Movie review: Black Panther

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to the review of the newest and, arguably, the most important Marvel movie! This is Black Panther!

IMDb summary: T’Challa, after the death of his father, the King of Wakanda, returns home to the isolated, technologically advanced African nation to succeed to the throne and take his rightful place as king.

As usual, before I start, my previous MCU reviews are here: Guardians 1 and 2, Avengers 2, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor 3.

Writing

Black Panther was written by the director of the film Ryan Coogler and Joe Robert Cole. I thought that the duo did a stellar job with the script. I’m not going to talk about the plot in detail, so as to keep this review spoiler free, other than to stay that a lot of narrative things happen in this film and a couple of them are quite unexpected. There are also a few of meaningful deaths (that might silence MCU critics who say that nobody ever dies in this universe). What I’m going to discuss more elaborately are the brilliant and multiple thematical concepts of Black Panther.

Just on the surface representational level, this film was a game changer. Black characters were elevated from the roles of the supporting friend/the funny sidekick/the one-scene cameo and were brought to the forefront. It’s also refreshing to see fictional black characters rather than real-life rebel slaves or civil rights activists (those smaller biographical movies are important too, but diversity in the blockbuster field is key as well). Also, even though this movie told a fictional story about fictional characters, it honored and paid homage to a lot of its real-world equivalents/inspirations, which raised a question for me: why haven’t we seen pictures about real, past or current, African tribes that were not documentaries???

Anyways, more on Black Panther paying homage to certain real-world ideas/events. I absolutely loved how the movie honored the connection that Africans have with their ancestors (and how in touch with their spirituality they are) as well their connection with nature (healing herbs, animals as deities). It was also great for the movie to acknowledge the violence within African culture (both the inner to the culture and the one coming from the west). Most importantly, it was just so amazing to see the Afrofuturism ideas on screen, which connected modernity with the traditional side of the culture. Scholars have been racking their brains about how to develop Africa without Westernizing it! Well, just do what Black Panther did: connect the two things rather than make one negate the other!

As the movie’s main character was a sovereign of a country, Black Panther also had some political commentary, mostly about a single country’s relation and obligation to the world. It also explored the well-known idea of the sins of the father reflecting of the children but in a royal context.  The film also had some fascinating things to say about communities, tribes or one’s ‘people’. How do we define that category? Do we draw lines based on race? Ethnicity? Nationality? Culture? Common beliefs and ideals? One of the central conflicts in the film was based on the fact that the villain and the hero of the story had different answers to that question. Speaking of the villain, Killmonger might be Marvel’s best one yet because he wasn’t just a villain but a character in his own right, whose goals were radical yet valid. The viewer could definitely understand his frustrations and reasons for his thinking.

Directing

Ryan Coogler (of Creedand Fruitvale Station) did an amazing job with Black Panther. He realized the visuals of Afrofuturism so well (with the help of production design, of course). The sets were brilliant and the costumes – absolutely impeccable and so cool as well! The action was really great too: fast-paced, intense, and meaningful for the plot. The pacing was also great!  The much-celebrated music of the movie was great (so it has been celebrated for a reason). I wanted to hear even more if it!

Acting

Black Panther assembled a stellar cast, led by Chadwick Boseman (Civil War) in a role that he was born to play. I’d love to see his involvement in the MCU leading to more non-biographical roles for him (cause I have seen him in quite a few biopics). Coogler’s collaborator Michael B. Jordan (Creed, Fantastic Four) played the villain and fully embodied the role, both physically and emotionally. I absolutely loved his character’s Americanized look too. An absolute scene stealer was Letitia Wright as the tech (and actual) princess. I loved her portrayal as a tech genius who was super excited about her creations and I also loved all her outfits and amazing sense of humor (bit cringe-y at times but so relatable). Lupita Nyong’o (The Jungle Book, The Force Awakens) also had a great role in the film – really loved seeing her in a big picture in person (not as in Star Wars, in motion capture).

Walking Dead’s Danai Gurira played an incredible role of the leader of Dora Milaje (who were all so amazing), while the breakout star of last year Daniel Kaluuya (Get Out) also had an interesting role to play (I loved how his character’s cape-like looking thing was also a shield). Winston Duke played a fun and multifaceted character too. Some more seasoned talent was also spotlighted: Angela Bassett was great as the mother of the king, while Forest Whitaker (Southpaw, Arrival, Rogue One) was perfect as an elderly statesman. Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis (War For The Planet of The Apes, The Last Jedi) also reprised their earlier roles in the MCU and were great. Freeman was a lovable CIA agent (not a word I’d use to describe a CIA agent, but, oh well), while Serkis was super crazy as one the villains of the film but it was really nice to see him in a non-motion capture performance.

Post-credits/End-credits (bit spoiler-y)

While Black Panther was mostly divorced from the MCU (it didn’t have many Easter Eggs that I could notice except of course the Stan Lee cameo), it did have a neat after-credits scene, where a fan-favorite from Civil War (‘White Wolf’) was defrosted. He seemed to be doing well in Wakanda.

The mid-credits scene was closely related to this picture and had a nice message of peaceful communication. It sounded a tiny bit naive but I can’t really fault hope.

In short, Black Panther was both a great Marvel comic book movie and a sophisticated game-changer in terms of representation for the whole context of modern cinema.

Rate: 4.8/5

Trailer: Black Panther trailer

Black_Panther_film_poster

5 ideas about a movie: Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool

Movie reviews

Hi!

Welcome to a review of a film with the best title ever. This is Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool.

IMDb summary: A romance sparks between a young actor and a Hollywood leading lady.

  1. Film Stars Don’t Die In Liverpool was written by Matt Greenhalgh (the British cinema writer). As the name suggests, this was a film about the movie business – a genre, that I, as a cinephile, am very partial too. However, the picture was also so much more than a love letter to cinema: it was also a survival story (not the best example on how to treat one’s cancer or any other serious illness), a faithful biography (it was based on the memoir by Peter TurnerJamie Bell’s character in the movie), and a timeless romance with a contemporary couple (these type of age dynamics in a couple – older woman/younger man – are still treated as an abnormal).
  2. The movie also explored the idea of growing old but staying old. It also mentioned bisexuality in the 1970s-1980s but didn’t dwell on that plot point. The film was set in the meeting point between the celebrity and the real world, which was an exciting boundary to consider. It also drew an interesting parallel between this real live romance and Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet. The narrative’s structure was also unusual: the movie’s story unfolded over the two time frames (past and present) and that allowed the story to have more an emotional impact, which stemmed from the contrast of the happy past and sad present.
  3. Film Stars Don’t Die in Liverpool was produced by Barbara Broccoli (longtime producer of the James Bond films) and directed by Paul McGuigan (he has directed some episode of Sherlock and Luke Cage as well as the movie Viktor Frankenstein). The visual transitions that McGuigan crafted between the aforementioned time frames, were quite beautiful and inventive. However, the CGI locations looked quite fake and took me out of the film more than once. The pacing was also really slow so the viewer had to be interested/invested in the story to keep watching. Lastly, I loved how the director replayed the same scene from two different perspectives and completely altered its meaning.
  4. Annette Bening (who has had a long and fairly successful career but only appeared on my radar last year with 20th Century Women) played the lead actress and was really great. Her actress character was portrayed as a bit of a stereotypical Hollywood celebrity – selfish, a bit aloof, and deeply insecure. This didn’t necessarily make her the most likable but certainly an interesting character. I loved the shots that focused on her makeup routine – they powerfully underscored the importance of the outer appearance of actors.
  5. Jamie Bell played the male lead of the film and was absolutely brilliant. I only remember seeing him in Fantastic Four where he didn’t have much to do, so I was quite blown away by his dramatic talents on display in this film. However, he has previously worked with Lars von Trier on Nymphomaniac and was also in Snowpiercer, so I think I should have known how good he was.

In short, Film Star Don’t Die in Liverpool was a lovely biographical drama with a real-life cinematic love story at its center.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Film Star Don’t Sie in Liverpool trailer

justice-league-poster

 

5 ideas about a movie: Only The Brave

Movie reviews

Hello!

A touching cinematic ode to the fallen firefighters – Only The Brave – has reached theatres, so, let’s review it.

IMDb summary: Based on the true story of the Granite Mountain Hotshots, a group of elite firefighters risk everything to protect a town from a historic wildfire.

  1. I haven’t seen a lot of movies focusing on firefighters before. There have been a fair few films telling the stories of the police officers or the doctors, so it was only right that the firefighters and their important work should also be spotlighted. And that’s exactly what Only The Brave did. The picture was directed by Joseph Kosinski (director of Tron: Legacy and writer/director of Oblivion, who is also set to direct Top Gun 2) and written by Ken Nolan (Black Hawk Down, Transformers 5) and Eric Warren Singer (American Hustle). The script was based on a GQ article “No Exit” by Sean Flynn.
  2. In general, Only The Brave’s writing was good and ticked off all the boxes of the biographical drama to do list. The set-up and the character development was present, the narrative unraveled smoothly, and the emotional punch was strong. The film’s 3 acts had distinct qualities. The first act/the set-up acted as the ‘origin’ story of the Grand Mountain Hot Shots, the middle part showed their career highs and strengthened the connection between the viewer and the characters, while the last act revolved around a game-changing event. The conclusion of the movie used that aforementioned connection to make its viewers teary-eyed during the third act. In addition, I found that idea of nature as fuel for fire very interesting and unique – never seen nature from that perspective myself.
  3. The character development was mostly given to two characters – Miles Teller’s Donut and Josh Brolin’s Supe. We got to see their struggles and their family lives. Jeff Bridges’s character was there to push the plot forward, while Taylor Kitsch’s character was used as the comedic relief (‘2 dads and a baby’ moment was so funny). The other guys were there for the atmosphere. The said atmosphere started out quite unappealing, especially for me as a female viewer. I do get that guys talk like that (by that, I mean borderline sexist) in an all-male environment, but that doesn’t mean that I’d like to see it. What I did enjoy seeing was the training of the group as well as their growth from bullying each other to legitimately caring for one another.
  4. The directing of the film was quite good. The pacing was okay and the intensity of the action sequences was fine too – the movie did succeed in conveying the risks that these people were taking. The southern rural US setting was well-realized too. The burning bear visual was neat, while the other scenes of fire looked realistic. The nice dedication at the end of the film and the photos of the real-life counterparts of the characters were both nice touches.
  5. The cast of the film was quite extensive, but, as I have said, only a handful of characters were focused on. Josh Brolin (Hail, Caesar!, MCU) played Supe and was good, though I have already seen him in a comparable role (Everest and Sicario both come to mind). Similarly, Jeff Bridges also played a role he has played before (in Hell or High Water or even in Kingsman 2). Miles Teller (War Dogs, Allegiant, FF) was good too and I kinda feel that his character, at least during the first act, was basically the person that everyone images Teller to be in real life (he doesn’t have the greatest image in the media). Taylor Kitsch (American Assasin) was okay as well, but I wanted to see something more out of him. Jennifer Connelly (Noah, she was also the voice of Karen (the suit’s AI) in Spider-Man: Homecoming) played Supe’s wife and she actually had more to do than the characters of wifes or girlfriends usually do in films like these.

In short, Only The Brave was a well-made and a heartfelt biographical drama, worthy of a watch but not necessarily at the cinema.

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Only The Brave trailer

images

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: Death Note

Movie reviews

Hello!

The latest of Netflix’s original films (and, arguably, the most interesting one) is streaming worldwide, so, let’s talk about it. This is the review of Death Note.

IMDb summary: Light Turner, a bright student, stumbles across a mystical notebook that has the power to kill any person whose name he writes in it. Light decides to launch a secret crusade to rid the streets of criminals. Soon, the student-turned-vigilante finds himself pursued by a famous detective known only by the alias L.

2017’s Death Note is a live-action adaptation of a beloved anime/manga franchise. The Netflix’s version of this IP has been called the ‘American adaptation’ with the hopes of stopping or minimizing the criticism on the topic of whitewashing. Weirdly, I haven’t seen the same argument being used to defend Ghost in the Shell. Also, I find it strange that, in this day and age, somebody would make a movie purely for the American audience, when it is definitely gonna be seen all over the globe.

Writing

Death Note’s script was written by Charles Parlapanides and Vlas Parlapanides (the duo behind 2011’s Immortals – a Henry Cavill pre-Superman film), and Jeremy Slater (who wrote, oh no, 2015’s Fantastic Four). Going in line with the idea of Americanization, the screenwriters efficiently grounded the film’s story in an American life by opening the movie with the sequence set in a stereotypical American high-school. This was a first and a very obvious change from the original material. As I’m not familiar with neither the original Death Note anime or manga, I’d be interested to find out what other changes occurred? How were the characters different (excluding the race switch)? How much of the original plot-points were retained? Were the changes made because of the Americanization or for some other reason? The picture still did have some Japanese elements (mainly two: the word ‘Kira’ and its meaning remained and a few minor Japanese characters were involved in the narrative).

Speaking about the fantasy part of the story – I found it very fascinating and now I get why every anime fan loves Death Note. I thought that the film set up the mystical side of its story very well, although Light’s transition into being the full-on Kira figure was a bit sudden. Nevertheless, I did like that the movie raised questions about the vigilante justice (on a massive scale) and questioned the limits that some people might be willing to push past. Other, more real-world-related topics, which were touched upon in the film, were bullying, anti-socialness, and the unproductive parent-child relationships.

As the narrative is usually made or broken by its characters, let’s discuss them. I very much enjoyed the writing for Light. I loved how smart he was and, yet, how he still made stupid mistakes appropriate for his age (like telling his girlfriend about the book, although, I’m quite happy that the scriptwriters allowed him to ‘show and tell’ rather than act like Iron Fist, who only tells his story without any proof and expects others to believe him). Light’s opposite and equal – L – was also quite nicely realized. I loved the fact that the stand-off between these two was happening on a whole other level of brilliance. Their genius-ness could be seen in 1)L’s initial detective skills and 2)Light’s ability to avoid culpability in the end. I also liked how the main difference – one’s readiness to kill and other’s refusal to, was highlighted in the movie.

Another important character in the film was Mia, Light’s girlfriend. The writing for her was the worst, mostly because the secrets and the reveals, related to her, were fairly obvious. However, I noticed an interesting parallel between Death Note’s notebook having an influence over Mia similarly to how Tom Ridley’s diary had a hold on Ginny in HP2.

Directing

Adam Wingard directed the 2017’s Death Note and did a good job. His previous work mostly belongs to the horror genre and it looks like he brought elements of it to Death Note too and turned the psychological thriller/detective thriller into more of a horror film. He did that by using plenty of jump scares and really gruesome and gory violence. The graphic content didn’t detract from the plot but it didn’t add to it either. The final product also definitely had a feeling of a Hollywood film, due to its soundtrack (by Atticus Ross and Leopold Ross) and all the slow motion (so the Americanization of the property continued from the script into the visuals and the sounds).

The character design of Ryuk was quite good. He looked terrifying enough and kinda reminded me of the clown in the new IT film. I applaud the filmmakers for using mostly practical effects – puppets and costumes -to bring this character to life (CGI was only used for the face). I’ll comment on the look of the other characters in the acting category.

Lastly, the 3rd act of the film was quite strong. The final chase (L going after Light) was neatly paced and I liked its instrumental score and the urban setting. The ferry’s wheel sequence was also exciting and entertainingly crazy, especially when all the characters came clean.

The director’s next project is Godzilla vs. Kong for Legendary’s MonsterVerse.

Acting

Nat Wolff was really good in the lead role of L. He played the lead character as a psychotic but vulnerable genius.Wolff is slowly building his career, he first popped on everyone’s radar with a small part in The Fault in Our Stars and later starred in the John Green follow-up movie Paper Towns.

L was played by Lakeith Stanfield. The actor had previous small roles in Selma, Straight Outta Compton and Get Out (which I’m going to review in a couple of days). The idea to cast an African American actor in the role added some diversity and accuracy for a US-based film. Still, I don’t think that this type of diversity can work as an apology for not casting Asian talent in any of the lead roles. And yet, while the character did not retain neither its original race nor the iconic hair, his sitting position remained the same, which was a nice. Also, if we take the character’s look on its own and don’t compare him to anyone else, I have to admit – L did look very cool .

Mia was played by Margaret Qualley (The Nice Guys). I thought that she was the weakest of the cast. Her character’s shadiness was very obvious, presumably because the actress performance lacked subtlety. Willem Dafoe voiced and did the facial expressions for Ryuk. His voice fit the character neatly and the facial expressions were sinister enough.

In brief, Death Note was an okay adaptation of a beloved anime (but honestly, the bar has been set pretty low by Ghost in the Shell). Whitewashing aside, the film had a couple of writing problems, but, in general, was enjoyable.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: Death Note trailer 

220px-DeathNotePoster

Movie review: Kong: Skull Island

Movie reviews

Good day!

Kong: Skull Island was not a film that I was excited for until I saw its first trailer. That 2-minute preview really got me hyped and raised my expectations. Let’s see if Kong can deliver!

IMDb summary: A team of explorers and soldiers travel to an uncharted island in the Pacific, unaware that they are crossing into the domain of monsters, including the mythic Kong.

Kong: Skull island is the second installment in Legendary’s MonsterVerse franchise, which begun in 2014, with the reboot of Godzilla. Legendary’s MonsterVerse should not be confused with the Universal Monsters series, which also technically begun in 2014 with Dracula Untold and is continuing later this year with The Mummy reboot (although now, that Dracula movie has been dropped from the canon). While I’m all for cinematic universes, I find these two a bit ridiculous. First, they are too similar and are definitely going to blend in the public’s consciousness. Secondly, these properties are good enough on their own – not everything has to be mixed. And yet, I was recently informed that King Kong and Godzilla have already fought against each other in a Japanese film from the 1960s made by Toho. So, is this new shared universe just another Hollywood remake of a foreign property? I, personally, found 2014’s Godzilla to be an okay movie but hopefully, Kong can get me fully on board with this franchise.

Writing

Kong: Skull Island was written by Dan Gilroy (wrote The Bourne Legacy and wrote and directed the spectacular indie film Nightcrawler) and Max Borenstein (wrote the new Godzilla). To my mind, the writing for the film was okay: not great but not bad either. As usual, since the monsters were expensive to animate, the viewer got to spend a lot of time with the human characters and yet, the character development was scarce. All of the characters had one major feature that defined them and the said defining trait was sometimes interesting and promising and very cliche in the other instances. The representation of the tribal people of the island was a bit stereotypical and from a definite Western POV (and that’s is a huge no-no for me as an anthropology student).

Story-wise, the movie had a fairly quick and interesting set-up. I liked that the film had a wide variety of characters – the military, the scientists and two leads (Hiddleston and Larson) but, as I have already mentioned, I wish they would have done more with them. The twists and turns in the plot were also fine for the most part, but the narrative did have a few too convenient moments (like the vomiting of the dog tags). The Monster vs. Monster or ‘Let them fight’ idea that begun in Godzilla was also continued here. Kong: Skull Island actually included a surprising variety of monsters: from Kong himself to the big buffalo-like looking animal to the huge spider (felt a bit squeamish watching that scene) to the tentacle monster to the giant ant and, lastly, to the actual skull crawlers.

The film’s setting in the 70s served the purpose of providing some commentary on the issue of war. It was a promising concept and they should have done more with it than they did (the portrayal of the colonel as stubborn and plainly cruel was a bit laughable or at least it played that way). The other overarching topic was man vs. nature – an obvious choice for the monster/survival movies. That whole idea about dropping bombs was really stupid but I also have a feeling that it might have been temporally accurate. The whole ‘What is it? Let’s kill it!’ topic of the movie was also kinda idiotic but also very realistic.

The film had good comedic relief. Some of the jokes landed, some didn’t. One line, in particular, stuck with me. It wasn’t supposed to be funny but it just sounded so ironic in today’s context. I’m, of course, talking about the line ‘there won’t be a more screwed up time in Washington’. Well, how about now?

Directing

The picture was helmed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts and this was only his 3rd feature film. His directorial debut was the indie coming of age drama Kings of Summer, which I really enjoyed – I remember it was recommended to me by a friend, who absolutely loved the movie. Bearing in mind that this was only the 3rd picture for the director and the first one of such a massive scale, I think he did an incredible job. While the opening plane crash CGI looked horrible, all of the following CGI of the monsters and the fights was magnificent. I loved the shot of King Kong in a fiery background as well as all the other wide, sweeping shots of the nature of the island. The northern lights also looked neat. The shots from within the helicopter during the first major action sequence were great too. I also thought that Vogt-Roberts had more visuals of Kong than Edwards did of Godzilla. Or maybe they were just dispersed throughout the film more than they were in Godzilla. The old school photo/video visuals were also a nice touch. Lastly, the fact that the first (the sun) and the last (the eye) shots of the picture were similar was also an excellent way to frame the whole thing.

The post-credits scene

Yes, you read that correctly. The post-credits scenes aren’t unique just to comic book movies. I was the only person in my screening who sat through the 10 minutes of the credits but I wasn’t disappointed that I did. The tease for the future was quite cool and made me wonder whether the actors who appeared in the teaser, will reprise their roles in the future sequels of this shared universe.

Acting

Tom Hiddleston as James Conrad. Hiddleston was good in the role even if the role itself wasn’t that great. I mean, his character was just unexplainably good at everything. The most over the top part of his arc was that scene with a sword in a gas cloud – it looked cool but didn’t make much sense and kinda came out of nowhere. I just finished watching Hiddleston in The Night Manger for which he won a Golden Globe. While his acceptance speech wasn’t the greatest, his performance was spectacular, so I’d highly recommend this mini-series. Going forward, he will reprise the role of Loki – arguably, the best villain of MCU – in Thor: Ragnarok.

Brie Larson as Mason Weave. I liked the fact that Larson’s character was a photo-journalist and that they didn’t call much attention to her gender (only in one scene, which should have been cut). Larson herself was good in the role and I’m happy that she is getting more work post her Oscar win (Room). Having said that, the majority of the acting she had to do was basically just reacting to the imaginative things around her. Nevertheless, she did have that one scene of special connection with Kong. What is up with female characters and giant monkeys? Katelyn Snow and Grodd also had a special connection on The Flash.

Samuel L. Jackson as Colonel Packard. Jackson was just recently in another jungle-based movie – The Legend of Tarzan – and I think I liked him more in that one. Here, his performance seemed a bit too much for me. But, I cannot argue that he does know how to play/appear as a menacing villain-ish character.

John C. Reilly as Hank Marlow. Reilly was supposed to be the comic-relief character, based on the trailers and, while he certainly joked around, he was also the exposition machine. Plus, the Jason Mitchell and Shea Whigham duo provided some additional comic relief which was funnier than Reilly’s.

The scientists of the film were played by John Goodman (Trumbo, Patriot’s Day), Jing Tian (The Great Wall), and Corey Hawkins. They served the purposes of their roles well and added some diversity to the cast (the last two). Toby Kebbell (Warcraft, Fan4stic, Ben-Hur) played Jack Chapman and had the emotional character arc of the movie. While I get what the film was aiming for, I didn’t really feel much for Kebbell’s character.

In short, Kong: Skull Island was an entertaining adventure monster movie. The visuals looked amazing and made up for the sorta lackluster script.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Kong: Skull Island trailer

kong-skull-island-poster-2.jpg

Movie review: Ben-Hur

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to one of the last movie reviews of this summer. This time, we are discussing a film that was mostly panned by critics and was almost completely forgotten by the audiences – Ben-Hur.

IMDb summary: Judah Ben-Hur, a prince falsely accused of treason by his adopted brother, an officer in the Roman army, returns to his homeland after years at sea to seek revenge but finds redemption.

2016’s Ben-Hur is the 5th Ben-Hur picture in the last 100 years. This story is quite old, both literately and figuratively. Not only is the plot set in the ancient times, but the original source material – a book by Lew Wallace titled Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ – has been published at the end of 19th century. While I usually enjoy epic and historical movies, their religious aspects tend to be a hit and miss for me. I wasn’t the biggest fan of Noah and, while Exodus seemed like a fun action adventure, its casting had a lot of problems. Don’t even get me started on Gods of Egypt. The mosts successful religious movie to date is probably The Passion of The Christ, but other than that, religious action features are a hard sell for Hollywood. I’ve also personally noticed that I more interested in movies about pagans rather than any monotheistic religions.

Speaking about Ben-Hur – it is not as bad as everyone is telling you. It has problems, like any other film, but it also a fun adventure with some religious ideas that sometimes stick and sometimes don’t. I wish that the audiences wouldn’t have given up on it without even giving it a chance. At this point, I should also probably note that I haven’t seen any other Ben-Hur pictures because I wanted to allow this movie to stand on its own. I haven’t read the book either, but I’m strongly considering doing that, as I did enjoy the film overall.

Writing

Ben-Hur’s screenplay was penned by Keith Clarke and John Ridley. Ridley has an Academy Award for writing 12 Years a Slave, while Clarke is not that accomplished – he has mostly worked on documentaries until now. For the most part, I really liked the writing for this film. I thought they did a good job with the development and likeability of the two leads – you could actually understand both of their arguments. The supporting characters could have received a few more scenes, but the lack of development for them didn’t bother me much. The dialogue, the catchphrases as well as the repeatable lines that the characters would spit out to each other were all cool and worked well in the picture.

My biggest problems with the story were all related to the set- up also known as the first act. Messala’s decision to leave seemed a bit rushed – I would have like to see more of him and Judah as kids or teenagers. The parts of the story leading up to the big betrayal/accusation were also wonky – the film was going all over the place and seemed to be both rushing and dragging at the same time. However, with the beginning of the second act, which I thought was that sequence with Judah on the ship, the movie really found its footing. It had a clear direction and a cohesive, simple but interesting main storyline.

Ben-Hur also had nice topical ideas. It cleverly contrasted the ideology of Rome ‘let’s spread civilization through violence’ with the teachings of Jesus, which were all about the compassion, peace, and solidarity. The whole biblical ending seemed a bit weird and out of place, especially after that big action sequence, however, I do understand why it had to be there – they wanted to end the film with a positive message of forgiveness instead of the celebration of revenge. It was a truly happy ending in a classical Hollywood fashion.

Directing

Timur Bekmambetov, the director of Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and the producer of Hardcore Henry, directed Ben-Hur and did quite a nice job. Yes, some scenes were a bit overdramatized, but the ship sequence, as well as the final race, were both awesome. The whole setting and vibe of the film reminded me of HBO’s Rome, while the chariot race gave me flashbacks to a similar sequence in a French family film – Asterix at the Olympic Games. Ben-Hur’s CGI was also quite good – I have seen worse effects in the movie that cost even more to make. The credits of the film were also quite cool – those graphics were interesting and fit the movie perfectly.

Acting

The film didn’t have any really big name talent involved, so maybe that’s why the audiences passed it by. The most prominent name actor of the cast was probably Morgan Freeman (Now You See Me)  – he looked ridiculous with those dreads but worked well in the role of the mentor.

The two leads were played by Jack Huston as Judah Ben-Hur and Toby Kebbell as Messala. The two of them were great in the roles, both in the dramatic and action sequences. Their chemistry was also believable. Huston is mostly known for starring in Boardwalk Empire, but he also had roles in American Hustle and Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Kebbell has started in a few big films but without showing his face – he played Koba in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, starred as Doctor Doom or at least Fox’s version of that character in Fantastic Four and was the actor behind the main Orc character in the Warcraft movie. Coming up, he has Kong: Skull Island.

The supporting cast consisted of Iranian actress Nazanin Boniadi as Esther, Ben-Hur’s love interest; Brazilian actor Rodrigo Santoro as Jesus; and Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer as Naomi, Ben-Hur’s mother. I love the fact that the casting director at least tried to make the movie more international and introduced me and other Western viewers to some new talent, although, Zurer should be quite familiar to us all – she plays Kingpin’s love interest on Daredevil. Two Americans – Sofia Black D’Elia as Tirzah and Moisés Arias (who is still stuck in the Hannah Montana times in my mind) as Gestas – rounded up the cast and also did a good job.

In short, Ben-Hur was a solid picture that exceeded my expectations. It needed some time to get into the right path but when it did – it was great! The story was interesting, the two leads were complex characters, brought to life by two amazing actors and the action didn’t suck either.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Ben-Hur trailer

BEN HUR POSTER.jpg

Movie review: War Dogs

Movie reviews

Hello!

Another buddy comedy has hit theaters, so let’s review it!

IMDb summary: Based on the true story of two young men, David Packouz and Efraim Diveroli, who won a $300 million contract from the Pentagon to arm America’s allies in Afghanistan.

War Dogs is kinda similar to the other to buddy comedies of this summer – The Nice Guys and Central Intelligence, in that they all have a contrasting duo in a lead. The film also shares some topical similarities (greed) with Pain & Gain and even The Wolf of Wall Street.

Writing

War Dogs was written by Stephen Chin, Todd Phillips, and Jason Smilovic, based on Guy Lawson’s book Arms and the Dudes, which was inspired by true events. The film’s narrative was fine – it had a few clever things to say about war, mainly, that was is an economy. It also explored the greed of people and portrayed it as the biggest flaw of humanity. Lastly, the movie touched upon the performative aspect of communication – War Dogs showed how specific individuals can read other people and modify their own manners and appearance to fit the vision that the others have of them.

The first act of the film felt a bit choppy – I couldn’t figure out where the story was going, but in the middle of the 2nd act, everything started to flow nicely. War Dogs also had a lot of narration and, while, to my mind, it worked well, to a lot of movie-goers it is a bad thing. The picture’s ending was a bit abrupt, though. I did not feel that there was a full resolution and I also thought that the two criminals got away way too easily.

Directing

Todd Phillips of The Hangover trilogy was at the helm of this picture and did a good job. War Dogs was quite a slow but really well made and entertaining film. I wanted to see a bit more action but I guess they decided to go the drama route and explore the relationship between the two characters. The intro montage set the stage for the upcoming story neatly and explained the premise clearly and concisely. I also liked the structure of the feature – how it was divided into a bunch of  vignette-like parts. The names of these vignettes, which were just random lines of dialogue, were also cool and perfectly summarized the main ideas of these specific pieces of the film. The soundtrack wasn’t bad either.

Acting

The two leads of the movie were played by Jonah Hill and Miles Teller. Their characters were both clever idiots, only Hill’s character was the more crazy and greedy one, while Teller’s character was presented as the protagonist, the everyday-man that the audiences are supposed to root for.

Hill was amazing as the selfish Efraim Diveroli, the only element of his performance that annoyed me slightly was that laugh. He played a similar character in the already mentioned The Wolf of Wall Street. In addition, Hill isn’t new to the buddy comedy genre – his big break was in Superbad (the teen comedy about two guys), while in the recent years he has returned to the genre with Changing Tatum and 21+22 Jump Street. Now, Hill replaced Tatum with Teller but, thankfully, Hill’s and Teller’s chemistry is as good if not better.

Miles Teller was also great in the role of David Packouz. I’ve told you numerous times that I’m a fan of his and was extremely soud after Fantastic Four turned out the way it did. I hope that Teller will start clicking with the audiences soon, because he is a really talented actor. If you don’t belive me, just watch Whiplash. He was also good in small comedies 21 and Over, Two Night Stand and That Awkward Moment. Going forward, Teller has a boxing movie coming up as well as a drama and an action flick. I don’t know if he will return to the Divergent franchise as the last installment of that series is still up in the air and will probably go to the TV.

An important supporting role was played by Bradley Cooper who also produced the picture. Cooper was fine in the movie but I was actually much more interested to find out that he produces basically all his big films like Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, and American Sniper. Going forward, he has a few voice roles for Marvel/Disney and Universal.

In short, War Dogs was a fine summer picture that had a great release date – if it would have come out earlier in the summer, it would have probably been burried underneath the big blockbusters. The film had okay directing and writing, while the standout feature of the movie were the performances of and the chemistry between the two leads.

Rate: 3,5/5

Trailer: War Dogs trailer

origin_bcb9266cc9db1e5baa1fbae054efc306.jpg

Movie review: Warcraft

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to another movie review. This time, we are discussing Warcraft or Warcraft: The Begining – Hollywood’s latest try to make video game movies a thing.

IMDb summary: The peaceful realm of Azeroth stands on the brink of war as its civilization faces a fearsome race of invaders: orc warriors fleeing their dying home to colonize another. As a portal opens to connect the two worlds, one army faces destruction and the other faces extinction. From opposing sides, two heroes are set on a collision course that will decide the fate of their family, their people, and their home.

As you all probably know, Warcraft: The Movie is based on a series of video games (Warcraft and World of Warcraft). I, personally, knew nothing about the game except that it was set in a fantasy world. So, I was part of the audience, which would either make or break this movie – a non-fan who still chooses this film over the others.

In general, I have always been fairly skeptical about video game inspired films. I have seen the worst (Hitman Agent 47), the bad (Pixels, Prince of Persia), the okay (Need For Speed) and the great (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World – a film that is not even based on a video game but feels like one). I still need to watch The Angry Birds Movie and I am also quite interested in Assassin’s Creed film because I’m a fan of Fassbender and I have read an Assassin’s Creed comic.

Speaking about Warcraft – it is currently my favorite cinematic adaptation of a video game. I don’t know why the critics are so harsh to judge it and are not evaluating it for what it is. I had an amazing time watching the picture, was a bit lost at first, but quickly found my way. I can’t say ‘No’ to a movie that deals with high fantasy concepts (like LORD, GOT). I’m actually even considering trying out the game or at least researching the role a bit.

SPOILER ALERT

Writing

The film was written by Charles Leavitt and the director Duncan Jones. I though that Warcraft’s script was a bit better than Leavitt’s last film’s – In The Heart Of The Sea – script and vastly better than his second to last’s film’s – Seventh Son – screenplay.

The film had a lot of characters and they didn’t receive much development but I think that they all got enough to peak my interest. I also liked the fact that the characters died, thus, the stakes were high. The ending was kinda weird but I understood why they left it so open – they are hoping for a sequel. I also wish that the film succeeds adequately for this story to be allowed to continue on the big screen.

The film also had nice themes and messages. I liked the notion that the traditions are superior to the leaders. I also liked the inclusion of values such as family, honor, sacrifice and tolerance. The importance of survival and creating/finding a home was also a nice advice to spread.

Directing

The movie was directed by Duncan Jones. I really enjoyed his debut film – an independent sci-fi feature Moon. I also liked what he did with Warcraft. I appreciated the plethora of locations and the world-building in general. The action was also exciting – the shots from the ground-up and the over-the-shoulder-reverse shots actually allowed me to feel like I was in a video game. The CGI was also the best that I’ve seen in years – the faces of the Orcs looked alive – with real emotions and real sweat, blood, tears. The end credits were also excellent.

Acting

The movie’s few had quite a few unfamiliar faces (at least to me), but I did enjoy all of their performances. Some were better, some were worse, but on average, everybody did good.

I really liked Viking’s Travis Fimmel in the lead as Lothar. He was charming, witty and a skilled and loyal fighter. MI: Ghost Protocol’s Paula Patton as Garona was also a nice and interesting character and I liked her role during the finale. The Finest Hours’s Ben Foster as Medivh, the Guardian was also good but a bit cartoonish at times. I was also pleased to see one of my favorite actors Dominic Cooper (Need For Speed and Preacher) as King Llane and I did like his noble act at the end. Cooper’s co-star on Preacher Ruth Negga (Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D.) played the Queen Taria and also did a wonderful job – I loved her final speech as well as her interactions with Garona. The last human character, Ben Schnetzer’s Khadgar was a bit annoying at times, but I have a feeling that he will play an even bigger role in the future films.

The CGI/motion capture part of the cast consisted of Toby Kebbell as Durotan, Robert Kazinsky as Orgrim, Daniel Wu as Gul’dan and Anna Galvin as Draka among many others. As I have already mentioned, the effects looked amazing, however, the actors’ performances, underneath the motion capture technology, were also stellar. They not only looked like living beings, they were actually alive on screen. I’m not that familiar with the previous work of these actors, except Kebbell. He was in that awful Fantastic Four film last year, but I think he redeemed himself with Warcraft and will also be in Kong: Skull Island next year. Kazinsky had a small role in Pacific Rim, while Galvin has mostly done TV work. I haven’t seen any film’s with Wu before, but I did like him as the main villain – he did looked menacing and acted appropriately.

All in all, I had a great time with Warcraft. It exceeded my expectations and definitely pleased a non-fan. I had a few fans of the game sitting beside me at the screening and they also seemed really excited and entertained. Hope the sequel happens!

Rate: 4/5

Trailer: Warcraft trailer

warcraft_ver8_xlg

Movie PREVIEW: Captain America: Civil War a.k.a. Civil War comic book review

Movie previews

Hello!

I have done a few preview posts while waiting for the release of the big movies like Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. Now, I would like to discuss my expectations and predictions for the new Marvel movie – Avengers 2.5 also known by its actual name Captain America: Civil War.

In preparation for the film, I have rewatched both of the Captain America’s films and enjoyed them even more than the first time. If you would like to read my review of the previous two films, you can click here – that post is one of my early ones and the reviewing style is completely different from the way I review films now, so don’t be too harsh.

In addition, not only did I rewatch the previous movies in the series, but I have also actually read the graphic novel by Mark Millar and Steve McNiven (the main series of the 7 issues) that this movie is at least partially adapting. Civil War graphic novel is one of the first serious superhero graphic novels that I’ve ever read. As a child, I would read comic books about magic that were aimed at very young audiences. Nowadays, the majority of graphic works that I used pick up would be quite biographical, like Maus and Persepolis. However, Civil War really made me want to get into comics more. I have always felt kinda overwhelmed with the lore of the comic book universes and didn’t really know where to start. But, through Civil War, I discovered that there is a bunch of limited series style graphic novels that are easily accessible to new readers. You don’t have to hunt down different issues, but can enjoy the whole story all at one, in a book format! Because of this, I have recently purchased the Greatest Batman Stories compilation novel and I’m also actively looking for the Watchmen graphic novel in my town’s 2nd hand shops.  So, let’s talk what the film might and will change when transferring the Civil War story from the page to the civil screen. SPOILERS for the comic book and possible SPOILERS for the movie.

  • To begin with, from the trailers and previous MCU films, we know that the incident that will divide the superheroes won’t be an unsuccessful TV show and will have nothing to do with New Warriors. Instead, The Avengers will disagree over the Winter Soldier question, thus, making it a personal matter to Cap. In addition, the aftermath of Sokovia and other accidents, that The Avengers were involved in, like Battle of New York will only deepen and widen the rift .
  • In addition, the film will probably cut a lot of characters that were involved in the original story. For one, Marvel Studios does not have the rights to X-Men and Fantastic Four characters – it is a miracle that they got Spider-Man. Moreover, MCU has a lot of characters already, without adding a bunch of new ones ( that’s why I called the film – Avengers 2.5  – it is more of a team up movie rather than a solo standalone feature). So, if Cap 3 introduced a big group of characters all at once, the majority of them would lack the necessary development and would overcrowd the film. In the comics, it is a different story – all of the characters, that were involved in the Civil War story, have about 50 years of history behind them – they are known to the avid comic book readers, while the movie has to cater the needs of the mainstream audiences, who do not know anything about these characters.
  • Having said that, while the film won’t add a bunch of new characters, we will be introduced to a few of them. Black Panther and the new Spider-Man (with the best suit ever – the CGI eyes are amazing) will make their debut. I do not really think that they will reveal Spider-Man’s identity like they did in a comic book Civil War, since Spidey is so new in the MCU. I feel like they will save this big reveal for a solo Spider-Man film, maybe even the last film of the new trilogy. On the other hand, Black Panther’s comic book storyline probably won’t be changed that much, but the movie might add something more to it.
  • In the comic book, X-Men characters were sorta neutral, so the lack of them in the film won’t be a huge loss. On the other hand, Fantastic Four’s characters played a big role in the events, so I wonder who will replace them in the movie’s version. Doctor Strange was also neutral in the comics and since he technically is still Stephen Strange – the surgeon in the MCU (he will get his powers in his own film), we will probably only get a post-credits scene with him. Other characters, like Thor’s Cyborg Clone will either be cut or substituted. There is only a small chance that any Thor lookalikes will appear in the film, as Chris Hemsworth is not listed on IMDb. Nevertheless, that plotline might be included in the film by replacing Thor’s Clone with Vision. The characters or team like Goliath, Mrs. Sharpe, The Thunderbolts (Marvel’s Suicide Squad), Young Avengers and Namor will probably also be cut. I also don’t think that TV characters, like Daredevil and The Punisher, will appear.
  • I wonder whether the film will keep the idea that Nick Fury is on Captain America’s side, while the rest of S.H.I.E.L.D. is supporting Iron Man. Either way, Civil War film will definitely mark the end of The Avengers as we know them now.
  • I am mostly sure that, in the movie the same way as in the comic book, both teams will have members, who will question their choice and will change sides. We will probably get ‘mole inside the team’ plotline as well.
  • The negative zone prison and the fifty state project will probably be too comic-book-y and too grand ideas for the film, so the actual Prison 42 will most likely be different – more realistic maybe? In general, the film’s Civil War will probably be a much smaller scale event.
  • I am also interested to see whether the film will keep the ending of the comic book. Will Tony become the S.H.I.E.L.D director? Will Cap surrender? What will be Winter Soldier’s role? I also heard the rumors that they might include the death of Captain America storyline at the end of Civil War – really don’t want that to happen. It would also make Civil War very similar to BvS, and I don’t think that’s a good idea. 

So, in conclusion, I have a lot of questions and possible speculations about the film and that’s all part of the fun with these comic book movies. I loved the graphic novel Civil War and can’t wait to read more – now I feel stupid for waiting so long to star reading the comic books.

Civil War film will be directed by the Russo brothers. Since half of their filmography consists of past and future Marvel movies (they will direct Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 and 2), I don’t really have anything more to say about their previous work. I will briefly touch upon actors’ previous work in the actual review of the film, although I will probably be repeating myself a lot since I have said almost everything I wanted to say about them in my past Marvel movie reviews: Avengers Age of Ultron, Ant-Man and Guardian of the Galaxy. If you want to read my either comic book movie posts, both Marvel and DC, you can find them here: Marvel Phase 3, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Deadpool and BvS.

I am planning to see the film on April 29th, in the morning, and I will definitely be rocking my Marvel Comics T-Shirt. Will you be cosplaying for the premiere and what are your predictions for the film? Let’s discuss this in the comments!