-driver

TriStar Pictures

‘Transformers: The Last Knight’ Is Awful, but What Did You Expect?

Leave a reply

Transformers_The_Last_Knight_poster

I am thoroughly convinced that since he knows they will make money regardless of quality, Michael Bay has made these films louder, longer and more incoherent just as punishment to film critics who are forced to watch them.

 

“Transformers: The Last Knight” is the fifth film of director Michael Bay’s “Transformers” series and follows Mark Wahlberg who must go on the run to help the Autobots find the ancient staff of Merlin in order to stop the Transformers’ home planet from destroying the earth [eyeroll]. Josh Duhamel, Anthony Hopkins and Laura Haddock also star as Bay again directs (in what he insists is his final film of the franchise).

 

The first “Transformers” film is pretty universally accepted as a fun summer blockbuster and I myself really enjoyed it when it came out over 10 years ago, and the sequels are mostly just noise (although I am an apologist for the second film, there’s something entertaining about just how bad it is). However like most people I *hated* “Age of Extinction” and assumed that any fifth film would just be more of the same; for the most part, I was right.

 

I know the easy thing to say to anyone like me who will review a film like this is “well you went in wanting to hate it” and that’s really not true. Like I said, I like the first film and will even defend the second and third as fun popcorn flicks with enjoyable performances from Shia LaBeouf. I even think that when he actually tries, Michael Bay is a talented director; he knows how to stage action sequences and when given a good script he can even have a sense of humor (“The Rock” remains one of the best action films ever made). But “The Last Knight,” while ever so slightly better than “Age of Extinction,” is everything people have grown to hate about Bay’s films and represent everything wrong with modern Hollywood.

 

First things first, this film is two hours, 26 minutes long. While 20 minutes shorter than the last film, it has no right being this long; it doesn’t earn it, nor does it even need to be. The people who actually like these films come to see colorful robots fight each other and probably don’t have the largest attention spans; give them a 90 minute romp, not a Scorsese epic. The pacing of the second half of this film is so abysmal that when the big fight between Optimus Prime and the other Transformers finished it felt like we had just witnessed the climax; turns out there was still over 30 minutes left. When the next scene began I heard a solid four or five people in my theater groan.

 

The actual climax of the film is the worst thing to happen to cinema in the last three years (you know, since the last “Transformers” film). It is so bloated, so loud, so needlessly confusing and so devoid of anything resembling emotion or cause that it is almost deplorable; I was getting physically tired watching what was onscreen and began rooting for the film to just end.

 

Anthony Hopkins is in this movie and following his performance in this year’s “Collide” it’s clear that he has given up caring about his career. And I mean God bless him, he has his Oscar and has earned the right to do paycheck films; most of his scenes in this take place in sports cars and a castle, both of which I’m convinced are actually his that he bought with the checks from this film. Stanley Tucci plays Merlin (instead of reprising his role from the last film) and in his one scene chews scenery like only he can and Mark Wahlberg plays himself with something occasionally resembling a Texan accent and he is fine, but as with the last film this film isn’t about dialogue it’s about action. After all, how will the studio pander and appeal to all those Chinese audiences if half the film is clever dialogue that will get lost in translation?

 

Michael Bay keeps making up rules and powers for the Transformers, with them this time being about to shoot bullets that slow down time and being able to reassemble themselves upon being destructed. It’s cool but gets old fast before being used as a deus ex machina. And the continuity of the plot continues to be lazily altered. In the first film the Transformers say it’s the first time they were on Earth, except then in the second film they built the pyramids and in the 4th they killed the dinosaurs and now they apparently helped King Arthur and aided in defeating the Nazis. I know I shouldn’t care about the plot, it’s a “Transformers” movie, but if Bay is going to be that sloppy then it has to be condemned.

 

And one final thing, speaking of sloppy: the aspect ratio of the film changes way too often. In an IMAX film, oftentimes action scenes are shot in full screen and then dialogue sequences return to having the black bars on the top and bottom. Only here (and I saw it in normal 2D), the black bars appear and reappear from one shot to the other, even in straight-up talking scenes, and it is distracting and very annoying.

 

OK, I’m at near 900 words on “Transformers: The Last Knight” and while I’m sure I could vent for a thousand more I’m going to let both of us move on with our day. Look, you knew this movie was going to be bad and no review was going to change whether or not you were going to see it. But it needs to be said that this film is needlessly long, awkwardly unfunny and visually unappealing, and the fact that “The Last Knight” won’t be the last “Transformers” film makes me die a little inside.

 

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘The Mummy’ Should Have Stayed Under Wraps

Leave a reply

The_Mummy_(2017)I don’t think an intended cinematic universe has ever started off with this big of a thud.

 

“The Mummy” is a reboot of Universal’s titular franchise and the first intended installment of their “Dark Universe,” a collection of their most famous monsters from Frankenstein to the Wolfman. Here, Tom Cruise stars as a treasure hunter who becomes cursed after unearthing the tomb of an Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella). Annabelle Wallis, Jake Johnson, Courtney B. Vance and Russell Crowe also star as Alex Kurtzman directs.

 

I don’t think many people were looking forward to this movie. The trailers were as bland as can be and while things like King Kong and Godzilla still sell tickets, the smaller films like “Dracula Untold” and “I, Frankenstein” don’t perform well at the box office. This is supposed to be the start of an epic joined franchise of monsters, with Universal so confident in themselves they’ve already released press photos of all the actors together and put the “Dark Universe” logo before this film. But after seeing how bad this film is, and how I’m sure the box office receipts will follow suit, this may be one series that is as dead as an Egyptian king.

 

Not much in this film works but I’ll briefly go over the things that do. Russell Crowe is seemingly the only person who knows what sort of movie he is in and he gives his character the right amount of cheese and tongue-in-cheekiness. I won’t say who he is playing because the trailers do not disclose it, but he has one fight scene that is the only time the film is something even resembling fun. Also some of the production design is nice; when things aren’t foggy or sandy the sets pieces are cool to look at.

 

Ok now onto, well, everything else.

 

This film has no idea what it wants to be, which is only made obvious by the fact that it has six writers and three editors. Tones constantly jump from serious to attempts at comedy in a matter of seconds, including some jarringly awkward moments from Jake Johnson (of “New Girl” fame). He is so out of place here and his character is so against the grain of what the rest of the film is trying to do that every time he came on screen I was instantly annoyed.

 

Speaking of comedy, there are a few laughs in this film; some are intentional but most aren’t. For most of the film Tom Cruise seems to be trying to give a charismatic performance and as usual he is to be commended for doing his own stunts, but there are some awful lines of dialogue in this film. By the climax my entire theater had given up caring and silently formed a mutual agreement to begin to laugh at and openly roast what was happening on screen, which was the most enjoyment I had in the (seemingly eternal) 107 minute runtime.

 

The plot itself doesn’t even make sense, not that you care. The undead princess wants to get a knife to kill Cruise so he can be taken over by an ancient Egyptian god, except when she kisses people they turn into zombie slaves, and suddenly there are some Templar Knights who are also on her side despite dying 3,000 years apart. And also Russell Crowe is a walking exposition machine. It’s a mess, but not one cleaning up.

 

For most of its duration “The Mummy” is boring, which is the worst thing a film can be, especially a big-budget summer blockbuster. It’ll be interesting to see if Universal does some soul-searching and agenda swapping, since I can’t see enough people liking (or seeing) this to have the desire for more monster movies to be made.

 

There is a point where the mummy is talking to a girl she is about to kill and she says, “there are some fates worse than death.” Yeah, sitting through this movie.

 

Critics Rating: 3/10

Universal

Universal

‘Wonder Woman’ Mostly Succeeds at Being Fun and Fresh

Leave a reply

Wonder_Woman_(2017_film)All it took for the DC Extended Universe to get on track was pairing a director who hasn’t made a film in 14 years with a female character who has never had her own movie.

 

“Wonder Woman” is the fourth installment of the DCEU, and follows Amazonian goddess Diana Prince as she accompanies an American pilot in World War I Europe on a mission to stop the launch of a deadly German biochemical weapon. Gal Gadot stars as the titular character with Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Danny Huston and David Thewlis in supporting roles. Patty Jenkins directs.

 

The DCEU desperately needed this film to be critical success. Following mixed responses to “Man of Steel” and “Batman v Superman,” “Suicide Squad,” the film many thought would save the series, turned out to be the biggest dumpster fire of them all. So if “Wonder Woman” turned out to be bad like its predecessors, all hope for the franchise would be lost and no one would care about “Justice League” in November. Well thankfully for Warner Bros. and audiences, “Wonder Woman” is far from a failure, thanks to some fun action and performances, even if its climax is a letdown.

 

Whether you liked “Batman v Superman” or not, everyone agreed Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot each stole the show. And Gadot again shines here, giving us a character with heart who views the world with the innocent eyes of that of a child. Not only because she is a fish out of water, going from her secluded exotic homeland to 1915 London, but because she insists on seeing the good in humanity, despite the fact that they are killing themselves by the millions. She is beautiful yet fierce, kind yet physical; it’s an overall great performance and places Gadot as the building block for the DCEU.

 

Chris Pine is also great as Steve Trevor, a pilot who crash lands on Wonder Woman’s previously uncharted island. Pine has some great comedic moments and his natural charm that has been shown in non-Star Trek films like “Horrible Bosses 2” and “Hell or High Water” bleeds through.

 

The action is nicely shot, with Jenkins and cinematographer Matthew Jensen not cutting too often and making sure the audience can actually tell what is happening on screen. Numerous times I had a smile creep onto my face when Wonder Woman kicks a bad guy through a wall or spin kicks a German, and the sequences are accompanied by a great musical score by Rupert Gregson-Williams.

 

Everything was going great. I was having a blast and even the slower character-building scenes were engaging because of the incredible period piece set design and fun performances. Then the climax happened. Not since “The Wolverine” has a film betrayed everything it stood for so much.

 

Most of “Wonder Woman” is a boots-on-the-ground, relatively “realistic” superhero film, in the sense that it is her in trench warfare with her shield or punching guys in a room. However the climax of this film goes from that to CGI destruction at such a breakneck pace that it left my jaw on the floor, and not in a good way. Suddenly it was god against god, with lightning bolts and fireballs being hurled in a desolated wasteland and it gets boring real quick. It is the same problem that plagued literally all three other DC films, and if “Justice League” follows suit (which its trailer implies it will), then I will just give up on this franchise ever knowing how to properly conclude their films.

 

I feel ambivalent right now because I truly loved the first two hours of “Wonder Woman;” I was legitimately sitting in my chair thinking that it was one of the better superhero films we’ve gotten in recent years; but the finale really did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Instead of being excited to run out and tell people to see this, I have to attach a big asterisk next to my recommendation that reads “but the finale hurts it a lot.” And I know my score will seem high given the tone I’ve ended my review with, but what’s a score but a subjective summarization of a review you already read?

 

Here is the bottom line: you should see “Wonder Woman,” because Gadot and Pine are great, the action is fun and it makes me excited for the future of the DCEU, but try your hardest not to fall in love with the film because the ending with break your heart.

 

Critics Rating: 8/10

Warner Bros.

Warner Bros.

‘Dead Men Tell No Tales’ a Fun Summer Adventure

Leave a reply

Pirates_of_the_Caribbean,_Dead_Men_Tell_No_TalesThis is certainly better than the fifth film of a franchise has any right being…

 

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” is the fifth installment of the series that began all the way back in 2003, and the first since 2011’s “On Stranger Tides” (which I doubt you remember was even a thing). Johnny Depp reprises his role as Captain Jack Sparrow, and this time must find the Trident of Poseidon before an undead captain who Sparrow damned years ago (Javier Bardem) can get his revenge. Brenton Thwaites, Kaya Scodelario, Kevin McNally and Geoffrey Rush also star as Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg direct.

 

The “Pirates” films are a lot like the “Transformers” series. They make a lot of money, everyone forgets a fourth and fifth ones were even made despite no one desiring any after the initial trilogy and only the first film was an actual good movie. I love “Curse of the Black Pearl,” it holds a place in my heart and is a fun and visually impressive film even by today’s standards, but the “Pirates” series has continued to get more convoluted and overstuffed with each progressive installment. It’s been six years since the last film and since then we now live in a world where there are seemingly superhero films every other week, so people no longer clamor for the spectacle and scope that this franchise once delivered. Still, despite all odds and literally almost no one asking for it, “Dead Men Tell No Tales” is a very fun, visually impressive blockbuster that is honestly the best of the franchise since the original.

 

Johnny Depp was really only known for indie films when he was cast as Jack Sparrow but after “Black Pearl” was released it not only thrust him into stardom and nabbed him his first Oscar nomination but also created one of the most distinguishable characters in modern cinema. The character has gotten more cartoonish and less clever with each film, but Depp and the writers tone it back a bit in “Dead Men.” Sparrow doesn’t feel the need to chew scenery and say a punchline at the end of every sentence, and even if he’ll never recapture the surprising magic he found in 2003, it’s fun to see Depp under the hat and makeup of his most iconic character.

 

Javier Bardem is solid as the film’s antagonist, a Spanish naval captain who died at the hands of the Bermuda Triangle after falling into a trap set by a young Sparrow. Bardem chews scenery, growling and wheezing his way through each bit of dialogue, but as far as paycheck roles go it’s far from a sleepwalking performance. The character design is also cool, as Bardem and his crew take on the appearance of how they died; some of his ghost army don’t have legs or parts of their arms, and Bardem himself has flowing hair since he died underwater.

 

The action and set pieces here are as solid as they’ve ever been. From the colorful brick and clay buildings of the ports at St. Martin to ship battles in open oceans, it seems the directors tried to keep things as practical as possible and not feel the need to over-use CGI, something the last few films have fallen victim to.

 

The film’s biggest issue is the same as the previous three installments, albeit to a lesser degree, and that is its pacing and overabundance of characters. When Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) came back at the end of the second film it was a fantastic surprise and him being in the third film was fun. But he had no point of being in the fourth and has even less to do here, as is the case with a half dozen other characters. They just pad to the two-hour-plus runtime and make it feel much longer than it actually is.

 

“Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales” may not be a great movie, but it’s great fun. If you’re a fan of the series then you’ll absolutely enjoy it, and even if you haven’t truly liked a film since the first one then I think this recaptures some of the feel that one had. In an age where Disney puts all their efforts into Marvel and Star Wars, there’s something about their original tentpole franchise providing one final adventure that is comforting.

 

Critics Rating: 7/10

Walt Disney

Walt Disney

‘Alien: Covenant’ a Gory, at Times Laggy Adventure

Leave a reply

Alien_Covenant_Teaser_PosterRidley Scott is 79 years old and still competently directing major Hollywood movies and meanwhile I’m 23 and can barely make toast without burning it…

“Alien: Covenant” is the 6th canon film of the “Alien” franchise and acts as a sequel to 2012’s “Prometheus,” as well as the second of an intended three prequel films by original director Ridley Scott. Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, Carmen Ejogo and Demián Bichir all star as members of a colony ship that land on an uncharted planet before discovering  a terrifying threat.

I’m not the biggest fan of the “Alien” franchise. I don’t love the first film (I just don’t think it aged well) and the handful of other ones I’ve seen are enjoyably forgettable at best. So I had little interest or anticipation for “Covenant,” although I will see anything with Michael Fassbender and summer blockbusters are my jam. And while “Covenant” may not convert anyone towards “Alien” fandom, it is a decent enough sci-fi adventure with just enough blood and production value to entertain.

I’ll start with the set design and effects, because they’re gorgeous. Ridley Scott has always made great looking films, and often on relatively limited budgets, compared to fellow big Hollywood blockbusters. Despite costing “just” $97 million “Covenant” looks as sleek and investing as anything, with practical location shoots in New Zealand dropping us in a distant world full of lush forests and vast bodies of water. When films like “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” cost $175 million to produce and end up not only being a bad film but looking ugly, Scott really deserves all the praise he gets for stretching every penny (my favorite quote from him: “when you’re spending $250 million on a movie, you should have been fired a year ago”).

The cast all do great work, even Danny McBride who ventures out of his normal R-rated comedy routine. But the real star is Michael Fassbender, who plays the team’s synthetic android. Fassbender is eerie and darkly amusing, and I won’t say why or how but just know he steals the show, and like Scott his dedication to this franchise is to be commended.

Fans of the “aliens bursting out of the humans in bloody fashion” of the original films will be pleased to know that Scott pulls no punches here; this is a very R-rated blood and gore fest. It’s never to the point of getting over-the-top or almost deprecating  like the “Saw” films, Scott knows where to draw the line, but those who are easily squeamish best stay at home; there are two dozen crew members and most are just here to die horrific deaths for our amusement.

The film’s biggest flaws are its pacing and purpose. The first act of the crew discovering and exploring the planet is fantastic and like I said, it all looks incredible. However then the group settles down and hides from the Neomorph aliens and that’s where things slow down and don’t really pick up until the climax; and then the climax suffers from its own issues in the form of faux endings and inconsistent flow. Things just never seem to go along at a steady pace or seem to be building towards anything, which brings me to my other point.

This film really only serves to answer a few leftover questions from “Prometheus” and set up the third prequel film. Most new bits of information we get could really be covered in a few lines of dialogue and not require a two hour, $100 million film to convey, but hey, at least we get an alien bursting out of a man’s chest again, right?

“Alien: Covenant” will please fans of the franchise a lot more than casual filmgoers, but as a non-fan of the franchise I still found enough to enjoy. The film looks great and features some fun, gory kills and for the popcorn crowd that will be enough. Those who like their sci-fi’s with a little more meat and purpose may leave wanting more, but for what it had to do and be, this is a solid late-period Ridley Scott flick.

Critics Rating: 6/10

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox

More Like ‘King Arthur: Legend of the Snore’

Leave a reply

King_Arthur_LotS_posterWhat just happened?

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” stars Charlie Hunnam as the titular character, and follows his origin story of finding the sword Excalibur and stopping the warlord who killed his father. Jude Law, Djimon Hounsou and Eric Bana also star as Guy Ritchie directs.

There are flashes of fun and inventiveness sporadically sprinkled throughout this film. When Arthur and his friends are riffing with a member of the King’s army, the editing and script are fast paced and enjoyable as they recount how they spent their morning. It’s clearly a Ritchie scene and is by far my favorite moment of the film. The smaller, human interactions where characters are just talking and the film is based in reality are where the script is at its most natural, and I wish there were more instances of this being a 5th century period piece instead of a magical fantasy.

When Arthur finally learns how to wield the sword the effects are pretty cool, with time slowing down and Arthur slicing through bad guys with CGI ease. However that is really the only time the supernatural aspects of the film work. In every other instance involving magic, the scenes range from “that was dumb” to “what the actual heck is happening?” Arthur has to go on a “spirit quest” to fight his inner demons and the reasons and rules of the scene are never explained. There is a mage who can control animals with her mind and it is just a lazy get out of jail free card for the writers when they had no other ideas how to resolve a conflict. And then there is the film’s climax.

Everything was going fine enough as we approached the final act. I wasn’t quite bored and there had been enough enjoyable moments that I felt I was going to be able to give this a passable grade; but then the last 20 minutes happened. I won’t spoil it in case you go against my opinion and still wish to see this, but the final act of this film is nothing short of nonsensical, loud, dark and stupid. There is no tension, no enjoyment and nothing feels earned or even makes sense. It is like “Warcraft” had some stock footage left over and Guy Ritchie decided to throw it in his movie; in fact the entire third act was like watching someone else playa  video game, which is only fun for about five minutes.

The performances are all fine, although I couldn’t tell you the name of a single character not named Arthur, much less their motivations. And no one chews scenery or goes so over-the-top that they’re so awful that they’re stupidly enjoyable. The film looks solid enough, with the production design of 5th century England with its decadent castles, foggy mountains and dusty brothels all putting you in the time period.

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is a disappointment, mainly because Guy Ritchie has a track record of making films that are at the very least enjoyable. Here, his editing is confusing, his narrative is sloppy and his inability to decide whether he wants to make an epic fantasy adventure or a boots-on-the-ground knight’s tale creates a mess in tones. If you are a turn-your-brain-off kinda moviegoer you may get some in-the-moment thrills, but for anyone else I really think you’d be better served saving your time and money.

Critics Rating: 4/10

king arthur

‘Fate of the Furious’ Too Dumb for its Own Good

fate of the furiousSomeone needs to start a petition to make studios put subtitles on the screen every time Vin Diesel speaks, I can only make out every fifth word that man says…

“The Fate of the Furious” is the eighth installment in the “Fast and Furious” franchise (take a moment to let the fact we’re eight films and 16 years deep into this thing sink in), and follows Dominic Torretto (Diesel) who is blackmailed by a cyberterrorist (Charlize Theron) to go rogue against his team and steal weapons. Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Chris Bridges, Nathalie Emmanuel, Kurt Russell and Scott Eastwood also star as F. Gary Gray takes over directors duties.

The best part of this film, much like the previous one, is Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham. They both play off each other well and seem to be the only actors who truly know what kind of film they’re in and enjoy every minute of it; Kurt Russell also chews scenery as the covert ops leader. Russell, Johnson and Statham have other films and properties to fall back on and have excelled in comedies (I still think Statham didn’t get enough love for “Spy”) so they don’t take themselves too seriously and they’re great fun. Ludacris and Tyrese Gibson have some witty banter back-and-forth, even if sometimes it comes at inappropriate moments or the jokes fall flat.

Like I said up top, Vin Diesel is as inaudible as ever and mumbles his way through another performance in the series that made him a household(ish) name. Some lines go completely undetectable while others are overacted and if it wasn’t for Scott Eastwood, Diesel would be the worst performance in the film (Eastwood is so annoying here).

The action is, for the most part, top notch as we’ve come to expect. F. Gary Gray takes over the director’s chair from James Wan and he stages some incredibly impressive set pieces, including one of the most ambitious of the series to date; let’s just say ludicrous isn’t just the name of a cast member. Ranging from a street race in Havana to a hundred car pile-up in New York City, the series has officially jumped the shark (if it somehow hadn’t already) and we are one step closer to “Fast and Furious in Space.”

The biggest problem “Fate of the Furious” has (aside from its acting, plot and dialogue) is its pacing; clocking in at 136 minutes, you certainly feel every second of the runtime. Scenes go on too long or just feel aimless, and by the time the climax is reached you’re close to exhaustion. And that aforementioned climax, much like “Fast & Furious 6” or “Furious 7,” features an elongated chase that just gets repetitive after a while, and at times defies even the most suspended of belief.

“The Fate of the Furious” is a hard film to critique because it’s a bad movie, but it knows it’s bad, and that’s part of its charm. With a $250 million budget it looks great and features some impressively staged sequences, but all too often I found myself teetering towards bored and that shouldn’t happen in a film that features Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson hanging out of a car to shove missile towards a submarine in artic Russia. Here’s the bottom line: if you love these movies, you’re going to like this one. If you’re like me and these films are just alright, then this is certainly one of the weaker installments. And if you enjoy logic and films obeying the laws of physics and gravity…well then you checked out about five movies ago.

Critics Rating: 5/10

fate-of-the-furious1

‘Power Rangers’ is Pretty Stupid but also Pretty Fun

Leave a reply

Power_Rangers_(2017_Official_Theatrical_Poster)The same weekend that “CHIPS” shows us exactly how not to remake an old TV show into a modern movie, this one gets it pretty right.

 

“Power Rangers” is a reboot of the famed 90s series of the same name, and features the colorful superhero team discovering their powers and teaming up to take on the evil witch, Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Bryan Cranston stars as the team’s alien leader as Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Becky G and Ludi Lin star as the Rangers. Dean Israelite directs.

 

Growing up I wasn’t big into the Power Rangers but my cousins were obsessed with them so I caught some episodes here and there. There’s been talk of a series reboot for years, with this rendition finally getting the greenlight in 2014. When the trailer came out I was a little skeptical, as it featured a seemingly out-of-place Kanye West song, conflicting tones and looked like “Chronicle,” “Fantastic Four” and “Transformers” had a love child. The finished product is a little bit like the trailers, because its tone is all over the place and the film never really separates itself from other blockbuster films, but it’s a pretty fun ride that does a decent job paying homage to the source material.

 

All five “kids” who portray the Power Rangers (they’re all 20-somethings playing high schoolers) do a great job and have solid chemistry together. The standouts are Naomi Scott and RJ Cyler, who portray the Pink and Blue Rangers, respectively.  Scott is the pretty and misunderstood girl with a secret she wants to keep buried and just like the original Pink Ranger Amy Jo Johnson, I’m sure Scott is destined to become every boy’s crush from the series. Cyler’s Billy Cranston is autistic, marking the first superhero on the spectrum (if you don’t count Ben Affleck from “The Accountant”). Cyler has some great moments of awkward humor and provides the film with its greatest emotional scenes, too. The rest of the Rangers do a good job for what they have to, although Becky G and Ludi Lin (Yellow and Black) both feel like underdeveloped afterthoughts compared to the other three.

 

The film takes a lot of time training the Rangers and not having them actually in their colored spandex, and while this was a flaw in the painfully boring “Fantastic Four,” here it (usually) isn’t that bad. The group has some witty and organic banter and the training montages are entertaining enough, thanks in large part to the Bill Hader-voiced robot, Alpha-5. Bryan Cranston also adds gravitas as the leader of the Rangers, although he is a motion-captured face on the wall and surely did this for a relatively easy paycheck.

 

Which brings us to Elizabeth Banks as the film’s villain, Rita Repulsa (the name alone can’t be taken seriously). Banks is hamming it up so much, and giving such a scene-chewing, campy performance that every scene she is in comes across as awkward. Some may be willing and able to enjoy her intentionally bad performance, but when the rest of the film is going for a relatively grounded and somewhat dark and moody take on the Rangers, having her be a cartoon just doesn’t work. It’s also worth noting that every scene Rita is in is played out like a horror film (also tonally conflicting) and there were kids in my theater who were vocally telling their parents they were scared, so keep that in mind if you’re trying to entertain your children with this one.

 

The film also drags in some points and where they chose to implement the trademark “go go, Power Rangers!” song is very out-of-place (catching onto the trend?).

 

“Power Rangers” could’ve been a trainwreck but it manages to be better than a lot of TV-to-movie adaptions, even if it doesn’t break any new ground. Fans of the original series and average moviegoers alike should be entertained, and I’d say there’s enough fun here to be worth you to go go to a theater and check it out.

 

Critics Rating: 6/10

Lionsgate

Lionsgate