There’s 2/3’s of an entertaining movie here. Sadly, that last act is missing. Honestly, what you get is really just the first installment of a series…but there doesn’t seem to be another one in the works. And, besides, it’s a cheat to end mid-tale rather than to have a coda that can expand the story for later. In other words, every movie needs to stand on its own, even if it feeds into a bigger arc. Director Goro Miyazaki (From Up on Poppy Hill) knows this, so I don’t quite understand the choices, unless they were driven by cost or other factors.
Added to the challenge is that Studio Ghibli is clearly trying out new tech with this film. The result is very cold, losing all the warmth and subtle artistry the group is famous for. The look of the characters is very plastic-y and the lips don’t sync well at all. Some of that may have been the voice talent, but it was more noticeable than I’ve seen before in a Ghibli release.
And the voice direction was only middling. So much so that only a couple of the smaller characters really stood out. Neither of them were the women at the heart of the tale. Richard E. Grant (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) and Dan Stevens (Colossal, Legion) were either given more leash or put in more effort, but it was their deliveries that were the most memorable.
Goro’s father, Hayao Miyazaki (The Kingdom of Dreams and Madness), apparently helped with the planning of this story. You can see his influence in some of the interesting flows and the general joy and humor of the film, but I can’t believe even he was happy with the ending.
Ultimately, assuming the story is continued, this will be an intriguing first installment. But if it ends up just standing on its own, it is somewhat pointless. Frankly, I’d hold off till there is the promise of more, or you’re either prepared to be left hanging, or know the original books enough to know what’s going on.
You’re allowed one big lie in a story to get it going. This is especially true in genre fiction. 2067 decided to go for three…starting with an absurd premise about “synthetic” oxygen. And I might have bought into that without the misunderstandings about fusion or the biggest McGuffin of them all: time travel (and, in this case, a conscious decision to create a paradox).
And OK, maybe I could have even gone along with all of that if Kodi Smit-McPhee (X-Men: Dark Phoenix ) hadn’t whined through so much of the action that he sounded like a 5 year old. At least Ryan Kwanten (The Hurricane Heist) balanced out the shrill noise, but he didn’t have much to work with. Smit-McPhee just didn’t have any chemistry with anyone, including his supposedly devoted wife, Sana’a Shaik, who seriously tried to make it all look believable.
Writer and director Seth Larney, who is more commonly behind the camera, stepped a bit closer for this release. Unfortunately, he really just didn’t have the story under control. There was no sense of pacing and no real tension after the first scene (which was rather well done, science aside). There are some interesting ideas and conundrums in the tale, and a reasonable resolution. However, it would work better as a short story than it does as a flick because so much of it relies on clearly the internal struggle of Smit-McPhee’s character.
I honestly can’t recommend this, despite the effort, ideas, and the production values. It’s overlong and just not particularly engaging. Larney has some ability, however. If he can learn from this, I’d be curious to see what’s next.
I’m sorry, I just had to. I had to! And now I have so you don’t have to.
Don’t get me wrong, in the proper altered state of mind, it would probably entertain the right viewer (likely Millennial or younger). But it’s no Shaun of the Dead, though it is in the same vein. It’s self-aware and unapologetic. But there are no really sympathetic characters and the shy 75 minutes wraps up in a rather unsatisfying, if fair, way (given the script). I will grant the cast and crew that they really just went for it without apology.
I’ll admit that I wasn’t the biggest fan of the first Wonder Woman. Outside of its message and positive example, it was a middling movie. This sequel makes that original film look like a timeless classic. How it got greenlit with such a sub-standard script astounds me. It isn’t just that the mechanics and dialogue that director Patty Jenkins co-wrote, are awful, and that the rules of the magic involved aren’t explained for far too long, it’s that Jenkins couldn’t even get credible and sympathetic performances out of her very talented cast.
Pedro Pascal (Prospect) and Kristin Wiig (Ghostbusters) are presented as just fools, not misled or flawed people. While each clearly has a backstory that might have tugged at our hearts or allowed us to understand them, Jenkins pushed them both to be clichés as regular people, and absurd as super-villains. Without that initial grounding, we can’t even feel any triumph or joy at their final endings.
Even the core love story falls flat. Our main couple, Gal Gadot (Ralph Breaks the Internet) and Chris Pine (A Wrinkle in Time), don’t really connect and their second chance doesn’t feel like either a win or a loss. In fact, their final scene together is practically a throw-away. Worse, the climax of the movie, while guided by Gadot’s Wonder Woman (and somewhat flimsily related back to the opening of the movie) is really up to Pascal’s actions. The whole thing just sort of happens without a lot of satisfaction for the viewer and without a real sense of it being Wonder Woman’s effort. For that matter, we don’t even get a complete resolution for Wiig, who’s core to the challenges.
Even the simple mechanics of the movie were weak with time confusions as the story found itself poorly anchored with clues and guidance. Honestly, this could be a franchise killer. The movie had nothing new to say, no interesting way to say what it wanted to say, and no emotional connection to make us care either way. The only true gift was the extra scene about a minute into the final credits.
But DC, in its mainstream superhero films, has never really had great scripts as compared to Marvel. The oversight and vision just aren’t there. But even my low expectations were crushed by the result of this movie. View it if you must, but go in with low expectations.
Sidenote: This was not the triumphant film with which HBO Max had hoped to launch it’s theatrical co-releases. And then there was the issue that their servers were overloaded and their streams had massive problems. How that bodes for the service and the resurrection of the theaters, I don’t know. If this had been released, it would have likely made a bunch of cash, but it wouldn’t have fared well critically nor had the legs of the original. So, perhaps, they made the best decision by pulling it and using it as bait to lure folks into subscriptions. We’ll see how the next 6 months go…
Just how broad do you like your comedy? If you’re planning to come here for a feast, be prepared for something more Chuck E. Cheese than Four Seasons.
If you know me, you know that restaurant movies tend to get my attention. I love the environment and, particularly, watching the food being conceived and prepared. When provided enough of that I’ll even, usually, give the action and story that surround it a bit of a break.
Sadly, director Nacho G. Velilla (No Manches Frida) couldn’t decide if he was going to give us a farce or a force for change in this tale from the other side of the passthrough. In the end, it’s just an unpalatable melange that barely held my attention and interest. The acting was only a notch above telenovela in its shrill delivery, though the messages and the intended heart were much more human, and the story was an oversimplified mess.
Unfortunately, in the end, this movie is a meal that leaves you wanting. It has neither a believable tale, nor does it give us enough about the food to keep the audience sated. Frankly, if it had been about 25 minutes shorter, I’d be less critical. In its lack of focus, there are a number of storylines and setups for emotional payoffs that just aren’t worth the effort. Coming in at close to 2 hours, the movie just can’t sustain.
Now, if you like broad, silly comedy that occasionally touches down in reality and that has a sort of positive message, this may be for you. It really wasn’t for me.
[4 stars (Tales of Arcadia) or 2.25 stars (Cursed)]
Two very different Netflix shows currently tackle the Arthurian myth. And, surprisingly, the children’s show does it better and more interestingly. Arthur is rich in myth and history with enough room in it to allow for many types of retellings. And these two shows couldn’t have done it more differently nor with such different levels of success.
Tales of Aradia was created by Guillermo Del Toro (The Devil’s Backbone), based on his co-written books. It’s an interconnected collection of series that began with Trollhunters. Then came 3Below, followed by the most recent: Wizards. But the threads that lead to Wizards begin in the first episode of Trollhunters. And, yes, these are really aimed at older kids and young teens, without question, particularly the first couple series. However, I jumped into Wizards without watching the others and it hooked me. It was inventive with the myth, stretching it like crazy, but not breaking it in a way that felt wrong. And while it was clear I didn’t know the backstories of a lot of characters, I was never entirely lost; a credit to the writing of the show.
When I went back to the beginning of the inter-connected series, I was surprised to find references to events I’d just witnessed, and which would have gone unanswered for viewers for three years. In other words, I don’t think it matters which end of the time stream you start, it all comes together in fun ways.
The show is loaded with voice talent, and won several Emmys as well. Most notably in the cast is Anton Yelchin (Thoroughbreds), who began as the lead, and stayed with it through his untimely death near the beginning of season 3. And then the series made some great choices to both continue, and to not dismiss his loss when they changed the character voice to Emile Hirsch (Once Upon A Time In Hollywood).
When you’re looking for some distraction, some fairly solid animation, and a clever tale, this set of shows will work for you. And, more importantly, they don’t insult your sense of the underlying material they plundered to create their world.
Where to start with where this series went wrong… How about the desire to rewrite the Arthurian tale rather than just do a true prequel? How about mucking up Roman/Britannia history so badly as to be embarrassing? How about having people make stupid choices and dialogue that was utterly painful at times? How about an unrelenting dirge of a tale with barely a respite? Well, it’s a start.
I will admit I soldiered on through to the end of this story, though I almost completely bailed about half-way through the second episode. It was close and I did turn it off at that point. But I came back to see if they could rescue it. They sort of did. Sort of. But I was still let cursing (appropriately) at my screen in the final 15 minutes of the series.
Aspects of the reimagining are clever…but they’re also contradictory in their set-up, implying it is way before Arthur’s time, when in fact is is contemporaneous with it. That just threw it all into disarray at the outset. And then there is the religious war aspect, which was half-true, though massively shifted time-wise to feed their hungry beast of a plot.
The cast does what it can with the painful scripts and choices, but they are left hanging on the screen, more often than not, looking less than comfortable with the results. Katherine Langford (Knives Out) and Devon Terrell (Ophelia) bumble around the countryside having to deliver mouthfuls of bad dialogue, and strained protestations of affection. And Gustaf Skarsgård (Vikings) has created an outrageous Merlin, that tries to resurrect Nicol Williamson’s unforgettable turn in Excalibur. And then there’s the sadly miscast Sebastian Armesto (Tulip Fever) as Uther Pendragon, whose been shrunk to a fool and wisp of a man. And that doesn’t even touch the psychotic nun, Emily Coates, who does OK, but who we never get enough about to understand what drives her. At least the young Billy Jenkins (Humans) gives us a full character, even without all the backstory.
Honestly, if we’re looking for strong, female-led tales of the time, and Arthur in particular, can’t we just finally adapt Mists of Avalon or Parke Godwin’s Firelord series? The characters are way more interesting, and the story much more credible and fascinating (and closer to true history and embraced myth).
The point is that if you’re going to do a re-imagining, do it with a purpose, not just changing things for shock value or convenience to muck with people’s expectations. Ultimately, that’s all Cursed does as it slogs through its torturous existence, and without even the courage to finish the story.
There is only one reason to see this rather predictable, if nicely tense, movie…and that’s Simon Pegg (Slaughterhouse Rulez). His complete transformation and performance is really quite amazing.
Unfortunately, the rest of the cast isn’t quite so engaging. Lily Collins (Tolkien) is completely miscast as a highly respected and tough NYC DA. She just doesn’t have that gravitas…and her reactions through much of the story are, well, not from a woman who should be more prepossessed. Chace Crawford (The Boys) is fine, but sadly typecast in his role; there are no surprises there.
And then there’s the story. To be honest, as director Vaughn Stein’s follow-up to his more stylish and satisfying Terminal, I was rather disappointed. His handling of the script is fine, but he should have pushed for something beyond the obvious. There was an opportunity for a more interesting conclusion that was completely missed. By taking it just one more step to complete Collins’ journey, a bland and obvious ending could have been elevated; but that isn’t what’s on offer.
Certainly, there is some good tension and by-play in this piece, but I can’t really recommend the cost of nearly two hours. However, if you do tune in, Pegg alone may keep you nailed to your seat to stick it out. Just don’t expect revelation at the conclusion, merely an ending.
Every bit as silly and bloody as you expect from the title…and, yes, it is bat-shit crazy. It is, in fact, so bizarre that it was even more fun to watch with the badly dubbed English 5.1 track (rather than the original Japanese stereo with subtitles).
Truthfully, I can’t defend this movie on any level. It isn’t quite “so bad it’s good” like the old Ed Wood films. But it isn’t so full of itself that isn’t also punching itself in the face consciously. Writer/director Noboru Iguchi is clearly a prolific, gonzo creator. He has no boundaries and an evil sense of humor.
So, I admit: I laughed a lot. I hope it was in places Iguchi intended. But I can’t say I’d seek out any more of his work. One was enough. You may find him more to your liking.
This film is a triumph of style over result. Part of the problem is the source material, which has been done over and over again. In books as diverse as science fiction (Niven & Pournelle’s or Steven Boyett’s, for example) not to mention too many movies to mention, and mainstream fiction. But the very nature of Inferno is that is episodic exposition after episodic exposition; speech upon speech about morality and the wages of sin.
That may have worked in Dante’s time, and certainly fit the structure of his cantos, but not so much anymore. Even when using it as a foil, it tends to devolve into a playground for airing personal senses of justice about current times or historic figures rather than about the characters in the story. This wasn’t even the only movie to attack Inferno in animation. Just a couple years later, in 2010, there was another: Dante’s anime, though that was adapted both from Dante and a video game.
So what does this movie have going for it? Inventiveness, for one. This is done with paper puppets manipulated by a talented crew headed by Paul Zaloom. This was all clearly a labor of love put together with collaborators Sean Meredith (who was also the primary director), Sandow Birk (also the primary writer), and Zaloom. And they got two capable actors to voice the main characters: Dante by Dermot Mulroney (The Mountain Between Us) and James Cromwell (Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom) as Virgil.
But it doesn’t really come together as more than a curio. The puppetry is interesting. The political commentary is also unnervingly on point even 13 years later. In the end, however, it just sort of happens and then it’s over. True to the original material, but not quite enough for me to feel satisfied.
This is seriously lo-fi; horrible sound, cheap film, found spaces. But it is also surprisingly sweet and amusing. But that’s what vanity projects can be like…well, to be fair, less vanity and more an actor creating work for himself. James Vasquez (Ready? OK!) wrote and starred in this highly personal and, I suspect, highly autobiographical tale of finally growing up and finding your way in the world. He was lucky enough to have Carrie Preston (who also had a part in Vasquez’s follow-up effort Ready? OK!) take the reins and direct this first feature of his.
In fact Vasquez managed to get several folks to return for that second film after lending talents to this one, including Michael Emerson (Evil), Kali Rocha (TiMER), and others. But the focus of this story is on Vasquez and his semi-obsession with Mike Doyle (Gayby), who is probably the most stable and subtle of the characters in the story.
However, this first effort of his is really raw, though inventively told. It feels like a super-sized thesis film…but it works. Just go with flow and enjoy the truths and humor. I can’t tell you why it works, other than the commitment of the actors and the recognizable human flaws, but it does. And it was interesting to see where he started…even if he seems to have stalled out since then.