5 ideas about a movie: Hellboy

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of a movie that I heard so much bad stuff about that it took me its whole theatre runtime to finally watch it. This is Hellboy on the last day that it’s playing in my local theatre!

IMDb summary: Based on the graphic novels by Mike Mignola, Hellboy, caught between the worlds of the supernatural and human, battles an ancient sorceress bent on revenge.

  1. Hellboy was written by Andrew Cosby and directed by Neil Marshall. Cosby is both a comic book writer and a screenwriter, while Marshall is best know for directing some of the most amazing Game Of Thrones’s episodes. The 2019 movie is not only a comic book adaptation but a reboot of the previous early 00s adaptation – one that I really enjoyed. Sadly, I cannot say the same about this one.
  2. A lot of the faults with the movie are rooted in its script. Fantasy writing is not an easy thing: when done right it makes the viewer believe in the craziest things. When done like it was in Hellboy, it just comes across as illogical and stupid. Additionally, Hellboy also commits the sins that would break any movie: it has too many characters, too much-forced exposition, and too many steps in its plot (it feels episodic and choppy – maybe better as a TV series). It also has a hidden King Arthur movie within cause Hollywood just love making those (in actual King Arthur films and others, like Transformers 6).
  3. Hellboy has a plethora of action which would be quite good if it wasn’t trying so hard to be edgy and brutal. The film goes for cheap gory horror and I guess it delivers on that front. However, the movie is not better because of that achievement. In addition to nasty but still fake looking (some awful CGI is on display in this film) action, Hellboy also makes use of swear words that are just there to justify its R rating rather than to tell us something about the characters that use them. Hellboy also tries to tell the viewer how cool it is by having a rock-y score which is one thing I’ll let slide just because I did like the soundtrack separately from the picture.
  4. Hellboy features some scenes of set up for the future and also has a mid-credits stinger. That scene is just wishful thinking on par of the filmmakers: both wishful thinking in terms of expecting the viewers to be not bored enough to sit through the credits and for anyone to care about the sequel. And that sequel is never happening – the rotten tomatoes score and the box office made sure of that.
  5. Hellboy’s cast is not bad, its just too big. Stranger Things’s David Harbour is good and deals well with acting with so much makeup. Ian McShane is good too but it is him so are we really surprised? I also really enjoyed Daniel Dae Kim’s performance. The rest were so replaceable including Mila Jovovich who is just proving everyone that she will never do anything better than a B actioner (if Residential Evil is even a B level movie rather than D. Oh The Fifth Element times, how far gone they are).

In short, Hellboy is not worthy of attention (didn’t get any either) and forgettable.

Rate: 2/5

Trailer: Hellboy trailer

Advertisements

5 ideas about a movie: Suspiria

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to the review of one of the weirdest films I’ve seen in a while. And I don’t think I’m using the word ‘weird’ as a compliment in this case. This is Suspiria!

IMDb summary: A darkness swirls at the center of a world-renowned dance company, one that will engulf the artistic director, an ambitious young dancer, and a grieving psychotherapist. Some will succumb to the nightmare. Others will finally wake up.

  1. Suspiria was written by David Kajganich and directed by Luca Guadagnino (A Bigger Splash). It was a remake of a 1977 Italian film of the same name. To put this review shortly, Suspiria was an artsy, 3h long horror film with half of the dialogue in German. If that sounds like a hard sell, it is/was.
  2. The movie’s story was quite incomprehensible to me. Thematically, it tried doing something with ideas of motherhood and matriarchy. I feel like it also wanted to showcase female empowerment. Honestly, I don’t know what the movie’s message was. Is it because I’m stupid? Or that the movie was too pretentious?
  3. It also had a weird setting amidst political events that were not explained fully for a viewer to get. The movie should not assign its viewer’s homework but should be a full package! The ideas on Germany’s generational guilt were interesting but not given enough room to be explored.
  4. The movie was directed in quite an interesting way. It was slow and long. The visuals were disgusting and looked quite CGI-y at times. The focus on the diegetic noise made the movie into an uncomfortable sensory experience too (I swear 65% of the ‘score’ was just breathing noises). The dance sequences were visually pleasing and interesting, though.
  5. The movie had a good cast but I wasn’t really able to judge their performances as I was confused by the plot. Tilda Swinton played a couple of roles (don’t know why as one couldn’t really tell it was her playing one of the characters, thus, no ideas on doubling could be seen?). Dakota Johnson was also there: I guess arthouse films are better than Fifty Shades? I also feel like a lot of the cast mumbled through their dialogue which didn’t make an already confusing plot easier to understand. A film also had a lot of German actors and actual dancers in the cast.

In short, Suspiria was a trainwreck of confusion that reminded me a lot of mother! in a variety ways (thematically and visually).

Rate: ?/5 (confusion strikes again)

Trailer: Suspiria trailer

MV5BMjQ2MTIyNjM2MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDE3NDMyNjM@._V1_UX182_CR0,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

Movie review: A Star Is Born

Movie reviews

Hello!

And welcome to a review of a potential Oscar movie. In October. I swear the classical awards season stars earlier and earlier every year and I don’t think I can keep up. Anyways, this is A Star is Born!

IMDb summary: A musician helps a young singer and actress find fame, even as age and alcoholism send his own career into a downward spiral.

Writing

A Star Is Born was written by Eric Roth, Bradley Cooper (who also directed and starred), and Will Fetters. The 2018 film was the 4th iteration of this story and the 3rd reboot of the original 1937 movie. All the films have differed slightly by having either movie or music stars in the lead roles. I really enjoyed the fact that this time around the focus was on singers and songwriters as when I’ve recently got pretty burned out with movies and their reviews, music became my new main hobby. Thus, this film was kinda the perfect combo of my old and new hobby.

While the characters have shifted between different areas of entertainment throughout the reboots, the stories themselves have always been pretty similar. The same 3 plotlines were also used in the latest version: one’s career going up, the other’s career going down, and a simultaneous romantic involvement of the two stars, the up-and-coming one and the one whose career is in decline. I thought that the interplay between the 3 storylines was really good. However, I had some problems with the pacing of the story. The first and the seconds acts felt like they unraveled organically, however, the third one seemed rushed. The breaking points in both character’s career seemed quite sudden. Why did he completely fell off the wagon that suddenly when he had managed to maintain a steady-ish career up until that point? How did she break through that quickly and at that exact point? I guess that showbiz? One can never predict it?

Directing

Bradley Cooper directed A Star Is Born as his directorial debut and impressed me immensely. The pacing, as I have mentioned before, was a bit strange, but the world-building and the visuals were great. I loved how the viewer got to be onstage with the stars and see an unseen side of a concert. The film could have been a tad bit shorter though. The soundtrack was good, ‘The Shallows’ was my favorite song and I could see it being nominated for an Oscar.

Acting

  • In addition to directing and writing (and producing), Bradley Cooper (Joy) also played the lead and was great! I was also so surprised how good he was at singing!
  • Lady Gaga had her first big screen role in this film. She has previously cameoed or had supporting roles and films and has worked on TV (on American Horror Story). I was lucky enough to see her live 6 years ago, in my first ever big concert which was part of the Born This Way Ball tour. She sounded splendid live back then and was equally as amazing (in both the singing and the acting) in this film! I could see an Oscar nomination in her future.
  • A couple of important supporting roles were played by Sam Elliott, Andrew Dice Clay, Anthony Ramos, and Rafi Gavron. A few celebrity cameos could also be spotted but this was no Entourage.

In short, A Star Is Born was a bit long but a neat musical romance with some stellar acting and singing performances!

Rate: 4.2/5

Trailer: A Star Is Born trailer

img_0664

5 ideas about a movie: Midnight Sun

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to a review of another YA movie. This time around, it’s Midnight Sun.

IMDb summary: A 17-year-old girl suffers from a condition that prevents her from being out in the sunlight.

  1. Midnight Sun was written by Eric Kirsten and directed by Scott Speer (whose previous teen dramedy – Status Update – came out only around a month ago). It’s actually a remake of a Japanese film Song to the Sun. Yes, foreign YA movies are joining foreign actioners and thrillers as the second genre that Hollywood loves to reboot. In general, I have noticed that my enjoyment of teen/YA pictures depends as much on their quality as on my personal psychological state when watching them. My state was neutral today, so the movie seemed okay too. I definitely rolled my eyes as many times as I genuinely smiled.
  2. Thematically, this movie was similar to Everything Everything in that both of them had a sick girl in the lead. However, while that movie had a twist that led to a happy ending, Midnight Sun had a ballsier ending closer to that of Me Before You. I swear I watch too many movies cause my reviews are literally just me commenting on movies using other films. Anyways, there were a lot of things to love in the script of this film. The portrayal of teenage life was accurate, while the girl’s awkwardness when talking to her crush – incredibly relatable. It was also awesome to see such an open and loving father-daughter relationship on screen. The ultimate message to live life was either cheesy, inspirational or both.
  3. My two main dislikes in the writing were the fact that the girl’s choice not to tell her boyfriend that she was sick seemed like a cheap trick to build conflict rather than a profound and important decision. Similarly, on the character development front, the movie didn’t practice what it preached. The film’s message was that people shouldn’t be defined by one thing, like a sickness or a sport. However, the movie kinda went against that message because it didn’t give its characters much more than just that one defining feature. The main girl got a dead mom and a passion for music so that’s something, but the guy was just a swimmer. Basically, one more rewrite of the script to flesh out these details might have been beneficial.
  4. Bella Thorne played the lead girl in the film and did a good job. I found her dramatic performance quite believable. She also did a good job with the signing even though I don’t think that her voice is that good. Charlie’s Song was a really a lovely pop track. Rob Riggle was also really great as the father. He had one excellent speech that he nailed.
  5. Patrick Schwarzenegger, the son of Arnold Schwarzenegger played the romantic lead and was also fine. The fact that his character was a swimmer made the movie 10 times more enjoyable for me, as a someone who hasn’t left the pool since she was 7 (that’s 14 years in the water). Though, I did chuckle seeing him swimming in those couple of scenes. Not only wouldn’t he get into Berkeley with that, I don’t think a Division III school would even accept him. But, I guess, that’s just a personal gripe – the same one that, for example, actual doctors have when watching the cinematic versions of medical procedures.

In short, Midnight Sun was a perfectly fine YA drama. I have been watching quite a few of those lately and this one was certainly not the worst.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: Midnight Sun trailer

Midnight_Sun_2017

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

Movie review: Flatliners 

Movie reviews

Hello!

The 90s are back in theatres with the remake of Flatliners. Let’s see how dead this movie about the near-death experiences is. Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the original, so I’m giving this movie as fair of a shot as they get.

IMDb summary: Five medical students, obsessed by what lies beyond the confines of life, embark on a daring experiment: by stopping their hearts for short periods, each triggers a near-death experience – giving them a firsthand account of the afterlife.

Writing

2017’s Flatliners was written by Ben Ripley (a newcomer screenwriter) and he did a very good job for the first half of the film. I really liked the set-up of the med school and how the movie showcased the strains of it. The science (barely?) parts of the actual procedures that the characters undertook were interesting too (the question is, how accurate were they?).

Speaking of the characters – they were not the best. The 5 leads were just stereotypes: the lead, the smart one, the wannabe smart one, the party-boy, and the good girl. Their afterlife visions could be seen as an attempt to develop their characters more deeply, but then again, those sequences only added a single extra feature – a sin from the past – to embellish the pre-existing stereotype. The personal arcs of all the character ended exactly how they always do. The lead was the ‘inciting incident’ (twice), the competitive intellectuals realized they love each other, the good girl went rogue and the party-boy grew up. Also, on a side note, all of them were more or less damaged in some way because of their actions in the past and they all decided to become doctors? Why? To fix others as they are not able to fix themselves? I feel like I’m digging way deeper than the scriptwriter ever did.

Also, on a side note, all of them were more or less damaged in some way because of their actions in the past and they all decided to become doctors? Why? To fix others as they are not able to fix themselves? I feel like I’m digging way deeper than the scriptwriter ever did.

The second part of the film was where Flatliners fell flat. The supernatural/subconscious horror went unexplained and the movie never committed to an answer of who/what was happening to the characters. That whole borderline-magical second part also seemed jarring after the more sci-fi (and quite solid) opening. Additionally, that ‘inner demons’ concept, could be comparable to a similar idea in It (which, BTW, is gonna murder this film at the weekend box office). Lastly, the conclusion that one should forgive oneself and take up responsibility was a nice message but it was also an extremely typical one.

Directing

Niels Arden Oplev, a Danish TV director (he helmed Mr.Robot’s pilot episode), was responsible for the Flatliners remake and did an okay job. The set-up and the first part of the film (the sci-fi) one were well realized and exciting enough but the second half’s jump scares and the unexplained horror cheapened and undermined the overall product. The opening title sequence felt very 90s, which, I guess, was an appropriate choice for a remake of a 90s film (an homage?). The scenes of the students partying/having fun seemed like they belonged to The Hangover remake, though. Basically, the movie was fine and somewhat enjoyable. If it weren’t a remake and were an original property, I’d praise it.

Acting

The main reason why I went to see 2017’s Flatliners was its cast. I was really interested to see whether Diego Luna’s English-speaking career will go anywhere after Rogue One and I guess it is, even if it’s not soaring high as I wanted it to. He has a Woody Allen project lined up as well as that Scarface remake (bummer, that it is another remake).

Another actor who drew me into the cinema was Nina Dobrev. I watched her on The Vampire Diaries for years as a teenager and was a bit disappointed when she decided to leave the show to start a movie career, which did not get off the ground quickly or even at all. This was probably her best big-screen work to date, as her appearance on the third XXX movie was atrocious. Weirdly, her med-student character here reminded me a lot of her TVD’s Elena character, who wanted to be a doctor at one point of the show. Also, another side note, her character in this movie was supposed to be a swimmer (at least I got that impression) and, as somebody who practices this sport IRL, I could not take her seriously because of that super-sexy and not at all training appropriate swimming suit and that cap, that elderly women wear to the water aerobics.

Other cast members of the film were: Ellen Page (X-Men) – the biggest name-talent attached to this film, who also had the best performance; British TV actor James Norton, and Kiersey Clemons (DCEU’S Iris West). Kiefer Sutherland had a few scenes (he played the lead in the original), while Awkward’s Beau Mirchoff also cameoed as basically his character from that MTV show.

In short, Flatliners was fun but unexceptional film, that started out quite promising but fell apart in the end.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: Flatliners trailer

flatliners-poster

Movie review: The Magnificent Seven

Movie reviews

Hello!

After reviewing a contemporary Western last week (Hell or High Water), today, I turn my attention to the one set in the past – 19th century’s Wild West, to be specific. Let’s discuss The Magnificent Seven.

IMDb summary: Seven gunmen in the old west gradually come together to help a poor  village against savage thieves.

Antoine Fuqua’s The Magnificent Seven, in terms of both the name and the plot, reminds me of a different recent Western from another accomplished director – of course, I’m talking about Tarantino’s The Hateful EightSadly, that awful Adam Sandler movie The Ridiculous Six also sneaks into my mind. What is up with these names, Hollywood?

2016’s The Magnificient Seven is a remake of the 1960s movie with the same (which, in turn, was a remake of a 1954 Japanese picture Seven Samurai – haven’t seen either of them but plan on watching both). Weirdly, it is not getting almost any hate in comparison to the recent Ben-Hur movie, which was also a remake of the 60s classic. Maybe who is involved in front and behind the camera has something to do with it – Seven has a lot more big name talent attached to it than Ben-Hur.

SPOILER WARNING

Writing: story and character development

The Magnificent Seven’s screenplay was written by an interesting duo: Nic Pizzolatto – the creator of True Detective – and Richard Wenk – writer of such mediocre-ish films like The Expendables 2 and The Mechanic and some better flicks, like his previous collaboration with FuquaThe Equalizer (he is writing that film’s sequel as well). Wenk has also penned Jack Reacher: Never Go Back script – that picture is coming out next month.

I quite enjoyed the story they created for this movie. The narrative was a bit by-the-numbers and predictable – Westerns all tend to have a similar plot – but it was executed quite well. The set-up was clear and efficient and the unfolding resolution worked as well. The movie was a bit uneven in that it had some filler material in between the action pieces. Some of that material was interesting, other – less so, but it was worth to sit through because the action sequences were amazing. I also liked the fact that the story had real consequences and not everyone lived happily ever after when it was all said and done.

The character development was also sufficient. I feared that due to a big number of characters, The Magnificent Seven would suffer from the same thing that undercut Suicide Squad’s success, however, I felt that Pizzolatto and Wenk provided all the characters with a lot more moments of personal development than Ayer did for DC anti-heroes. Some characters could have been developed more – there is always room for improvement – but I felt that the things we did get worked better than I expected them too. In general, all the main heroes of the film were not good people but the screenwriters did make them likable and did made believe that these 7 people could bond in a fairly short amount of time.

Denzel Washington’s and Chris Pratt’s characters received the most scenes. Denzel’s character was nicely set-up as the leader and his personal agenda was quite a neat surprise at the end. Pratt’s character’s role as the prankster of the group was cool – his jokes and comic relief helped to ease the tension. The two characters that were the most compelling to me were played by Ethan Hawke and Byung-hun Lee – I liked their comradeship and backstory and I also felt that they had the best dialogues. Hawke’s character’s paranoia and war guilt was really fascinating part of the film, although, his actions at the end (leaving and coming back) were quite predictable, but I guess this type of character arc (fighting one’s inner guilt) has to end in that particular way.  Vincent D’Onofrio’sManuel Garcia-Rulfo’s and Martin Sensmeier’s characters were a bit one-dimensional (the weird outcast, the Mexican, and the Native American) but they did serve their purpose and nicely rounded up the group.

The writing for the main villain of the film was good too – I liked the fact that he was a corrupt businessman, who took the ideas of capitalism a bit too close to heart. The main (and only, really) female character also had a nice story of revenge/righteousness and I especially liked the detail that she was an active member of the fight, not just a damsel in distress.

Directing: visuals and action

Antoine Fuqua is an accomplished director in Hollywood, though he hasn’t made than many films. The Magnificent Seven is his 11th feature film (though other prominent Hollywood directors have made even less – Tarantino have only released 8, while Nolan – 9 pictures, so I guess quality and talent are way more important than quantity when it comes to directing). My favorite Fuqua’s films are King Arthur and Southpaw, while The Magnificent Seven is taking the 3rd spot. I really liked all the action – both the shoot-outs on the ground and on the horses (really want to ride a horse after watching the picture). I admire all the beautiful locations, the wild nature, and the empty valleys. The camera work (cinematography by Mauro Fiore) was excellent too: the close-ups really helped with the suspense, while the long tracking shots of people riding through frames (in color or in the shadow) were neatly used for transition. In addition, I enjoyed how the final stand-off of the film happened in the same place where everything had started – the church and its yard. The religious symbolism was also fitting, especially for the setting of 19th century US. Lastly, the instrumental score (music by James Horner and Simon Franglen) was excellent, while the credits rounded up the film beautifully.

Acting

  • Denzel Washington as Sam Chisolm was quite good. This wasn’t his best performance, but he worked well in the role. I liked how his character was introduced – we saw his guns before we saw his face. After working with Fuqua on 3 films already, Washington will re-team with the director for The Equalizer’s sequel – filming is supposed to start next year.
  • Chris Pratt as Josh Farraday was also great – he was really charismatic and pulled off the jokes and the teases nicely. This was his follow-up to the uber successful Jurassic World and he did not disappoint me. I cannot wait for his upcoming films as well – Passengers just debuted its trailer and will be released during Christmas, while Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 will roll into theaters next summer.
  • Ethan Hawke as Goodnight Robicheaux was amazing too. I liked seeing Hawke, together with Denzel, in a Fuqua movie – reminded me of the Training Day days. Goodnight was kinda the voice of reason/rationality in the group – and Hawke just really knows how to nail this type of role. I’ve seen a lot of his films but my favorite still remains the Before trilogy. He will star in Luc Besson’s Valerian next year.
  • Vincent D’Onofrio as Jack Horne was interesting and weird. The harsh outside look of his character really came into contrast with his inner softness and that squeaky-ish voice. I needed some time to get used to the voice, actually. I enjoyed seeing D’Onofrio in big Hollywood picture and I also think that he deserves to get a lot more prominent roles in mainstream films because he is a very good actor – if you need proof, watch Daredevil.
  • Byung-hun Lee as Billy Rocks and Manuel Garcia-Rulfo as Vasquez were also great. I liked how one was very calm and collected and the other kinda a hot-head. I am not really familiar with their previous work but would love to see more of them. 
  • Martin Sensmeier as Red Harvest was my favorite supporting character/actor. I loved his look and the fact that he had a traditional bow in a gunfight. I would really like to see some more films about/involving Native Americans, any suggestions?
  • Peter Sarsgaard played Bartholomew Bogue – the villain of the film. I liked how both menacing and cowardly he was. The actor also did a very good job of showing his character’s fear with his eyes. Recently, Sarsgaard had roles in films like Blue Jasmine, Pawn Sacrifice, and Black Mass. He will also be in the awards’ contender Jackie later this year.
  • Haley Bennett as Emma Cullen was also really good. I have only seen her in Hardcore Henry, where she didn’t have much to do, so I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in this film. She pulled off her action scenes and the emotional sequences really well and will also star in The Girl on The Train in a few weeks.
  • Matt Bomer (Magic Mike, The Nice Guys) and Luke Grimes (American Sniper, Fifty Shades) also had small roles and did a fine job. In was nice to see Bomer in another flick – don’t know why he doesn’t get more role as he is really good at what he does. Grimes has two Fifty Shades movies coming up but I don’t think that hs character will get much to do in them.

In short, The Magnificent Seven was a well-made and nicely-acted typical Western. It was entertaining and intense and had an amazing and diverse cast. However, the narrative did lack originality.

Rate: 3.75/5

Trailer: The Magnificent Seven trailer

The-Magnificent-Seven-International-Poster.jpg

Movie review: Ghostbusters

Movie reviews

Hello!

Sometimes, there comes a movie that ignites and divides the Internet and the latest film to do so is the new Ghostbusters all-female remake. The last 3 words of the previous sentence tell you everything you need to know about the big fight. Some individuals are angry because it is a female Ghostbusters picture, other are enraged because it is simply a remake of a classical film. The third party consists of trolls, who like to see the world burn.

My personal stance on this film is/was kinda neutral, calm and open. I liked the idea of a female group in a lead since I’m a female cinephilé. The fact that it is a remake and not an original female sci-fi comedy is not great, but it doesn’t infuriate me to the point that I would attack somebody online. I did not grow up with the original films of the 80s or the cartoons of the 80s and 90s – I have seen them and enjoyed the viewing experience but never thought about them as something really special – so maybe my lack of personal emotional ties to the property allowed me to be more distant and level-headed. The critics gave the new film an okay score and, so far, all of the reviews I watched or read deemed the movie fine or okay. So, let’s see what I thought.

IMDb summary: Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.

Writing

Ghostbusters’s script was written by Katie Dippold and the director Paul Feig. This duo has previously worked on the comedy The Heat, which I loved. Ghostbusters’s story, on the other hand, was only okay. I liked the moments when the characters were going crazy about science and were just unleashing their inner nerds – if this makes more girls try out S.T.E.M. studies, I will count the film as, at least, partially successful. I also liked the inclusion of the online commentators in the movie – that moment felt really meta, knowing the backlash that the feature’s trailer sparked online. I also liked all the movie references: Patrick Swayze shout-out was fun, the Jaws’s reference involving the mayor was spot on and the Clark Kent joke was quite nice, although they could have made some kind of Thor joke, given that that’s the role that Chris Hemsworth actually plays. I also liked the inside references – I liked that they included both Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow Man into the picture. I also liked the underlying message of the film that all people seek approval, one way or the other.

On the other hand, some narrative ideas and concepts infuriated me. For one, all of the jokes at the expense of male characters were pushed too far and the whole writing for male characters was just terrible. I know that male dominated films have used female characters as sexualised objects or eye candy, but I don’t want female-driven films repeating the same mistakes. In a world, where universal acclaim is the goal, any kind of vengeful ideas or supposed payback both have no place. The second thing that angered me was the fact that Ghostbusters were too afraid to go all the way – yes, they broke the gender norms and I applaud them for that, but they left all the racial stereotypes for no goddam reason. Moreover, some of the plotlines and plot-twist were way too cliche: what was that Ghostjumpers’s reference? Was that supposed to be a nod to the original Ghostbusters? The whole mayor sideline, while it allowed for some good jokes, did not need to be in the film AGAIN. Lastly, why the big villain of the story could take any shape again? That has been done already (although, I liked that the villain took the shape of their logo). In addition, why did the thing that will destroy the city had to be a huge cloud/vortex/beam? Aren’t there any other ways to destroy the world on screen?

Directing

Paul Feig, who has previously directed Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy – all movies that I actually enjoyed despite not being the biggest fan of comedies – did an okay job with the direction of the Ghostbusters. The CGI looked much better that it did in the 80s, as it should have. The pace of the film was also fine and there were some nice action moments dispersed throughout the runtime of the picture. The scenes during the end credits were also neat and it was also great to hear the original Ghostbusters theme by Ray Parker Jr in a theater once again. In general, the film was kinda cliche but still kinda fun. The main problem I had with the directing of the film was that the Ghostbusters remake didn’t know what it wanted to be. At times, it strived for the action-sci-fi-comedy genre, but it also had numerous moments that belonged to a cartoon parody of a film.

Acting

Melissa McCarthy starred as Dr. Abby Yates, while Kristen Wiig played Dr. Erin Gilbert. They seem to be playing the characters that they always portray – the crazy one and the serious one. Although, to be truthful, McCarthy probably played the least crazy character of her career and I actually really liked her character and the performance. Generally, I do like McCarthy’s characters when she is working with Feig, I just wish she stopped working with her husband Ben Falcone because Tammy and The Boss weren’t great. Wiig’s performance was fine as well, but nothing too special. I like her much more in dramatic rather than comedic roles – she was really good in The Martian.

Kate McKinnon portrayed Dr. Jillian Holtzmann and I had mixed feelings about her character and the portrayal. I liked her look the most out of the 4 leads and she did seem the most interesting and unique. However, at times, her character acted just too weirdly, so that the whole performance turned into a parody and the character into a caricature. McKinnon is mostly known for her sketch comedy work and some of her scenes did feel like over-acted SNL skits. I wish her performance would have been elevated to the big screen level, but I’m still excited to give her another chance, starting with the upcoming Christmas comedy – Office Christmas Party.

While the main pair of the film was supposed to be Wiig’s and McCarthy’s characters, I actually like the chemistry between McCarthy’s and McKinnon’s characters much more and would have loved to see even more of them together.

Leslie Jones portrayed Patty Tolan and was also one of my favorites. Her character was a bit stereotypical but that’s the problem with the writing, not acting, so I’m absolutely disgusted by the hate she received on Twiter. I really liked how Jones delivered her one-liners and snarky reaction remarks and I also appreciated the fact that, through her character, the audiences could at least try to understand the science mumbo-jumbo. Moving forward, Jones will voice a character in SING.

Chris Hemsworth as Kevin Beckman. I hated the writing for Hemsworth’s character and I have no idea why he even chose to play this role, since he has some better things coming up. He still has a few Marvel movies to do, he will be in Star Trek 4 and he just had another mildly but still successful live-action fairytale – The Huntsman. The only saving grace for his character were those few scenes in the end, when he became the main antagonists but even that development didn’t go anywhere interesting.

The cameos: some of the cameos were nice, I especially liked Sigourney Weaver’s and Ernie Hudson’s appearances. Bill Murray’s cameo was a hit and miss for me, it didn’t even seem like he wanted to be there.

All in all, Ghostbusters remake was a mixed bag of a film. It had some nice moments as well as some terrible ones. I don’t think that it deserved so much hate that it received, but I also cannot say that I understand why it had to be made.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: Ghostbusters trailer

ghostbusters_ver6_xlg-1

Movie review: Terminator Genisys

Movie reviews

Hello my dear readers!

Let’s continue the summer of sequels and review Terminator Genisys.

I am a kid of the 90s (I was born in late 90s), so I grew up watching Jurassic Park, Terminator and Mission Impossible on TV in the early 2000s. During this summer, we are getting sequels to all 3 of my childhood franchises. Jurassic World was normal (financially successful, a flop with the fans (review)). Sadly, Terminator Genisys is a double flop. So maybe Mission Impossible Rogue Nation will succeed in every aspect? We will find out in August. Anyway, let’s stay on topic and review the film which should be terminated.

Also, if you still plan to watch this film, don’t watch the trailer. The biggest twist and practically all cool action scenes are spoiled in the trailer.

IMDb summary: John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time to protect Sarah Connor, but when he arrives in 1984, nothing is as he expected it to be.

Timeline

The timeline of Terminator films was complicated without this 5th installment but Genisys decided to mess it up completely. Don’t think about this movie in terms of other films – it’s impossible to put it in a timeline, so that it would make sense. You can watch the original James Cameron’s films in order to understand the Easter Eggs but the T1 and T2 won’t help you to understand the plot of T5 at all. However, if you think about this film as stand alone one (a reboot, a new beginning and so forth), it doesn’t makes sense as well. It relies too heavily on the originals but tries too hard change everything and misses the mark. The multiverse and time travelling are tricky things to do and, while I applaud the creators’ efforts, the results are bad. I hope The Flash season 2 will deal better with multiverse.

Reboot

Some people say that this is the 5th film of the franchise, some think it’s a reboot. For me, it’s somewhere in-between. The movie’s plot is definitely different – they tried to do a mash-up of T1’s and T2’s plots with some unnecessary twists added. Basically, they wanted this film to be a new generation’s version of Judgement Day. I have no idea why they wished to remake a perfect movie, by making it worse.

In addition, if you treat this as a reboot, why do you cast the same actors? The Connors have always changed in between movies, so it’s okay to recast them for a reboot, but why keep Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character? I know he is iconic but if you want a fresh start, you have to leave everything behind, even your icons.

Acting/Character by character

Since I am a teenager/young adult, I should like younger actors more, but this time the old Arnold was the best one.

Arnold Schwarzenegger as Guardian/The Terminator – was the best character. His action scenes were the coolest – after all these years he still looks like a bad ass. His comedic timing was also great – the joke about smile worked for me.

Jason Clarke as John Connor was okay. Nothing too good but definitely not bad either. If his reveal wasn’t spoiled in the trailer, the movie would have been more enoyable and interesting for sure.  

Emilia Clarke as Sarah Connor. I am a fan of Clarke, I love her on Game Of Thrones but she is no Linda Hamilton. However, I warmed up to her by the end of the film, she won me over but it took some time.

P.S. The Clarkes were playing The Connors – I’ve only noticed that now.

Jai Courtney as Kyle Reese. Courtney has been getting a lot of work recently, but I still haven’t seen him in a role which he would truly make it his own. He was functional in Divergent and Insurgent (review), he didn’t stick to me in Unbroken (review), but I hope he will be awesome in Suicide Squad! (Have you seen the trailer?)

Courtney and Clarke really lacked chemistry at first, but they got there by the end of the film. Their pair and Arnold’s character made for an awesomely awkward trio.

Lee Byung-hun as a T-1000 brought some diversity to the film but I still prefer Robert Patrick in the role. I also was surprised how quickly they defeated him, when it took them the whole T2 to do the same.

J. K. Simmons as Detective O’Brien wasn’t a character but a plot device. But J.K. Simmons, being the master of acting he is, was great in the role. His comedy was nice too.

Matt Smith had a small role, which I don’t wan to spoil. I have only seen a few episodes of the Doctor Who, but after seeing what Matt Smith can do with 5 lines, I’m maybe more interested to try my hand at Doctor Who one more time.Regarding this film, I’ll only say this – if Smith’s role was bigger, the film might have been much better. 

Effects

The CGI looked terrible in some places (young Arnold *facepalm*), but really good in others (John Connor’s robotic body). T-1000 looked cool too, but he looked the same 24 years ago, so that isn’t a big compliment. Action scenes were okay too, they actually were the best part of the film because they did not require any explanation. And when this movie tried to explain something, it starter to sink like a Titanic. Or even faster than a Titanic.

Screenplay

The screenplay was the worst part of the film. The plot made absolutely no sense. I tried to follow it so hard in the first 30 minutes but then just gave up. My dad was napping the whole movie, because he wasn’t able to follow the plot too and then simply did not know what was happening and was snoozing because of boredom. I don’t know if a screenplay by a Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier was really that bad already or did a studio altered it way too much. Kalogridis was an executive producer on Avatar and Lussier wrote a few horror movies, but both of them aren’t really established writers, so maybe that was the problem.

However, I will give them credit for introducing the theme of humanity’s dependence on technology. Genisys app looked like an interesting device but we only had tiny bits of information about it. If the film focused more on the actual technology and less time on time travel and family dynamics, it might have been a really great motion picture.

Directing 

The film is directed by Alan Taylor – he has only directed 5 movies, including Thor 2, which I liked but a lot of people had mixed reactions to it. However, Taylor directed a lot of TV shows, like Sex and the City, The Sopranos, Rome, Mad Men and Game of Thrones. To my mind, after this flop, he won’t be making any movies moving forward, but I hope that he will be able to get some work on TV.

All in all, I loved Arnold as the Terminator once more, the action and acting was tolerable, the plot lacked focus but wrapped itself up nicely, although, it made no sense to begin with.  I advise you not to waste your time on this film or if you do decide to see it – have very low expectations. Mine were too high. I believe that this film will be a huge box office flop and although 6th and 7th installments are slated for 2017 and 2018, I won’t believe that they will be happening, at least not with this creative team. Maybe if James Cameron had the rights back, we would actually get a good Terminator film in the 21st century.

Rate: 3.25/5 

Trailer: (spoiler-y) Terminator Genisys trailer

terminator_genisys_poster3