Showing posts with label Jason Momoa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jason Momoa. Show all posts

Sunday, 21 May 2023

Review: Fast X


Fast X
Cert: 12A / 131 mins / Dir. Louis Leterrier / Trailer

As it hammers the pedal on on the cultural zeitgeist, all those actively engaged on either side of the ongoing WGA strike actions will be further polarised by the revelation that ChatGPT seems to have successfully completed its first full film script. Which is to say, this is technically a script because it's the words the actors are reading aloud, but the content carries an air of indefinable artificiality that cannot be truly recreated by organic beings. Whatever, this jumble of remixed clichés from previous movies is certainly in keeping with the chosen method for its delivery, and it's going to make money from an audience who haven't bought tickets for the wordcraft. Fair.

So, Fast X roars into cinemas at the starting line of Blockbuster Season™ and its sprawling, globe-spanning storyline cannot be coherently summarised in this traditional second paragraph; indeed director Louis Leterrier is unable to do that in two full hours. The main thrust is that Vin Diesel's Dominic Toretto (once again using the word "family" as punctuation to the point where you'd think he's the third Mitchell-brother) has fallen out with Jason Momoa's Dante (having the time of his life as a panto-villain effortlessly combining the Joker and Frank-N-Furter). Luckily, they're both psychologically grounded enough to know that the only way to settle this spat is through driving cars and destroying civil engineering infrastructure.


PUNCH


Yes there's races, there's chases and there's punch-in-the-faces. The three credited writers vie to maintain control in a built-up screenplay while the fuel budget and carbon-footprint goes through the roof, dropping leaden hints that the next movie will be the final one (it won't) and struggling to find dialogue that's not just expositing the indescribable. Cinema staff could have paused this at any point and asked who in the audience knew what exactly was going on, and not a single hand would have been raised. Fast X features enough separately filmed sub-plots to ensure that there are huge swathes of this cast who haven't needed to be in the same room this decade.

These strands are of course necessary as a means of showcasing the ever growing cast of A-Listers willing to pout fleetingly for status in a children's film*1 reworking of Last Of The Summer Wine. Their characters' storylines may have ended in previous installments, but that won't stop them clocking back in for an appearance-fee the next time, a sort of Marvel Cinematic Universe with limited imagination (do bear in mind that Sung Kang's character died in the third entry and was ret-conned back to life in the sixth; it's also worth noting that Paul Walker actually died almost a decade ago and he's still showing up). The fact that the same faces return each time to deliver variations on the same plot with no variation on the formula suggests that the American studio system has finally cracked the essence of the Carry On series...


RICHARD


All of this sounds admittedly harsh for a film that nobody forced me to watch, but I'm old enough to remember Fast & Furious being genuinely good. To its credit, the cinematography, editing, stunt performing and choreography here are everything they need to be and more, and the cast are trying their best (albeit with varying levels of success) with the material they're given. You know that for an audience who loves going to the cinema but hates cinema, this will be ideal.


Fast X is loud, brassy, and seemingly happy to be filled with trite aphorisms while meaning absolutely nothing. It's hard to think of a more apt metaphor for the movie business in the 2020s...



And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Listen, Fast X is a 12A. The BBFC have reviewed this death-defying action thriller and decided that its levels of threat and intensity are suitable for children to watch. And if online wags can persist in sneering that the Marvel and Star Wars series are 'kids movies' then I'm more than qualified to point out the same of what is essentially Hot Wheels: The Movie, written by a trio of eight year olds who haven't studied physics at school yet. [ BACK ]

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Saturday, 29 December 2018

Review: Aquaman





Aquaman (2D / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 143 mins / Dir. James Wan / Trailer



As a reviewer (and as you can see dear reader, the cutting-down of these extravagantly lengthy articles is proving only partially successful), a clean-slate is pretty much the ideal scenario for any movie. Read no reviews or opinions beforehand, and let hopefully the flick speak for itself. Mission accomplished, I went into Aquaman with no expectations. Although I confess I went in with no particular excitement, either...

ARTHUR


Jason Momoa is Arthur/Aquaman (hereafter referred to as Arthurman), a sort of amphibian hybrid superhero whose father is a creepy CGI lighthouse keeper*1 in Maine, and whose mother is Queen Atlanna (hereafter referred to as Aquamum) of Atlantis, sort of like Daryl Hannah in Splash only with legs. When she's in the water as well, I mean. Anyway. Arthurman is doing fine rescuing various submarines from pirates until merlady Mera (Amber Heard) rocks up one day to tell him that his half brother King Orm (Patrick Wilson) is threatening to kick off and lead the seven armies of the sea to take over the land, in conjunction with King Nereus (Dolph Lundgren) and aquatic admin assistant Vulko (Willem Dafoe). Meanwhile, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II plays a 'dry-land' pirate with archetypal daddy-issues and so wants to kill Arthurman, and sporadically returns throughout the film in an attempt to do so.

And I suppose that once you accept that the characters can talk and be heard underwater, it makes absolute sense that there'd be daylight at the Earth's core, as well.

But the film's alright. By no means great, but Aquaman is far from the most troubled entry in DC's cinematic canon. But that said, it's also pretty far from the most interesting one, too. Momoa continues to be a natural fit for the role in a film which is pretty much built around his presence. Although while the action sequences are pretty much a given, the trademark deadpan humour Jason displayed in Justice League falters, as the script just isn't there to support his natural comic timing*2.

HARVEY


As Arthurman's dialogue is relatively minimal, the burden of the script is foisted onto everybody else. This could be Amber Heard's toughest gig to date, as she struggles admirably to deliver her lines without bursting into laughter. There are vast swathes of the film devoted to her and Willem Dafoe standing around explaining backstory which doesn't matter. Considering the amount of alternate bickering and flirting they have to do, Heard and Momoa have precisely no chemistry together, to the point where I suspect they might have green-screened all of their shared scenes on separate days.

The movie features a series of progressive flashbacks to Arthurman's youth, where he's played by a succession of actors who look nothing alike. And I can't believe The Punisher and the Green Goblin have jumped ship to DC (actually with those two, I can).

Aquaman is over-scripted, over-acted, over-directed and way over-long. Here more than ever, DC's live-action output is clunky and old-fashioned, ingrained with a campiness that borders on Gods Of Egypt levels. When pirate-dude comes back as Black Manta, he's pretty much the only one in the movie not wearing a partially CGI costume costume, and as a result looks like something out of Power Rangers*3.

And I didn't think it would be possible to find a more miscast villain than David Thewlis pompously snarling through his ill-fitting armour in a part he's clearly not right for. Then Patrick Wilson was all 'mate hold my Kryptonite'. King Orm is flat-out ridiculous, even for a movie like this*4.

SUSIE


The plot as detailed above is a bare-bones affair, and the production is forced to rely on spectacle as a result. In the end, Aquaman borrows so heavily from Thor and Black Panther that it's had to take out a loan from The Phantom Menace just to keep up the repayments*5.

Rupert Gregson-Williams' score is nicely rousing for the most part, but its claustrophobic submarine fight-scene features more-than-a-touch-of Henry Jackman's 'Lemurian Star' cue from the Winter Soldier soundtrack. Y'know, the bit where there's a claustrophobic fight-scene on a maritime vessel…

FIXO


It wouldn't be a DC movie without a murky CGI 30-minute explosion to round things out. And if Pirates Of The Caribbean and The Meg have taught us nothing else, it's that these look so much better when they're happening underwater. Yay.

Of course it's easy to be cynical about all this, but it's also nigh-on impossible to find some sort of depth or subtext in the screenplay. It's just a very linear franchise-filler, and that's okay. But every time the script threw in some heavy-handed line about pollution and the environment, I couldn't help but think of the number of non-recyclable drinks cups in the auditorium around me. Can that really be the message?

But if you're after an uncomplicated, undemanding*6 superhero flick over the holidays that's sincere in its silliness, you could do far worse. Aquaman is basically fine*7.

DC's best film of modern times is still Teen Titans Go! To The Movies.



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
Well, the other DC flicks, frankly.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
If you like the look of the trailer, sure.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Most of the cinematic spectacle will be reduced accordingly in your living room, so choose wisely.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
With the best will in the world, it's not.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
It's likely, but not certain.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Not that I heard.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: Jango Fett is in this.

Maybe that's what he looked like after Geonosian scientists grafted his head back on after Geonosis…


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Seriously, the CGI de-aged Temuera Morrison used for the first sequence is just embarrassing, even worse than Rogue One Princess Leia. He looks like an pre-vis animatic rendering of a burns-victim. [ BACK ]

*2 The most pertinent example being that bit from the trailer where Arthurman punches in the top of a submarine and lands in the corridor. Two armed henchmen look at each other nervously while Arthurman looks coyly over his shoulder and quips "Permission to come aboard?". He is already aboard. That is the joke. That is the level of wit reached in the first ten minutes of the film and maintained throughout. [ BACK ]

*3 "Call me..." *postures* "...Black Manta!" he said as I sniggered slightly too loudly in the cinema. [ BACK ]

*4 "Call me..." *grimaces* "...Ocean Master!" he said as I actually guffawed in the cinema. [ BACK ]

*5 Yeah, that's about the ninth time I've used that joke on this blog, and I'm not even sick of it yet. I'd apologise here, but I'm just not sorry. Hey, if DC can recycle threadbare ideas then I sure as hell can, too. They're the ones profiteering from their laziness, I do this shit for free. [ BACK ]

*6 Genuine conversation overheard after the film:
-Have you just been to see Aquaman?
~Yeah, loved it mate, best one yet. So much better than Justice League.
-Yeah man, that was fucking shit.
~Yeah, right!

…and I thought 'but why are you here watching this then, if its predecessors offended you so?'. Then I remembered that I was due to see the new Transformers flick three days later, even though I tore the last one a new arsehole. Although I'll be honest, these didn't seem like two reviewers spitballing ideas for an imminent deconstruction. But you never know. [ BACK ]

*7 Seriously though, Arthurman has got long hair and a beard. How is this efficient for someone who spends half their time underwater and the other half trying to dry out (and presumably stinking in the process)? [ BACK ]

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Saturday, 18 November 2017

Review: Justice League





Justice League (2D)
Cert: 12A / 120 mins / Dir. Zack Snyder / Trailer



Well, this is definitely a film. (Warner Bros, you can have that one for the back of the DVD cover if you like). DC's cinematic interpreters bring their equivalent of Phase One to a head with the long awaited Justice League, featuring Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck's Batman saving the world from a horny god with three evil boxes*1 by recruiting The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and concocting a plan to exhume and resurrect Superman (Henry Cavill) to lend a hand. There will be scenes.

First things first, Justice League is disposable, undemanding fun. Mostly. Gadot and Miller are by far the standout stars, the former arguably bringing the film's only real sincerity to her role, the latter some much needed humour. Cavill is on slightly shakier ground, although that's largely down to how the Man of Steel is treated in the film, and Batfleck still doesn't get his moment in the spotlight, sadly*2.

Things get off to a staggered start as the team are introduced one by one, as well as the threat they'll be facing, and it's there we begin running into problems (see footnote 1). With the best will in the world, the whole thing reeks of its re-writes, asking more questions than it attempts to answer*3. The customary act-three carnage begins in act-two, followed by a dip that's far longer than the breath-catching pause needed. The resulting finale is a brightly-coloured CGI panic-attack, with the team becoming little more than NPCs in a game you're watching someone else play. I didn't not-enjoy the film, but I have to admit to not actually caring about a single character, situation or plot point therein. And that's not a good sign.

Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon try to show DC's world in chaos, and succeed better than I think they meant to. Much like Superman's upper lip, Justice League is an imperfect oddity that's making the best of a troubled production, but never quite convinces…



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Dawn of Justice.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
If you're going to watch a superhero movie, that massive screen will be the best place, yes.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Kinda.
Although DC's moving of the narrative goalposts has done the pacing no favours at all
.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Nope.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Nope.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Not that I heard.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: Jav Mefran's in this.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…
^^ I found this amiable enough to be a 5/7 movie, but I'm taking a point off for Superman's CGI'd upper-lip. A ridiculous situation with an inexcusable outcome*4.


*1 Probably best if you don't ask. Much like David Thewlis' Ares from Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf is a CGI'd one-dimensional baddie with only half-dimension of actual character (think of a crossover of Malekith and Apocalypse), chasing a trio of macguffins whose only purpose is apparently to evoke memories of Marvel's Infinity Stones and Tolkiens's Rings. Without going into any detail, let's just say that his eventual defeat is brought about by a crisis in the writers-room when they realise that they aren't allowed the cojones to have any of their Heroes™ actually deal a killing blow to a sentient being (man, beast, god, or otherwise). It's an insult to not only the audience, but also DC's flagship characters. Well done, guys. [ BACK ]

*2 Although he's off again in Justice League. If you remember, Bruce Wayne's raison d'etre for killing Supes in Dawn of Justice was that, and I quote, "if we believe there's a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty". Which is clearly mathematical (not to mention moral) horseshit. This time round he's learned his lesson of course, and during the discussion of digging up the body of Kal El with a view to bringing him back to life (don't ask), proffers: "If there's even a fraction of a chance it could work-". It's just as well Bruce inherited his fortune off his old man, because he sure as shit wouldn't win anything in a casino with that grasp of probability…
[ BACK ]

*3 To wit, and in no particular order of importance:
Q. Bruce Wayne and Alfred have quite a nice conversation near the start of the film about being left behind by a changing world. Was this going to be a running subtext at one point in the screenplay's development? Because it doesn't rear its head again.
Q. If Wonder Woman can move faster than bullets (shown in this film) and Superman can move faster than bullets (pretty much known anyway, I think), what exactly is The Flash bringing to this party other than sarcasm and millennial-angst?
Q. Why has Aquaman - the superhero who lives in the sea - got that straggly hair and beard? The barnet's not practical for swimming with, and he's getting out of the sea/river and just air-drying. He's going to smell like a wet dog most of the time.
Q. What the hell is Cyborg's dad playing at? Given that he's Miles Dyson out of Terminator 2, you'd think he'd know better than to arse around with robotics, 'trying to help'.
Q. Given that even the trailer throws in that gag about Diana Prince doing "nothing interesting" at the weekend, and the fact that the Bat-Signal can only realistically be used at night, why didn't Steppenwolf attack at 10:30 on a Monday morning? Or better still, during prison visiting-hours? The Justice League wouldn't be about, it'd be a piece of piss…
Q. Does… does Amber Heard think she's doing A British Accent™? Oh, mate… [ BACK ]

*4 Much like Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One, it looks absolutely fine until the shot requires actual movement. Then it's like watching that devil-kid off the AA adverts all over again… [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Review: Bullet to the Head

World of Blackout Catch-up Review

Bullet To The Head Poster

Bullet To The Head
Cert: 18 / 91 mins / Dir. Walter Hill



I didn't think there'd be a time when Schwarzenegger and Stallone had separate movies released within a week of each other, and my local mutliplex showed neither of them. Ah, well. I finally caught Arnie's flick on DVD, and now I've got the pair.

There's plenty to love and loathe in Bullet To The Head; a New Orleans setting knocks on to some gorgeous bluesy soundtracking, and there's a lot of natty gunplay with headshots aplenty. Then the movie's let down by some intermittently awful scripting and acting, and a bickering relationship between the protagonists consisting mainly of casual racism. I can't work out what's worse - Stallone's narration-voiceover script, or his delivery of it. Outside of the mumbling mainman, the plot's not as clever as it'd maybe like to think it is, and any dead air in the script is filled with audience-friendly exposition (ie: news reporters explaining shootouts in exactly the way they never do on the news). Bearing in mind the genre of movie this is, not of it's really a deal-breaker, but there's the feeling it could have been handle much more adeptly.

Back on the plus side, there's some interesting sound design in that the music stops completely for a lot of the fight-scenes, giving them a rawer feel than we're used to in these capers. And speaking of which, Jason Momoa is rather great as the main bad-guy, Keegan, being both physically threatening and very articulate when the script allows it.

There seems to be some perfect-storm of sloppy acting, writing and direction stopping Bullet To The Head from being quite as throw-away-enjoyable as it should be. It struggles bravely, but ultimately just becomes throw-away. I suspect the comic version was a lot more entertaining.



Is the trailer representative of the film?
Pretty much.


Did I laugh, cry, gasp and sigh when I was supposed to?
Not really.


Does it achieve what it sets out to do?
Not really.


Buy, pay to rent, or wait until it's on for free?
Watch it if you must, but don't pay for the privelege.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Yeah.


Will I watch it again?
Probably not.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream?
There isn't. Which seems silly, tbh.


And because you won't be happy until I've given it a score...


And my question for YOU is…
Why is Stallone still doing this? Why, though?



DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.