Movie review: Rampage

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of another Dwayne Johnson movie. I swear his filmography is becoming a whole separate genre of cinema. This is Rampage.

IMDb summary: When three different animals become infected with a dangerous pathogen, a primatologist and a geneticist team up to stop them from destroying Chicago.

 

Writing

Rampage was written by Ryan Engle (writer of The Commuter), Carlton Cuse (Lost’s showrunner, writer of San Andreas), Ryan J. Condal (writer of Hercules), and Adam Sztykiel (a comedy writer). Quite a few previous connections to Dwayne Johnson on the part of the writing staff. This makes my introductory point sound even more truthful.

Rampage’s script is a very loose adaptation of a video game of the same name but it feels like any generic monster movie. It has some monster v. monster fights that both Godzilla and Kong: Skull Island had (and Godzilla v. Kong will definitely have) and a lot of bloodless destruction (the same amount as another very recent monster movie Pacific Rim: Uprising had). Rampage also features a brief moment of Johnson having fun in a jungle-like environment, reminding the viewer of Jumanji. His character, undoubtfully, has a family to care for but this time around it’s an animal family cause human families are just so 2015 (and so San Andreas). The film’s story also has a genetic engineering plotline, like Jurassic World. In addition to all these moments and details from other pictures, Rampage also has quite a few laughable and cheesy moments that are either incredibly far-fetched or cringe-y. The dialogue isn’t really great either and some of those one-liners and jokes fall so so flat in the movie.  Well, at least it doesn’t have a plug for a franchise at the end, like the other video game movie of 2018 – Tomb Raider.

While this is quite a harsh critique on my part, I still would not like to say that Rampage is a bad movie. It knows what it is (for the most part) and is entertaining (for the most part). Still, it is also very familiar and forgettable.

Directing

Brad Peyton, the director of San Andreas, directed Rampage and I swear these two movies have to be connected somehow. Same writer, same director, same star?! Anyways, the film’s direction was fine. The story was visualized on screen clearly and cohesively. The pacing was okay too. The action was quite enjoyable as well, though, by the end of the third act, I did sort of check out from the movie. The CGI was also fine for the most part, but some wider shots did look pretty fake.

Acting

Rampage’s cast consisted of Dwayne Johnson (Baywatch, FF8, Moana, Central Intelligence + all other movies of his that I’ve already linked to in this review) and some B-listers. Johnson was fine in the action hero type of a typical role, though, I had a hard time buying the fact that one of the most charismatic people on the planet could play a character who can’t connect/communicate with people.

On the supporting front, the movie features a lot of B-listers and even the most well known of them cannot really be seen as big move stars. They all do a good or serviceable job in the film. Naomie Harris is probably the biggest star out of the supporting cast due to her involvement with Moonlight. However, on the mainstream front, while she does have 007 franchise, she is only like a 3rd female lead in those films (behind M/Judi Dench and a revolving door of Bond girls/love interests). Malin Åkerman also stars the film – I don’t think I saw her in a movie since 2012’s Rock of AgesJeffrey Dean Morgan is big on TV with The Walking Dead but isn’t really a movie star either. Joe Manganiello has a cameo-sized role in this film too and he is Deathstroke but nobody really knows when he will get a chance to play that character, as DCEU’s future is so unclear. Jake Lacy also has a role here and, looking through his IMDb, I can notice quite a few films of his that I’ve seen, like Carol and Their Finest. The problem is that I don’t remember him in them.

In short, Rampage is a perfectly serviceable, forgivable, and forgettable action/video game movie. The video game curse is back in full force if you thought that Tomb Raider lifted it at least a bit.

Rate: 2.8/5

Trailer: Rampage trailer 

MV5BNDA1NjA3ODU3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTg3MTIwNTM@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_

 

 

Advertisements

5 ideas about a movie: Blockers

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a movie that was way better than it trailer suggested it’d be. This is Blockers!

IMDb summary: Three parents try to stop their daughters from having sex on Prom night.

  1. Blockers was written by Brian Kehoe and Jim Kehoe and directed by Kay Cannon (the writer of the Pitch Perfect trilogy) in her directorial debut. I thought that the direction of the film was really good: the comedic timing was great and the pace was neat too. The comedy was pretty raunchy but I didn’t find the raunchiness cheap this time around. The script was great too: I’m gonna discuss it in more detail by talking about the parents and the teenagers separately.
  2. The parents were definitely the real stars of this movie. All the jokes relating to them were hilarious. The scene with the chat and the emojis was amazing and all the following ones – pretty great too. I also appreciated the levity that the parents’ characters brought to the film, as the three characters were dealing with some heavy but thematically-appropriate issues. The ultimate message to trust in the children to make the right decisions and to be strong and independent was really neat and actually seemed heartfelt.
  3. I thought that the set-up of the three girls’ lives was really good too. As soon I saw the first few scenes of them starting school, I instantly believed their friendship and I thought that it was nicely presented throughout the rest of the movie as well. I also enjoyed seeing all the craziness of the prom night – it seemed immensely fun and made me a bit jealous that my own prom night was quite tame compared to that. I also absolutely loved the contemporary and quite enlighted conclusion of the movie that had an unexpected message of female empowerment. You go, girls!
  4. The three of parents were portrayed by Leslie Mann, Ike Barinholtz (Bright, Suicide Squad) and John Cena (Daddy’s Home 2, Ferdinand). I swear I have already seen Mann play a role of an overprotective mother but I can’t remember in what movie exactly. Or I might just be misremembering and she was just so perfectly cast in this role that I’ve felt that I’ve seen her in it before. Barinholtz was amazing as the unconventionally great dad too, while John Cena keeps astounding me with his acting skills. He and Dwayne Johnson are a few fighters who have transitioned to acting very very successfully.
  5. The three daughters were played by relative newcomers Kathryn NewtonGeraldine Viswanathan, and Gideon Adlon. Newton is the most well known out of the three because she played the lead in Paranormal Activity 4 and also had small roles in Lady Bird and Three Billboards. Viswanathan has mostly starred in TV shows and short movies before. I absolutely loved her performance as ‘a student-athlete going rogue’ in this movie (and found it very relatable). Adlon has also done some TV shows and I swear she looked like a younger version of Alicia Vikander. Would love to see the two of them cast as the younger and older versions of the same character.

In short, Blockers was a hilarious update of an old genre! I definitely recommend it!

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Blockers trailer

Blockers_(film)

5 ideas about a movie: Gringo

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a film that looked fun but disposable from the trailers and turned out to be exactly that. In fact, it was so disposable that I forgot to write its review for two weeks. This is Gringo!

IMDb summary: GRINGO, a dark comedy mixed with white-knuckle action and dramatic intrigue, explores the battle of survival for businessman Harold Soyinka when he finds himself crossing the line from a law-abiding citizen to a wanted criminal.

  1. Gringo was written by Anthony Tambakis (the writer of Warrior and Jane Got a Gun and the future Suicide Squad 2) and Matthew Stone (a writer of some fairly small and unknown comedies). The writing for the movie was really disappointing because the film was both convoluted (an actual clusterfu*k) and not that interesting (which is an ever worse quality that being messy). The movie also tried having some profound message but it just ended up having way too many metaphorical monologues about animals (gorillas and bears) that made absolutely no sense.
  2. It also tried preaching the idea of remaining a good person but didn’t deliver on that message at all. I mean, at least practice what you preach. Speaking of fun – this movie, being part comedy, had no real humor or any jokes that were actually funny. It was just so bland and stale.
  3. Gringo was directed by stuntman-turned-director Nash Edgerton (yes, he is the brother of Joel Edgerton, the actor). I was fairly disappointed with his second solo directorial outing. For an action comedy movie, the movie really lacked action. It only really turned up the excitement in the last 20 minutes and then quickly lost it. Also, the film tried going for craziness but the problem is that that craziness lacked any entertainment value.
  4. The end of the movie was also super bizarre. Gringo tried going for a cheeky 4th wall break and ended up falling flat on its face as that nod to the audience made no sense in the context of the movie. Moreover, by that point in the runtime, the viewers were already so checked out that they didn’t care at all what the movie was doing. Basically, Gringo was definitely not worthy of a cinema screen and I wouldn’t even recommend it as a rental/streaming movie. It was a B movie at best. More like an F, though.
  5. Gringo assembled a great and unworthy cast full of talent way too big for this movie. But, I guess everyone needs to pay bills (can you hear the chorus sing the words *paycheck gig* in the distance?). David Oyelowo and Joel Edgerton (Red Sparrow, Bright, Loving, Midnight Special, Black Mass) were both fine, though, their characters were really unappealing. Charlize Theron (Mad Max, The Huntsman, FF8, Atomic Blonde) was stuck playing a very old-school female character (oversexualized for the wrong reasons), while Amanda Seyfried had little to nothing to do in the film. Wait, scratch that, Westworld’s Thandie Newton was the one who had absolutely nothing to do in the movie. Lastly, Sharlto Copley (Free Fire, Hardcore Henry) played his usual type of character – kooky and quirky.

In brief, Gringo was an action comedy with no action or humor.

Rate: 2.2/5

gringo-1.jpg

 

5 ideas about a movie: Game Night

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of a comedy whose trailers’ actually made a fairly good impression. This is Game Night!

IMDb summary: A group of friends who meet regularly for game nights find themselves trying to solve a murder mystery.

  1. Game Night was written by Mark Perez (he has written a couple of obscure comedies before). I thought that the writing for this comedy was quite good: fairly smart and even original at times. I loved the actual idea of a game night – that opening set-up of the main couple’s relationship through the various games was super fun! I also really appreciated the fact that the movie celebrated adult friendship. All the film and pop culture references were much appreciated too. Lastly, I liked how the movie set up some details and actually delivered on them – the creepy neighbor had a role in the film and wasn’t just used for a funny cameo, the Fight Club recurring verbal joke ended up being more than just a verbal jab, while even the minor doctor character reappeared.
  2. For all the good parts of the writing, there was an equal quantity of bad ones (a bit less, maybe, I don’t want to be too harsh on this movie). I did like the fact that the characters fairly quickly realized that they weren’t playing a game. However, that actual mystery of the film that they found themselves in was a bit too convoluted: there were too many layers of fakeness and reality for it to make sense. Also, ‘the everyday Joe/Jane’ characters did Jar Jar Binks-ed their way through a lot of the plot and got lucky one too many times. Still, I wasn’t that mad at the picture for some these inconsistencies or stupid-ish moments, as I found the story of the film entertaining on the whole.
  3. Game Night was directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein. The duo was on the writing team for Spider-Man: Homecoming and are also supposed to helm the Flashpoint movie for DCEU (if it ever materializes). They also did the questionable Horrible Bosses comedy and the god-awful Vacation movie. Weirdly, I believe that they did a good job with this film: the movie was exciting and was paced well in addition to being of appropriate length (90minute-ish/short and sweet/doesn’t overstay its welcome). The score was also fun: it has electronic music vibes and featured few familiar hits. The credits were cool too: they were very thematically and narratively appropriate for the picture.
  4. Game Night had quite a big cast, consisting of actors of various caliber. At the centre of the film were three main couples, all of whom had somekind of personal problem to argue about during the quiter scenes: there was Rachel McAdams (Doctor Strange, Spotlight, Southpaw) and Jason Bateman (heard good things about his Netflix show Ozark) going on about having kids, New Girls’ Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury (a TV actress) bickering about past celebrity hookups, and Billy Magnussen (the prince in Into The Woods) and Sharon Horgan (a British/Irish TV actress) just getting to know each other though arguments about everything.
  5. In smaller roles, there was the brother character played by Manchester By The Sea’s Kyle Chandler (Bateman and he do look fairly similar and they could actually be brothers). Westworld’s Jeffrey Wright also had a short scene (can’t wait for that TV show to come back). Plus, Fargo’s Jesse Plemons was absolutely brilliant in being creepy! Lastly, there was also a revolving door of villains and bad guys played by both familiar and new faces. They were too numerous and their roles – too insignificant to list here, though.

In short, Game Night is an entertaining and fun comedy with some neat moments. Not a sure hit but worthy of a watch.

Rate: 3.7/5

Trailer: Game Night trailer

download.jpg

5 ideas about a movie: Den of Thieves

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to review of the most January movie ever. Yes, I know it’s already February but January is more than just a month, it’s a whole separate genre of movies. This is Den of Thieves.

IMDb summary: A gritty crime saga which follows the lives of an elite unit of the LA County Sheriff’s Dept. and the state’s most successful bank robbery crew as the outlaws plan a seemingly impossible heist on the Federal Reserve Bank.

  1. Den of Thieves was directed by Christian Gudegast from the script by Gudegast himself and Paul Scheuring. The duo has worked on various projects before. Gudegast is probably best known for writing London Has Fallen, while Scheuring is responsible for creating the TV show Prison Break. Their work on this film was a mixed bag. The film was directed competently enough (especially for a first-time feature director) but the writing was just a steaming pile of cliches and recycled ideas.
  2. Let’s start with the characters. Den of Thieves attempted to pin to equally awful sides against one another: the criminals (who first were shown as having some kind of an honor code which didn’t stick for long) and the unlawful police officers (who were literally introduced while eating donuts – such a cliche). For the first act of the picture, the movie decided to have an interview+flahbacks structure that was instantly dropped as soon as the set-up was finished. Then, the movie went into more of a confrontation-type of a plot, rather than an investigation story. This type of direct relationship between the two groups would have made for a great story if it weren’t so convoluted. Den of Thieves really tried going for the elaborate and turned out confused (even the titles appearing on screen were convoluted as both the names of characters, the names of places and the times were all flashed on screen).
  3. In addition, for the movie that picked direct confrontation as its narrative structure, it really lacked actual action scenes. All of the action was crammed into the last 30 minutes of the film and I wish there was more of it in the preceding 1.5h. For an old-school actioner, Den of Thieves was surprisingly action-less. The movie also should have explained more of its twist and turns as to make it more engaging throughout. The final reveal was quite good but it came way too late for me to have carried.
  4. Two ideas in the script that I found quite interesting and worthy of mention were 1)the way to enter a gang and 2)the position of bars as neutral grounds. The fact that sport or the military are the only two points of acceptance on the street was fascinating. It really drew attention to what is valued in terms of male identity in the criminal world. Also, the portrayal of a bar as a cesspool of information was spot-on (this comes from somebody who has worked behind the counter and provided basically free therapy for customers).
  5. The film assembled quite a good cast of B-listers. Gerard Butler (Geostorm) was half of a cartoon, half of the real person as the main ‘bad cop’. Inexplicably, he also had a family on the side (cause even when Butler plays a twat, he has to have a family. He is the Scottish Liam Neeson, basically). American God’s Pablo Schreiber played the main villain of the film and was good. It took me forever to recognize the actor without the ginger hair and bear of Mad Sweeney, though. O’Shea Jackson Jr. (Straight Outta Compton) played the mediator between the two groups and was great too. He was also the only one to have some sort of a character arc. A bunch of others actors rounded up the cast but as they had almost nothing to do, I don’t see the point to mention them. Also, as Den of Thieves was mostly just a fest of traditional masculinity, it had a total zero of female characters.

 

In short, Den of Thieves was an okay action movie that should have had more action and fewer cliches.

Rate: 2.7/5

Trailer: Den of Thieves trailer

Den_of_Thieves_poster

 

Movie review: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

Movie reviews

Hello!

Another reboot/sequel of a beloved childhood classic has hit theatres, but, this time around, it’s surprisingly good?! This is Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle! (That title is awful, though.)

IMDb summary: Four teenagers discover an old video game console and are literally drawn into the game’s jungle setting becoming the adult avatars they chose.

Only last year, a 1980s classic, Which was near and dear to a lot of people during their childhood, was remade and the Internet went nuts. However, that Ghostbusters debacle did not stop Hollywood from remaking/attempting to continue another classic property, this time around, from the 1990s. And it looks like the LA suits were right to try: I haven’t seen much hate (barely any) towards the 2017’s a Jumanji. Why is this reboot more acceptable than the Ghostbusters one? Is it the Rock? The Rock and Hart proven combo? The ‘correct’ genders of the characters (mixed cast rather than an all-something reboot)? Or maybe nobody liked Jumanji in the first place as much as I thought they did? I certainly remember the film quite fondly from my childhood.

Writing

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle was written by Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers (the duo behind Spider-Man: Homecoming and The Lego Batman), the director Jake Kasdan, and Scott Rosenberg and Jeff Pinkner (the writers of the upcoming Venom movie which is currently being filmed). In general, I enjoyed quite a lot of elements of the writing of this film.

To begin with, I thought that the idea to update Jumanji from a board game to a video game was a clever one. However, the way the script went about doing that – just sort of allowing the game to morph by itself – was a bit weird. Also, if they were giving the game an update, why not do a completely contemporary take on it? Make it into a Nintendo Switch type of a thing rather than a very 90s cassette game. What I did like about the video game concept in relation to this film was the fact that the movie overtly and unapologetically used the video game tropes, like the cutscenes, the numbered lives, the strengths/weakness idea, and the different levels. Jumanji might actually be the best video game movie without technically being one

The new characters of Jumanji weren’t bad either. The teenagers/real-life characters got some brief but neat development during the setup, which was nicely built upon during the following adventure. The relationship moments that the characters shared actually provided the picture with some opportunities to explore the ideas of friendship and teamwork. Some nice messages about bravery, self-confidence as well as one’s ability to change were also expressed. The interactions between the characters also resulted in some great humorous moments. The flirting school and the peeing scene were stupid but also hilarious. The switch-ups with the bodies (the nerds becoming athletic and cool; the popular kids being degraded to sidekicks and the comic relief) was another source of jokes for the film.

My main and the only actual critique of the movie was its plot or the set up of it. The game narrative itself was fine and it worked well as an adventure story. However, the way it just came out of nowhere seemed a bit odd. That whole explanation about the stone, the villain, and the curse seemed a bit heavy-handed and too highly fabricated. At least the format of that explanation/set-up (the cutscene) was somewhat meta (explicit in its usage of a trope) and, thus, a bit more interesting.

Lastly, while this film appeared to have been a direct continuation of the original Jumanji with the game itself being found on the beach, where it was last seen, I question whether the people behind-the-scenes are planning to make any further sequels, in case this one is successful. The last scene, which showed the characters breaking the game, suggests that we won’t see any sequels, which is, quite frankly, a shocking thing in today’s mainstream filmmaking business.

Directing

2017’s Jumanji was directed by Jake Kasdan (his last two films were both mediocre Cameron Diaz comedies) and I thought that he crafted quite an entertaining action adventure flick that was so much better constructed that I thought it’d be. The action was inventive enough and energetic. The CGI of the animals could have been a bit better. The pacing was fine for the most part, though the film did slow down a bit towards the end of the second half. Lastly, I’ve noticed (or imagined) some callbacks to other movies in this feature, which seemed like quite neat additions to me: the creepy house and the yellow raincoat reminded me of It, while the biker gang inside the game seemed Mad Max-esque.

Acting

Jumanji’s two casts were both really good. The teenagers/young adult actors – Alex Wolf (Patriot’s Day), Ser’Darius BlainMorgan Turner, and Madison Iseman – were believable and relatable. However, the majority of the film was carried by the video game versions of these characters, played by Dwayne Johnson (Baywatch, FF8, Moana, San Andreas), Kevin Hart (The Secret Life of Pets), Karen Gillan (Guardians of the Galaxy 1 and 2, The Circle), and Jack Black, respectively. Johnson’s and Hart’s chemistry, which blossomed in Central Intelligence, was back in full force in this movie. All of the scenes with the Rock discovering his muscles were incredible and I also appreciated the fact that the film poked fun at his inherent charisma with that ‘smoldering look’ skill. Kevin Hart was amazing and funny too, while Karen Gillan was a complete badass (both as a character and as an actress). Jack Black also surprised me. I have never been much of a fan of his but I highly enjoy seeing him acting as the ‘it’ girl in this film.

A few other characters, worth the mention, were played by Nick Jonas and Bobby Cannavale (Ant-Man). Jonas was okay in the picture but his character was intended to be somewhat of a replacement for Robin Williams character of the original (a person who gets stuck in the game) and, no offense to Nick Jonas, but he could never replace Williams. Cannavale played the villain and he was the worst of the cast, in my mind. I think he went a bit too cartoonish with his performance – yes, there is such a thing as too cartoonish even in a live-action cartoon.

In short, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is a surprisingly entertaining adventure movie. It would be the perfect holiday film for the whole family if it wasn’t competing with Star Wars 8.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle trailer

adventurous-new-international-trailer-and-posters-for-jumanji-2-welcome-to-the-jungle1

5 ideas about a movie: Daddy’s Home 2

Movie reviews

Hello!

The Christmas season at the cinema continues. This is the review of Daddy’s Home 2.

IMDb summary: Brad and Dusty must deal with their intrusive fathers during the holidays.

Two weeks ago, a mother-daughter Christmas-themed comedy sequel has premiered – A Bad Moms Christmas. Daddy’s Home 2 is a father-son Christmas themed sequel. Coincidence or a conscious decision to target both genders? How about just making *gasp* one movie that everyone could enjoy? Anyways, onto the review.

  1. Back in 2015, the first Daddy’s Home film completely skipped my radar. I don’t think I even heard any coverage about it or seen an ad for it. Nevertheless, before going to see the sequel, I streamed its predecessor and found it to be a slow and silly but watchable comedy. Thus, I didn’t have any expectations for a sequel and was actually pleasantly surprised, as Daddy’s Home 2 felt like an improvement.
  2. The movie’s script was written by John Morris and Sean Anders, who also directed the film (the duo also worked on the first picture as well as on a bunch of B level comedies before). The story was fine. Firstly, I liked how this movie (and the first one too) spotlighted a non-nuclear family – a reality that a lot of people can relate to today. The doubling up of the parental competition worked well too (or tripling up if you count the moms’ plotline, which was basically what Bad Moms have already done). The family issues that were explored had some heart to them and the film’s attempt to put a comedic spin on the emotional moments was fairly successful.
  3. Speaking about the jokes of the movie in general, they were a mixed bag (as usual). Daddy’s Home 2 had some brilliant moments of humor (the thermostat joke was my favorite and the nativity scene wasn’t bad either) and some jokes that just didn’t land. There were some product placement-related jokes and some fun celebrity cameos. As this film dealt a lot with the concept of family, its humor was generally more family-friendly and less raunchy that the humor of a lot of modern comedies.
  4. The film’s direction was okay. The cabin setting felt a bit Grown Ups-esque (a.k.a. actors wanting a vacation), while the pacing wasn’t perfect – the picture slowed down a lot its third act. The callbacks to the first movie (the airport setting, the repetition of Ferrell’s character supposed death) were fun to spot. The musical number at the end was cute. Lastly, that pandering to cinemas ending was either a great meta-references or a super forced and out of place way to end the film. Can’t decide yet.
  5. Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg (Patriot’s Day, Deepwater Horizon, Transformers 4 and 5), came back as the co-dads at the center of the picture and were good. I’ve never been a fan of Ferrell but his comedic skills are growing on me (might give his other Christmas comedy Elf another chance). On the other hand, I’ve always liked Wahlberg in comedies and action-comedies (Ted 2), so I was just happy to see him in another one. The dads of the dads were played by Mel Gibson (who was actually hysterical to watch; plus, I guess this means that he is back, not only behind the camera (Hacksaw Ridge) but in front of it too) and John Lithgow (who was kinda jarring to watch in a comedic role cause he is engrained on my brain as Churchill on The Crown). Other cast members included Linda Cardellini and the celebrities/non-actors like John CenaAlessandra AmbrosioChesley Sullenberger (Sully) of all people.

In short, Daddy’s Home 2 was a perfectly serviceable but messy Christmas comedy that is more suitable for the whole family that the female version of the same film – A Bad Moms Christmas.

Rate: 2.75/5 

Trailer: Daddy’s Home 2 trailer

Daddy's_Home_2.png

5 ideas about a movie: A Bad Moms Christmas

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to the start of the Christmas Season (yup, Halloween was yesterday)! We are opening it with a festive female comedy sequel – A Bad Moms Christmas!

IMDb summary:  A Bad Moms Christmas follows our three under-appreciated and over-burdened women as they rebel against the challenges and expectations of the Super Bowl for moms: Christmas.

  1. 2016’s Bad Moms was a delightfully surprising comedy that was made super cheaply and earned a lot of money. Thus, STX Entertainment rushed out a themed sequel in just over a year. Interestingly, in a few weeks, we will get another Christmas comedy sequel – Daddy’s Home 2. Who would have thought that 2017 is gonna be the year of gendered and parental Christmas comedies?
  2. A Bad Moms Christmas was written and directed by the duo responsible for the first film as well as The Hangover movies – Scott Moore and Jon Lucas. I enjoyed the writing for the film quite a lot. It did have a lot of the same elements as the first film only in a different – now a Christmas – setting. However, the addition of the moms’ moms was great and made for some amazing moments of humor, especially in the varied messed up relationships between the older moms and their daughters/moms.
  3. The jokes, in general, were not the most sophisticated but, honestly, they didn’t have to be. The heightened reality/far-fetched cartoonish situations are what make makes movies like this one enjoyable. And A Bad Moms Christmas was definitely fun and entertaining. While it could not really be seen as a regular Christmas movie (aka one that’s appropriate for the whole family), the picture still had some traditional Christmasy heart and warmth to it. It also had a lovely message of compromise.
  4. The directing was also great. I wonder how much of the situational humor was directed and how much improvised, though. The editing was spectacular too. I loved the western parody sequence in the trampoline park and the cheesy usage of the slow-mo. The inclusion of Christmas music was also tonally and seasonally appropriate. The credits sequence was also cute and cheesy.
  5. A Bad Moms Christmas assembled a fun cast. Mila Kunis (Jupiter Ascending), Kristen Bell, and Kathryn Hahn were great once again, but, this time around, they were a bit outshined by ‘their moms’: Christine Baranski (I adored her character and also loved that she had a singing scene – it reminded me of her Mamma Mia! role and also made me even more excited for the sequel to my guilty pleasure movie musical); Cheryl Hines (cutely creepy); and Susan Sarandon (unapologetically crazy).

To summarise: was this film a revelation? No. Was it entertaining and helped me to get into a Christmas spirit way too early? Absolutely. I had a chill and chucklesome time at the cinema and listened to the Michael Buble Christmas album for the first time this year on my way home.

Rate: 3.25/5

Trailer: A Bad Moms Christmas trailer

MV5BMTUwNTA4MDMxNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjE4NjQ0MzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

Movie review: Kingsman: The Golden Circle

Movie reviews

Hello!

Kingsman: The Secret Service came out of nowhere and blew everyone away back in 2014. 3 years later and the expectations are high for the sequel. Can Kingsman: The Golden Circle deliver?

IMDb summary: When their headquarters are destroyed and the world is held hostage, the Kingsman’s journey leads them to the discovery of an allied spy organization in the US. These two elite secret organizations must band together to defeat a common enemy.

Writing

The Kingsman sequel was written by the same duo who wrote the first film – Jane Goldman and the director Matthew Vaughn, based the characters by the comic book royalty – Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons (the said screenwriting duo has also written Stardust, Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, and X-Men: DOFP together, while Goldman’s solo writing credits also include Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children). I thought that they did a great job on writing The Golden Circle. They ticked off all the necessary boxes for a sequel: took away everything familiar from the heroes (destroyed their home and comrades), made it personal (involved significant others and long lost friends), introduced new characters and locations (Statesman, Poppy’s Land), and had plenty of callbacks to the first film (returning characters, familiar scenes recreated with a twist).

The most interesting new addition was the aforementioned Statesman organization as well as the general feeling of Americana, especially potent in the villain’s layer. This expansion of the Kingsman world to the other side of the Atlantic really worked for me. I loved seeing the differences between UK and US expressed in a fun and comic-book-y way. The obviously American aura of the film also reminded me of Logan Lucky (who also shares a song – ‘Take Me Home, Country Roads’ and an actor – Channing Tatum with The Golden Circle). Lastly, I loved how, even though the American side of the story/ characters were introduced, the British roots were not forgotten either and remained the focus of the movie.

Speaking about those British roots, I appreciated all the commentary on honor and the right kind of masculinity that this picture had. Its attempt to say something about the drug usage, law, and innocence wasn’t bad either. The villain for this film was just as campy and just as appropriate tonally as Valentine was in/for the last one.

Directing

Matthew Vaughn was back in his element with Kingsman 2. While I have been disappointed by some of his producing efforts (Fantastic Four and Kick-Ass 2), he has never let me down, when he was in a role of the director. The action was just spectacular: highly stylized, explicit, campy, and not at all realistic but just so fun and entertaining! All the gadgets were magnificent and a great parody/homage of the 007/other spy films. The filming style (cinematography by George Richmond) – handheld and smooth rather than shaky with just the right amount of slow-mo – was highly appreciated too and so dynamic (it was so fun I could forgive some wonky CGI)! The British glamour, as well as American ruggedness, were both well realized too. The score (music by Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson) was great as well, I especially loved the instrumental version of the already mentioned ‘Take Me Home, Country Roads’ song. The only criticism that I have for this highly entertaining live-action cartoon was the fact that it’s a bit long – over two hours. If it was chopped down to 2h, the narrative might have been tighter and the criticism would not exist.

Acting

Taron Egerton (Eddie The Eagle, Testament of Youth, Legend, Sing) was great as the lead Eggsy. He had both the coolness and the vulnerability needed for the character. Colin Firth (Magic in the Moonlight, Genius) also came back (wish that wasn’t spoiled in the trailer) – his performance seemed a bit off but his character also acted a bit off. Mark Strong had a lovely arc in the film and one of the best exists of the character I have seen in a while. Hanna Alström also came back as her character. I really did not expect her to stick around for a sequel but the filmmakers kinda took that explicit ending of the first film (and the introduction of her…character) and sort of made into a cute side plotline.

Newcomers included Channing Tatum (Logan Lucky, Hail, Caesar!, The Hateful Eight, Magic Mike XXL, Jupiter Ascending), who had some fun scenes but wasn’t in the movie much. However, the conclusion of The Golden Circle promised that we will see more of him in the 3rd picture. Pedro Pascal (The Great Wall) gave a wonderful performance too: he had the coolest weapon and an awesome death scene (on par with the one on GOT). Halle Berry (DOFP) played kinda a typical role of the behind-the-scenes/tech personnel but I’m excited to follow her journey further. Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water) also had a very minor role in the picture. He was the only actor who just seemed to be included in order to raise the profile of the film rather than to actually have him do something cool. Lastly, Julianne Moore (Mockingjay) made for a great villain. It was so fun seeing her let loose in a role!

In short, I really enjoyed Kingsman: The Golden Circle. It was as good as The Secret Service, so if you liked the first one, the sequel should also please you. Plus, if you enjoy comic book movies that truly feel like a comic book that has come to life, Kingsman 2 is the film for you!

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Kingsman: The Golden Circle trailer

kingsmanposter_0.jpg

Movie review: Logan Lucky

Movie reviews

Hello!

Steven Soderbergh is back from retirement but the audiences don;t care much. This is Logan Lucky!

IMDb summary: Two brothers attempt to pull off a heist during a NASCAR race in North Carolina.

Writing

Logan Lucky was written by Rebecca Blunt – either a newcomer writer or somebody, working under a pseudonym. There has been speculation online that Blunt lives the UK, while some critics thought that Soderberg himself is hiding underneath that name (because he does that when crediting himself as a cinematographer (as Peter Andrews) and editor (as Mary Ann Bernard). Anyways, whoever this Blunt person is/was, they did a good job on the script. While the core narrative was quite familiar (Hell or High Water-esque – stealing for one’s family), its execution in details was brilliant.

The movie opened with a good set-up of the mundane lives of its characters and established them as people, whose lives did not turn out the way they planned (one of them peaked in high school, the other was suffering from the little brother inferiority complex).

Then, Logan Lucky moved on to showcasing the American culture (the kind that foreign people wouldn’t even dare to call culture), which consisted of children beauty pageants and rural county fairs. However, the star of the said culture and the film was NASCAR – a very American brand of motor-racing. The cherry on top was the prolonged anthem scene. Logan Lucky seemed to be driving home a message, that stuff like this, for better or for worse, happens only in the USA. This type of portrayal could have easily come across as annoying but the underlying sense of irony and satire made it work.

Speaking about the comedic side of Logan Lucky – it was great if not as extensive as I hoped, after watching the trailer. I loved the different pairings of the criminals (The Hitman’s Bodyguardesque) as well as the jokes that were central to the characters (one-handed bartender, the dumb brothers of Joe Bang). Logan Lucky also had a really funny sequence with Sebastian Stan’s driver character (who didn’t seem like he had much to do with the actual plot of the film). Another magnificent and hilarious sequence was the prison riot and the prisoners demanding all GRRM books, getting frustrated that ‘The Winds of Winter’ has yet to be released, and hating the fact that the TV show is going off books. The ‘explosive device’ sequence and the decision to stop midway and explain the chemistry were extremely funny too.

Logan Lucky also had a surprising and really heartfelt scene involving the main character’s daughter’s beauty pageant and the song ‘Take Me Home, Country Roads’ (by John Denver). That scene should have been the closing images of the picture. However, Logan Lucky did continue and had a concluding detective story that felt like an afterthought. The investigation itself was not that interesting or neccesary. However, that closing sequence did provide some revelations about the main character’s secret dealings and did have a nice ending (well, for now) with all of them sitting in a bar.

Directing

Steven Soderbergh (The Ocean’s trilogy, Magic Mike series, Haywire) did a good job with Logan Lucky but I don’t think that this was his best film. The pacing at the start was a bit slow, however, the movie did pick up its pace, when the action began. However, it started dragging again with that detective-story afterthought. What I appreciated the most about Logan Lucky (and the other films by Soderbergh) was that it felt real. Not necessarily realistic but real, grounded, self-aware, and sprinkled with irony. While the scripts that he directs (or even writes) are usually mainstream, Soderbergh addresses them with unique auteur/indie perspective.

This time around, Soderbergh also approached the distribution of the film uniquely and decided not to partner with any of the big studios. Well, that backfired. Big time. Logan Lucky didn’t win its weekend, nor it showed any staying power by dipping lower and lower in the TOP 10. I really want to know who/what is to blame. Are the audiences just not interested in Soderbergh’s work anymore? Was it the lack of advertisement? Where were all the NASCAR fans? Where were all the grown-up Pixar’s Cars fan (the ones who saw the 2006 film as children and are now adults)? Where were the fans of movies, involving cars, a la Baby Driver?

Acting

Logan Lucky had a really strong cast, lead by a new favorite of Soderbergh’sChanging Tatum (they worked together on Magic Mike, while the other recent Tatum’s films include Hail, Caesar!, The Hateful Eight, Jupiter Ascending, Jump Street). His brother was played by Adam Driver, who is constantly working on smaller, more art-house pictures in between his Star Wars gigs, like Midnight Special, Silence, and Paterson. Daniel Craig (Spectre) also had a very fun role in the film that he seemed to be having a blast while playing. He never appeared to enjoy being Bond that much and, yet, he still signed on to continue being the 007.

The supporting cast included Riley Keough (Mad Max), Katie HolmesKatherine Waterston (Fantastic Beasts), and Hilary Swank (would love to see her going back to the Million Dollar Baby type of projects and the level of success). The majority of them didn’t really play real characters but were used as devices for world-building or the lead’s character development. Seth MacFarlane (Ted, Sing) and Sebastian Stan (Marvel stuff, The Martian) also had cameo roles and their whole separate thing going on in the background.

In short, Logan Lucky was an enjoyable mixture of mainstream and indie, but it didn’t offer anything too special. Neither a disappointment nor really a win for Soderbergh.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Logan Lucky trailer

MV5BMTYyODg0NDU1OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjcxMzU0MjI@._V1_.jpg