Review – Page 20 – L&D Report

Wonder Woman

I’m just going to come out and say it. Wonder Woman is a good movie. Not a great one. We have seen all of this before. Especially the massive ending with the big explosions etc. etc. Regardless, it is enjoyable as hell and it is a movie to root for with its fantastic lead, Gal Gadot and the kick ass Director, Patty Jenkins.

As a great cultural phenomenon it would be easy to join the “Wonder Woman is great!” bandwagon…but no. It’s just too derivative. Not as much as The Mummy, our next review on the L & D, but derivative nonetheless. I will say that like many people I enjoyed the WWI aspect of the film and who wouldn’t love ACT 1, the fun and games growing up on an island of Amazon warriors. Hello! You had me at Ama.

Now of course, you will have some haters. Like the asses that sued the movie theaters for screening the film as Ladies Night for Ladies Only. But you know, those people would never be able to let their hair down and enjoy a Summer blockbuster like this…because they are old guys with no hair.

So I say, if you want to have some fun, munch your popcorn extra loud and revel in Amazonian Badassery, then get strapped into a magic lasso and check out Wonder Woman.

Alien: Covenant

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS — Now I know a lot of people are super into the Alien series and I have been on the short end of long chronologies about where this movie places and ranks in this franchise. Fine. The thing is if you have never seen an Alien film in your life you will still get a whole lot out of this one. There is even a Franco sighting! And just for the record I have seen the first one and the fourth i.e. Resurrection. Set design is always a big deal in Alien films and Covenant does not fail here with its eerie planet and dingy sets. If you are that type of person, this film could give you nightmares. It will no doubt give you the creeps. And yet there is a certain aesthetic elegance in all the gore. Enough, I’m sure, to make even H.R. Giger grunt his approval.

The deeper philosophical part of Covenant deals with A.I. As in another movie you may have heard of by Director Ridley Scott, namely Blade Runner, we return to the idea that the robot/replicant/humanoid is just as human if not more so than an actual person. Except of course that it is not. Films have been exploring the robot/human idea since at least Lang’s 1927 German Expressionist masterpiece Metropolis. And even the fairly recent Ex Machina deals with these ideas in a profound and artistically inspired way. Alien: Covenant and Scott decide to take a darker path. In an ending —MORE SPOILERS— reminiscent of this years’ sci-fi thriller Life, Scott comes to a fork in the road and goes down the darkest path possible. It all does kind of leave you shaking your head in dismay. On the other hand, if you are a nihilist, it will warm your cold cold heart and make you hug your ferrets. All in all a powerful, well acted, well crafted entry into the Alien universe.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

king.arthir.LOS.jpg

I really enjoyed King Arthur: Legend of the Sword — well, at least more than I thought I would. Charlie Hunnam, commands the screen, as he did in The Lost City of Z and Director Guy Ritchie’s frenetic editing, camera angles and EDM Light musical selections kept the fantastical plot moving.

This easily could have devolved into an endless series of video game deaths (John Wick 2, I’m looking at you) but it didn’t. There is a fairly solid script and story that goes along with all the action. Jude Law as the villainous king is played with nary a false note. Even when his actions are outlandish and difficult to reason. He was a splendid bad guy. When he and Hunnam shared the screen, the chemistry was palpable.

Once again we have a film that if nothing else serves as a parable for father and son relations. This is one of the greatest and most long lasting dynamics in storytelling. As in Lost City of Z, protagonists dealing with the actions of their fathers, whether they like it or not, becomes what their lives are about. What if the protagonist didn’t try to avenge or make good in the name of his father? The films would be much shorter.

The final battle scene was slightly hokey and seemed more so as it dragged on. But all in all, the directorial style, stunts and special effects in this film are strong enough to deflect any slight story or vfx snafus. If you like action and adventure that still reflects a strong commitment to storytelling, I suggest King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

Your Name

your name.jpg

As a fan of Miyazaki films like My Neighbor Totoro and Spirited Away and the Toho production company, I enjoyed the animation in this film immensely. The film directed by Makoto Shinkai was a mash up of Freaky Friday, Memento and Vertigo and at times didn’t seem to make sense. But I had that expectation going in so it didn’t bother me. The film itself is the fourth highest-grossing of all time in Japan and the highest-grossing anime film worldwide at over 350 million.

Oddly, I felt the overtones of guilt and sadness as if the comet that we know will destroy a small seaside town was a nuclear bomb and the director/producer/writer feels bad they can not take everyone to shelter. The main characters in the film feel that way. Of course, I may be reading too much into it but that was a passing thought. And obviously, the movie did resonate and have a strong emotional impact on many viewers for a reason.

The film was quirky with one character constantly feeling him/her self up to good laughs. And just some non-sequitur situations and shots like why is the boy/girls underwear prominently seen in a bike riding scene? It’s a Japanese thing, you wouldn’t understand.

The film certainly had strong spiritual and humanistic dimensions, including a Cyrano de Bergerac subplot which I found to be refreshing. One of us here at the L & D fell asleep during the screening but since a lot of the action occurs during dreams I think the filmmakers wouldn’t mind too much. If you’re into Japan, anime or any type of animated film I highly recommend this film to you.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

As you know, the comic book / graphic novel genre is whoosh, right over my head. When I see these films, it’s like some kind of social experiment. Like, how confused can one person be if they walk right into the middle of a Hollywood tentpole franchise? Well Guardians 2, didn’t make me feel like that. Even if it was only days later when I figured out who Gamora is. …The raccoon, named Rocket and voiced by Bradley Cooper, keeps me scratching my head, except to think, the creators are super imaginative and/or must have the ickiest of the stickiest on heavy rotation in the bong.

I enjoyed the film as it did make plenty of homages to the 70s, including star Kurt Russell. Though it did give me a real desire to see Escape from New York again…almost to the point that I wished I was watching Escape from NY instead of Guardians Vol 2.

The film seemed to drag on sadly. And though the special effects of this 200 million dollar VFX masterpiece were inventive and of the highest caliber production value, the story itself seemed to be locked in a repetitious death spiral. The film could easily have been 30 minutes shorter.

Also, there was some serious plot strain / suspension of disbelief needed when it was reveled that Ego, Russell’s character, had killed the main protagonists’ mother. Isn’t it enough that he is an egomaniac hell bent on destroying life on several planets. It was a forced addition to the plot line that seemed over the top even in this universe. (When reviewing this genre I have to say “universe” at least once.)

Overall, I liked this film. It had spectacular camera work and special effects. The acting and voicing were all strong and the only ding I have is that it seemed repetitious story-wise in the final 30 minutes. I think sometimes directors or producers just fall in love with their work and there is no one there to simply say “No” to Stan Lee, when he needs to hear it. And yet, if you are a fan of this genre, I would strongly suspect that you would enjoy Guardians Vol 2.

The Lost City of Z

I had a feeling that LCoZ would be a pretty good movie when I found out it was produced by Plan B. Plan B is Brad Pitt’s production company. Plan B has distinguished itself with academy awards for producing The Departed, 12 Years a Slave and Moonlight among other enlightening and entertaining works. LCoZ falls in that category, a film that on its face could be chalked up as just another adventure yarn instead pulls in the long arm of colonial mentality and history.

The story follows Col. Percy Fawcett, (Charlie Hunnam, who has an indisputable Pitt aura) on his journeys in the Brazilian Amazon.

One aspect of the film that rings false is the relationship of the Col. Fawcett with his wife. It’s high minded to include a strong female character but in this case, it comes off as forced and doesn’t even pass the Bechdel test (did at least two women talk to each other about something other than a man). Nina Fawcett, played well by Sienna Miller, really doesn’t have that much to do. She is neither a foil, as she acquiesces to Percy and then their sons’ requests to leave nor an active participant in the search for the lost city, as Col Fawcett does not allow her to go. There is a lot of lip service paid to how heroic domestic life is but that just seems to reinforce how great it is to jet out of there and hit the jungle. And hit the jungle they do in this film. There is plenty of high stakes action, tribal and expeditionary drama and just sick scenery and cinematography by the great Darius Khondji, who also shot Seven.

The Lost City of Z is an epic tale that takes you from the bunkers of WWI to the most remote ares of the Amazon. If you are into adventure stories this one will satisfy you and leave you with a thing or two to think about in your own life. One of the lines in the film that really spoke to me, and I paraphrase, was “Keep your goals just out of reach so you will keep striving to achieve them.” I thought that in the end, LCoZ is a film that gives the audience something to think about and that alone deserves to be applauded.

Ghost in the Shell

I came into Ghost in the Shell with high expectations and left a little disappointed. The movie itself is visually stunning and Scarlett Johansson is a bona fide action hero, but the story was meh and to me that was the difference between it being good and great.

I have two main gripes.

The first gripe is that I knew too much about what was going on – the trailers gave away enough of the plot so that when the turn came it lost its impact. Johansson’s cyborg with a human brain character is the logical conclusion of Jason Bourne arc (or at least the penultimate stage of that arc), and the trailer plot giveaways let us know that there is some deep dark secret in the character’s past, a la the Bourne universe. The upshot for me is that I kind of knew where we were headed, and when we got there I wasn’t sure who to root for or whether it really mattered one way or the other (indeed, this particular brand of ambiguity was probably the deal-breaker for me; the moral dilemmas presented didn’t have me torn so much as they had me yawn, have I seen this film before?). It wasn’t all the trailer, though, within the first five minutes of the movie I leaned over to L and said, “oooh, the bad guy,” so that plotline was about as surprising as bad breath on a lost dog.

The second problem, ironically, is that I didn’t know enough about what was going on to find it interesting. Some of the more positive reviews I’ve seen seem very conversant from the source material, including this one from the A.V. Club. I haven’t seen Mamoru Oshii’s sci-fi animated feature, played a video game influenced by it, or have any clue about Masamune Shirow’s manga series or any of the later animated adaptions coming from that, so I’m sure there are all sorts of bon bons in the plot and the cinescape that fans enjoyed and I didn’t. Sometimes when I watch superhero movies with comic book nerds they will be pointing me to some interesting or even delicious asides that add to their enjoyment, but such hat tips to the source material should enhance the enjoyment for the true devotees, not be decisive in terms of the overall enjoyment of the film. Certainly not in a hyped up, would-be blockbuster such as this.

But the movie was not without its charms and I mostly enjoyed watching it, despite the absence of real intrigue. Whatever Japanese city that was was really super cool, and the holograms and flying saucers and buildings and riverfront shots and all that were really spectacular, like Blade Runner with 21^st-century special effects. Equally spectacular were the hairdos of many of the main characters, particularly the Pilou Asbæk and Beat Tikano (Dudes, great hair!!!!)…. leaving one to wonder why Johansson didn’t ask for some hair work herself, as her synthetic wig thing was about the only non-jaw dropping thing about her. I guess as long as I’m nit-picking the star, I’d say she was saddled with this lumbering gait, like she was wearing wet shoes, that was never explained, but it didn’t seem to affect her when she was kicking ass and taking names, which she did a lot of.

Way over the $5 bar, sure, and I’m sure I’ll catch it again when it’s on the tube, but I was expecting better.

Life

tissue emojij.jpg

Once again, like Collide, the sum of its parts does not make a movie whole. This film suffered with the casting of Ryan Reynolds, not because he didn’t steal the movie, which he did, but because again, you would rather be watching the Deadpool sequel (which is not out yet). This film tried to be Alien but the little bad guy, Calvin the Martian, was simply not all that. The alien in Alien had more horror packed in its pinky than all of Calvin’s ever shape shifting body. Actually Calvin had a lot of similarities to the heptapod aliens, Abbot and Costello, in Arrival, with his spongy physique and springy arms. Which leaves me to ask, what’s with all the cephalopod aliens all of a sudden? The visual effects designers must find them easy to create and animate. Though it is kind of a cool throwback to the legends of giant squids attacking old schooners out on the wild high seas.

I actually thought the acting was solid. Except for Jake Gyllenhaal who must think we won’t notice he just did Donnie Darko in space. The set design was well done, but nothing we have never seen before. Perhaps the Passengers set surpasses it. Seamus McGarvey, a genius Cinematographer who has done everything from High Fidelity to The Accountant is outstanding as usual. For me this movie meets our $5 threshold just for that. But in general, nothing here is anything that you haven’t seen before or you can’t see coming a mile away. And I mean a mile away. It seemed to take forever to unravel. ACT III really should have been preceded by a pop-corn / hooch break.

I would say it was a totally forgettable film. Except that it wasn’t. There were some good acting moments that did elicit existential angst. The film was able to sustain tension well. D in fact, did jump a few times. We should quantify those reactions and start charting the “D Scale”. Also, I was creeped out enough to start seeing Calvin in all sorts of places. Even the nose blowing emoji in my text message app. So that should count for something.

Logan

logan.poster.jpg

If you want to see what Stranger Things would look like on a cocktail of meth and BGH then Logan is for you. Also, if you don’t mind or even relish, if that is possible, watching a giant forked hand go through about 10 skulls like a serving fork through and overly ripe cantaloupe — then again, this film was literally made just for you. As for the rest of us, Logan was really was a downward spiral but did have some redeeming qualities. The film did show some heart, some actual human emotion, at least more than the more recent films I have seen like Collide or John Wick 2. I think Marvel takes a lot of pride in their output and you can see that they tried in terms of production value. One big mistake here was tacking a Deadpool coming attraction to the beginning of the film. For the first 30 minutes you are left wondering how long until Deadpool comes out. And ultimately, I think Patrick Stewart is wasted in this roll, though again they try to give him screen time and something important to say. Apparently it will be his last time playing Professor Charles Xavier. I just never got used to his character. However, that may have to do more with me, since Superhero/Comic Book films are not my forte. I spend half of these films trying to get comfortable in “the universe” (I have learned to use this term since beginning to write about this genre) and wondering about the references I seem to be only half getting or totally missing.

It’s interesting how comic books, or in the case of John Wick, a video game, can become a movie. Or did the movie create the comic book or video game? And does it matter anymore? I remember a cheap paperback of a Dirty Harry movie. The book was written after the movie was a hit, as a way to cash in on it. You could tell after the first few pages. I was watching Linklater’s Waking Life on Netflix last night. It is a live action film, tweeked to have a comic book look. It really does have a unique feel. I don’t have any problem with all of this style and genre and format mashing but each work should take advantage of the unique values its particular medium. If I want to play a video game, I will do that. If I want to read a comic book, the same. All to say, once again, that Deadpool for example, got it right. There is a line to walk here and it should be respected. Notwithstanding, if you go in for the comic book genre, Logan is a must see.

Kong

Kong: Skull Island. The scenery is pretty spectacular. The monkey isn’t bad. There are many moments of surprise, intrigue, shock and awe (as well as “aw, that’s gross”). But the storytelling is poor and that sinks the project.

The movie is set in the final days of the Vietnam War and with its constant allusions to Apocalypse Now forces us to ask where the line is between “homage” and “painfully derivative and stupid.” From the choice and use of music to the helicopter sequences to the journeys up and down various bodies of water to the napalm detonations to the singularly obsessed military officer, there are many points of comparison (though never even remotely favorably).

Of course, it is difficult to compete with the classics and, in fairness, there are a few bright spots. Samuel L. Jackson has some good lines in a pretty cool trip through the clouds. There are some good action sequences, particularly with the big guy tossing stuff around with the accuracy of Greg Maddux and his UFC-style grappling with various slimy creatures. I also really liked the island itself, particularly the glow of the nighttime lights.

Unfortunately, the list of things to object to runs so much longer that I’m not even sure it’s worth dredging them up. John Goodman is completely wasted. John C. Reilly is worse than wasted, as his lines and his story trajectory are painful. The Brie Larson “anti-war” photographer angle is even less developed than her would-be romance with the pro-war mercenary Tom Hiddleston character (If Kong had accidentally squished the Larson character in his clenched fist, that would have really made up for a lot of the movie’s other shortcomings). John Ortiz, who I loved in Drop, has no discernible role. Indeed, there must be four or five story arcs falling into the categories of undeveloped, underdeveloped, stupid, insulting to the intelligence, and poorly thought out (most falling into several of these categories) passing time until we get to the climactic sequence.

So the verdict here is to keep the $5 in your pocket. How this isn’t completely panned on Metacritic is definitely a mystery. I would have walked out, but when I looked over my colleague was sleeping and I didn’t want to wake him up.

The horror, indeed.